Deaf. For feminism. A reply on failed criticism on a panel at SIGINT
Last weekend I attended the SIGINT conference in Cologne, and moderated the panel "Women and geek culture. Whats the problem, guys?". The idea was to explain and show what situations and settings manifest parts of geek culture as excluding women. Although the four panelists and I did come from different feminisms, or at least draw different conclusions, we did not want to give a theoretical overview over feminisms, nor did we intend to discuss them scholarly. The women* on the panel wanted to contribute with what they encounter and wanted to give an idea of how spaces and groups can be inclusive. Of course, it would have been difficult to cover all areas of geekery, so we focused on gaming, education, workplace, conferences and hackerspaces. We thought 105 minutes would be a lot, but in the end we only had 15 minutes for discussion.
While the video that has been recorded will not be ready for next weeks as we heard, I would like to reply on some points of criticism, and react on some very stereotypical antifeminist "criticism".
The discussion during Q&A was very well on the topic, and positively interested. While we got questions, we were informed that the discussion on twitter that had been going on while we were talking, was mixed at best. In a recap of the twitter search for #SIGINT for the time of the panel, I got the impression, that some people have accidentally or because of bias not heard what we said. At least as I recall it, we gave lots of disclaimers, like saying that we come with different experiences, have different angles and are in different communities. That we would like to talk about sexists, which can be male and female, and that there are men who can be feminists. That we have different feminist theories and practices. We still wanted to talk about problems we meet when interacting in geek groups and spaces. While having in mind that woman* is not the only potentially excluding factor, and that there is a set of "others" aka non-white, non-male, non-ablebodied, not-young, non-rich people that can be excluded from groups such as in geek culture.
Something, that went very wrong, was someone sending this tweet, and it being retweeted several times. It says: "So. Now 10 breasts are talking about feminism... #Sigint" by fussl.
This was unneccessary at best. It objectified the people on the panel, reduced us to our body parts. The only explanation I got from the guy who retweeted this from his friend fussl, was that it was an accurate thing to say. I especially called him on his panel-related tweeting, because it was not only resentful and wrong, but also because he had been one of the people who initiated the process to get a talk or action on gender (in)equality and feminism on the SIGINT. After initiating he never got really verbose about what he wanted and how it would be achievable. All in all the mailing list conversation was uffering from all the people being undermotivated or having little time to put some effort into getting something handed in to the organizers of the conference. Close to the deadline of the CfP, Svenja and I handed something in, all the time informing the list and giving people time to react. Noone cared.
So, after the panel, I was wondering if I should confront the guy, or if I should just ignore him. I less decided, than acted on an impulse and asked him to tell me that stuff he twittered again, and face to face. Here is what he came up with (said in my words, from memory:
1. It was not wrong to tweet the breast-tweet. Because the panelists all have breasts, because women have them.
WRONG. In which universe is it okay to objectify people and reduce them, and what they say to their body parts. Even if the inital tweet was not meant like that, a slip, the multiple retweets of it made it impossible for us to feel like what we say is taken seriously. Also, breasts can't talk. Also, in which universe do most men not have breasts? And nipples? How so is having breasts significant when talking about feminism? I could go on, but I won't and I didn't.
2. He does not give square about gender or gender roles and we did too little explaining and acted as women so we didn't deconstruct our gender enough.
WRONG. Obviously he does not give up his gender role (how would one, this is difficult and you would at least need to make an attempt). And for making a statement like that, you would have to know people on the panel better. How the frakk could we who were sitting up there show our non-binary gender identity to people, who obviously can do nothing but define us into the binaries? Before we even start talking? Also, why in hell are we obliged to give a freakshow? And since when is "femme" not a valid play on gender roles? So, I beg you pardon, but we really don't have to strip our personalities and our innards or outwards to you just to prove you that we really are circus freaks. Period.
The main problem with gender binaries is, that you are constantly being thrown back to them, whether you want to or not. And if you come into spaces or groups, that are (mostly) by tradition, society or self-defined male spaces (because they deal with science, machines and computers). So, if we are treated as women there, and women are treated in specific ways, we have all rights in the world to talk about it. Actually, more than half of the people on stage are defining as queer, if we choose to participate in a panel like that, and we choose the topic and what we want to say, we have our reasons. And the right to do so. You can actually not think any part of queer theories or debates without the existence of feminism, antisexist and antiracist theories and practice.
3. Putting pictures of naked, beauty standard women in ASCII art on the wall of the hackcenter (or any other temporary or permanent hackerspace) was a display of art, and should not be critisized. Also, think about how huge the porn collections on the guys' computers are, this is nothing. This is an act of consent, and for some magic reason consent means majority vote as soon as there is no consent anymore.
WRONG. Even though it might be art, showing it in a place where a minority of women* come, is potentially excluding them. Saying this was an act of consent means there is a democratic poll every minute another person walks in. If someone disagrees, and is not listened to, they are being defined out of the group. So, if a woman disagrees, she is not part of the group anymore. This is excluding and sexist. Now, to me the ASCII naked woman was not particularly excluding, though I liked the "looong cat" better. But someone did not feel comfortable, and so the picture should be taken down. Because it is not a "boys room", but a room for everybody.
Also, calling me on naivety, really? Of course, you boys are all supposed to have huge pr0n collections, and I am supposed to be a "sex-positive" feminist, and if not, to shut up. I don't think, feminism has ever been "sex-negative". And being called for naive is certainly not a first for feminists. Any feminist, actually. This would actually be a rant in itself. However, watching pr0n does not make you a hacker. Hacking does. Critical thinking does. Listening to others and learning from them, and applying knowledge to form something new spectacular, does. Inspiring each other to reach new aims, does make you a hacker. So why don't you try to read up a little on feminist criticism on the topic (aka RTFM), and try not to make a hackerspace exclude less-privileged (by society and groups) "other-than-you's"? What you watch in private on your computer is your deal, while what you show in public or semi-public spaces concerns everyone who enters. Is that so hard to understand?
I feel like I could go on and on. I'll leave it at that, and maybe contribute in comments or write more posts if I feel like it.
Let me just once more thank the volunteer group organizing this community-driven event to give us the stage to talk about this topic. Special thanks to Nika, who really supported us contentwise and with practicalities. I hear there have been lots of thinking about and discussions on the panel afterwards, and that makes me really happy we did this. Also thanks to Heather, Ella, Leena and Svenja to get up there together with me and talk about the F-word. More blogging about this at I heart digital life.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
agreed and flattred.
Reply
May 27th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
[...] nicht vorstellen können, dass Schülerinnen In'; Sie hat ebenfalls über das Panel geschrieben: Deaf. For feminism. A reply on failed criticism on a panel at SIGINT [↩]darunter Geek Feminism Blog, Feminism 101 und Do’s and don’t’s of [...]
May 28th, 2010 at 2:06 am
[...] hat jetzt selbst auch zum Panel bzw. zu einigen “Kritikpunkten” geschrieben: Deaf. For feminism. A reply on failed criticism on a panel at SIGINT darunter Geek Feminism Blog, Feminism 101 und Do’s and don’t’s of encouraging [...]
May 28th, 2010 at 7:37 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antje Schrupp, Hussain Abdulla and Katrina kaif, gladiator. gladiator said: typo(s), tendency and text » Blog Archive » Deaf. For feminism. A …: Something, that went very wrong, was someon… http://bit.ly/dqoNnv [...]
May 28th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I think I agree with your analysis of points 1 and 2. However, I disagree with your analysis of point 3.
For starters, I agree with the perception of the installation as a piece of art. I also tend to think that ASCII art hardly fulfills the definition of pornography. And I even agree that putting naked ASCII women there is excluding. However, the exclusion can (and actually was) easily be fixed by putting an ASCII image of a naked man next to it.
I did a bit of RTFM on the topic of the perception of pornography in feminism. And one unavoidably comes across people like Andrea Dworkin and, in Germany, Alice Schwarzer, when doing so. And Dworkin writes stuff like “Pornography can only develop in a society that is viciously male-supremacist, one in which rape and prostitution are not only well-established but systematically practiced and ideologically endorsed.” She goes on and compares porn production to concentration camps. Alice Schwarzer runs a campaign against pornography. This is what’s meant by the term “sex-negative feminism”. They completely fail to realize that while pornography can be sexist, this is not automatically so, and that pornography can be a completely healthy expression of human sexuality.
Unfortunately, both Dworkin and Schwarzer had a heavy influence on the perception of the feminist movement. Any handwaving argument to the existing literature could be easily mistaken for supporting them. I believe you actually don’t, but you’ll have to communicate that point, in order to pick up your audience where it is. They are, to put it into simple terms, afraid that you want to take away their porn.
Oh, and by the way, the argument “there should be no naked women because it is not a boys room” implies that only boys look at naked girls. This excludes gay boys and lesbian or bisexual girls, not to speak of people identifying as both or neither.
Reply
May 28th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
It may be art, but is art in itself good? Is everything good as long as you can called it a meme (enough people keep on repeating, playing on an idea, image or word) or art? Is art without context in society? I argue, that it is not. The ASCII-set naked woman is an archetype of an attractive, naked woman at mens will and disposal. It blends into a tradition of pinup if you display it that way in male-defined spaces. Auto shops have their pinup calendars on sports cars, nerds apparently do theirs in ASCII.
And the ASCII-man was not naked. Which again follows the standards as everywhere else, be it advertisement on showering or adult pictures and movies.
I argue that art should not be uncriticized. That art does not happen outside of society. In a “nerds who dig ASCII nudes”-bubble.
I never said it was porn. That was something that someone else brought into the discussion. Although I don’t see why we shouldn’t allow people to call it that.
When there is just a nude, this is probably not a problem. But hacker spaces don’t fall out of a social reality where women are being given less opportunities (jobs, payment, learning) than men, where women are being harassed in more or less subtle ways. This is not something that you want to talk about in public, but surveys and studies, as well as personal empiry show that.
Also, I disagree with your putting the history of feminist ideas upside down, and inside out. It was not feminists who went all puritan on the men. The feminists actually laid ideological grounds for what was called the “sexual revolution” in the 70s and 80s. But when it happened, feminists argued against double standards and whom this “revolution” actually was for. And although I don’t agree with neither Dworkin or Alice Schwarzer in their PorNo-campaign, I still think that their analysis of mainstream hetero porn is pretty valid in some point.
However, I have never heard of feminists calling themselves sex-negative. Thats what they are being called by others. If you call yourself a feminist for a while, you will experience how antifeminists try to divide and conquer, how feminists are stalked and/or shamed into silence. It is very important to know that by making me responsible for those reactions, you are blaming med for something that I have no influence on: The enduring persistance of anti-feminists and haters in their ability to not-listen, and to not think.
I claim the right to be amongst hackers, maybe even call myself that, and still won’t let you force me to be pro-porn or sex-positive just to fit your likings or to make everybody comfortable. Its okay for other women* or men* to get on stage and be exactly that, but it should also be okay to question the uncritical reception of it. Without being called all those names that feminists have been called for the last 130 years or more. Aren’t we better than that?
And, seriously, “take away porn”? Taking away the privilege to decide on your own what is hot enough for everybody, what is consented on to show in a shared or public space, yes.
When you look at your writing yourself closer, you could realize that you follow a few of the routines that I want to criticize. You phantasize about what a (to you) archetype lesbian would find attractive or suitable in certain environments, and put that as a standard against my points telling me in consequence of my arguments LGBTQ people would be excluded, although you don’t really know squat about my sexual, relationship or gender identity preferences. Don’t you see that this is patronizing at best, and trying to undermine what I would think about this? Are lesbians supposed to have the same beauty standards as the heterosexist mainstream? Who defines what is a woman, and what women* who like women* should like about them. What, how and where and in what company they want to look at naked women* or not?
Reply
May 28th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
One more addendum, because I feel I am gliding into defensiveness. The point is not “there should be no XYZ in $space”, but the point is, people should be be heard when they dissent.
I, and we all on the panel, pledge for the scene(s) being candid to criticism, and for trying actively to remove more or less subtle ways to exclude non-white, non-male, non-ablebodied, not-rich/middleclass people.
Reply