Synthia /Cyberfeminism

Cynthia Payne – cpayne@ucsc.edu DANM 202 – Cultural Theory and Research Close Reading - February 15, 2006

Cyberfeminist Revival

This essay calls into question certain statements regarding the relevance of RL gender identity in the cyberspace of the future. These statements appear on pages 122-23 of the chapter entitled, “Gender in cyberculture” in David Bell's An Introduction to Cyberculture. Bell writes, “…the possibilities of identity-play …? means for some theorists that gender will cease to carry its RL ideological loadings in cyberspace, or might cease to matter or even exist there.” This suggests that because people can construct a different online identity than the one they have in RL, that eventually social constructs of race and gender will lose significance in cyberspace. Such musings suggest a severance from the culture of the RL people who create online identities, and the eradication of the gendered identities that are already established in cyberspace. “Inequities in access, power and representation are real,” (Nakamura 85), and it stands to reason that RL people inherently bring with them into cyberspace the RL trappings of class, race, and gender. Even if they function as “identity tourists” (Nakamura xv) they still are conditioned to react and respond to certain signs and markers. A genderless web might not matter to genderless beings, but “the Internet is …? a theatre of performed identities” (Nakamura 31) already gendered created by RL gendered people whose personalities are the meat of cyberculture. Playing with identity online may be a start in reverse engineering the social constructs that require RL people to define themselves online by social constructs like gender in the first place, but today online gender matters.

The aim here, however, is not to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that cyberculture, by virtue of its association with the people of earth (POE), will always reflect and originate from RL-POE, but to show evidence that today gender in cyberspace is meaningful, especially as it relates to the attitudes, interests, pursuits, and the online presence of women. In the early days, women were excluded from the “circuit of technoculture”. (Bell 122) Evidence of “persistent ‘maling’ at a number of levels” (Bell 122), is well-documented in the “prolific and diverse body of academic work” concerning the “problematic equation of technology with men, the male and the masculine…” (Bell 122). This seems to stem from attitudes which posit “the educational system’s gendered assumptions as inhibiting women’s participation in cyberculture…” (Morse 1997) It begs the question, ‘how far back does the idea that women aren’t good at technology’ go? Has there been a century or more of brainwashing men and women alike to make judgments about skill aptitude based on gendered social norms? Massive amounts of energy towards correcting online gender imbalance can be found with a simple web search on “cyberfeminism” (Bell 123), which returns a plethora ongoing resources dedicated to a) women's exposure to technology, sometimes referred to as “online cyberfeminism”, and, b) technology’s exposure to women’s issues, sometimes referred to as just “online feminism”. Although Bell considers the two distinctions problematic their differences are worth noting. According to Katie Ward (Bell 123), ‘online feminism’ uses CMC to further feminist political interests via global communication and consciousness-raising, while ‘online cyberfeminism’ engages more with the technology itself. Examples of this include websites like geekgrrrl, and Nerdgrrrl, “all of which work to recode cyberfeminism” (Bell 123). Combining the word ‘grrrl’ with ‘nerd’ and ‘geek’, names which are normally associated with males in computer culture works to blur the gender lines as well as ‘feminazi’ stereotypes. “Grrrls enjoy their femininity and kick ass at the same time” (Bell 123). Cyberfeminism encourages women to be “’active agents’ in shaping cyberculture, and for seeding it with feminist politics rooted in RL.” (Bell 123) In real life however, gender politics may actually prevent or discourage a woman from participating in the “Global Age” (Arizpe xv). “In such a state,” writes Arizpe, “women may take refuge behind their traditional customs and be manipulated easily by patriarchs or politicians afraid of losing their hold over them.” This brings to mind the writings of the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althousser, who coined the term, “interpellation”, which describes the process by which ideology addresses the individual. “We are all always caught up in the process in which we voluntarily acknowledge the validity or relevance of the dominant ideology in which we live for ourselves and thus subject ourselves to it.” (Brooker 1999) Is this way of thinking so ingrained that it can never be undone? How will women marginalized and oppressed by their closest relations ever even want to find their way into cyberspace? The drive to maintain a gendered status quo is then given even more authority when it shows up in the latest popular culture as well. For example, The Matrix as representative of a seemingly uber-progressive and futuristic platform, upon closer reading, reinforces many of the stereotypical gender associations that might influence women and their relations. The authority of the Oracle character in particular is “undermined by her depiction as a woman baking cookies, wearing an apron, and living in a housing project with a living room full of small children.” (Nakamura 81) The impression of the woman of the future is located as “domestic” in the minds of male and female viewers alike. If a woman’s access to technology is inhibited by her duties at home or if she says there is nothing online that she is interested in, then the question arises: why is she not interested? The disinterest of non-wired women is addressed in the second of Lourdes Arizpe’s four foundations for feminist interventions in evolving cyberculture (Harcourt 1999). “…women should be active agents in ensuring that the star-line potential of information technologies is directed towards enhancing human well-being rather than strengthening existing power monopolies.” This means that in order for women to be included they will need to participate. Arizpe’s third foundation may be the most important and also the trickiest to maneuver because it involves interfacing with men. “…it is not only a question of having large numbers of women users of information technologies, but of their being partners with men in fashioning basic concepts and cyberspace.” In order for there to be reforms in gender inequities it is imperative to acknowledge them.

How can efforts at ‘storying cyberfeminism’ (Bell 122) encourage people to recognize online gender inequities as having their origins in RL, and work to correct them in both places? It would seem that in order for cyberculture to be truly rhizomatic, the RL people of cyberculture must continue to open up opportunities and connections for those with limited access or education about technology. The answers to preceding questions may come easier if consideration is given to the notion that the Internet is inextricably tied to RL, and by “keeping it real” can be a powerful tool for social reforms both online and in real life.

References Arizpe, Lourdes. Freedom to Create: Women's Agenda for Cyberspace, in

W. Harcourt (ed) Women@Internet, London: Zed Books, 1999.

Bell, David. An Introduction to Cybercultures. London: Routledge, 2001. Brooker, Peter. A Concise Glossary of Cultural Theory. US: Oxford Press 1999. Morse, Margaret. Virtually female: body and code, in J. Terry and M. Calvert (eds)

Processed Lives: gender and technology in everyday life. London: Routledge 1997.

Nakamura, Lisa. Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. New

York: Routledge, 2002.