« the women phone | Main | Women and writing technology »
November 17, 2003
what we are, and what we aren't
On Anne Galloway's weblog, purselipsquarejaw, there's been a discussion going on about this site. In it, we've been taken to task for "claiming to represent women's issues," and "seeking to represent 'women'."
When I replied that we weren't trying to represent women, or women's issues, Anne quoted our about statement, up at the top of the sidebar. But there's a significant difference, I think, between saying that you'll be writing about something, and saying that you represent it. My personal weblog, for instance, is about parenting, technology, teaching, and librarianship...but I don't claim to represent parents, technologists, teachers, or librarians. Only to discuss issues related to those groups, filtered through my own personal experiences and perceptions.
The reaction that many people have had to misbehaving.net is interesting and at times disheartening to me, because it's indicative of exactly the pressures that often cause people from underrepresented groups not to speak out--the fear that you'll immediately be pegged as speaking "for your group" can be paralyzing, and the resulting backlash when people in "that group" don't see you as speaking "properly" for them can be even worse.
We're writing a weblog, not the weblog on this topic. We're writing from our perspectives, which is all that we can offer and still be speaking in real voices. We're not speaking for other women, or putting ourselves forth as the only (or the best) voices there are. We decided to start this because we were tired of the topic of women in the tech field always being both peripheral and ephemeral. (In fact, the idea was born right after I wrote a post on the topic that I entitled The Unbearable Impermanence of Blogging.)
At the moment, I think one of the best things we've done is collect the list of names "misbehaving elsewhere" in our sidebar. It's a wonderful retort to the "where are the women?" question. It's an affirmation of the number of articulate women in the tech sphere. And it's an incredible jumping-off point for seeing a range of women's voices.
We're still learning, and growing, and finding our voices--individual and collective--on this site. But it's worth saying, more than once, that we don't see ourselves as "the" voice on this topic, nor do we seek to represent anyone other than ourselves. What we do hope to do is keep the issue of women in technology "above the fold," rather than an occasional side note.
Posted by Liz Lawley at 07:43 PM in General | Permalink
Comments
Cheers Liz!
"But there's a significant difference, I think, between saying that you'll be writing about something, and saying that you represent it. My personal weblog, for instance, is about parenting, technology, teaching, and librarianship...but I don't claim to represent parents, technologists, teachers, or librarians. Only to discuss issues related to those groups, filtered through my own personal experiences and perceptions."
It's exactly those 'personal experiences and perceptions' that make it difficult to write about - or represent - "women" at all ...
And as I wrote in my weblog - I enjoy misbehaving and look forward to seeing how it takes shape. And the blogroll is STELLAR - thanks!
Posted by: Anne at Nov 17, 2003 7:55:48 PM
Don't let the sniping get you down. If someone looks at this site and thinks you are trying to speak for all women in technology, they are looking at the site, not reading it.
Posted by: Paul Hoffman at Nov 17, 2003 9:35:36 PM
I don't think there's any harm to a group weblog. I think that there was an assumption that this weblog was going to be some form of Voice of the Women Techs originally, but most of that misunderstanding has been cleared up.
However, weblogs are going to be criticized, and you have to learn to live with it and just write. Or not, and stop.
As for the blogroll: I would still rather discover women's voices because people link to their writing, rather than them showing up on a blogroll. There's no harm in the blogroll -- it is a positive thing -- but that won't generate change. As you've said, though, that's not what you're trying to do with this weblog, and isn't a task you've asked for. You want to highlight women's contributions, and that's cool. Perhaps all of us should focus on that.
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 18, 2003 1:29:51 AM
As a student studying a technical degree, I was really pleased to find this weblog. Not because I felt like you "represent" me, but just because I don't know that many women who are interested in technology, so it's nice to read about some who are. In my year at uni, at the moment I'm one of only two girls. That doesn't bother me, but it's still interesting to read what other women think about issues that I find interesting. That's the only reason why I visit misbehaving.net. You don't represent all women, you only represent yourselves - but that's enough for me!
Posted by: claire at Nov 18, 2003 5:12:31 AM
I read the comment trail mentioned above. I do think people are being a bit hard on a relatively new site. That said, I think there are some ways that this site could be better.
1) More frequent posts on a variety of topics
2) Greater variety of topics -- if you don't have a lot to say, pose a question so others can comment. In this way, you will gain a greater number of voices here.
3) I think the power of this blog will ultimately come not from the writers themselves, but from the participants. All those women off to the right (myself included). Others who stop by. Give us more to write about, to comment about, and we will come.
4) Create some aggregate posts that link to what folks on your blogroll are writing about. I bet you'd find a volunteer among the group to help do such a thing. Perhaps not daily, but weekly, maybe. I think that will also generate more comments, etc. Plus, it will engender a greater feeling of community.
Clearly, there is pent up demand for strong voices about women and technology. This blog isn't yet meeting its potential to be one of those voices, but it could with time.
Posted by: Elizabeth at Nov 18, 2003 7:45:10 AM
I'd like to second Elizabeth's suggestion to
"Create some aggregate posts that link to what folks on your blogroll are writing about."
addressing Shelly's
"I would still rather discover women's voices because people link to their writing, rather than them showing up on a blogroll."
Not an easy task, but if someone could do a "Francois" among the various women on a roll (sounds like a sandwich special), that would be extremely interesting.
Posted by: weez at Nov 18, 2003 7:59:40 AM
I agree with both Elizabeth and weez about pointing to the women on the right more and less to major publications and stories. These _are_ the women in technology -- most of the other stories are about things and places far too distanct for most of us.
Then, we who read these stories should follow suit. This becomes a spark, a flicker of flame that allows Women's Writing to grow beyond the shadows cast by far too many men linking in and among themselves.
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 18, 2003 9:03:43 AM
Hi everyone,
I'd just like to point out that the sentiments of this phrase: "We're writing from our perspectives, which is all that we can offer and still be speaking in real voices." (by the post author, Liz) is exactly what is missing from the 'about us' section, and may be why people (myself included) have interpreted "women in technology" as claiming monolithic identity.
I think the authors are thoughtful and intelligent, and I appreciate their voice. But also, I think the critique of the site is valid, and should be welcome as the discussion starter that it appears to be. I've mentioned before to one of the blog contributors that there is a difference between 'representing' and 'acknowledging', i think 'misbehaving' has a great opportunity here to acknowledge the diversity of women in technology, and celebrate!
Posted by: kaki at Nov 18, 2003 10:36:59 AM
I hear ya!!
Several years ago myself and a few friends decided to put up a web site (this was long before we discovered weblogs) about our perspectives as "third wave feminists". Mind you, it was only our own personal observations and experiences on everything from politics to getting a car fixed. Even so, people still thought that (a) we were trying to represent every other woman or all feminists and (b) that we were an official organization with headquarters, dues, scholarships, internships and jobs. It was an uphill battle to make peple recognize that we could come together and speak about these things as unique individuals, on a daily basis, for the heck of it, interacting without having to turn our interaction into an NGO and anonymizing and generalizing our words and perspectives so that they could be applied broadly.
Posted by: Fazia Rizvi at Nov 18, 2003 2:47:18 PM
"We're writing from our perspectives, which is all that we can offer and still be speaking in real voices." So why is it that people expect more than that from misbehaving.net? Probably because the site is a collaboration, rather than something created by an individual. It seems that by claiming misbehaving is about a certain category of women, rather than about yourselves as individuals, you are confusing some of your audience. Not that you confused me, I saw through that right away ;-)
I don’t know if any of you have ever tried to put together a publication to represent a diverse population, but I have* and it isn’t easy (Fazia’s experience sounds similar). You can state your intentions all over the place, you can speak at rallies, directly contact people to solicit contributions and still end up with only the smallest representative slice of your community or audience. I’m thinking that a weblog like misbehaving.net has similar limitations. Just as I can’t claim to represent anyone but myself, I couldn’t speak for all the diverse elements of my community. We provided a forum for diverse experiences, which is what I think misbehaving.net has potential to do. Should they be on the hook to provide all that diversity? How can they? You can only speak from your perspective, or be treading on thin ice trying to represent something you don’t know well enough.
There have been some good suggestions posted already and the only other thing I’d add would be this: if you’re a reader who has a perspective you think it missing (or you’d like to push another writer in this direction) maybe the misbehaving crew would entertain the notion of ‘guest misbehavers’.
*I’m not talking about my blog, but a queer, monthly publication called Sound Out that I helped publish in Olympia, Washington from 1992 – 1995.
Posted by: buggy at Nov 18, 2003 5:54:44 PM
I think the discussion here comes partly because disclaimers never really work: Writing that "we do not speak for all women" is without much power. Even with the disclaimer, whatever you write will be interpreted as being general statements about all women.
But it also comes from the fact that you are writing about "women's issues" - this of course states that there are a number of issues common to all women, and that you know what those issues are. Even if you write about your personal experiences, the act of claiming that they are politically important also implies that your personal experiences are _representative_ of all women. There's no escape ...
Posted by: Jesper Juul at Nov 19, 2003 9:56:25 AM
But we don't claim to be writing about "women's issues," Jesper. And we're not claiming that our writings are politically important.
(There *must* be a way out of here... ;)
Posted by: Liz at Nov 19, 2003 10:15:20 AM
You could turn on the florescents and start yelling "Last Call!"
or you replace the "about us" content with the original quote that spawned your name along with
WANTED:
S or G, Any Race, Female - for frank discussions. We like long walks along the beach, technology, blogs, and stimulating conversation.
Posted by: weez at Nov 19, 2003 5:08:02 PM
Two comments:
One, to Elizabeth, who suggested a whole list of ways misbehaving could be... well, better behaved: Great ideas. Go start your own blog and include them. No really... I'm not trying to be snarky. But with ideas like that, why not put them into use yourself? Everyone can find ways to make someone else better....
Two, in response to Jesper... "Even with the disclaimer, whatever you write will be interpreted as being general statements about all women." that is in itself, a gender issue. If a group of men decided to write a blog about their experiences in technology, it would hardly be taken as the opinions and experiences of all men. Why, and what can we do about that?
Posted by: poppy at Nov 20, 2003 4:12:38 PM
To Poppy: Doesn't it have to do with the more general thing that "man" is un unmarked category and "woman" is a marked category? We think of women as having gender more strongly than we think of men having gender?
Here's a strange thing from Google: There are 3.3 million pages with the words "gender" and "women" but _not_ the word "men", but only 658.000 pages with the words "gender" and "men", but _not_ the word "women". I.e. we think of gender as being something that has to do with women.
For the very same reason, men generally don't make blogs about their experience _as men_: It would be seen as exclusionary to set up a blog where women weren't allowed to join, and I guess we generally see the experiences of men as being more individual than the experiences of women - a man in jail, or a man who is victim of violence is generally not considered a gender issue, but a women who is victim of violence or a women who has trouble breaking into an industry _is_ considered a gender issue.
So to be all meta about it, I just think that women are more likely to see their experiences as being gender-specific _and_ that we are more likely to interpret what a woman says about her personal experiences as claiming to be a general statement about all women.
And then again: Saying that "misbehaving.net is a weblog about women and technology." does imply that there are general lessons to be learned from your personal experiences.
Oh, "women and technology" gives 10,100 hits on Google, "men and technology" gives 181 hits.
Posted by: Jesper at Nov 21, 2003 8:15:21 AM
Jesper, you've made my point for me.
I guess we generally see the experiences of men as being more individual than the experiences of women - a man in jail, or a man who is victim of violence is generally not considered a gender issue, but a women who is victim of violence or a women who has trouble breaking into an industry _is_ considered a gender issue.
Precisely why this question has come up is because a group of women, writing about their individual experiences, has been assumed to speak for All Women. Precisely the point which you made - if a woman writes it, it's assumed to be a gender issue and generalizable to all women.
My point is, great, I acknowledge that this is the way the world works. What will it take to accept individual women as individual women, the same way men are? Solving all of the remaining gender issues? Ok, let's get started. Men creating aggregate blogs of their experiences as men? Ok, I promise not to whine about not being included, so long as comments from women are allowed the same way that comments from men are allowed in women's spaces.
Posted by: poppy at Nov 23, 2003 12:48:23 PM
