**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 3, Issue #3.00 (January 6, 1991) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet) ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Bob Kusumoto BYTEMASTER: Brendan Kehoe USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest. Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (2) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is cited. Some authors, however, do copyright their material, and those authors should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to the Computer Underground. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Liz E. Borden Subject: Sexism and the CU Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 12:52 PST ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.00: File 4 of 6: Sexism and the CU *** ******************************************************************** Why, you ask, do I think the CU is sexist? Carol Gilligan wrote that women speak in "a different voice" from men, one grounded more in nurturing, dialogue, negotiation and control-fee language. The voice of the computer world reflects a male voice and recreates the subtle patriarchy of the broader society through the so-called neutrality of "objective" science and the ways of speaking and behaving that, when translated into the two-dimensional world of electronic communications, tend to silence women. Computer underground Digest, like the CU in general, is a male bastion. Sexist language, male metaphors, and if I'm counting correctly, not a single self-announced female contributor (although it is possible that some of the pseudonyms and anonymous writers were women). In fairness, I judge that the editors of CuD attempt to be sensitive to the concerns of feminists, and have noticed that articles under their name do not contain sexist language and tend toward what's been called "androgenous discourse." But, they have have not used their position to translate concerns for social justice into practice by removing sexist language (or even posting a policy preference), by encouraging women, or by soliciting articles on minorities, women, and other groups that are invisible and silent. Let's look at just a few areas where cybersexism creeps in. First, The CU is made up mostly of males. I'm told by friends, and the facts are consistent with those given to me by one CuD moderator, that at a maximum, less that five percent of pirates are female, and probably less than one percent are phreaks or hackers. This skewed participation transports the male culture of values, language, concerns, and actions, into a new world and creates models that women must conform to or be excluded from full membership. Like the Europeans, CUites move into a new territory and stake out their cultural claim committing a form of cultural genocide against those with different cultural backgrounds. Isn't it ironic that in a new world where "a million flowers bloom" and a variety of subcultures emerge, that they are for all practical purposes male? Second, BBSs, especially those catering to adolescents and college students, are frightening in their mysogeny. I have commonly seen in general posts on large boards on college towns discussion of women in the basest of terms (but never comparable discussions of men), use of such terms as broads, bitches, cunts, and others as synonomous with the term "woman" in general conversation, and generalized hostile and angry responses against women as a class. These are not isolated, but even if we were to concede that they are not typical of all users on a board, such language use is rarely challenged and the issues the language implies are not addressed. Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage, gifs, what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that degrades women. No, I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe we can raise the gender implications of these news groups just as we would if a controversial speaker came to a campus. Most posts that refer to a generic category tend to use male specific pronouns that presume masculinity (the generic "he") or terms such as "policeman" or "chairman" instead of "chair" or "police officer." At the two universities I attended, both with excellent computer science departments, women comprised about half of the undergraduate majors. This shifted dramatically in grad school, and the male professors were generally well-meaning, but most were not sensitive to the difficulties of women in a male-dominated career. Yes, of course it's possible for women to succeed and be taken seriously in the computer world, to advance, to earn high salaries. But this isn't the point. The peripheral treatment in which we are still treated like second class citizens exists. The jokes, the language, the subtle behaviors that remind us that we are women first and professionals second, and all the other problems of sexism are carried over into the computer world. Why don't we think about and discuss some of this, and why isn't CuD taking the lead?! ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << ***************************************************************************