Tag Archives: Caroline Criado-Perez

Cybersexism: an essay that started life as a review

28 Aug

The internet can be a terrible and a wonderful place. Example: the other day, Laurie Penny, top journo and blogger (www.penny-red.com) tweeted to say that her new book was available from Bloomsbury for the stonkingly excellent online price of £1.50 BUT – if that was a stretch – we could email her and get it for free as long as we wrote a review.

And because the internet is delicious and exciting and facilitative of communication, I did. I emailed Laurie Penny and said ooh yes please me please and to my great delight and joy she emailed back in a perfectly friendly manner that made me feel she hadn’t sent more than about 3 such emails (even though I’m reasonably sure she sent hundreds) with a link. And so I read the book, and now, reader, I’m reviewing it. It’s about how the internet can be a terrible and a wonderful place.

Cybersexism starts out with the internet’s bold mission statement of inclusivity and goes on to explain, first, what that meant to the author, especially as a young woman, and second, how that trust in it can turn out to be wildly misplaced as soon as some users want to assert a hierarchy that they came there in the first place to escape.

Penny (I can’t call her Penny; it sounds too Enid Blyton. I’m going to refer to her as Laurie and hope she doesn’t mind) writes fluently and with a light touch about her discovery of the internet at what sounds like a time of extended personal crisis. As a girl who also wrote – compulsively, in ridiculous notebooks that I can never show to anyone but can also never throw away – I do understand to some extent (although obviously not the whole extent, *checks privilege* etc). And so I also understand how brilliant and beautiful the internet can be, providing a place where you can put all these words out there, or even just imbibe other peoples’ words.  You could close your laptop at 1am after you’d spent hours reading fanfic or looking at beautiful character renderings on DeviantArt and you would feel (what you would later call) tipsy on all those shared emotional connections with people you would never meet IRL.

I’m only three years younger than Laurie, so a lot of our experiences of this are very similar (more similar, than, say, my experiences compared with my brother’s, who is three years younger than me). Facebook hit us at around the same age. When she goes on to talk about the excitement and subsequent  drama of the photo/detag and the horror of the morning-after-the-night-before pictures, it’s all too familiar. Luckily I’ve never been accosted by someone in a professional context based on my social media profile, but I’m reasonably sure there are pictures out there that could be used against me. Even though the one time I dressed as a rabbit, I was actually Rabbit from Winnie the Pooh. Anyway, the point is, I get it. I get the newness and the excitement because it was new and exciting for me, too, in a way that my younger siblings don’t really get. And I get the horror and the woe and the finding out what you did last night via someone else’s camera and the learning where the lines are, too.

It’s around this point that Laurie makes it incredibly plain that there are people in positions of power who actively go out of their way to find and abuse women on the internet, and that this in turn creates a culture where standards of ‘internet safety’ for girls are much higher than they are for boys. And this feeds into and is generated by the vicious cycle which assumes that girls need protecting, and while they wait to be protected, while the men figure out how they are going to do this with their immensely superior ‘thinking’-oriented brains, they should just sit quietly and keep their mouths shut meanwhile. As she says, it’s the rhetoric of shame.

“Although the technology is new, the language of shame and sin around women’s use of the Internet is very, very old. The answer seems to be the same as it always has been whenever there’s a moral panic about women in public space: just stay away. Don’t go into those new, exciting worlds; wait for the men to get there first and make it safe for you, and if that doesn’t happen, stay home and read a book.”

 

It’s a salient point, and one that Laurie has real experience of. She mentions it later in the book, but you can read her blog post on it here, too: http://www.penny-red.com/post/57613813151/on-bomb-threats-and-boredom.

Women are routinely chased out of public spaces and told to shut up. I know this. Friends know this. Women are watched. Women, suggests Penny, and I’m not 100% sure I agree with this but I certainly agree with the sentiment behind it, have been the voice of calm and reason in talk about spy networks and data leaking, because women have always assumed that they are being monitored.

Women self-censor constantly in order to be acceptable, to other women and to men. Women are encouraged to make themselves as small as possible in order not to get in the way of male egos. Not all men! You will probably cry. Well, no. But studies have shown (and I’m scraping the barrel of my memory a bit here so you’ll have to forgive me if this isn’t quite right) that it only takes a women to men participation ratio of about 1:3 to make men feel that women are dominating conversation via computers. Zimmerman and West, 1975. I think we’d all like to think that has changed, now, but as anyone who has heard of Caroline Criado-Perez and/or Mary Beard knows, there are still a lot of men out there who resent any speech by women at all.

I’m skipping around a bit here but you’ll have to forgive me for that. I want to talk about Laurie’s discussion of the (false) distinction between IRL and the internet. I watched a TED talk recently that made this same distinction: http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html. Thankfully, I had also just read this article, which gave me some hope: http://www.newstatesman.com/martin-robbins/2012/09/trouble-ted-talks. When Turkle made the claim that the internet and real life are separate and occupy different levels of reality, I was immediately suspicious. And Laurie picks up on this. The internet is not separate, not any more. What is said or done on the internet can really affect you. This is what the abusers subjecting women on Twitter to a barrage of insults and threats do not seem to realise and what some – those who have been charged by the Met Police’s cyber crime unit – have been made to find out the hard way. But not just the horrible stuff – the internet is also a place where people meet and love and have sex, break up and show their heartbreak and have fifty people ask them what’s wrong. It can genuinely make you laugh out loud and it can make you cry, too. I dated a boy because of the deep chats we had over instant messaging, and I broke up with him because he changed his facebook profile to ‘looking for a relationship’. This shit, positive and negative, is real.

My favourite bit is undoubtedly the section about geeks and the misogyny of the geekspace. This is insightful, well-written and tremendously reassuring. I work in the tech industry and I see exactly what Laurie is describing – not (thankfully) to the same extent in most cases, but certainly in many. I also know I’m the biggest nerd in the office, if such things are quantifiable. And yet – the technology doesn’t belong to me. It’s not for me. It’s something I’ve fallen into by accident after a lifetime of being told that I’m a humanities girl. (I am, but not because I’m a girl. And that doesn’t mean I’m any less of a nerd). I suggested I could learn to code in my spare time and my boss said he didn’t think it was a good idea. Coding’s not for girls. So to see such a vibrant defence of what ‘geek’ means without having to identify geekery by gender is lovely and wonderful. I hope that many people read this. I think it should be immortalised in some sort of nerd manifesto.

Ultimately, Laurie has, I think, several hopeful messages. That the internet is as real as real life is all too true – and just like real life, it’s as real and meaningful as you make it. It’s also an opportunity for people to come together and seek support and encouragement when in the past they would have been silent.  Witness the Everyday Sexism project, Misogyny Online, Everyday Victim Blaming, etc. Freedom of speech means allowing all the voices to chatter at once and being able to respond as you see fit, and it is not the inalienable and overwhelming right of white, straight men to speak before all others. And finally, and mostly pleasingly for me, that geeks may be (a part of) the problem, but they are also the solution.

Well. That was a long one. Thanks for sticking with it. I think Cybersexism is a great little piece of writing and you should definitely buy it. You can do that here, as it happens: http://t.co/uk3eCIKstB

Advertisements

Aristotle in Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’

25 Aug

Classical feminist detective work is a tricky beast. People have been writing derogatory things about women for so long and in so many different languages that it becomes terribly difficult to hone in on the original misogyny. In the spirit of fair play and not misquoting people, it’s handy to have direct references, even if only for the disappointingly simple reason that a misquote may get used against you by someone who has the time/energy/lack of social life to go hunting for the original.

I went on a trail this afternoon after Caroline Criado-Perez posted this:

Image

De Beauvoir writes in the introduction – (Vintage Classics edition, pp15-16):

‘”the female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities”, said Aristotle; “we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness”‘.

Unhelpfully, De Beauvoir does not give a reference for this Aristotle quote. Moreover, it’s written in such a way as to suggest that Aristotle said these two things one after the other.

Aristotle has a number of famous works, notably, the Politics, Nicomachaean Ethics, Physics, etc. He’s not particularly pro-women in any of them [read: he hates us], and searching for ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online versions of texts yields a pretty stark display of it. No easy answers there.

My first clue was a Google search for ‘Aristotle women defective by nature’. I found this article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/003-what-aquinas-never-said-about-women-38

I didn’t stop to read it in depth as such (it came across as a bit try-hard apologetic, but I’ll probably go back and read it again more critically some day) but I did note the points about Aquinas and the Latin translation.

Aristotle didn’t write in Latin. Aquinas probably read Aristotle’s works in Latin after they were translated by a keen set of scribes. Aquinas therefore came across ‘femina est mas occasionatus’ and went from there. I put this phrase into Google and got Aquinas’ attempt to explain it. This makes sense in the context of the De Beauvoir quote as she goes on to say “St Thomas for his part pronounced woman to be an ‘imperfect man’, an ‘incidental’ being”.

I found the full Aquinas quote (in Latin) and it helpfully told me whereabouts in Aristotle he had derived this theory: de generatione animalium iv.2 766b 33.

Interlude: a significant amount of hunting. It’s extremely difficult to get hold of large amounts of Greek text online if they are not housed on the go-to site for all Classicists, Perseus. Eventually, however, I got lucky and found the full works of Aristotle in Greek in a pdf. Those who are curious – it’s here: http://ia700500.us.archive.org/7/items/aristotelisopera01arisrich/aristotelisopera01arisrich.pdf.

I then spent a long time trying to apply what little Greek I can still remember (Finals were over a year ago now, after all) attempting to match it up with an English translation I had found (one here: http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aristotle/On_The_Generation_Of_Animals/eng/1011.html). This task became significantly easier when I used my old JSTOR membership to let me in to an article which (at last!) made sense of the page numbers I was using. Turns out it was much simpler than I had thought and I quickly tracked down the text that I thought I was looking for.

Here it is:

Image

The 2nd and 3rd lines are the ones that contain the quote we’re looking for. I’m pretty sure those *are* the right lines thanks to the (frankly torturous) route I took to get to them. Now, my Greek isn’t good enough to render those lines in a way that would satisfy a scholar, so you’ll have to pitch in here and help me out, but I reckon that the man is emphatically qualified as being ‘able’ or ’empowered to’ while the woman is explicitly ‘unable’. Not so much ‘defective’ as ‘incapable’.

In the wider context, Aristotle is talking about human reproduction. It seems that Aristotle’s imperfect understanding of biology is one of the founding blocks of the theory that biology is destiny, and female biology is worse than male biology. Of course, it wasn’t just Aristotle. Ancient theory was pretty convinced that the man had the baby-making capacity contained within his sperm, while the woman was the vessel that nourished it. You’ll spot that this went on for a lot longer than the 5th century BC. Now that we know it’s wrong, we can obviously jettison all the beliefs and cultural hang-ups we’ve accumulated as a result. Wouldn’t that be ace?

As for the second half of the quote (“we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness”) – I’m still working on it. At the moment, I don’t know what de Beauvoir wrote in French, because it seems to be impossible to get hold of a French copy on the internet (for free, anyway). And I don’t know what the French translation of Aristotle may have said. It’s quite possible that the translation expands on the Greek original to the extent that the whole of SdB’s quote spins out of that short Greek phrase – or she has found it from another part of Aristotle altogether. There are plenty of bits to choose from. As I said, he didn’t like women very much.

Right. That’s as far as I can trace this particular thread, I think. I’m going back to my book now (Backlash, Susan Faludi). G’night, team. X