Blog Post for Module 6: Cyberfeminism and Social Justice

         I find it pretty profound to be considering the implications of cyberfeminism as we are in a heated election season here in the U.S., culminating on Election Day: Tuesday, November 4. And as we’ve discussed in our course recently, as it relates to meme culture, the Internet has a significant effect on any election—I would argue worldwide. I’ve felt that heated discourse more recently because I currently live in northwest New Jersey, and there is a fierce gubernatorial campaign going on here. Similarly, in Virginia, there is also a gubernatorial race happening between Democrat Abigail Spanberger and her Republican opponent Winsome Earle-Sears. However, sadly, what seems to be at the center of the campaign in Virginia is trans rights. Winsome Earle-Sears has been running much of her campaign on the subject, spreading dangerous, hateful rhetoric. Here is a recent AP article about the subject. Furthermore, trans rights, in addition to the exclusion of race as a consideration, are at the forefront of questions surrounding cyberfeminism.

It is my understanding that cyberfeminism as a concept attempts to envision the Internet as a space separate from the patriarchy we suffer under in the “real world.” However, as Trevor Scott Milford and Izabella Scott examine in their respective pieces, cyberfeminism has limitations. Unfortunately, the Internet is not immune or protected from the biases, misogyny, and bigotry of the outside world. Though, I see the concerted efforts on the parts of various movements and groups to create spaces, which are free from those horrors. There are numerous platforms and projects dedicated to cisgendered women and LGBTQ+ communities. And often because of that visibility, trans youth are unfairly targeted and bullied online. J.K. Rowling’s tweets, for example, which at least in part only gained traction because of her celebrity and the Internet, have represented some of the worst outcomes of Internet usage and “things going viral.” Also, cyberfeminism and perhaps some of the aforementioned advocacy groups sometimes fail to address issues of race. Scott observes, “Cyberfeminism resisted easy definition and, as the manifesto showed, there were multiple iterations and conflicting notions of what it was—and was not. By 1997, the movement was running into trouble. Haraway and Butler’s texts had called for the dissolution of gender and racial hierarchies, but it was increasingly clear that cyberfeminism had failed to address race at all.” By the same token, feminism has led to problems with TERFS (trans exclusionary feminists). Both ideas confirm it seems to be difficult to create spaces designed to be completely infallible. Though I am still unclear what prevents people from being inclusionary.

Moreover, the issues with cyberfeminism speak to problems with class, especially in America. There is still an unknown percentage of the U.S. without Internet. Of course, local public libraries are expected to provide their patrons access to computers and Internet, but all that is dependent on patrons themselves being able to gain access. This access can be limited to someone’s geographic location, but also includes their ability to simply get to a local library. Also, if someone has never been on the Internet before, the process can be extremely overwhelming and leave the user frustrated. We’ve seen that many times with elderly people who do not use the Internet. They often feel like because it is not as easy as people make it out to be, they usually just give up and go on with their life as usual. They (said frustrated elderly people) feel they do not need the Internet, but if they felt it (the Internet) was easy to embrace and learn, perhaps they would not feel that way. While literacy in general has been a hot topic, and unfortunately one that has been politicized with the recent rhetoric on immigration, using the Internet itself is a form of literacy— a digital literacy. And for those reasons cyberfeminism itself is exclusionary. As with all forms of Internet usage, it relies on the user for complete engagement. Algorithms track us yes, and psychology is constantly implemented by artificial intelligence and programmers to get users to “buy more,” or simply use an application longer. And so, I posit that cyberfeminism itself attempts to apply the tenets of feminism to a space that is inherently patriarchal, colonial, segregated, and therefore incredibly limited in the context of its ability to be truly inclusive. The texts we read this week explain that the Internet was initially created by and for men, though Scott mentions Ada Lovelace.

Producing Futures—An Exhibition on Post-Cyber-Feminism at the Migros Museum für Gegenwartskunst, 2019

Scott includes an important pull quote here writing, “‘Cyberfeminism presents itself as inclusive, but the cyberfeminist writings assume an educated, white, upper-middle-class, English speaking, culturally sophisticated readership,” Wilding and Maria Fernandez wrote in the book Domain Errors: Cyberfeminist Practices.’” This is not to say there is no such thing as inclusive spaces on the Internet. On the contrary, the freedom and experimentation of the Internet have allowed for the creation of many communities, which otherwise would not have existed. In regards to political activism, it has rallied people to protest together, for example. But it has also led to many acts of violence; a uniquely antifeminist ideal. While Donna Haraway’s notion of the cyborg as a metaphorical concept does still hold resonance even today, the idea that we can break down binaries sadly does not exist. The various “cyborg-ian” dualisms and in-between spaces that Haraway envisions are contingent upon human participation, and right now the humans are unfortunately caught up in too many political crises. And the Internet is an ongoing reflection of our shortcomings.