In Daniels article, Cyberfeminism is looked at in terms of intersectionality - when considering any feminist movement, it's important to discuss how it benefits not only women, but women of color, women of lower social and economic classes, transwomen, disabled women, queer women, etc. The article looks at the practices of cyberfeminism and how they relate to and either benefit or hinder women in other marginalized groups, like race and class. The internet can be a safe space for women seeking to escape gender oppression and connect with others globally, a platform for safe discussion of activism. But given that the "digital divide" is not between men and women so much as it is between race and class (women of color and women of lower economic status tend to have less access to internet than white/rich counterparts), it's questionable as to whether or not Cyberfeminism can be called 100% inclusive. Internet technologies can absolutely be a tool for empowerment, Daniels argues, but it's important to think about accessibility when quantifying the loudest voices in Cyberfeminism. The essay goes on to further discuss digital technologies and race, claiming that the anonymity of the internet and the ability to assume new (and potentially false) identities "transforms the experience of race". Without visible markers to indicate race, dialogue on the internet can theoretically exist without involving preconceived notions of race. On the flip side of this, the anonymity of the internet allows for the assumption of false identifies, appropriating the experiences and potentially falsifying connections based on those identities. So while dialogue can be free of racial bias, it can also create false connections between people, and the discourse that follows may not be ultimately helpful. The last part of the essay looks at two different ways women use the internet to help modify their bodies, in reality. Pro-anorexia sites, which promote a community centered around disordered eating (and promoting the lifestyle) and communities and websites dedicated to helping transwomen modify their bodies to me more traditionally feminine. The strategies of both groups are deeply ingrained in the internet, utilizing community spaces online to share images and information. Allowing women to engage with their bodies, for better or for worse, explores a what Daniels calls a contradiction in cyberfeminism. The internet inherent ability to disengage the user from their physical body versus users utilizing the internet to engage directly with their bodies. The many and varied ways women interact with internet technologies, the subversive potentials and intersectional drawbacks, are all part of the new and ever-changing world of cyberfeminism.
Within cyberfeminism, is anonymity a help or a hindrance? Is it more important for women involved in internet technologies to have discourse without racial indicators that might create unconscious shifts in dialogue? Or to be able to connect with one another and run the risk of connecting with "identity tourists", trying on a different racial/cultural identity, whose experiences cannot contribute significantly to a discussion surrounding intersectionality of feminism and a race that is not theirs?
Engaging with the internet is not always a positive experience for women, as can be seen with pro-ana websites. Should something be done about them? Where is the line drawn with regards to creating communities, especially communities of young women seeking support from their peers?
This report was about a a meeting of 21 online feminist activists who came together to discuss the future of the involvement of women online. It discusses the difficulties faced by feminists writers online - the struggle of recognition, lack of connection and communication, and insufficient revenue. The paper outlines ways in which these challenges can be met and overcome. It provides information on the basics of online feminism, its goals, vocabulary, and platforms. It has clear infographic documenting the growth and power of feminism online - my favorite being the "from outrage to impact" infographic which details the initial spark of feminist outrage all the way to the eventual positive outcome. It also goes on to explain potential challenges of being a feminist writer online and gives suggestions as to how to best gain an audience, make connections, and make money. The report gives a detailed, positive, but still realistic idea of how feminism online should proceed in the future.
What do you think the impact of the larger, louder, more organized, more interconnected, and more focused feminist movement online might be? Do you think the given suggestions are realistic?
Are there factors the authors aren't considering (like time commitments, other interests/jobs, language barriers, etc)?
I chose this essay written by University of Iowa student Katelyn Wazny because I think it's important to understand that certain sites, online spaces, political stances, movements, etc might not necessarily be labeled as feminism but still fall under the umbrella of cyberfeminism. The paper look at one f the most popular "women's websites" on the internet, Jezebel.com, a site that does not market itself as feminist but has become a bastion of feminism nonetheless. The paper posits that it's content and community make it feminist regardless of it's reluctance to market itself as such.
Do you agree or disagree that the label of feminism can be applied where it is not recognized or not wanted? Or is that a decision for only the content creator/maintainer to make?