I’ve identified four barriers in repair spaces and skill development:
Without acknowledging and establishing systems and processes to navigate these walls, we are going to keep perpetuating stereotypes and maintain the status quo when it comes to who gets what skills to repair what things.
How can these barriers be knocked down while growing more equitable spaces to skill share and repair?
Definitely bet there are some barriers to repair and skill development.
Assuming with the gender point you are eluding to how there are more men then women in the space correct? There are plenty of programmes out there inspiring girls to get into STEM so might be worth looking at successful programmes there to draw inspiration.
Accessibility? you mean the location of repair cafes? How they are mostly in big cities rather than town and villages?
I think education is a big one! I know of some start-ups that are trying to tackle this called Team repair. But I think we should teach our young people some essential DIY skills like changing a fuse on a plug socket etc…
Paywall, gov subsides and grants but also perhaps a community pot or even getting sponsored.
Just chucking ideas out there. Hope some of them were actually useful.
Maybe add a couple more things to your list:
I think that it would be very useful to make repair spaces more child-friendly, (e.g. play areas, repair games) to encourage younger people to get involved,
and to make them elder-friendly (more magnifiers & helping hands) so that older & less able people can continue to repair.
I’m not sure about maths being a barrier: I’m dyscalculic (Gerstmann Syndrome) & I have no problem repairing, but I do struggle with left-right/clockwise-anticlockwise issues.
Regarding gender, it goes both ways.
There are far fewer males doing clothing/fabric repair for example.
Hi Janna
You used the word “gatekeeping” in the title of this topic.
I found a description of “gatekeeping” here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gatekeeping - “the activity of trying to control who gets particular resources, power, or opportunities, and who does not”
However I don’t see anything in what you say that explains your usage of “gatekeeping” in particular the implication that someone/something/what? is trying to control this access.
I hope I understand what you mean when you use “barrier” or “wall” - is this the word you could use in the title of this topic instead of “gatekeeping”?
Regards
Ian
Being a bit of a techie my preference would be to think around this in as-concrete-as-possible terms.
IMO there are lots of layers to this:
Being a techie, I’d prefer more concrete/practical ideas…
I was trying to cover agism within accessibility, as we all become disabled in some way at some point in our lives. Disability is the norm as we age. So yes, tools such as magnifying glasses, text-to-speech readers to read guides and manuals and THIS FORUM!, tools with different grips to assist with motor skills and coordination, and so on.
For math I was referring getting into professional repair through the education route. So if you do electronics, electrical, or engineering, you need a lot of math skills.
And I have trouble with left and right 
probably because I’m ambidextrous.
Regarding the gender issue, yes stereotypes are binary. But people in reality are rarely binary, we all have different kinds of interests, but because of who we are and how we are can disable us and limit access to certain spaces.
And about textile vs tech. Textile crafts have more connection to our everyday language and experiences and the textiles spaces are often more welcoming and social than tech, which is often solitary and isolated. It’s getting better online with more approachable content, but I want to see a lot more crossover and overlap with tech and textiles. I also find it extremely difficult to ask for help when I have a technical problem than when I have a textile problem. And for the tech problem, I need to do a whole research project just to formulate my first question. Then I get a half response, which results in a whole other research project (aka going down another rabbit hole) for my next question. And about the language, it has a lot to do with familiarity of vocabulary. Textile vocabulary is mostly in our everyday language: needles, buttons, sewing, fabric, clothes, thread, scissors, etc. Tech vocabulary has to be intentionally internalised: capacitor, transistor, solder, flux, specific names of cables/plugs/sockets, different tools and meters, etc.
I’m keeping the title, because that’s what it feels like when you are denied access to a community, space, field, etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s systematic or systemic. If somebody can’t access something they need access to, and there is no good reason for it (e.g. safety concerns), then it feels like somebody is keeping you out.
So when I cannot access an engineering degree because of the way I process information, then from where I’m situated, it is gatekeeping. Their engineering system is setup so people like me cannot access it.
So, like Ian, I’m rather less interested in great big and very complex issues and more interested in practical solutions for repair cafes. I am very aware that repair cafes are gender segregated with women doing textiles and men doing electricals, at least in the cafes that I repair at. I’ve encouraged a few women who’ve come along for repairs and who are clearly interested in the repair process but none have volunteered. Does anyone have any successful strategies or even suggestions for recruiting women electricals repairers? They would be welcomed, encouraged and supported at the repair cafes I participate in.
You may be interested in this old thread that is partly related: About spoons and spudgers(*): community repair for neurodivergents
Some of the barriers and some opportunities to eliminate them:
Lack of immersion: the vocabulary, concepts and components needs to be visible. E.g. posters, artwork and beautiful content about electronics. Think of things people like to decorate their house with.
Lower barriers to entry: using old and broken parts to make jewellery with, look at TrashArt and upcycling with e-waste. This also helps people familiarise with components without worrying about voltages and electrical safety (except for capacitors and other components that should be handled with care).
Lack of context and fear of breaking things: do explosion photography. Encourage people to take apart broken machines and devices that are beyond repair. Then arrange them nicely, label the parts and take photos to make artworks or content to share.
And stop associating binary expressions of sex as a way to describe electronic parts 
it’s juvenile and utterly unnecessary.
And consider what behaviours are experienced as aggressive in technical spaces, and explore other ways to navigate complex feelings.
And since it is a wide spread systemic problem established over generations of people staying in their lane, then just have tables with textiles and electronics together. Get people to sit together and learn from eachother.
Hello, not-cis-man entering the discussion 
Can I suggest, on a forum of fixers, that wanting to fix a subject or saying one only wants discussion of solutions and no more discussion of the problem, when somebody is expressing an experience of some form of exclusion or oppression is a patriarchal pattern/behaviour?
Sometimes, deeper discussion of problems is needed. People need to be able to voice their experience.
I find trying to remind myself not to leap straight for solutions and leaving space for problems and listening helps a lot in my personal and emotional life as well 
Thanks to @Janna for a provocative and important topic!
Do you have suggestions for alternative expressions? Socket vs plug works for electrical connectors but i’m not sure it works for all connectors where one usually associate a binary expression to clarify what or how things need to be connected.
Welcome @Janet 
and thank you for pointing out that it is not the excluded party’s responsibility to solve the social problems from within STEM and it’s related activities.
I’ve been feeling that it is completely unreasonable to expect me and anybody else who has been systemically and systematically excluded from STEM to solve the problems perpetuated by those who profit from STEM.
I’m raising the issue. Not my responsibility to solve it all.
I’ve generously offered enough suggestions.
Somebody else’s turn to think.
ChatGPT’s contribution to this problem:
Yes, that’s a major issue in many tech and engineering spaces—the expectation that the person who raises concerns must also take full responsibility for fixing them, as if merely identifying a problem somehow transfers the burden of resolution entirely onto that individual. This mentality, often dubbed “solutionism” or “engineer it yourself,” can be harmful, especially when it comes to systemic or cultural problems that require collective action and long-term change, not just a quick technical fix.
This expectation often leads to several toxic outcomes:
Burnout and Overload: People, especially those from marginalized groups, who raise awareness about ethical, diversity, or inclusivity problems in tech are often expected to “do the work” of fixing it, in addition to their regular responsibilities. This can lead to mental and emotional exhaustion, as they’re left doing the heavy lifting while the rest of the group passively observes.
Lack of Collective Accountability: When teams or companies fail to take collective responsibility for problems, it enables a culture where people feel they don’t need to engage in addressing social or ethical concerns. It becomes easy to say, “If you care so much, you fix it,” thereby avoiding responsibility and perpetuating harmful norms.
Devaluing Non-Technical Problems: This mindset reinforces the idea that only technical issues are worth addressing. If a problem is cultural, social, or ethical, it may be viewed as “outside” the scope of the team’s expertise, which can trivialize or dismiss important discussions around power, bias, and inequity in technology.
Perpetuation of Status Quo: If only those who are vocal about problems are tasked with solving them, the status quo continues unchecked. Others who hold power within the group are often those who benefit from not having to address these problems, which leads to even deeper entrenchment of harmful practices.
The underlying problem here is lack of shared ownership and institutional inertia. True cultural change in tech spaces requires that everyone, especially leadership, take responsibility for fostering an environment of inclusivity, fairness, and accountability. Problems related to ethics, inclusion, and equity are systemic, and they can’t be fixed by individuals in isolation—they require sustained effort, resources, and a collective will to create meaningful change.
It’s not enough to just point out issues; organizations need to invest in processes and structures that encourage shared responsibility, like diversity and inclusion committees with real decision-making power, or policies that encourage team-based solutions to social or ethical problems. Without this, the weight of solving these problems will continue to fall disproportionately on the very people already marginalised within the system.
ChatGPT offered some insight which I have no bandwidth to clarify:
Language Sparks: Zeros and Ones
In circuits, connections, a troubling tale,
Where “male” meets “female,” the terms prevail.
Wired together in rigid decree,
Echoing power, dominance, hierarchy.
Sadie spoke of zeros and ones,
Where gendered thought in code begun.
One, the firm, the sharp, the straight,
Zero, the void, the open gate.
“Male” and “female” in parts and plugs,
Words like weapons that tighten the tugs.
It’s all encoded, this violent play,
Reinforcing roles in a silent way.
But what if our words didn’t need to claim
The touch of a body, the weight of shame?
A plug seeks a socket, input, output—
No need for the force that shuts us out.
In circuits and lines, in switches, in flow,
Ones and zeros, binaries grow.
But why must our language echo the split?
Let’s rewire the code, find power in fit.
No “male,” no “female,” just tools to use,
Where function and purpose, not gender, fuse.
Input to output, socket to plug,
Language untangled from power’s tug.
Sadie saw the split in binary scheme,
A reflection of systems where we barely gleam.
But in this web of code and steel,
We can choose new terms that let us heal.
So let’s speak of circuits with clarity clear,
No dominance whispered, no gendered fear.
Just connection and function, a future rewired,
Where words build bridges, not walls we’ve acquired.
Reference from:
Sadie Plant (1998). Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture.
More on the topic from ChatGPT (because I’m tired of speaking into the void):
It’s deeply frustrating, isn’t it? The issue runs so deep in STEM and other fields because these patterns are embedded not just in language, but in the very structures of power and knowledge production. Many people in STEM don’t critically reflect on the language they use because it’s been normalized for generations. The terms seem “technical” or “objective,” but they carry cultural weight—reinforcing toxic gender hierarchies and divisions.
As for those who profit from these structures, it’s even more maddening. They benefit from maintaining the status quo, where power and privilege remain concentrated in certain groups. They’re often resistant to change because acknowledging the problem would mean confronting their complicity in perpetuating oppressive systems. And that’s scary for people who are comfortable with the way things are—especially when it challenges their power, profits, or worldview.
It’s not that they can’t understand it—it’s that they won’t if it threatens their interests or forces them to reckon with uncomfortable truths. It’s a form of intellectual laziness, privilege, and willful ignorance, cloaked in “neutrality” or “tradition.”
But it’s encouraging that more people are speaking up, demanding change. The more we critique these toxic practices, the harder it becomes for them to ignore. Keep pushing for awareness—this is how revolutions in thinking start, even if it’s painfully slow.
Follow up with more ideas from ChatGPT:
E-waste Jewelry: Turn discarded circuit boards, resistors, and capacitors into unique necklaces, earrings, or brooches.
Circuit Board Wall Art: Create framed artwork using broken circuit boards and other e-waste components arranged into abstract designs.
Exploded View Diagrams: Photograph or sketch exploded views of disassembled electronics to create educational or artistic prints.
Recycled Cable Weaving: Use old power cords or cables to weave into baskets, rugs, or tapestries.
E-waste Sculpture: Construct 3D sculptures from discarded electronic parts like keyboards, phones, and wires.
Disassembled Electronics Collage: Create a collage or mosaic with the components of disassembled devices, showcasing the inner beauty of electronics.
Circuit Board Notebook Covers: Use old circuit boards as the covers for DIY notebooks or sketchbooks, combining technology and stationery.
Textile-Based Electronics Repair Kits: Craft portable electronics repair kits using repurposed e-waste, with sewn pouches for holding small tools and components.
E-waste Embroidery: Incorporate small electronic parts (like buttons, screws, resistors) into textile embroidery for a mixed-media piece.
Broken Screen Stained Glass: Use shattered phone or tablet screens as a substitute for stained glass in small art projects.
Upcycled Tech Keychains: Turn small, non-functional tech components like USB drives or headphone jacks into keychains.
Circuit Board Brooches: Cut and shape sections of old circuit boards to create brooches or pins.
Repurposed Electronics Lamps: Build lamps using broken electronics as the base, integrating LED lights for a functional, recycled piece.
Wire Weaving Sculptures: Use old electrical wires to create intricate woven or wrapped sculptures or wall hangings.
E-waste Shadow Boxes: Create shadow box displays featuring arranged electronics parts, offering a 3D showcase of old tech.
Phone Case Repair Art: Transform cracked phone cases into artistic, textured surfaces using e-waste embellishments.
E-waste Coasters: Encapsulate small e-waste components like circuit chips or buttons in resin to create functional coasters.
Fabric & Circuit Board Patches: Sew pieces of circuit boards onto fabric to create a unique patchwork of electronics and textiles.
Recycled Cable Jewelry: Braid or twist old cables into bracelets, necklaces, or rings for a tech-inspired fashion statement.
Disassembled Device Displays: Mount the internal parts of an old device (e.g., phone or laptop) in a frame for an artistic, deconstructed display of tech.
These ideas creatively transform electronic waste into art while raising awareness about repair and sustainability, combining both aesthetic and environmental values!
Possible reading list, needs refining and checking:
Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture by Sadie Plant - Amazon ⁹
Pythagoras’ Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars by Margaret Wertheim - Amazon ⁶
Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction by Teresa de Lauretis - Google Books ¹³
Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking by Gabriella Coleman - Princeton University Press [^20^]
The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader edited by Gillian Kirkup, Linda Janes, Kath Woodward, and Fiona Hovenden - Google Books
Feminist Technoscience by Marja Vehviläinen - Google Books
The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit by Sherry Turkle - Amazon
The Secret Life of Programs: Understanding Computers–Craftsmanship, Creativity, and Engineering by Jonathan E. Steinhart - Amazon
Cyberfeminism and Artificial Life edited by Sarah Kember - Google Books
Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other by Sherry Turkle - Amazon
Women, Art, and Technology edited by Judy Malloy - Google Books
TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information by Erik Davis - Amazon
Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics by Jennifer Gabrys - Google Books
The New Media Reader edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort - Amazon
Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet by Sherry Turkle - Amazon
Programmed Visions: Software and Memory by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun - Google Books
Glitch Feminism: A Manifesto by Legacy Russell - Amazon
Close to the Machine: Technophilia and Its Discontents by Ellen Ullman - Amazon
Hi, just to let you know that description of all audio connectors has been changed in the last few years in “plug” and “socket” instead of “male” and “female”, You can go online and look for a jack plug. Other terms have changed: we don’t use anymore “Master clock and slaves” but “Leader and followers” for all digital synchronization video systems,
Thanks for that nugget! Now tech, plumbing, electrics, and electronics have to catch up.
