Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/ES Cyberama/Feminists and Cyberspace

Text File | 1994-05-12 | 91KB | 1,603 lines

WOMEN'S ACCESS TO ON-LINE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT FEMINISM


Ellen Balka

Memorial University of Newfoundland


Abstract

While the use of computer networks has become increasingly popular in
the last decade and research concerned with both women and
technological change and the social implications of computer
networking has proliferated, the use of computer networks by women,
and the use of computer networks in the context of feminism, have
seldom been subjects of study. In light of this omission and an
extensive body of literature which suggests that men and women have
different experiences in relation to technology, the author examines
the use of computer networks by individual women and women's groups
who use this technology to either discuss feminism or facilitate
feminist organizing. In _Womantalk Goes On-line: The Use of Computer
Networks in the Context of Feminist Social Change_ (Balka, 1992), four
related issues were examined through case studies of four computer
networks that varied in structure. These issues were: (1) the
relationship of the structure of the computer network to the array of
communications possibilities available; (2) who users were and what
they discussed in on-line feminist groups; (3) the types of
communication that occurred on-line in these groups; and (4) the
processes in which each network group engaged in order to maintain
their communications environment. This article presents results from
that study organized around the theme of access. Four related layers
of access are considered: (1) access related to network structure; (2)
access to an array of communications options; (3) access to technical
competence; and (4) access to computer networks in the context of
organizational structure. The context for this discussion is set
through a brief description of each of the networks examined in Balka
(1992). Results suggest that the success of appropriating computer
networks for feminist organizing in the future will reflect the extent
to which women's access to computer networks is addressed by future
users.


Introduction

Public figures as diverse as Tony Benn (a former British Minister of
Technology) (Ruthven, 1983) and Timothy Leary (Leary, 1984) have
argued that computer communication technology will provide the means
for an effective, participatory democracy. Benn argued that the
emerging computer communication technology could "be used to inform
citizens about government activities, to allow them to exchange
opinions, and to make it possible for them to play a more direct role
in decision making" (Ruthven, 1983: 57). An advocate of open
government, Benn focussed upon the ability of emerging computer
networking technology to support a two-way flow of information between
citizens and the state. Along with Leary (1984), Gabree (1984) and
others, Benn argued that computer networks would widen the range of
comment and opinion easily available to the general public (Ruthven,
1983). Computer networks were seen to have the potential to render
political decision-making more democratic (Gabree, 1984).

As the use of personal computers has increased and computer networks
have become more widespread, so too have claims about the liberatory
potential of computer networking technology. Computer networks were
viewed early in their evolution as convivial and participatory, and
antithetical to the dominant uses of electronic communications media
that were centrally controlled (Rossman, 1979). Described as a
"communications medium that can be shared by all" (Knight, 1983: 123),
some viewed computer networks as a challenge to conventional
hierarchies of control (Rossman, 1979).

McCullough (1991) points out that as the cost of personal computers
has declined, resource-poor community groups engaged in organizing for
social change have become the unexpected beneficiaries of computer
technology. Computer networks, viewed as having the potential to "make
a horizontal cut through the standard vertical organizational chart"
(Brilliant, 1985: 174), are particularly appealing to social change
organizations, which are frequently structured and managed
non-hierarchically.

At the same time that they acknowledge that computer technology is
embedded in economic, political and cultural structures of domination,
Downing et al. argue that computers "can now be appropriated into
organizing for progressive social change" (1991: 8). These assertions
are supported by widely held cultural views of technology (Balka,
1986; Bush, 1983) which suggest that many see it as neutral and
value-free, and believe that _how_ it is used determines whether any
new technology is a desirable development or not.

Popular debates about computer networking technology suggest that it
ought to meet a diverse array of needs, including those of women's
organizations dedicated to feminist social change. In theory, computer
networks ought to be consistent with the democratic, decentralized,
participatory structures of women's organizations dedicated to
feminist social change. Theory suggests that computer networks should
be accessible to a wide range of women, and that they can enhance the
flow of information between members of women's organizations as well
as between organizations.

Although the use of computer networks has become increasingly popular
in the last decade and research concerned with both women and
technological change and the social implications of computer
networking has proliferated, the use of computer networks by women and
the use of computer networks in the context of feminism have seldom
been subjects of study. Questions raised by Kramarae (1988), together
with an extensive body of literature which suggests that men and women
have different experiences in relation to technology, provided a
stimulus for an investigation into the use of computer networks by
women in the context of feminism. Kramarae points out that women's
speech and technology are richly interconnected, and that
technological processes have lasting impacts on women's
communications. She argues that all technological developments can be
usefully studied with a focus upon women's interaction, and points out
that all technological practices (including the processes of
innovation, creation, production, maintenance and use of technology)
affect the ways, places and content of talk, writing and publishing in
a feminist context. For Kramarae, social relations are organized and
structured by technological systems.

In _Womantalk Goes On-line: The Use of Computer Networks in the
Context of Feminist Social Change_ (Balka, 1992), the use of computer
networks by individual women and women's groups who were using this
technology to either talk about feminism or facilitate feminist
organizing was examined. Four related issues were considered through
case studies of four computer networks that varied in structure. These
issues were: (1) the relationship of the structure of the computer
network to the structure of messages; (2) who users were and what they
were talking about in on-line feminist groups; (3) the types of
communication that occurred on-line in these groups; and (4) the
processes in which each network group engaged in order to maintain
their communications environment. This article presents results from
that study organized around the theme of access. Four related layers
of access are considered: (1) access related to network structure; (2)
access to varied forms of communication; (3) access to technical
competence; and (4) access to computer networks in the context of
organizational structure. The context for this discussion is set
through a brief description of the four networks investigated in
greater depth in the larger analysis (Balka, 1992).

Overview of the Study

While several examples of computer networks used in the context of
feminism were discussed in the larger analysis, four networks were
investigated in depth: Soc.women, the Femail Mailing List, the
CompuServe Information Service Men's and Women's section of the Issues
forum, and the Women's Bulletin Board System in New York City.
Criteria used to select networks for the study were: first, that group
participants themselves consider the purpose of their communication to
be the discussion of feminism or feminist issues; and secondly, that
networks reflect a diversity of physical computer network structures.
The rationale for using network structure as a selection criterion is
addressed in the section titled "Theoretical Overview." A brief
description of each of the networks follows.

The Networks

Soc.Women (Usenet)

Usenet is a university/institutionally-based computer network
developed in 1979. Thousands of multi- user computers located
primarily in universities and scientific institutions use the same
software (Unix) and regularly pass messages between nodes. It is
possible to send mail from any Unix system to any other Unix system,
provided that one knows the address of the destination system.
Messages are sent in a leap frog fashion from one node to the next,
until they reach the desired destination. Often calls made between two
adjacent nodes are local calls. When two adjacent nodes are further
apart than a local calling area, the cost of passing messages between
nodes is absorbed by the institutions where the nodes are located
(Anderson et al., 1987). Usenet, probably the largest computer network
in the world, did not spring from the desire to bring computer access
into the home. Instead, Usenet grew out of workplace access to a
computer system (Unix) that was developed in a largely unorganized
fashion by hackers who constantly modified the system. Unix was
originally conceived as a research project by two workers in Bell Labs
in 1969. Throughout the 1970s Unix was licensed almost exclusively to
universities, since AT&T was prohibited from competing in the
commercial computer industry (PC Week, 1988). Perhaps consequently,
Unix has never been supported by AT&T as a profit-oriented product
(Waite, 1987).

Usenet began when two graduate students decided to try hooking two
Unix-based computers together in order to facilitate the exchange of
information within the Unix community. A third student wrote what has
become known as the news (or netnews) software that forms the keystone
for Usenet (Spafford, 1991a). The development of Usenet has proceeded
very much like the earlier development of Unix; it is constantly
modified by programmers. In 1980 the news programs were re-written and
made publicly available, free of charge :1:. In 1982 the programs were
again revised to accommodate a better organization of topical
newsgroups and the growing number of sites receiving Unix newsgroups
(Anderson et al., 1987). By 1984, the increasing volume of mail had
become problematic, which led to the addition of a feature that would
allow moderated newsgroups, inspired by ARPAnet mailing lists (prior
to that point, all Usenet content was unmoderated) (Gilmore and
Spafford, 1991). By 1987, over 5,000 sites were participating in
Usenet, with over 150,000 readers. Most sites are in North America,
although Usenet is growing in Australia, Asia and Europe (Anderson et
al., 1987).

Unlike most personal computer-based bulletin board systems or
commercial computer networking services, Usenet is not controlled by a
single person or group which establishes policy and rules for use, and
maintains the message base and equipment. Usenet requires no
membership screening, no dues, and boasts little organization. It has
been described by De Marrais (1984) and others as an
administrationless volunteer-maintained computer network of
information anarchists. Viewed as a valuable source for the
dissemination of knowledge and an aid to researchers, the costs of
running Usenet are absorbed by the institutions where Usenet sites are
located (Anderson et al., 1987).

Discussion of women's issues and feminism on Usenet first occurred in
the Net.women newsgroup (its name was changed to "Soc.women" in 1986).
Net.women began in 1982 or 1983, prior to the development of software
that supported moderated newsgroups. It was an outgrowth of
Net.singles (Gregbo, 1991), a newsgroup for single people (Gilmore and
Spafford, 1991). Some discussions pertaining to women and
relationships occurred in Net.singles, and a place other than
Net.singles was deemed necessary for the discussion of these issues
(Gregbo, 1991). Woods (1991a) points out that in those days, with only
a few hundred sites on the Usenet network, all that was required to
begin a new newsgroup was a little discussion in what was then called
"Net.news.groups" and someone willing to send a newsgroup. Net.women
appears to have been somewhat controversial from the start, and
remained a confrontational arena of communication throughout its
existence.

The Femail Mailing List (Internet)

One of the more successful and enduring alternatives to Soc.women is
the mail-feminist (often referred to as the Femail of feminist)
mailing list. By February of 1984, several women felt that Net.women
was not meeting their needs, and were both sufficiently frustrated
with Net.women and apparently, sufficiently confident that
computer-mediated communication could meet some of their needs, that a
moderated group was set up to be distributed through network carriers
other than Usenet. The formation of Femail began when an electronic
questionnaire, about starting a new feminist computer networking
group, was posted on Net.women by a frustrated network user. The
questionnaire elicited opinions about whether men should be included,
whether the list should be restricted, and whether it should be
moderated. Based upon the questionnaire responses, the new list,
mail.feminists, began as a public mailing list with the thirty-eight
electronic questionnaire respondents (eight of whom were men) as
participants, along with three others. Some participants on the new
mail.feminist list continued to follow the dialogue on Net.women and
others stopped; all seemed to share a vision of a place to communicate
about women's issues that was different from Net.women (Femail
transcripts, 1991).

In response to a message in the first batch of mail.feminist, asking
participants why they sought an alternative to Net.women, many
dissatisfactions with Net.women were voiced: it was offensive,
chaotic, the discussions were boring and endless, and women's opinions
were treated as dumb, stupid, or ignorant by men. One woman had grown
tired of debating assumptions she took for granted. Some women sought
electronic communication with others that would not be accessible to
their bosses and co-workers, as was (and is) the case with all of the
Usenet newsgroups (Femail transcripts, 1991) :2:.

The Femail Mailing List is a wide area multi-node network, yet it
differs from Usenet in some significant ways. Unlike Soc.women, the
Femail Mailing List is moderated, and distributed through a designated
central node. Assuming that nodes used for distribution of the list
are functioning correctly and all mail is distributed, users at
different sites receive the same "bundles" of messages, usually
ordered chronologically. The Femail Mailing List is distributed
through the Internet, which links institutionally-based computer
systems and large corporate computer systems throughout North America.
Although membership in the Femail Mailing List group is potentially
available to all Usenet users as well as institutionally-based users
at non-Unix sites, access to the group as a contributor is monitored
and at times restricted by the moderator. While all "readers" are
requested to "join" the list by notifying the moderator, it is
impossible to monitor and control who reads (but not who contributes
to) the Femail Mailing List. This situation exists because potentially
anyone at any site receiving the Femail Mailing List can go undetected
in forwarding the bundles of mail to other users.

Men's and Women's Issues Section (CompuServe Information Service)

CompuServe Information Service is a commercial wide- area central node
network that began in 1979. Wide-area and local central node networks
(such as CompuServe Information Service and the Women's Bulletin Board
System, respectively) accommodate a greater array of communication
options than multi-node networks (such as Usenet or Internet). In
contrast to Usenet and the Femail Mailing List (which can only
accommodate private electronic mail, newsgroups and file transfer to
network users), CIS offers users a multitude of services.

CompuServe Information Service began as an in-house data processing
centre and with the availability of timesharing computers moved into
the computer service industry, initially selling time only to
commercial clients. To facilitate this end goal and to avoid the
difficulties associated with depending on another commercial
enterprise for the provision of packet switching services, before
entering the home information and personal computer market, CompuServe
had developed its own packet switching network. CompuServe became a
publicly held company in 1975. In 1978, commercial electronic mail
services were introduced to its timesharing clients (Gerber, 1989).
Shortly after its major competitor in the home information market (The
Source) began operation in 1979, CompuServe Information Service began
to offer bulletin boards, databases and games targeted to computer
hobbyists in twenty-five cities served by the CompuServe packet
switching network (Gerber, 1989). By 1980, CIS was accessible to its
4,000 customers twenty-four hours a day. The subscriber base reached
10,000 a year later, perhaps reflecting a marketing arrangement
between CIS, Tandy Computer and Radio Shack. Also in 1981, electronic
mail became available to home users through CIS, and CIS became
available in Canada. In 1983 an on-line mall was introduced. By 1984,
CIS had 100,000 subscribers, and a year later CIS boasted 250,000
users. In 1987 CompuServe expanded its services to Japan, and by the
time it acquired The Source in 1989 it had become the largest
commercial computer information service in the world, with a half
million users. Services had grown to include 180 special interest
forums; news, weather, sports and flight information; access to
several newspapers and magazines that could be searched for keywords;
an electronic version of a CB radio; and a variety of other services
(Gerber, 1989).

The use of base level CIS services is billed by the hour. Other
services (such as an on-line version of _Books in Print_) require a
sign-up fee and carry additional charges. Initially, Canadian users
could only gain access to CompuServe through a Canadian packet
switching network (Datapac) that tied into the CIS packet switching
network. Users paid an additional hourly fee for the use of Datapac
(Kleiner, 1981). CompuServe introduced and then withdrew direct access
to its Ohio computer in some Canadian cities, only to re-introduce
direct access (which saved Canadian users Datapac charges) a few years
later.

The women's section on CIS began officially when Pamela Bowen
submitted a proposal to CompuServe in late 1982 or early 1983
proposing the formation of a women's forum. Prior to Bowen's proposal
to CompuServe, several women who had met through the on-line CB "were
gathering every Saturday night and 'scrambling' for private chats.
That was not satisfactory, however, because men kept sending talk
requests and interrupting" (Bowen, 1991a) :3:. When Bowen initially
submitted the proposal for a women's forum, she was told by CompuServe
that there were not enough women on-line to justify it. Bowen
commented in 1988 that "they still say that, but I say that's a bunch
of balogna because most families have one account, and that account is
usually in the husband's name, even if the wife spends much more time
on-line, so there's no way CompuServe's demographics can pick that up"
(1991a).

Despite CompuServe's refusal to begin a women's forum, they did
consult Georgia Griffith, who was (and still is) the head sysop of the
Issues Forum. Griffith agreed to have one section of her forum used
for women's issues; Bowen became sysop of the women's section and the
assistant sysop of the Issues forum. Griffith hoped that if the
section was popular enough it could branch into a separate forum. Many
CompuServe Forums had in fact followed this pattern of development
(Bowen, 1991a). Once the women's section of the Issue's Forum had been
established, many of the women who had been "gathering" on the CB
Saturday nights moved to the new women's section (Bowen, 1991a). In
addition to one-to-one electronic mail, one-to-many electronic mail
(referred to on CIS as a "topic-specific bulletin board area," but
similar in practice to what other networks call "conferences") and
document transfer, the women's section featured weekly "real-time"
conferencing, analogous to a voice conference call where several
geographically dispersed participants could communicate simultaneously
with a barely noticeable time delay. In addition to discussing issues
in the bulletin board area of the women's section, participants during
weekly real-time conferences either "chatted" amongst themselves, or
talked to an invited guest speaker about a wide range of women's
issues. Bowen (1991b) recalls that about twenty women regularly
participated in the women's section, and five or six women regularly
participated in the weekly conferences.

I remember the women's section as an active discussion area (I
"visited" it occasionally in late 1985 and early 1986). It was closed
sometime in late 1986 or early 1987 (Casal, 1991a) after a few weeks
when participation was low. Casal was an assistant sysop of the men's
and women's issues section in 1988, an area originally established for
mixed gender discussions about women's issues that "WAS dominated by
men and was eventually re-named the Men's/Women's section" (Casal,
1991b; capitalization in original). She recalls that, although the
women's conferences were regular weekly events for at least three
years, in the last few months of the section, she and Griffith "had
trouble getting even ONE woman to come ... In the end :they: had to
open the conferences to men also in order to have a conference at all"
(Casal, 1991c).

The Women's Bulletin Board System

The Women's Bulletin Board System (WBBS) was devised in 1985 and began
operation in 1986. Unlike most computer networking services, the
system was proposed and started by nine women from the social change
community, rather than the computer bulletin board community. These
women discussed the formation of the WBBS via a computer network, and
after selecting the hardware and software for the WBBS, spent two
months learning their way around the system before publicly announcing
it through flyers and mailings to women's groups and contacts in the
New York City women's community. Founders of the WBBS anticipated that
potential users might lack the knowledge to use a computer network
with little assistance. In an effort to eliminate this barrier, one of
the founders based in New York City reports that she has provided
extensive support for potential users of that system, including
on-line help, hard copy help and in-person help (Interview with Angela
Leucht, November 1988). This no doubt contributed to the success of
the Women's Bulletin Board System.

The founders' initial goals were to provide a bulletin board for
organizing around women's issues and to share information between
women's groups. The bulletin board allowed users to send electronic
mail to other users, post public messages on a variety of topics of
concern to feminists, and upload and download files (document
transfer). Unlike most bulletin boards in operation in the mid-1980s
(that did not easily accommodate the organization of messages), the
Women's Bulletin Board was split into twenty-seven posting areas, each
set aside for a different set of topics. Consequently, the public
messages posted on the Women's Bulletin Board read more like a
computer conference than a bulletin board, and users could more
quickly locate information of potential interest, as well as avoid
some topics altogether. Among the existing bulletin areas were areas
for action alerts (time-dated public notices); discussions about women
and AIDS, parenting, recovery from sexual abuse, recovery from alcohol
abuse, and general women's issues; notices about conferences; and
areas for adolescents, women of colour, and groups that wished to have
restricted (rather than public) communication.

Several things distinguished the Women's Bulletin Board System from
other bulletin boards and computer networking services. The WBBS was
established and operated by a group, rather than an individual. This
is in marked contrast to most bulletin boards which are operated by a
single individual, who often thinks of the board as an extension of
their house, or as their kingdom (WBBS Transcripts, 1991). Instead,
group management of the system was a major factor in the selection of
software for the WBBS. Unfortunately, women's groups have not used the
system as much as was anticipated. One of the co-founders attributes
this to the software that she feels was not designed for, and does not
fully accommodate, group communications. Another co-founder felt the
largest obstacle to the System's use by groups is that most women's
organizations (in the U.S.) do not have computers, and those that do
often do not have modems (Group Interview, November 1988).

The Women's Bulletin Board has avoided many of the problems that have
plagued other attempts to provide an electronic women's meeting place.
Although women users of other computer networks frequently complain
about attacks upon their views by men, their continuous struggle to
keep the "conversation" focused upon women, and their boredom with
debates about fundamental assumptions (that men should help change
diapers, that daycare should be more accessible), newcomers to the
Women's Bulletin Board frequently commented on the congenial
atmosphere that characterized this system. Despite these strengths,
founders of the WBBS were at times discouraged with the changes that
occurred over time. All but three of the board's original moderators
and sysops, all of whom originated from the social change community,
left. They were replaced by women who have come from the bulletin
board community, and one co- founder feels that these two communities
do not often see ideas or processes in the same way (Interview with
WBBS Co-founder, November 1988).

In the fall of 1990, the WBBS was temporarily out of operation. The
modem used to operate the system was damaged when lightning struck the
building. A few of the sysops had left the WBBS, and the founders
sought replacements. The founders also investigated the acquisition of
new hardware and software. While weary, the group still felt that the
WBBS was a valuable community resource that could contribute to the
New York City women's community.

Data Collection and Analysis

Information about the networks was collected mainly from the networks
themselves. On-line sessions were both saved to a file and printed.
Data were analyzed both via computer (for example, searching for
message header information and storing it in files for further
analysis) and on paper (for example, reading and coding the
transcripts according to message structure and content). Information
available in network transcripts was supplemented with on-line queries
to group users, published accounts of the networks, and personal
interviews. Theoretical perspectives that informed data analysis
included Noble's (1979) concept of social bias in machine design, and
Smith's (1990b) argument that text is a means of access to the
relations it organizes.

Theoretical Overview

Noble (1979), Linn (1987) and others :4: argue that there is more to
technology than hardware. For women, technology never exists in an
asocial sense. It is reflected in social practices, including language
and other forms of representation; in traditions of use, techniques
and training practices; in domains of knowledge; and in relation to
production and consumption. Technology is, in short, a cultural
product (Linn, 1987). Along similar lines, Noble (1979) and Karpf
(1987) both argue that it is people and social forces that shape and
create technology; technological products both bear the imprint of
their social context, and themselves reinforce that social context.
Technology is constituted by, and also helps constitute social
relations.

Smith (1990) argues that texts are situated in and structure social
relations. Treating text as a constituent of social relations
encourages the researcher to investigate the social organization of
its production, as it is a prior phase in the social relation. Smith
advocates looking beyond text for evidence of the social relations
that resulted in the production of specific texts. In the case of
computer networks, one can begin an inquiry through the texts that
participants in on-line discussions produce, and explore the actual
practices that engage people in the relations that organize their
lives. In applying Smith's (1990) approach to the analysis of computer
networks, it was necessary to focus upon network structure. During
analysis of network transcripts, it became clear that the text
produced in on-line discussions reflected the physical structure of a
network. Network structure in turn had implications for where and to
whom networks were accessible. Network software is designed in
response to both the physical network structure (which poses both
opportunities and constraints in terms of communication options
available) and social goals that are often not explicit. These factors
combine to create the taken-for-granted world that network users
encounter in their everyday production of computer network
transcripts.

Results

Network structure not only had implications for who had access to a
given network (and where they had access from), but also proved useful
in explaining differences in the structure of messages. To varying
degrees, issues related to the structure of the networks and/or social
decisions incorporated into software design (for example, the use of
aliases on Usenet) are implicitly addressed in the content of
messages. Additionally, some combinations of network structure and
software seem to accommodate certain forms of communication better
than others.

(1) Access Related To Network Structure

The structure of a computer network has implications for where a
network is accessible (for example, in universities but not women's
centres), and to whom it is accessible. The gender composition of
participants varied from network to network, as did participant's
patterns of response on a network. Each network had a somewhat
distinct group of participants, although some overlap existed between
networks. Participants in each of the networks are described below.

Soc.women

Information about Soc.women participants was gleaned from a number of
sources, each of which yielded a different type of information.
Message headers provide a source of information about participants'
points of access into the Usenet system, where they work, and often,
in the absence of unusual circumstances or the use of aliases, the
gender of message authors. To a certain extent, message headers make
it possible to determine what time of day messages were sent.
Information of a more personal nature about participants is sparse in
Soc.women messages. If it exists at all, it is often included
incidentally in message text.

Reading Soc.women headers gives one a sense that Soc.women
contributors mostly gain access to Usenet and Soc.women from their
workplaces (primarily, corporations engaged in computer-related work
and science and applied science departments of universities). While
readership of Usenet is worldwide, most contributors are resident in
the United States. The organizational affiliations listed in Soc.women
headers read like a combination of Who's Who in Corporate and Academic
America, and a contest for aspiring stand-up comics. In three weeks of
Soc.women messages, participants from over seventy businesses and over
fifty universities contributed messages. In addition, over forty
different organizational aliases :5: were used, and at least seven
people gained access to Usenet through computer bulletin boards and
commercial services offering electronic gateways to Usenet.

>From message headers, one gains a sense that Soc.women contributors
are well-educated, and those who are no longer students are likely to
work in the computer industry or in academia. Based on an examination
of times included in Soc.women headers (in cases where the
geographical location of a contributor is known), it appears that
participants are to a large extent submitting messages to Soc.women
during normal business hours. Popular times for submitting messages
appear to be mid-morning, around lunch time (1:00 p.m.), and
mid-afternoon. Occasionally messages are submitted in the early
evening, suggesting that contributors are either working late (this is
a frequent occurrence in the computer industry) or have computers at
home through which they gain access to their work-based Usenet
systems.

By examining names found in Soc.women "From:" headers, and by
referring to message text for clues about the authors' gender in the
event of gender-neutral names (such as Chris, Pat, Jesse) or aliases,
the gender composition of Soc.women contributors can be estimated,
along with message sending patterns. In the Soc.women sample, out of a
total of 258 contributors who contributed a total of 650 messages over
44 days :6:, 63 per cent of the contributors were men, 27 per cent
were women and the gender of 10 per cent of the contributors could not
be determined. Just over half of the messages were authored by men,
and just over 44 per cent of the messages were authored by women. The
gender of the authors in slightly over 5 per cent of the cases could
not be determined.

The Femail Mailing List

Reading Femail messages, one gains a much more in- depth sense of who
participants are and what their lives are like. Although the removal
of message headers strips messages of what little surface clues about
participants inherently exist in messages on a distributed multi-node
network, at the same time it protects participants from having the
identity of their employer known, as well as from receiving unwanted
electronic junk mail. The removal of headers (both a technical
decision related to the use of non-Usenet software, and a social
decision related to the emergence of Femail out of dissatisfaction
with Soc.women) contributes to the more personal tone of messages that
make up the Femail dialogue in general, and the greater abundance of
personal information contained in Femail messages in particular.

Like Soc.women contributors, Femail contributors also gain access to
that group through nodes of wide area networks (such as UUCP and
ARPAnet) in their workplaces. However, with the removal of headers
from Femail messages, in the absence of any knowledge about network
structure, this would not be as obvious as it is in Soc.women
messages. In general, the individuals who come together to form the
Femail mailing list are in some cases former and/or current Soc.women
readers, or they may have heard about the list from a friend. Although
the removal of message headers in the Femail group makes it more
difficult to capture a sense of the places that Femail participants
work compared to Soc.women contributors, we get a much more detailed
sense of what their work lives are like. Because headers have been
removed from Femail messages, we know less about the time of day that
messages are submitted to the group. However, Femail messages contain
references to submitting messages from work, and Femail participants
occasionally indicate that they are dependent upon workplace computers
for access to the group.

Given that the nodes which carry the Femail mailing list are located
in similar places to the Usenet nodes which accommodate access to
Soc.women (academia, the corporate sector), it is not surprising that
Femail contributors have a great deal in common with Soc.women
contributors. Like Soc.women contributors, Femail participants tend to
be highly educated; they are likely to be students, professors, or
professionals working in areas related to the sciences. In contrast to
Soc.women messages that provide a wealth of information about
contributors in headers and a minimal amount of information about
contributors in text, Femail readers can easily gain a sense of who
contributors to that group are from the text of messages submitted to
the group. The tradition of including "personal data" in Femail
messages began quite early in that group's history. A Femail
contributor requested demographic information in the fifth message
submitted to Femail, and in the third message submitted to that group
a contributor presented demographic information in the context of a
story. By reading through the remainder of Femail Message Excerpts 4,
we see that Femail contributors appear to be quite candid in messages
they submit to the mailing list. Personal data may include a synopsis
of a contributor's past relationships, an overall profile, or a
personal commentary (lines 18646-18655). Although the inclusion of
personal information appears to be almost secondary in Soc.women
messages, personal information appears to be primary to the Femail
mailing list.

The probable gender of message authors can be determined with greater
accuracy in Femail messages than in Soc.women messages. First, a
contributor's ability to submit messages to the Femail group
anonymously (or with an alias) is controlled by the moderator in
conjunction with the group. Secondly, the emphasis upon personal
issues in the Femail group (beginning with introductions) accommodates
an easy assignment of gender to both gender-neutral names and
anonymous contributions. In contrast to Soc.women, where nearly
two-thirds of the participants were men, just over one-fourth of
Femail participants were men. Women constituted slightly more than
one-fourth of the contributors to Soc.women and they contributed
nearly half of that group's messages. In contrast, the number of
messages contributed to Femail by both men (25 per cent) and women (74
per cent) over four years closely approximated the representation of
men (26 per cent) and women (71 per cent) in that group :7:. The
gender composition of the Femail mailing list group has from time to
time been a topic of discussion in that group. Of the forty-one
subscribers who responded to a message on Soc.women about beginning a
new group, three-quarters were women. Within three months, two-thirds
of those known to be reading the list were women and one-third were
men. At that time, 82 per cent of the contributors were women and 18
per cent were men. In other words, shortly after the group began, the
number of men reading Femail increased. However, contributions to
Femail by gender did not reflect that change. Unlike Soc.women where
women contributed more messages per person on average than men, the
contributions to Femail by gender have remained in proportion to the
number of men and women contributors in that group.

Ten months after the inception of Femail, the percentage of
contributions by men had increased slightly, from 21 to 27 per cent.
On average, men contributed more messages per person to the list than
women. The slight increase in contributions made to Femail by men
continued into April of 1985, when the moderator again presented a
gender breakdown of contributions to the group (see Message 613, April
1985, line 13854 of Femail transcripts, 1991). At that point (fifteen
months after the group began), 30 per cent of the contributions to
Femail were authored by men. However, a four-year review of
contributions to Femail by gender indicates that contributions by men
constituted only 25 per cent of the total. The extent to which men and
women "speak out" to Femail readers fluctuates over time.

Compuserve Information Service Men's And Women's Issues Section

Of all of the networks considered in this section, we know the least
about participants in the CompuServe Men's and Women's Issues section.
Although a sense of participants can be gained from a range of message
headers in Soc.women messages, as well as through text in Femail
messages, CIS messages offer scant information in either message
headers or text. As a single node network, CIS participants submit
their messages to the Men's and Women's Issues Section of that network
through CIS software. All participants potentially access CIS from
different physical locations, and once they have connected to
CompuServe, their messages are moved around by the CIS software. The
headers supplied by that software do not betray the location through
which the author of a message has gained access to CIS. Consequently,
we know virtually nothing about the locations from which message
authors are contacting the network.

A review of the time and date message headers from messages submitted
to the Section over a one-month period showed that 30 per cent of the
messages were submitted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST), and 70 per cent of the messages were submitted
between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. EST. The CIS rate structure, with
lower hourly charges at night, encourages higher use during night
hours. Keeping in mind that CIS participants are potentially located
in all time zones, but that their messages are stamped with whatever
time it was in the eastern time zone when their message was submitted,
we can make some rough assertions about where CIS participants are
when they submit messages. Assuming that most of the participants hold
jobs requiring their presence at work during normal business hours, it
appears that the majority of participants access CIS from home
computers after their workday ends.

Unlike the other networks discussed here, one's access to CIS is
dependent upon steady access to cash or credit. Upon joining
CompuServe, prospective users must supply either a credit card number
for direct billing or a chequing account number for direct
withdrawals. If a subscriber is outside of the United States, the only
billing is a credit card number. This requirement, along with the
hourly fees charged for CIS use, ensures that regular users are
relatively affluent.

Over approximately a one-month period :8:, 353 messages were
contributed to the Men's and Women's Issues Section of CompuServe.
These were organized into three threads. Seventy per cent of the
participants (n=7) were men, who contributed 57 per cent of the
messages in the section. Women, who constituted 30 per cent of the
contributors (n=3) authored 43 per cent of the messages. While the
gender composition of contributors was similar to that of the
Soc.women sample, and the CIS section showed a similar pattern to
Soc.women in terms of women contributing messages in a higher
proportion than their representation in the group, a significant
difference exists between the Soc.women and CIS samples. In the former
case, the ratio of contributors to messages was 1:2.5 compared to a
ratio of 1:35 in the case of CIS.

Moreover, a large number of people were engaged in debates in the
Soc.women newsgroup while only a small number joined in the dialogue
of the CIS Men's and Women's Issues Section. Of the 353 messages that
comprised the CIS sample, 272 or 77 per cent were contributed by two
people: a man who authored 126 messages and a woman (also the sysop)
who authored 146 messages. The woman sysop's messages, together with
those from two other sysops involved in the maintenance of the Issues
Forum (where the men's and women's issues section is located)
accounted for 48 per cent of the total message flow in the men's and
women's section. By the time CIS was monitored for this study, the
number of women using it to discuss women's issues had fallen off
dramatically.

The Women's Bulletin Board System

Women's Bulletin Board messages, like CompuServe messages, contain
limited information in message headers about participants. WBBS
participants, however, tend to be more candid about themselves in
their messages. Where CompuServe message threads often read like a
conversation already in progress, in contrast, reading the WBBS is
more like entering a small town, and getting to know people as you run
into them in a variety of settings. This sense is facilitated by the
separation of the WBBS into several topically distinct areas.
Contributors may offer extensive personal information in some areas
but not in others. As participants explore the WBBS, they "run into"
contributors in different contexts, and are able to gain a sense of
what participants are like.

Because of the limited information contained in WBBS message headers,
we know very little about where that network's users gain access to
it. Most users appear to call the system from within the New York City
local calling area, where the WBBS is located. Occasionally users
mention in message text that they are calling from outside of the New
York City area via PC Pursuit, a value-added carrier service that
allows users to make calls to and from selected American cities for a
flat monthly fee during evenings and weekends. A review of the "Date:"
header in 990 messages indicates that 41 per cent were placed there
during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and 59 per cent of the
messages were posted between 6:01 p.m. and 7:59 a.m. :9:. WBBS
contributors appear to gain access to the network from both home and
the workplace. Several contributors appear to work for women's
organizations. At least one contributor regularly posts informational
messages of interest to the women's community on the WBBS as part of
her job. In addition, feminist organizations appear to be points of
access for some contributors.

As of 27 February 1988, the WBBS listed 639 users in their directory.
Based upon the assignment of gender to names, 26 per cent were men, 61
per cent were women, and 13 per cent had gender-ambiguous names. The
directory lists those who have become permanent users of the system.
However, it neither lists those who access the system, look around and
do not return, nor does it indicate who contributes messages. A scan
of 990 message headers, however, indicated that seventy of the
contributors were women (61 per cent), thirty-six were men (32 per
cent), and eight or 7 per cent had gender-ambiguous names. Only 114 of
the 639 people who signed on to the WBBS left messages that remained
on the system during the data collection period. Clearly, a large
number of people read the WBBS or visit it but do not contribute.

Organizers of the WBBS observed that over time the use of the system
changed. The system was established by a group of activists with
organizational affiliations interested in creating a resource for the
New York City women's community. Gradually, however, the WBBS was used
less by feminist activists and more by members of the bulletin board
community. During a group interview (25 November 1988, New York City),
WBBS organizers commented that as more bulletin boarders began to use
the system, the representation of the women's community declined.
Moreover, in the words of one organizer, "these two groups just did
not see things the same way ... we were more concerned with providing
a service, and group process among the sysops; the BBSers were more
concerned with the hardware and software...we did not see things the
same way at all."

(2) Access To Varied Forms Of Communications

Network users' access to an array of communication options is
restricted on at least two levels. First, each network structure
accommodates a different array of communication options. For example,
using a distributed multi-node network (with or without a moderator)
allows only one-to-one and one-to-many electronic mail, and file
transfer. Within Soc.women, messages are not organized by topic.
Although the Femail Mailing List messages are organized to a greater
extent than Soc.women messages, this is done by the moderator rather
than through an automatic software function. In contrast, a central
node system (such as CIS) allows additional communication
possibilities, such as computer conferences and databases. This may
seem to be an elementary point to a veteran network user, yet novice
users encountered in on-line feminist groups often failed to realize
that some network structures accommodated a wider range of
communication options than others. Frequently, would-be network users
were left discouraged when they realized that the network they were
using would not allow them access to the type of communication they
desired. This limitation is indicative of a general lack of technical
information amongst certain groups of users, such as social change
activists or staff members of women's organizations.

The second level at which users' access to networks is restricted
relates to network structure in two ways. First, network structure in
all cases posed some constraints to potential users. Secondly, each
network boasted its own message style and tone, which in some cases
acted as a mechanism to control women's access. These phenomena are
addressed below.

Access Restrictions Related to Network Structure

Each of the networks had features that restricted users' access to the
network. In the case of both Soc.women and the Femail Mailing List,
users could only gain access to the systems through an institutional
setting (although access to Usenet has improved as Unix has
increasingly been implemented on home-based personal computers). In
fact, many Femail users complained that switching jobs often meant the
loss of access to what had become a cherished source of support.
Access to the Femail Mailing List was also limited by technical
problems related to the construction of addressing paths that could
accommodate the smooth distribution of messages around the Internet.
Finally, any technical problems with the computer system at the Femail
moderator's worksite resulted in a disruption of the group.

In the case of CompuServe, two factors restricted user's access to the
service: cost of access and management imperatives. Previous
participants in the women's section (which preceded the Men's and
Women's Issues Section) mentioned cost as a constraint upon women's
use, and speculated that the section failed to generate levels of
acceptable profit. One member of the women's section (when it still
existed) spent $300 in one month on CompuServe without realizing it
until the bill arrived (CompuServe transcripts, 1991). Casal (1991b)
raises some important points in relation to gender and the economics
of CIS use:

Cost is certainly a factor. We have had several users who have dropped
out because money became tight in their households. A few drop out
when they move to areas where there is no node and use would involve
long-distance access fees. But I have noticed that, whereas most of
the men who have to quit because 'money is tight' tend to return after
awhile, women are more likely to drop out altogether. This is true
even when the women were very active participants (Casal, 1991b).

In addition to general costs associated with the use of CIS, any user
outside of an area serviced by the CIS packet switching network must
incur additional charges (either in the form of regular long distance
calls or use of a value-added) in order to participate in discussions.
In light of women's lower earning power relative to men, it is not
surprising to find that of all the networks investigated (despite the
fact that it is the largest commercial computer network in the world)
CIS had the lowest number of participants in its on-line discussions
related to feminism.

The WBBS was the most accessible of all the networks examined. Other
than gaining access to a personal computer, local users incurred no
costs through use (non-local users incurred costs associated with the
use of either PC Pursuit or regular long distance telephone lines).
The WBBS also appears to have had the most diverse group of
contributors of the four networks studied. However, the fact remains
that the bulk of its users were situated in the New York City area.

Access Restrictions Related to Message Style and Content

Each of the four networks included in the study boasted its own
message structure and style. Message structure was clearly related to
network structure. For example, the protocol used in the transfer of
Soc.women messages around Usenet resulted in users at different sites
viewing the messages in a different order. As a result, a user might
receive a response to a message prior to the original message. In
order to contextualize communication under these circumstances, a
mechanism was built into the software which prompts users to include a
portion of the message to which they are responding in their response.
This leads to a convention of attributions, or quotes of previous
messages. Partly as a consequence of this Usenet feature, Soc.women
messages tend to read like a "he-said-she-said ... but you didn't
understand" argument. This, combined with numerous accusations of
message forgery (supported by the software feature that allows
aliases) and the often contentious nature of feminism in general,
contributed to a general climate of antagonism in Soc.women. In a
sense, women's access to Soc.women as a discussion space for feminist
issues was restricted or controlled through the contentious nature of
the dialogue that occurred on the network.

In sharp contrast to the message structure, style and content of
Soc.women, the Femail Mailing List read like an on-line
consciousness-raising group. Composed mainly of narratives, stories,
and questions and answers about feminist topics, the caring atmosphere
of the Femail Mailing List was maintained in part by the moderator
(who could refuse to include antagonistic messages in bundles of mail
to group participants). Users could elect to include or exclude their
electronic mail addresses in message text; a decision to exclude an
address from message text guaranteed against unwanted electronic mail.
Group participants regularly communicated through the group to
negotiate standards for group moderation.

Exchanges on the CIS Men's and Women's Issues Section tended to occur
between two individuals who would begin a discussion, get into an
argument, perhaps have someone intervene, and more often than not,
agree to disagree. Many exchanges involved one of the sysops (using
the system free of charge) who might bait a group participant. The
practice of controversy on-line led to more money being spent on-line.
The CIS software (which indicated who authored a message and who it
was directed towards), encouraged users to continue to respond to
message threads in which they had participated, and encouraged the
didactic style of CIS messages. Although this network was billed as a
one-to-many form of communication, messages tended to take the form of
one-to-one communication, which perhaps acted as a deterrent to some
would-be users.

The congenial atmosphere of the Women's Bulletin Board System
reflected a number of factors. First, prior to being granted access to
the WBBS, users were required to supply a name and telephone number
for verification. This undoubtedly encouraged users to use the system
under their own identity. Secondly, founders of the WBBS devised a
system to reduce conflict on the network. They designated one area of
the bulletin board as a battleground. Whenever discussions in any area
assumed an inflammatory tone, the inflammatory message and related
messages were moved to the battleground. Users wishing to avoid
controversy and disagreement could choose not to participate in these
discussions, while those who thrived on controversy could indulge.
Finally, WBBS founders felt that there were some instances where
anonymity was acceptable; for example, in a women-only area of the
board that required special clearance). Certain areas of the system
allowed users to post anonymous messages, while other areas did not.
This practice allowed users to engage in the discussion of difficult
topics where anonymity might be preferable, but prohibited users from
acting antagonistically (as in many cases they did in Soc.women) under
assumed identities.

Message structure and style often reflect both the physical structure
of a computer network and a number of social decisions (for example,
to permit aliases and anonymity) that are incorporated into the
software. For many users, both the physical structure of the network
and the social decisions incorporated into the network through
software design are invisible. Once these relationships are examined,
it becomes clear that some combinations of network structure and
software design provide access to some groups of users while deterring
others.

(3) Access To Technical Competence

In only one of the networks investigated in depth was it evident that
users had regular technical difficulties in using the network. Not
surprisingly, it was the Women's Bulletin Board System, which was more
accessible to lay users than the other three networks. However, a
great deal can be learned by examining some past attempts to create
feminist environments on-line, that have fallen short of initial
expectations. Three of these are discussed below.

The Amazon Line

One approach to providing a computer-mediated discussion area for
women via a commercial computer network was attempted by two women in
Toronto. The service, named the Amazon Line, was scheduled to begin
operation late in 1985. As of early 1988, it was still not quite off
the ground, although its founders had not given up hope. The Amazon
Line, it was hoped, would allow women throughout Canada to quickly
exchange information relevant to feminist social change. The network
was to be operated on a university computer that sells computer time
and storage space to individuals and groups with no university
affiliation. Software was available that would allow public and
private electronic mail, as well as time-delayed and real-time
computer conferencing. Locating the Amazon Line on a university
computer system meant that out-of-town users could gain access to the
system via value-added carriers.

Founders of the Amazon Line targeted their service towards
professional women. When asked what factors they felt had kept the
Amazon Line from flourishing, two points were raised. First, they
found that many of the women they had hoped to attract did not do
their own typing, but rather had secretaries who typed for them. They
were attempting to introduce computerized communication to a
population that did not have a direct need for it. Adoption of their
service by the desired population would have required a change to
existing work patterns. Secondly, they found that at the time the
service was publicized (1985), many women still did not have access to
the knowledge required to use it. The Amazon Line's founders
anticipated the development of an educational strategy to accompany
the re-introduction of the service. Since that time, women's access to
equipment has improved, and many women have gained experience and
confidence with computers (Personal Communication with Pat Hacker,
February 1988).

The Canadian Research Institute For The Advancement Of Women

All of the attempts to create and maintain women's electronic
communication space that have been discussed thus far have been either
oriented towards individuals or, in the case of the Women's Bulletin
Board, oriented towards groups in general, rather than a single group
and its specific communication needs. The Canadian Research Institute
for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW) has engaged in the process of
developing a computer networking system to meet that group's needs.
CRIAW was among the first women's organizations in North America to
actively adopt computer communication in efforts to reduce the
communication difficulties associated with a national organization.

Members of the organization (a diverse group of women inside and
outside of academia in both English- and French-speaking Canada) began
to discuss computer networking early in 1987. Around that time, a few
of the women who had access to institutional computers began to
exchange messages electronically. In November of 1987, hands-on
training was provided for board and committee members. Since that
time, the executive and some members of the board have been brought
on-line (Assheton-Smith, 1988). With board members located from the
Yukon to the Atlantic provinces, it was hoped that electronic mail
would reduce the amount of time required between information
exchanges, as well as the expense associated with long distance
telephone charges. Other somewhat longer-term goals for beginning a
computer network include facilitating the work of individual groups
within the organization and making resources (such as bibliographies)
more accessible to members of the organization. From CRIAW's initial
discussion of computer networking there was an awareness that the
technology lacked standardization and that there would be many
problems to overcome. In addition, beginning with the first discussion
of computer networking at an executive meeting in 1987, there was an
awareness that adoption of networking technology could create a
two-tiered organization, with women who lacked access to mainframe
computers, who were in rural areas (and lacked access to a value-added
carrier) and/or working in community groups less able to participate
in an on-line communication process. Even though CRIAW was aware that
it wanted to build an open communication structure (rather than one
that intensified elite processes), the organization did not initially
address the problem of differences in access to an electronic
communication system based on the preferred language of the speaker
(Assheton-Smith, 1988).

A decision was made to first attempt to get CRIAW's executive
communicating via computer. Even though access to and familiarity with
computers varied a great deal amongst members of the executive, and no
real budget for the project existed (repeated attempts were made to
secure external funding to launch the project), in Assheton-Smith's
words, "as frequently happens in women's work, we had to determine how
to make our 'real' situations work, patching together our anarchic
realities" (1988: 4). Since several of the executive board members
were institutionally-based and a few had begun exchanging electronic
mail, a decision was made to build on institutional access to
equipment, and at the same time secure access to the system for
non-institutionally- based board members. In some cases this meant
access to equipment (such as modems) and in other cases it meant
access to donated university computer accounts. Additional efforts
were made to familiarize board members with the intricacies of
computer networking technology (Assheton-Smith, 1988). In 1988, I
spent a week in the CRIAW office in Ottawa working with the office
staff around computer networking. Between 1987 and 1989 CRIAW
confronted many problems related to computer networking. Not all of
these problems have been resolved. Several problems arose in the
initial hands-on workshop conducted for CRIAW in 1987. These included
an emphasis on IBM-compatible computers (several of the board members
had Apple Macintosh computers and found it difficult to relate the
material presented to their situations), the fact that the workshop
was unilingual, and the unfamiliarity of workshop presenters with
either computer access in Quebec or the availability and intricacies
of French-language software.

With almost no budget, no capacity to purchase needed equipment, and
no in-house computing talent, CRIAW board members began communicating
via computer. At that time, three women had university access to a
mainframe (although each accessed their local mainframe through a
unique combination of hardware and software), and two potential
participants (one in Inuvik and one in Montreal) had access to
computers, modems and software, but lacked access to a mainframe
computer that would allow them to communicate with anyone else on the
board (Assheton-Smith, 1988). A number of difficulties arose. The
three women with access to university mainframes began to communicate
relatively quickly, despite problems they encountered related to
addressing and computer breakdowns. When Carleton University offered
to donate additional computer accounts, a decision was made to use
those accounts to provide the non-university women in Inuvik and
Montreal with access to other communicators. The Carleton computer was
not only difficult to learn and use, but Carleton computing staff also
lacked information that CRIAW needed. Finally, the Carleton computer
had built-in limitations that made it impossible for CRIAW to easily
distribute messages to all potential participants. While the board
member in Inuvik had an account on the Carleton mainframe, there was
no Datapac node in Inuvik. This meant that there was no
straightforward way for the woman in Inuvik to access the Carleton
computer without spending large amounts of money on either long
distance telephone charges or charges incurred through accessing the
Carleton computer via a costly commercial network (Assheton-Smith,
1988). CRIAW staff members at times found it difficult to meet their
day-to-day work obligations as they struggled to master the new
communication system.

To their credit, CRIAW board members have continued to use computer
networking to meet some of their communication needs. The early years
of experimentation and a lack of funding with which to further develop
the organization's computer communication capacities have led CRIAW to
revise its expectations. CRIAW's use of computer networks raises
several issues related to access and brings these complex issues into
sharper focus. Perhaps more than any of the computer network
implementations discussed thus far, CRIAW has attempted to facilitate
communication via computer between several distinct (and at times
overlapping) groups. Among the differences CRIAW has attempted to
transcend via computer networking are linguistic differences,
geographic distances, differential access to resources (for example,
by providing some potential participants with modems and/or access to
university-based computer networks), and differences in knowledge
related to computer networking. Their use of computer networking in an
organizational context has hinted at issues related to additional
demands placed on staff members, and the possibility of computer
networking in an organizational context leading to a redistribution of
staff responsibilities.

The American Association of University Women

Another women's organization that has attempted to meet some of its
communication needs via computer is the American Association of
University Women (AAUW). AAUW, like CRIAW, is a national organization.
Unlike CRIAW, membership is only open to women with university
degrees. AAUW's interest in computer networks and the social impacts
of technology dates back to the early 1980s. Interest in computer
networking technology resulted in a hands-on computer networking
workshop for members of the Idaho chapter in 1986. For a few years it
appeared that interest was waning, yet in December of 1989 the
Association began to offer computer networking services through an
arrangement with The Source, a large commercial computer network.

Although the AAUW National Office has its own mini- computer donated
by the Digital Equipment Corporation, in meeting their computer
networking needs, they negotiated an agreement with The Source; when
The Source was acquired by CompuServe, the agreement was transferred
to CompuServe. Perhaps one of the factors that led to AAUW's decision
to use The Source was the concern expressed by staff that the office
would be swamped with information requests, and the desire to keep
their in-house computer system from being overloaded. They had
envisioned a computer system that would allow AAUW to drop information
onto the network, but would prohibit network users from passing
information back to the AAUW office via computer network. As
originally conceived, the system was intended for AAUW leaders, who
would be trained to use it. If successful, the network would be opened
to the general membership.

The board of AAUW, perhaps because they lacked a general understanding
of computer networks, was scarcely involved in decisions related to
its implementation. One member recalls that the proposal to use The
Source was presented to the Board as an "either/or" issue, and the
proposal was not discussed by the Board in analytical terms. A member
commented that it was just simply doomed from the outset. By the time
the network was introduced in December 1989, the notion of developing
a core of competent, trained users had been lost. The system was
introduced to the entire membership at once. Like the Amazon Line,
AAUW had failed to provide training or information about what computer
networking required in terms of hardware, software, or access. By June
1990, The Source had been acquired by CompuServe, and only ten people
were using CompuServe to communicate with other AAUW members (Sara
Harder, Personal Communication, May 1991). By the fall of that year,
any visibility AAUW might have had on CompuServe had vanished.
CompuServe management was unaware of AAUW's use of that network, and a
keyword search for AAUW users in the CompuServe directory produced no
results.

Although all of the factors that contributed to the failure of AAUW's
efforts are unknown, it is possible that one of the factors was the
sale of The Source to CompuServe. Perhaps the initial announcement
that AAUW members could communicate via computer encouraged some to
acquire access to computers and/or the expertise to connect to a
computer netework. The process of acquiring computer equipment,
gaining a sense of how it works and beginning to use it for computer
networking often takes an inexperienced user a year or longer. It may
be that by the time some users were ready to connect to The Source it
had vanished. Although anyone who had an account on The Source was
given a complimentary account on CompuServe at the time The Source was
sold, potential Source users would not have known that AAUW's
networking resources had been transferred to CompuServe. AAUW's
experiences with computer networking suggest that an issue warranting
further consideration is that of who owns the resources that support a
group's on-line communication (this issue is addressed again later).

Each of these examples highlights two points that are often left
unaddressed in promotional literature about computer networks. First,
in order for an organization to obtain or create a computer networking
system that meets its needs, it must have a clear example of what any
particular system can or cannot do. CRIAW's experiences provide a good
example of how a lack of understanding of the relationship between
network structure and an array of communication options can discourage
potential users. Secondly, as both experiences with the Amazon Line
and AAUW attest, a tacit assumption is made that a potential computer
network user will be able to manage the negotiation and purchase of a
computer system to meet their networking needs, and further be able to
set the equipment up and have it function in a home environment.
Experiences with each of these networks, as well as the success of the
Women's Bulletin Board (founders of which often made "house calls" to
troubled users), suggest that such an assumption is inappropriate for
women users. While it could be argued that men also need assistance in
setting up computers and gaining access to computer networks, as
Benston (1988) points out, for men access to assistance is often
secured through male peer groups that are not equally accessible to
women. Benston (1986, 1989) further argues that the difficulties women
experience in gaining access to scientific knowledge are heightened by
the notion that scientific experts have both privilege and authority;
traditional female socialization often makes it difficult to challenge
(or even assimilate) scientific knowledge.

(4) Access To Computer Networks In The Context Of Organizational
Structure

With such great variation in the goals of feminist organizations,
their infrastructures and characteristics, there are no hard and fast
rules to govern the introduction of computers in general, and computer
networks in particular, into feminist organizations. Clearly, the
introduction of computer networks into feminist organizations will add
an additional layer of complexity to what is in many cases already a
complex and unstable organizational environment.

Contributors to the collection _Computers for Social Change and
Community Organizing_ (Downing et al., 1991) identify several issues
that have emerged in their efforts to implement computer systems in
social change organizations. Fasano and Shapiro describe these
organizations as "small non-profit political and community-based
organizations ... with small staffs, low budgets, lack of formal
bureaucracies :that are: value- driven" (1991: 130). These
organizations are structurally similar to women's organizations, and
hence can provide valuable insights into the use of computer networks
by women's organizations.

Cordero (1991), in writing about a non-profit community development
organization, reports that internal organizational problems related to
a new computer system revolved around training and staffing. She found
that it was easier to obtain funds for hardware or donations of
hardware than it was to obtain funds for staff, training or software.
Observations of a St. John's, Newfoundland women's organization
suggest that this situation also exists in women's organizations. In
the organization Cordero writes about, college interns with little
commitment to the organization carried out initial programming tasks.
The resultant system had many "bugs" in the form of technical
problems. High staff turnover made it difficult to both train people
to use the new computer system and obtain information about its
effectiveness.

In Cordero's workplace, the organization benefited from having one
person assigned the responsibility of maintaining the computer system.
In addition, a computer specialist (employed part-time as a
consultant) was involved in computer implementation on an ongoing
basis. Finally, Cordero (1991) observed that even when a need for
computers is recognized and computer facilities exist within an
organization, individuals may not use computers because they lack the
time to learn (Balka, 1986 reports a similar phenomenon). To counter
these difficulties, Cordero advocated computer support groups geared
towards non-profit organizations.

Several of the computer consultants specializing in non-profits that
Fasano and Shapiro (1991) interviewed reported problems when
organizations did not have a person in the organization who was
willing to "champion the process" of computerization. A woman
consultant stated that:

I, in fact, don't even take jobs now unless an organization has one
person who is the computer champion/guru. And if an organization can't
come up with that person, then I tell them they're not ready to
install a database system (1991: 132).

The quotation suggests that specialization of tasks may be desirable
in the implementation of computers within an organizational context.
Along these lines, the Femail mailing list benefited from the
assignment of group moderation tasks to one person. And, perhaps the
greatest problem with the Women's Bulletin Board System was that,
although different women performed different tasks related to the
maintenance of that system, areas of the WBBS set aside for
broadcasting information were chronically under-utilized. The task of
placing information on broadcast areas of the WBBS was left
unassigned.

Ironically, although collectivist feminist organizations have stressed
the development of skill and sharing of work tasks, observations
suggest that with regard to the use of computer systems these noble
goals have frequently been abandoned. Often male friends of collective
members voluntarily maintain an organization's computer systems for a
period of time, or consultants are hired to fix what seems like an
endless stream of computer problems. In both collectivist and
bureaucratic organizations, the skill required to maintain computer
systems is rarely available in-house, and despite an awareness of both
work processes and group process, computer systems have fallen outside
the realm of feminist analyses and practices.

In the few cases where information is available about the use of
computer networking systems in feminist organizations, overworked
staff members have consistently expressed concern about the increased
tasks related to their usage. Despite rhetoric about the equal
valuation of traditional women's work and work usually performed by
men (such as management tasks), one interviewee (who maintained her
organization's computer systems) indicated that in her organization
computer work was equated with clerical work, and was devalued.
Preliminary research conducted by a student in a communications
research methods course I taught at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 1989 indicated that in one Vancouver women's organization, all
work that required use of a computer was conducted by volunteers
rather than paid staff. In that organization, a paid consultant was
responsible for implementing and maintaining the organization's
computer systems.

Despite these potential problems, computer networks can potentially be
used to perform tasks in which many organizations are already engaged
(such as the collection and sharing of information) _and_ to expand
the scope of an organization's activities. In the tradition of good
feminist organizing, the adoption of computer networks by feminist
organizations should be accompanied by a heightened awareness of group
process and concern for working conditions. In addition, organizations
should engage in an explicit process that allows groups to articulate
the social goals they wish to attain in adopting computer networking
technology. The adoption of computer networks by feminist
organizations should address explicit social goals, rather than foster
what merely is possible with off-the-shelf hardware and software.
Extensive care should be taken to ensure that whatever system is
selected will meet the communicative goals explicitly articulated by
group members.

Conclusion

Perhaps the greatest issue faced by the women's movement with respect
to the adoption of computer networking technology is access. Access
becomes an issue at several levels. The first relates to communication
constraints imposed by the infrastructure of data lines and
value-added carriers. As discussed, access to computer networks is
also determined by the location of networks and terminals: whether
they are located in a public place and available for use free of
charge as Community Memory terminals were, or whether they are located
in a private home or office.

Although many women's centres and organizations in Canada currently
own microcomputers and modems, for the most part these organizations
do not have access to a computer network. Although the location of
computers and modems in women's centres and organizations may be an
important step in widening the sphere of access to feminist computer
networks, the accessibility of the equipment and the existence of a
network to call do not guarantee that potential users will have access
to computer networking. The third level of access that must be
addressed if computer networks are to be successfully utilized for
feminist dialogue and organizing is access to the knowledge and
related support mechanisms that will allow a novice user to
successfully contact a computer network. The feasibility of providing
adequate user support services increases when network use occurs on a
co-ordinated rather than episodic basis.

If French-speaking and English-speaking feminists wish to communicate
via computer network, steps will need to be taken to ensure that the
development of adequate bilingual software is developed. (SoliNet,
operated by the Canadian Union of Public Employees currently uses
software that allows a user to interact with the computer in either
French or English, but offers no translation capabilities.)

Finally, communication by computer offers some interesting
communication possibilities that may enhance the ability of Canadian
women's organizations to communicate about difficult issues. For
example, an implementation of an on-line Delphi polling system that
allows unsigned responses might allow system users to communicate
candidly and honestly about difficult issues while encouraging
participants to think before speaking. A widely accessible computer
network could increase the number of voices represented in an
organization's decision-making process. To realize these goals,
however, feminists will need to apply the insights gained from years
of productive organizing, and at the same time investigate the social
biases of technological systems that, left unconsidered, threaten to
create computer networking systems which reproduce rather than
challenge the power relations characteristic of western capitalist
societies.


NOTES

:1: See Chapter 2 of Balka (1992) for a discussion of the history of
computer networks which contextualizes the free distribution of
software.

:2: The unrestricted readership of Usenet news groups is a social
decision, supported by technical design.

:3: "/Talk" is the name of the CompuServe command that invokes private
communication within the CIS CB simulator software.

:4: See also Benston (1988), Bernard (1983), Bush (1983) and Cooley
(1980).

:5: Usenet software allows users to supply aliases for a number of
elements in message headers, including name, organizational
affilitation, and name of sending computer.

:6: While an examination of date headers in the sample showed
forty-four different days, these messages were collected over
fifty-two days. Because Soc.women messages are deleted from the host
node regularly and technical difficulties (such as inadequate disk
space on the host machine) result in the host node from time to time
rejecting its messages, gaps exist in the sample. Data were collected
over fifty two days, with no messages from eight days, and a low
volume of messages on thirteen of the forty four days. Low message
volume may indicate that not all messages were received for those
days. Similar conditions are likely to apply to other Usenet sites
receiving Soc.women.

:7: One per cent of Femail messages were authored by three per cent of
contributors whose gender could not be determined from either names or
message content.

:8: Message dates used here span the entire month of February,
although access to CIS for this sample occurred between 6 and 28
February.

:9: Since not all contributors are located in the Eastern time zone,
these figures should be considered estimates.


REFERENCES

Anderson, Bart, Bryan Costales and Harry Henderson (1987). Unix
Communications. Indianapolis: Howard W. Sams.

Assheton-Smith, Marilyn (1988). "Communicating: The feminist and
electronic mail." Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of
the CRIAW, Quebec City, 12 November.

Balka, Ellen (1986). Women and Workplace Technology: Educational
Strategies for Change. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Simon Fraser
University.

Balka, Ellen (1992). Womantalk Goes On-line: The Use of Computer
Networks in the Context of Feminist Social Change. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

Benston, Margaret (1986). "Questioning authority: Feminism and
scientific expertise." Resources for Feminist Research 15 (3): 71-73.

Benston, Margaret (1988). "Women's voices/men's voices: Technology as
language." In Technology and Women's Voices: Keeping in Touch, ed. C.
Kramarae. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Benston, Margaret (1989). "Feminism and systems design: Questions of
control." In The Effects of Feminist Approaches on Research
Methodologies, ed. W. Tomm. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Bernard, Elaine (1983). "Technological impact: The hidden bias in
machine design." Proceedings of the First National Conference for
Women in Science and Technology. Vancouver: SWIST.

Bowen, Pamela (1991a). CompuServe transcripts :Machine readable data
file: Message dated 27 February 1988:. Burnaby, British Columbia:
Simon Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer),
Simon Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Bowen, Pamela (1991b). CompuServe transcripts :Machine readable data
file: Message dated 17 February 1988:. Burnaby, British Columbia:
Simon Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer),
Simon Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Brilliant, Lawrence B. (1985). "Computer conferencing: The global
connection." Byte 10 (13).

Bush, Corlann G. (1983). "Women and the assessment of technology: To
Think, to be; to unthink, to free." In Machina Ex Dea: Feminist
Perspectives on Technology, ed. J. Rothschild. New York: Pergamon.

Casal, Elvira (1991a). CompuServe transcripts :Machine readable data
file: Message dated 18 January 1988:. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon
Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer), Simon
Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Casal, Elvira (1991b). CompuServe transcripts :Machine readable data
file: Message dated 8 February 1988:. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon
Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer), Simon
Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Casal, Elvira (1991c). CompuServe transcripts :Machine readable data
file: Message dated 26 January 1988:. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon
Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer), Simon
Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Cooley, Mike (1980). Architect or Bee? Boston: South End Press.

Cordero, Alison (1991). "Computers and community organizing: Issues
and examples from New York City." In Computers for Social Change and
Community Organizing, ed. J. Downing, R. Fasano, P.A. Friedland, M.
McCullough, T. Mizrahi and J. Shapiro. New York: Haworth.

De Marrais, Robert (1985). "The babble of computer languages." In
Digital Deli, ed. S. Ditlea. New York: Workman.

Downing, John, Rob Fasano, Patricia A. Friedland, Mike McCullough,
Terry Mizrahi and Jeremy Shapiro, eds. (1991). Computers for Social
Change and Community Organizing. New York: Haworth.

Fasano, Rob and Jeremy Shapiro (1991). "Computerizing the small
non-profit: Computer consultants' perspectives." In Computers for
Social Change and Community Organizing, ed. J. Downing, R. Fasano,
P.A. Friedland, M. McCullough, T. Mizrahi and J. Shapiro. New York:
Haworth.

Femail transcripts, 1984-1988 (1991). :Machine readable data file:.
Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, Department of
Women's Studies (Producer), Simon Fraser University Data Library
(Distributor).

Gabree, John (1984). "Computers, cable and the future." In Digital
Deli, ed. S. Ditlea. New York: Workman.

Gerber, Carole H. (1989). "Online yesterday, today and tomorrow: The
CompuServe Information Service celebrates its tenth anniversary."
Online Today: 12-19.

Gilmore, Jerry and Gene Spafford (1991). Usenet history transcripts
:Machine readable data file: Message-ID: [e-mail]:.
Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, Department of
Women's Studies (Producer), Simon Fraser University Data Library
(Distributor).

Gregbo (1991). Usenet transcripts :Machine readable data file:
Message-In-Reply-To: [e-mail]:. Burnaby, British Columbia:
Simon Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer),
Simon Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).

Karpf, Anne (1987). "Recent feminist approaches to women and
technology." Radical Science Journal 19: 158- 170.

Kleiner, Art (1981). "Life on the computer network frontier." In The
Last Whole Earth Catalogue, ed. S. Brand. Sausilito, California: Whole
Earth.

Knight, Timothy O. (1983). The World Connection. Indianapolis: Howard
W. Sams.

Kramarae, Cheris (1988). "Preface." In Technology and Women's Voices:
Keeping in Touch, ed. C. Kramarae. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Leary, Timothy (1974). "Personal computers/personal freedom." In
Digital Deli, ed. S.Ditlea. New York: Workman.

Linn, Pam (1987). "Gender stereotypes, technology stereotypes."
Radical Science Journal 19: 127-151.

McCullough, Mike (1991). "Democratic questions for the computer age."
In Computers for Social Change and Community Organizing, ed. J.
Downing, R. Fasano, P.A. Friedland, M. McCullough, T. Mizrahi and J.
Shapiro. New York: Haworth.

Noble, David F. (1979). "Social choice in machine design: The case of
automatically controlled machine tools." In Case Studies of the Labour
Process, ed. A. Zimbalist. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Ruthven, Kenneth (1983). Society and the New Technology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. (1990). Texts, Facts and Femininity: Exploring the
Relations of Ruling. New York: Routledge.

Soc.women transcripts (1991). :Machine readable data file:. Burnaby,
British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, Department of Women's
Studies (Producer), Simon Fraser University Data Library
(Distributor).

Spafford, Gene (1991). Usenet history transcripts :Machine readable
data file:. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University,
Department of Women's Studies (Producer), Simon Fraser University Data
Library (Distributor).

Waite, Mitchell (1987). "Introductory illuminations." In Unix Papers
for Developers and Power Users, ed. M. Waite. Indianapolis: Howard W.
Sams.

Women's Bulletin Board System transcripts (1991). :Machine readable
data file:. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University,
Department of Women's Studies (Producer), Simon Fraser University Data
Library (Distributor).

Woods, Greg (1991). Usenet transcripts :Machine readable data file:
Message-In-Reply-To: [e-mail]:. Burnaby, British Columbia:
Simon Fraser University, Department of Women's Studies (Producer),
Simon Fraser University Data Library (Distributor).