Journal of Peer Production

ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net

Feminist Hackerspaces: The Synthesis of Feminist and Hacker Cultures

Sophie Toupin

Abstract:

This paper examines the recent emergence of feminist hackerspaces in the United States. As little data exist on this practice, this paper is based on interviews
undertaken with intersectional feminist, queer and trans hackers who have been involved in the development of feminist hackerspaces. Through this paper, I
demonstrate that for feminist hackers, makers and geeks the open space concept enshrined as the core of the standard hackerspace model is largely
undesirable. They envisage a different role for their hackerspaces, one in which boundaries offer both safety and a platform for political resistance. In doing so
the trajectories of hacker and feminist culture are brought together.

Keywords: feminism, hackers, hackerspaces, diversity, inclusion, separatism, intersectionality, LGBTQ, technology, techno-feminism

Sophie Toupin (2012) calls “pushyocratic” cultures). These tensions within hackerspaces
and the hacker community (see Spinks 2013; Wolf 2012) have led some
feminist hackers, makers and geeks to desire spaces of their own, framed
Introduction by their own boundaries.
Between 2013 and 2014 three new hackerspaces popped up in rapid
The following women-centered/feminist and/or people of color-led
succession along the west coast of the USA. These spaces were significant;
hackerspaces have emerged in the past years: Mz Baltazar’s Laboratory in
they offered, for the first time, a clear vision of how intersectionally-
Vienna (feminist space created in 2008-2009), Liberating Ourselves
inflected feminist principles might inform a new breed of hackerspaces.
Locally in Oakland (people of color space created in 2012), Mothership
New models of hackerspaces seemed capable of narrowing the gap
Hackermoms in Berkley (women-centered space created in 2012), Seattle
between hacker and feminist cultures.
Attic in Seattle (intersectional feminist space created in 2013), Flux in
Portland (intersectional feminist space created in 2013), Double Union in
Feminist hacker, maker and geek initiatives have existed, in the USA and
San Francisco (intersectional feminist space created in 2013) and Hacker
elsewhere, under different shapes and forms — both physical and virtual —
Gals in Michigan (women-centered space created in 2014).
for more than a decade. North American feminist geeks connect virtually
via Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Twitter or the Geek Feminism wiki and
In this article, I apply feminist standpoint theory in order to better
blog, meet face-to-face at conferences (such as WisCon — a feminist sci-fi
understand the ideologies at work in feminist hackerspaces and the
convention — Ada Camps, and others) and participate in groups such as
communities, which surround them. Practically, this means analyzing the
LinuxChix, Lady Py and Girl Geek Dinners. But until recently, more
unique experiences and positions of the women, genderqueer and trans
permanent hackerspaces attuned to feminist principles have been largely
individuals who comprise the membership of these hackerspaces. As most
nonexistent.
of these recently created spaces adopt principles of intersectional
feminism, I will at times adopt the framework in my own analysis.
Hackerspaces have spread rapidly across North America throughout the
Intersectional feminism is a framework that looks at the world through
past five years. They have been influenced by the dominant German
plural perspectives highlighting the relationship and intersection between
model, based on a particular understanding of openness: anyone interested
gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, ethnicity, class, among
in hacking and technology is welcome to attend open nights and,
others. At a practical level, intersectional feminist hackerspaces aim at
ultimately, become a member. Despite the ideal of openness at the heart of
being inclusive in creating safer space while also recognizing privileges
this model, groups such as women, queers, people of color, etc. have
that certain individuals have in society and which play out in hackerspaces.
remained either largely underrepresented or completely absent from these
Also, I will argue that feminist hackerspaces’ contribution is towards a
spaces. In order to attempt to correct this lack of diversity, a number of
different understanding of the concept of openness based on feminist
hackerspaces have crafted or proposed remedial strategies, such as women-
principles. Feminists debunk the myth of openness and meritocracy
only hack nights and the adoption of codes of conduct, among others.
associated with hackerspaces culture, question the use and/or the
Some of these strategies, such as the women-only hack night, have been
narrowness of the term hacker and hacking in addition to foregrounding a
met with controversy; It is and often deemed to go against the sacrosanct
new understanding of openness which is at the intersection of feminist and
principle of openness.
hacker culture. My focus is less on the subject of feminism, and its
tensions, but rather on the ways in which feminist hackerspaces are
As a new phenomenon, very little scholarly work has appeared on the
redefining and reconfiguring the meaning of openness, which is what
subject of feminist hackerspaces to date. However, criticisms of
unites them. This helps not get bogged down by irreconcilable tensions,
mainstream hackerspaces have appeared recently in personal and non-
but nonetheless does not shy away from outlining them. Moreover, I will
scholarly venues, written primarily by feminist hackers, makers and geeks.
argue that feminist hackerspaces function as the spatial manifestation of a
These written tracts have been buttressed by numerous informal and verbal
feminist hacker, maker and geek culture. The emergence of feminist
discussions on the subject — and as a result there has appeared a marked
hackerspaces furthers the visibility of feminist hackers, makers and geeks
desire to rethink the core concept of openness from the perspective of
and seemingly helps cement a different social imaginary of feminist
feminist hackers, makers and geeks (see Henry 2014; Toupin 2013). [i]
hacking practices. Their shared vision enables them to maintain a certain
Critics have highlighted the need for spaces to enable feelings of safety
form of association, or what Kelty (2008) calls a recursive public, while
rather than simply openness. They also point to issues of privilege
not necessitating the establishment of identical boundaries in their
commonly obscured by open and meritocratic cultures (or what Nafus

page 1 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net

respective spaces. The different feminist practices that are embodied in the
newly created feminist spaces of hacking help move scholarship away
from discussions of female hackers (Adam 2003; Jordan & Taylor 2004;
Taylor 2003) and their absence, and towards discussions of a vital
community of feminist hackers, makers and geeks. It will become clear
that this community has firmly consolidated its existence through the
establishment of feminist hackerspaces.
Data and Methodology
By combining feminist principles with the popular hackerspace model,
Flux, Double Union and Seattle Attic are unique additions to the US
hacker scene. Together, they represent my primary source of data. Other
hacker- and maker-spaces such as Liberating Ourselves Locally or LOL
(Oakland), Hackermoms (Berkeley), Mz Baltazar’s Laboratory (Vienna)
or Hacker Gals (Michigan) also belong, at least to some degree, to this
new kind of hackerspace — particularly in the way they carefully manage
the boundaries of their space — but they are not directly represented in the
research presented here. A similar line of research relating to people of
color/anti-racist hackerspaces is, in my estimation, deserving of its own
specific analysis. Unfortunately, the length of this article is too short and
the scope too narrow to effectively cover both feminist and people of color
spaces of hacking. I have thus decided to focus this research solely on
feminist hackerspaces and, even more narrowly, on those with
intersectional inflections. This research strives to give voice to the
founders of these initiatives and highlight their reasons for doing so. My
aim is to relay their perspectives, realities, inscriptions and experiences —
positions which are at times marginalized, made invisible or discredited by
the hacker mainstream. In reference to de Lauretis (1988), Skeggs (1997,
25) writes that experience “is the basis of feminism in the sense that
feminism began the moment women started talking to each other about
their experiences.” Presenting experiences showcases specific ways of
seeing the world. As Haraway states, “The struggle over what will count
as rational accounts of the world are struggles over how to see…” (Haraway
1988, 375).
In keeping with feminist standpoint theories (see Haraway 1988; Harding
1986, 2004; Collins 1990), I acknowledge that experiences are processed
through practice, discourse and interpretation (Skeggs 1997). Standpoint
theory originated in Marxist research which sought to elucidate the
experiences of the working class. During the 1970 women’s movement it
was appropriated and transformed into a feminist context (see Jaggar 1983;
Harding 2004, 2009; Hartsock 2004). Harding (2009, 193) argues that
feminist standpoint theory is “committed to the production of information
women want and need in their struggle to survive and flourish,” committed
to the political engagements of oppressed groups (194), not value-neutral
(195) and offers a sound methodology towards the production of
knowledge about marginalized groups, to describe only a few of the
theory’s features.
While feminist standpoint theories have been criticized for valorizing the
agency of those in the margins and for positing chasms between
knowledge communities, Harding (2009, 193) argues that such logics of
inquiry exist unchallenged in other disciplines. They are “widely used in
research projects focused on race, class, sexuality, and studies in
postcolonial research, though in these contexts the logic is only
occasionally labeled as being in the standpoint tradition,” she writes. I
acknowledge a tension in the following research between speaking and
silencing (see Skeggs 1997 for more on this distinction): by focusing on
the voices of the creators of feminist hackerspaces, the voices from the
mainstream hackerspace culture can incidentally be silenced. However,
this can be seen as balanced by broader discourse; While the study of
hackerspaces is relatively new, voices and practices from mainstream
hackerspaces are represented regularly — and routinely omit feminist and
post-colonial stances (see Farr 2009; Grenzfurthner and Schneider 2009;
Kostakis, Niaros and Giotitsas 2014; Maxigas 2012).
In this contribution I hope to promote and make visible the feminist
component of this flourishing culture. As an activist and independent
researcher involved in the creation of a feminist hackerspace in Montreal
called FemHack (previously known as FouFem), and a participant at Ada
Camps, my interest in the emergence of other feminist hackerspaces is
natural. Learning about Flux, Double Union and Seattle Attic via mailing
lists and twitter feeds, I decided to investigate further. From November
2013 to January 2014 I conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with
the women, queer and self-identified women involved with these spaces.
Each lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. Follow up emails were also sent
to some of the interviewees as a way to continue the discussion and to
clarify certain points. When reaching out to feminist hacker, maker and
geek activists, I have always offered to use encrypted means of
communication to ensure safety and confidentiality. Additionally, all
quotes in this article have been anonymized to ensure interviewees’
further protection.
While every hackerspace featured in this study identifies as feminist, they
do not all identify as women-only — understandings of feminism differ
from space to space. However, all interview subjects identify as women,
queer or trans. It is worth noting that the majority were Caucasian, abled
and from middle class backgrounds. As a point of clarification, I would
like to point out that not all women, queer or trans individuals feel attuned
to a feminist stance or, when they do, share the same feminist principles.
Feminism, like any other theory or praxis, varies in its principles and
manifestations — at times differences are irreconcilable. Additionally, not
all women, queer and trans persons feel the need to belong to or take part
in a feminist hackerspace. There are also male-bodied and male-
identifying people who want to be part of such endeavors. This
clarification is part of the non-essentialist feminist stance I am attempting
to adopt in this article.
Using a feminist methodology to write this article also demonstrates that
feminist issues are crucial to understand the experiences of those who do
not identify and/or fit in the dominant hacker/hackerspace culture (see
Nafus 2012). This article contributes by recording the histories and
experiences of feminists in the context of the broader hackerspace
community. Keeping in mind the existent diversity in hacker practices and
values (Coleman & Golub 2008), I maintain that feminist hackerspaces
represent a break from many tenets of the mainstream hackerspace model
and enable some new practices for feminist hackers, makers and geeks.
Many tensions exist in hacker culture and are highlighted by a feminist
analysis: the tensions surrounding liberalism in hacker culture (Coleman &
Golub 2008), the meaning of openness in Free, Libre and Open Source
Software (FLOSS) design and participation (Nafus 2012), and (highlighted
most specifically in this article) the meaning of openness in hackerspace
culture. Given the current paucity of literature on the subject of feminist
hackerspaces, the research and analysis which follows is deemed
significant.
Feminism and Intersectionality
Feminism has been under strain in recent years. In the late 1990s, intense
debate over difference and identity left feminist academics exhausted
(Carbin & Edenheim 2013). Differing strands of feminism became
embattled, particularly on the subject of identity. For instance, Brown
recognizes that identity-based claims are part of a liberal discourse that
legitimates identities (Brown 1995). She states that “politicized identities
are generated out of liberal, disciplinary societies” and are part of late
capitalist formations (Brown 1995, 65). Intersectionality has taken hold
among many feminists as a way around these divisions. In fact, Nash
argues that intersectionality provides a “vocabulary to respond to critiques
of identity politics” (2008, 2).
The term has become a buzzword in feminist circles. In the most typical
formulation, intersectionality highlights a desire to see the world from
intersecting, pluralist perspectives — this is to say, considering as many
different experiences as possible. Intersectional feminists argue that
feminism cannot be studied, understood, or practiced from a single,

page 2 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net
immediate, standpoint; understanding requires engagement with culture,
class, sexuality, ethnicity, gender and other power structures which
engender inequality. American sociologist McCall defines intersectionality
as the “relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social
relations and subject formations” (2005, 1771). Nash defines it in the
following terms: “Intersectionality, the notion that subjectivity is
constituted by mutually reinforcing vectors of race, gender, class, and
sexuality, has emerged as the primary theoretical tool designed to combat
feminist hierarchy, hegemony, and exclusivity” (2008, 2).
Many scholars locate Crenshaw’s 1991 article “Mapping the Margins:
Intersectionality, identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color”
as the concept’s origin point. This article and the subsequent work of Hill-
Collins (1990, 1998) drew upon radical black American feminist writing to
show, for example, how white feminists excluded black women from the
feminist movement by setting a white, middle-class agenda. In Collins’
work, for instance, the development of black feminist thought is explicitly
linked to black feminist experience. The result is an example of feminist
standpoint epistemology.
According to Carbin & Edenheim (2013, 235), Collins and Crenshaw’s
use of intersectionality was to highlight the different power structures at
play in feminist and anti-racists movements. Moreover, Nash argues that
Crenshaw engaged with legal questions as a means to criticize identity
politics: “While liberal critiques of identity politics criticize its failure to
transcend difference, Crenshaw argues that the real problem of identity
politics is that it elides intra-group difference, a problem that
intersectionality purports to solve by exposing differences within the broad
categories of ‘women’ and ‘blacks’” (2008, 2). Other scholars,
influenced more by structuralist ontologies than by American radical black
feminism, have attempted to utilize the principles of intersectionality at the
levels of theory (Yuval-Davis 2006), methodology (McCall 2005) and
paradigm (Hancock 2007). McCall, particularly in an article titled “The
complexity of intersectionality” (2005), attempts to elaborate the concept
into a common grounding for all feminist research.
As an epistemological complement to standpoint theory, intersectionality
embraces the inclusion of many voices in its account of social reality
construction (Mann 2013). It also recognizes the political potential for
unvalued knowledge to undermine dominant discourses and proposes ways
of seeing which run counter to those normalized (Mann 2013). But
intersectionality also draws criticism on multiple fronts (see Nash 2008).
Scholars such as Skeggs (1997, 2004) suggest that equivalent gender, race
and/or class analyses are often performed without drawing upon an
intersectional framework. In the words of Nash, intersectionality has
simply “provided a name to a pre-existing theoretical and political
commitment” (2008, 3). Moreover, critics have argued that the all-
inclusive agenda of intersectionality might itself mask the exercise of
certain power dynamics, obscuring opportunities for intervention in the
process. When taken as a guarantor of inclusive politics, intersectionality
might actually “impede profound engagement with racism, since attention
to the ‘intersections’ rarely serves to transform relations of power,” as
Carastathis describes it in her PhD dissertation (2008, 15). Increasingly,
she elaborates, referral to intersectionality has become a way to embody a
non-racist feminist identity–enabling, in some ways, the compromising
history of white feminism to be forgotten.
In practice, intersectional feminism aims at acknowledging and tackling
privileges, oppression and relations of domination which manifest
themselves in a variety of forms. It is the dominant theory used by feminist
hackers, makers and geeks in the US in order not only to make room for
diverse voices, but more importantly to take into consideration the
histories and lives of individuals whose experiences have often been
ignored, dismissed or silenced. It is a way to bring light and ultimately to
challenge systems of oppression. Intersectional feminism tries to be
inclusive in a radical way in acknowledging the persistence of these
systems and the importance of addressing the structural dimension of
power rather than only looking at individual that are problematic (such as
with the bad apples). For a hackerspace taking an intersectional feminist
stance means that both at an institutional and individual level privileges
and relations of domination are acknowledged, addressed, and challenged.
It is a different kind of ideal than the principle of “openness”. This ideal is
about creating a space where agency, fulfillment, empowerment, diversity,
and social justice is its core.
Brief History of Hackerspaces
Hackerspaces are volunteer-run spaces where one can tinker with
hardware, software or any other types of technology and socialize. Some
write computer code while others solder, play with Arduinos or hack
clothing. Public hackerspaces have existed for a long time in Europe, but
are a relatively recent phenomenon in North America. While private
spaces such as the Boston-based L0pht have existed since the 1990s (Farr
2009), the more-public and open variety only began to mushroom after the
year 2007. This was in part triggered by The Hacker Foundation’s project
Hackers on a Plane (HoaP), which encouraged technologists from North
America to visit hackerspaces in Europe in the lead-up to the 2007 Chaos
Computer Camp (CCC) organized by the largest association of hackers in
the world, the Chaos Computer Club (CCC). A few months later at the
24th annual edition of the Chaos Communication Congress (24C3), a
panel entitled “Building a Hacker Space” gathered a set of common
features into a standard model. And at 25C3, the following year, a panel
examined the phenomenon from an international perspective, inviting
hackers from North America and Europe to share and compare
experiences. That same year the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE)
conference in New York featured a panel entitled “Building Hacker
Spaces everywhere: Your Excuses are Invalid.” Suddenly, the North
American iteration of the movement was full-blown. In recent years,
populist forms of hackerspaces have grown to overshadow older, more
political hacklabs located throughout European social centers and squats
(see Maxigas 2012). According to the inventory provided by
hackerspaces.org, more than 500 hackerspaces are in operation at the time
of writing. Hackerspaces now span the globe: from Seattle to Montreal,
Guatemala city to Amsterdam, Nairobi to Seoul, and on. Whether
established in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, hackerspaces tend to
attract and retain a very specific set of users. Despite attempts at openness
and inclusivity (Tuesdays, for example, are often maintained as night
where all are welcome), hackerspaces have generally found it difficult to
attract and/or retain women, lesbian, gay, trans and queer (LGBTQ)
persons, gender non-conformists and people of color, among others.
The feminist spark
One cannot identify the specific catalyst which provoked the emergence of
feminist hackerspaces; many different trajectories and forces have been
integral in their creation. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that feminist
hackerspaces can trace their genealogy to a dual source, to both hacker and
feminist cultures.
One online project has been particularly central to the rise of feminist
hackerspaces. The Geek Feminism wiki (started in 2008) and its blog
(started in 2009) functioned as a core around which feminist hackers,
makers and geeks could build an online community. The project was, in
many regards, a consciousness raising initiative. Individuals shared
experiences, documenting instances of sexism, sexual harassment and
discrimination which arose in the course of their relationships with geek
culture. [ii] The Geek Feminism project helped highlight the ubiquity of
sexual harassment at tech and open source conferences — topics which
were rarely discussed — and demonstrated that these incidents were not
isolated, but arose as the result of deeply engrained structural problems. In
addition to enabling these vital issues to be discussed, Geek Feminism’s
wiki and blog functioned as the venue through which many feminist geeks
came to know one another. Many of the project’s administrators also
became founding members of feminist hackerspaces. In some ways these
spaces can be understood as extensions of the project Geek Feminism
initiated — they are a direct reaction to the problems identified by its
community, and in many instances have been explicitly designed to offer
page 3 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net
alternatives which might lessen or counter the problems identified and
discussed. Geek Feminism and its participants were starting to hack the
dominant concepts relating to hackerspaces.
A feminist organization called Ada Initiative provided another crucial
thrust towards the establishment of feminist hackerspaces. Founded in
2011, the non-profit supports women involved in FLOSS and the broader
tech industry. Among other activities, Ada Initiative produces codes of
conduct and anti-harassment policies which are then offered to
conferences, hackerspaces and other events for use under a Creative
Commons License. Ada Initiative was established after numerous reports
of groping, sexual assaults and other sexist incidents at conferences
appeared in the Geek Feminism wiki. Many of its founders and advisors
continued to contribute actively to Geek Feminism, and have themselves
initiated feminist hackerspaces. Ada Initiative specifically positions itself
as an intersectional social justice organization, which is open and friendly
to women and gender non-conformists: “The Ada Initiative welcomes
women of all kinds, and specifically welcomes trans women and
genderqueer women. We strive to be an intersectional social justice
organization.” [iii]
The organization also launched Ada Camps, a yearly conference dedicated
to increasing women’s participation in open technology and culture. [iv] It
brings women, queer and trans individuals together to “build community,
discuss issues women have in common across open technology and culture
fields, and find ways to address them.” [v] During the 3rd Ada Camp,
which happened in San Francisco in June 2013, Seattle Attic organized a
presentation on how to build a feminist hackerspace, highlighting the
intersectional dimension. This presentation, and the gathering of feminist,
queer and gender non-conformists helped crystallize feminist hackerspace
projects in the USA by directly inspiring the creation of Flux in Portland,
Oregon and Double Union in San Francisco, California. At present,
discussions to open up additional feminist hackerspaces in Washington,
Chicago, Boston and other cities are ongoing. In some ways, one could
draw parallels between the reception of Seattle Attic’s HowTo workshop
at AdaCamp and the presentation at 24C3 which kicked off the
hackerspace movement more generally. The workshop has clearly been
significant in seeding new feminist hackerspaces. However, a significant
difference lies in the fact that Ada Camps run its discussions using
Chatham House Rule: very little record of Seattle Attic’s workshop is thus
available in the public realm, a trade-off for ensuring the camps function
as a safe space for talking, debating, making and hacking. However, in
keeping with the hackerspace ethos of sharing and openness, design
patterns which explain how to start a feminist hackerspace have been made
available on the Geek Feminism wiki and are a collective endeavor. [vi]
Recursive public
A consideration of Kelty’s (2008) conceptualization of recursive publics is
useful in understanding the feminist hacker, maker and geek cultures that
have created feminist hackerspaces. “Recursive publics are publics
concerned with the ability to build, control, modify, and maintain the
infrastructure that allows them [geeks] to come into being in the first place
and which, in turn, constitutes their everyday practical commitments and
the identities of the participants as creative and autonomous individuals”
(2008, 7). The recursive public of feminist hackers, makers and geeks
differs from the dominant hacker stereotype in significant ways. Their
online embodiment and actions are different from the dominant hacker
(see Coleman 2010, 2012) and feminist hackerspaces distinguish
themselves significantly from the cultures of mainstream hackerspaces
(see Maxigas 2012). While feminist hackers, makers and geeks concern
themselves with advancing online projects like Geek Feminism and offline
projects like Ada initiative — they are also hard at work shaping the very
conditions which underwrite their debates and projects. In other words, a
concern for the kind of hackerspaces they want to hack in — and how such
spaces can be actualized — is at the heart of their association. In some
ways, this social imaginary could be understood as the defining aspect of
feminist hackers, makers and geeks. They want spaces responsive to their
desired boundaries — that they may hack in peace without encountering the
everyday sexism prevalent today both online and off. This recursive aspect
reveals the true significance of feminist hackerspaces, demonstrating how
these individuals work to shape the very institutions which make them
hackers: they hack hackerspaces. While all hackers function as a recursive
public, the establishment of feminist hackerspaces can be regarded as the
first explicit fragmentation to occur within the hackerspace community
itself.
Before I explore the ways in which feminist hackers, makers and geeks
debunk concepts inherent to mainstream hackerspace culture, it seems
useful to show the ways women hackers have been represented in existent
scholarship. As will be clear, current conceptions of feminist hackers,
makers and geeks must be supplemented by appeal to new experiences and
perspectives.
Perception of female hackers and their (in)visibility
For over a decade scholars have asked the same question in different
forms: Where are the women hackers? Why are there so few women
hackers? Are there any women hackers? (Adam 2003; Jordan & Taylor
2004; Taylor 1999; Turkle 1984). Psychoanalysis is often drawn upon to
explain this invisibility or absence: women, it has been suggested, are
simply less interested in penetrating into computer systems. Such
assumptions are typically based on a rigid and narrow understanding of
hacking as an illegal activity perpetrated by hacker criminals (Taylor
1999).
While recognizing that women hackers are relatively underrepresented,
Adam (2003) has argued that from their practice has emerged an ethic
which differs from the one commonly attributed to hacker cultures. She
calls it an “ethic of care” (2003, 143). Adam’s research is interesting and
provided a take on women hackers that was, at the time of its publishing,
unprecedented. Her study fits with what Coleman & Golub (2008) have
demonstrated, the hacker ethic is not a set of uniform values and practices,
but rather is heterogeneous. This is also the nuanced approach I am trying
to take by concentrating on self-defined feminist hackers, makers and
geeks, and their struggle to create space and define their own boundaries.
In this way, I aim to expand a conception of the hacker. I argue that
feminist hackers mark a new development poised to open up the hacker
ecology to further diversity and nuance. While conceptions presented in
scholarship lack robustness, the actions of hackers themselves seek to fill
the void. Today, feminist hackers, makers and geeks are growing loud
following reports of groping, discrimination and harassment. They have
taken a clear stance that codes of conduct are needed in hacker
conferences, hackerspaces and other venues. Some feminist hackers,
makers and geeks have experienced verbal abuse following their online
and offline criticisms of sexism or misogynist behaviors (see Spinks 2013,
Wolf 2012). One hacker I interviewed stated:
A lot of people really appreciate the criticism. The people who
don’t like it are very, very angry. I get rape threats, death threats,
harassing emails. I had to remove all the comments from my blogs.
I can’t read Reddit and Hacker News and my stuff shows up on
4chan.” (Member of a feminist hackerspace, interview, November
22, 2013)
Despite frequent abuse of outspoken feminist hackers, makers and geeks
online, feminist hackerspace initiatives have been mostly accepted in the
hacker, maker and geek culture. Often to the surprise of feminists:
The reaction to our feminist hackerspace has been very positive.
We got a stunning response to our fundraising campaign. It really
exceeded our expectations. That’s definitely encouraging. People
were excited about our space. I am surprised that there was not a
backlash. (Member of a feminist hackerspace, interview, December
10, 2013)
page 4 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net

have felt excluded by dominant hackerspace cultures, they seem anxious to

Boundary setting extend this feeling to the experiences of others. As previously stated,
Double Union, Seattle Attic and Flux each align themselves explicitly as
As has already been noted, feminist hackerspaces have emerged for a
intersectional spaces. The desire to adopt a non-racist feminism which
multitude of reasons. Conflicts inside mainstream hackerspaces; conflicts
avoids the historical pitfalls of white feminist agendas cannot be overstated
over the meaning of openness; difficulties in recognizing and
— but as the following quote highlights, simply advocating these principles
acknowledging privileges along the lines of gender, race, ethnicity and
and claiming intersectionality does not magically eliminate the problems:
class; and patriarchal behaviors offer a handful of reasons and one need
not look far to discover others. Another reason comes from the plainly
The same issue that we see in feminism as a whole we see it in
stated desire to hack in peace: that is, the refusal to tolerate everyday
feminism and tech. It is dominated by white cis-women like me,
sexism in one’s space and the desire to focus economies of attention on
middle class like me who are in these very privileged positions and
feminist projects and ideas without distraction. In what follows, I hope to
dominate the conversation and who are given more space to talk
demonstrate the way feminist culture dovetails with hacker culture in the
about the issues that affect them. Within feminism, we had a huge
creation of feminist hackerspaces. Primarily in the 60s and 70s, but also
marginalization of anybody who did not fit in those specific spaces.
the decades which followed, the need for delineating spaces with clear
Women of color, women with disabilities, trans women,
boundaries was recognized by feminists as a major need. This was
genderqueer women, native women, all on the gendered spectrum.
particularly common during the women’s liberation movement in the US.
(Member of a feminist hackerspace, interview, November 18,
They hosted women-only face-to-face discussions and meetings which
2013)
served primarily emancipatory purposes — aiming to help women
understand that their situation was not unique or uncommon, but was
rather rooted in general, structural and systemic processes. These spaces
Thus, intersectionality is recognized as an important framework for
known as consciousness raising groups also offered relative safety and
feminist hackerspaces. The gender dimension of this framework seems to
collective respite from the patriarchal behaviors found elsewhere such as
be particularly crucial to the setting of boundaries. While the language and
in the leftist movement (Echols 1989).
the boundaries used by the three feminist hackerspaces under study differ,
they all share a belief in the necessity of boundaries as a common
Some of the best-known examples of these spaces are those maintained by
ideological ground. The concomitant rejection of spaces which are
Redstockings, Cell16, The Feminists and New York Radical Feminists
completely “open” in the manner espoused by mainstream hackerspace
(Echols 1989). These groups “agreed that gender, not class or race, was
further unifies their practice. Double Union presents itself as:
the primary contradiction and that all forms of social domination
originated with male supremacy” (Echols 1989, 139). This view grew
[A] feminist makerspace to be located near the Mission in San
from a discontent shared by many white women who had experienced
Francisco. The goal is to create a space where women feel
sexism within the larger leftist movement. Radical-feminists saw female-
comfortable working on projects together: art, writing, computer
only space as instrumental in redressing one of the multiple imbalances
programming, woodworking, printmaking, fabric arts, etc. To keep
they observed in the course of their activism; In these spaces they could
the focus on a great space for women, all members must be
raise awareness about issues of patriarchy and sexism–a term coined in
significantly female-identified. Members can host guests of any
these very discussions. Such views, and their origins among white
gender or age. [vii]
feminists, have however been highly contested by post-colonial and
intersectional scholars (Crenshaw 1989, 1991; Hancock 2007; Hill Collins
1998; McCall 2005) as well as from the points of views of queer (Butler
Seattle Attic embraces a somewhat different set of boundaries, evident in
1990, 2004; Ferguson 2003; Muñoz 2009) and trans ontologies (Salamon
the following description:
2010).
This summer, a group of idealistic intersectional feminists started a
The feminist hackers, makers and geeks who initiated the first feminist
hackerspace in downtown Seattle. […] We’re building something
hackerspaces are aware of these histories — and the hegemonic form of
new and cool in downtown Seattle – a feminist, woman-centered,
feminism which often promoted a white woman’s agenda to the exclusion
and trans- and queer-inclusive space where tinkerers, makers,
of others. This historical awareness that intersectional feminist hackers,
crafters, and hackers of all genders encourage each other to work,
makers and geeks are trying to take coupled with their own felt
teach, learn, and collaborate. [viii]
experiences of marginalization within dominant hackerspace and hacker
cultures, seems to have granted them at least a desire to recognize
analogous forms of oppression. The founders of feminist hackerspaces are
Finally, Flux imagines yet another set of boundaries, open to all genders
trying to recognize and empathize with the oppression of others along
and placing emphasis on social justice politics. They also describe their
similar trajectories, even within social categories beyond their personal
project as an attempt to create a new culture:
experience.
We are working to create a space for a new culture of
I think that the word feminism needs to be constantly qualified to
makers/breakers/fixers and benders in Portland, Oregon. […] We
be explicitly anti-racist and inclusive of queer and trans feminism
recognize that the technology world is often a binder full of
to account for the violent histories of feminisms excluding people.
testosterone, and are working to make technology inclusive for
(Queer Feminist hacker, interview, December 18, 2013)
people of all backgrounds and genders. We do our best to maintain
an explicitly intersectional feminist space that welcomes members
Looking at the history of the feminist movement, we have a terrible
and guests of all genders, racial and cultural backgrounds, and
history with people of color and especially with black women.
levels of ability. We must make our space safe so we can be
When we started our space it was obvious that it would be an
dangerous together! [ix]
intersectional feminist space to try to counter that history. (Member
of a feminist hackerspace, interview, December 10, 2013)
Boundary-making spaces have been utilized differently over time by a
variety of minority groups, including women, people of color, LQBTQ,
Feminist hackerspaces often state that they are intersectional or adopt an
youth, and others. The establishment of boundaries can serve a variety of
intersectional analysis of feminist issues. In this way they express a desire
different goals, in a variety of different contexts. One very powerful
to acknowledge and include many voices. Moreover, as they themselves
explanation in favor of the practice comes from Faith Wilding and Critical

page 5 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net
Art Ensemble.
It should be remembered that separatism among a minoritarian
(disenfranchised) group is not negative. It’s not sexist, it’s not
racist, and it’s not even necessarily a hindrance to democratic
development. There is a distinct difference between using
exclusivity as part of a strategy to make a specific perception or
way of being in the world universal, and using exclusivity as a
means to escape a false universal. There is also a distinct difference
between using exclusion as a means to maintain structures of
domination, and using it as a means to undermine them.
In a chapter entitled “Choosing marginalization as a space of radical
openness”, the pioneering black feminist theorist bell hooks proposes a
form of marginalization which is infused with political potency:
I am located in the margin. I make a definite distinction between
that marginality which is imposed by oppressive structures and that
marginality one chooses as site of resistance — as location of radical
openness and possibility. (1990, 209)
hooks understands separatism as a political act, a response to domination.
Even more, it is a site where participants can be transformed both as
individuals and as a collective. Viewed through such a lens, strategies of
separation and/or boundary-making can be viewed as marginalizing,
isolationist, empowering and politically effective all at the same time, and
without contradiction.
Hacking the space
While feminist hackerspaces grapple, on the one hand, with questions
emerging from their feminist history, they are also firmly embedded in the
hacker and hackerspace culture. True to form, members display curiosity
regarding how things are made, a do-it-yourself and do-it-together
approach to learning, a desire to bond over their love of technology and its
workings, and other hacker truisms. These sentiments were frequently
expressed in my interviews with feminist hackerspace members.
The really cool thing about the Hacker-Maker movement is that
when you come together and share skills and stuff like that, people
who could not change the things around them can. (Co-founder and
Member of a feminist hackerspace, interview, December 18, 2013).
We are trying to pick the good parts. The parts that are about
curiosity, collaboration, and leave [out] the parts that are about shit
testing and, you know, that are about competition. (Co-founder and
Member of a feminist hackerspace, interview, January 2, 2014)
Questions surrounding openness in mainstream hackerspace culture are
intrinsically linked to marked hesitancy in addressing issues of privilege
and meritocracy — what Nafus calls “pushyocracy” (2008). The struggle to
acknowledge, discuss and attempt a resolution to these challenges has
created a level of disillusionment and frustration among feminist hackers,
makers and geeks. Freeman’s (1972) article on the “tyranny of
structurelessness” — a work quoted extensively by the feminist hackers,
makers and geeks interviewed — cautions against open spaces. Freeman
argues that the lack of formal structures (which could be read as
boundaries) deployed by a group or in space ends up favouring those who
already enjoy gender, class, and race privilege, ultimately reinforcing the
informal power of certain individuals or cliques.
Moreover, as Ahmed (2012) underlines, those who would point to sexism
or racism in a space often encounter resistance. She calls such blockages
“walls”. Even after banging ones head against the wall multiple times, an
act which requires physical and emotional labor, “the wall keeps its place
and it is you who gets sore” (Ahmed, 2012, 156). However, for those with
privilege the walls appear transparent leaving them largely unconcerned by
the problems which do not directly affect them. Focusing energy away
from the hard work of breaking walls and towards the creation of
something new has helped feminist hackers, makers and geeks move
forward.
With feminist hackerspace we were able to move forward rather
than try to prove that sexism, racism, misogyny was something that
happened [in hackerspace]. People rarely believe that others are
treated differently because of their race, that they are being
sexually harassed because of their gender. Getting beyond those
101 level conversations and mov[ing] towards something more
productive was amazing. And so having these spaces allows you
not to be run down from dealing with this and eventually stop
because you cannot deal with this anymore. (Member of a feminist
hackerspace, interview, November 18, 2013)
In talking about whether one should struggle to change an existing space
or simply start a new one, one of the co-founders of a feminist hackerspace
said:
One of the realizations I had in starting our hackerspace was that
there was a lot of discussion around cultural change versus creating
new spaces. How toxic and ineffective sometimes it can be to
change spaces. We realize it would be way more fun to set the
boundaries from the get go rather than change the culture of an
already existing space. (Co-founder and Member of a feminist
hackerspace, interview, January 2, 2014)
While some hackerspaces qualify their openness with limited rules — filed
with good intention, such as Noisebridge in San Francisco’s one-rule, ‘be
excellent to each other’–it is often not enough to create spaces where
privileges are acknowledged, challenged and confronted. [x] While the
limitations imposed upon minorities by the dominant white, heterosexual
male culture that typically prevails in hackerspaces is obvious enough,
some feminist hackers, makers and geeks I interviewed also suggested that
the entrenchment of these norms impacted negatively on the very
individuals it supposedly favors.
I found that now, when I look in the [hacker]space that I still love
and am part of, it’s falling into the easy route … of mostly men
sitting around and playing on things and it’s detrimental to them,
and it’s not as diverse as it could be and they are getting very little
out of it in comparison to what the possibilities are.” (Queer
feminist hacker, interview, November 18 and December 6, 2013)
Feminist hackerspaces attempt to open up possibilities for feminist
hackers, makers and geeks by creating spaces where affinities are
prioritized, and a different social imaginary and culture are foregrounded.
By using the F word [feminism] we are filtering [out] a really large
set of assholes and at the same time, in addition to filtering out
assholes, we also positively open[ing] up possibilities for people
who, you know, will be making jokes involving feminist theory —
and that’s a pretty unique set of filters.” (Co-founder and Member
of a feminist hackerspace, interview, January 2, 2014)
People felt they were not welcome in hacker-maker spaces and
decided to set up their own spaces. They set up their own political
space. (Queer feminist hacker, interview, November 18 and
December 6, 2013)
It is about being able to go to a place and work on something you
are passionate about without worrying constantly about protecting
yourself, defending yourself, explaining yourselves. (Member of a
page 6 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net
feminist hackerspace, interview, November 18, 2013)
A reconfiguration of concepts
In addition to a desire for safe, bounded spaces, feminist hackers, makers
and geeks also display a hesitancy to identify with the dominant hacker
culture because of its close association with white, heterosexual male
culture. The notion that gender, race, sexual orientation, class and ability
can be ignored because all that matters is how well one can “hack” (a view
often hegemonically identified as “the hacker ethic” — but in actuality is
not uniformly shared among hackers) is deemed by feminists to effectively
disregard the ranging privileges enjoyed by different individuals.
There is this whole meritocracy thing. My theory is: hackers have
this intense belief that they got where they got on their own merits
and if they are confronted with the idea that there is discrimination
that means that the one who quote, unquote got there had it easy. It
runs counter to the idea of meritocracy.” (Co-founder and Member
of a feminist hackerspace, interview, January 2, 2014)
Feminism is also often dismissed for being a moralizing project or a form
of imposition. Ahmed (2014) argues that social norms, such as those
associated with feminism, are often quickly equated with the managing
and governing of the behaviors of others. The existence of sexism, racism,
ableism, and others, often hidden, biases work against the lionized ideal of
“openness” — the practical outcome of their maintenance is the exclusion
of entire demographics of hacker, makers and geeks. “The fantasy of
spaces as egalitarian can participate in the enactment of logics that render
them deeply unequal spaces–indeed can make those spaces hostile and
unlivable for those who are unwilling to participate in the terms being used
(Ahmed 2014).
A discomfort with the term “hacker” and the culture surrounding it has led
many to prefer being associated with terms like “maker” or “geek”.
I do identify as a geek. However, part of me is pulled away from
that identity [the hacker identity], just because of what it means to
be in those spaces [hackerspaces]. That’s a very hostile
environment for people like me. (Member of a feminist
hackerspace, interview, November 18, 2013)
I consider myself a hacker, but not in the computer sense, but
rather looking at infrastructure and cooking in the holes. Also: I
consider myself as a maker because I like developing on top of
what infrastructure there is. (Queer feminist hacker, interview,
November 18 and December 6, 2013)
Hacker is this kind of word that other people call you because it is
complementary. So it is definitely part of my identity. Making,
tinkering is much more about something I do, than something I am.
(Co-founder and member of a feminist hackerspace, interview,
January 2, 2014)
The hacker identification specifically [in] the computer security
field… what a horrible misogynist culture. So why would you want
to identify with that?” (Co-founder and member of a feminist
hackerspace, interview, January 10, 2014)
The creation of feminist hackerspaces is about the reconstruction and
reconfiguration of what feminism means in a hacker, maker and geek
context. It is about differentiation, coalition and agency. It is about hacking
hackerspaces and all associated concepts.
Feminist hacker, maker, geek praxis is animated by a desire for
transformation (Ahmed & all, 2000). Individuals are driven by a need to
realize change. They express this imperative of transformation and renewal
by questioning the central idea of openness — a challenge they manifest
both physically and ideologically by creating new spaces of hacking.
Feminist hackerspaces engage in a politics of location and boundary
making, and constitute an ethic of address. They attempt to make visible
the invisible, as exemplified in the following statement.
Taking a feminist stance sets the tone so clearly for what sort of
space we want. It [the feminist hackerspace] provides the structure
[so that] any exchange you have will be based on a feminist
analysis. We acknowledge cultural, social and economic issues and
how they affect us. It is assumed that those aspects [cultural, social
and economic issues] will be a part of any conversations that will
happen so you get to progress the conversation further. So instead
of it being: Well are there really gender issues? We already know
there are and now are we tackling them. One’s hope. (Queer
feminist hacker, interview, November 18 and December 6, 2013)
Through feminist hackerspaces, feminist hackers, makers and geeks claim
the power and authority to define their own social reality, to create their
own meaning, which emerge from their culture, practice, discourse and
interpretation. Feminist hackers, makers and geeks are acquiring epistemic
privilege by resisting the dominant hackerspace mantra. They are also
making visible new tensions — that they might attain centrality in hacker
and hackerspace cultures more generally.
Conclusion
With the emergence of a new breed of hackerspaces, we are able to intuit
new tensions at work in our understandings of openness. In recognizing
these tensions we open up new possibilities for hackerspace culture, and
discover the imperative to acknowledge and challenge the multiple forms
of subordination at work on those who do not fit in to — or do not want to
be associated with — the dominant hackerspace culture. The material
manifestation of feminist hackerspaces performs the first steps in a
synthesis between feminist and hacker traditions. Feminist hackerspaces
advance an understanding that systemic and structural problems (racism,
sexism, transphobia, queerphobia, etc.) are societally embedded and thus
manifest in hackerspace culture. They attempt to challenge a variety of
oppressive systems through an intersectional stance, while foregrounding a
clear emphasis on gender. Ultimately, these spaces attempt to hack the
concept of the hackerspace — reshaping the meaning of hacking itself as a
way to hack life in all its forms so as to (re)gain autonomy. In this article, I
have shown that for feminist hackers, makers and geeks the open space
concept enshrined as the core of the standard hackerspace model is largely
undesirable. They envisage a different role for their hackerspace, one in
which boundaries offer both safety and a platform for political resistance.
In doing so they counter the myth that open spaces are necessarily
inclusive and egalitarian, revealing the issues of privilege which lurk
behind such platitudes. By simultaneously sharing principles and
establishing disparate boundaries and definitions, feminist hackerspaces
collectively express an alternate hacker, maker and geek culture. In doing
so the trajectories of hacker and feminist culture are brought together.
Though feminist hackers, makers and geeks have previously affirmed their
collective identity both online and face-to-face, their expanding material
manifestation in feminist hackerspaces has rendered their nascent culture
increased visibility and accessibility.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank all of those who took time to speak with her
(this would not have been possible without you!), the editors, Maxigas and
Peter Troxler and the reviewers for their constructive comments on the
article. Finally, special thanks to Johan Söderberg and Matt Goerzen for
the extra comments and revision.
page 7 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net
Endnotes
[i] In this article, I use the term feminist hackers, makers and geeks rather
than simply feminist hackers in order to include those who do not identify
or do not want to be identified with the term hacker.
[ii] The Geek Feminism Wiki Timeline of incidents is accessible at:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Timeline_of_incidents.
[iii] Ada Initiative: http://adainitiative.org/
[iv] Ada Camps have taken place in Australia (2011), Washington D.C.
(2012), San Francisco (2013) and Portland (2014).
[v] Ada Initiative: http://adainitiative.org/
[vi] Feminist Hackerspace Design Patterns:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Feminist_hackerspace_design_pattern
s
[vii] Double Union: http://www.doubleunion.org/
[viii] Seattle Attic: http://seattleattic.com/
[ix] Flux: http://fluxlab.io/
[x] Noisebridge has recently worked on an anti-harassment policy,
availableat:https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/code-
of-conduct/anti-harassment-policy.md
References
Adam, A. 2003. ‘Hacking into Hacking: Gender and the Hacker
Phenomenon’, ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, vol. 33, no. 4.
Ahmed, S. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional
Life. Duke University Press, Durham.
Ahmed, S. 2014. Problems with Names. Feminist Kill Joy: Blog.
Available from: http://feministkilljoys.com/2014/04/25/problems-with-
names/. [Access May 8th, 2014]
Ahmed, S., Kilby, J., Lury, C., McNeil, M., Mcneil & M. Skeggs, B (eds.)
2000. Transformations: Thinking through feminism. Routledge, London.
Berlant, L. 1988. ‘The Female Complaint’, Social Text, vol. 19/20, pp.
237-259.
Brown, W. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late
Modernity,Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Butler, J. 2004. Undoing Gender. Routledge, New York.
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
Routledge, New York.
Carastathis, A. 2013. ‘Identity categories as potential coalitions’, Signs,
vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 941-965.
Carastathis, A. 2008. Feminism and the political economy of
representation: intersectionality, invisibility and embodiment. Ph.D.
Thesis, McGill University.
Carbin, M. & Denheim, S. 2013. ‘The intersectional turn in feminist
theory: A dream of a common language?’ European Journal of Women’s
Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 233-248.
Collins, P. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness,
and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, New York.
Crenshaw, K. 1991. ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity
Politics and Violence Against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review,
vol. 43, no. 6, pp.1241-1299.
Crenshaw, K. 1989. ‘Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A
Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory
and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum.
Coleman, G. 2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of
Hacking. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Coleman, G. 2010. ‘Hacking In-Person: The Ritual Character of
Conferences and the Distillation of a Life-World’. Anthropological
Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 47–72.
Coleman, G. & Golub, A. 2008. ‘Hacker practice: moral genres and the
cultural articulation of liberalism’. Anthropological Theory, vol. 8, pp.
255–277.
de Lauretis, T. 1988. ‘Are You Experienced – An Interview with Theresa
de Lauretis by Anu Koivunen’. Lahikuva, vol. 4, pp.33-34.
Echols, A. 1989. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America
1967-1975, Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Farr, N. 2009. Respect the Past, Examine the Present, Build the Future.
Hackerspaces Flux: Blog. Available from:
http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2009/08/25/respect-the-past-examine-the-
present-build-the-future/. [Access April 29th. 2014].
Freeman, J. 1972. The tyranny of structurelessness. The Second Wave.
Available from: http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/structurelessness.html.
[Access March 2, 2014].
Ferguson, R. 2003. Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color
Critique. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Grenzfurthner, J. & Schneider, F.A. 2009. Hacking the space.
Monochrom: Blog. Available from: http://www.monochrom.at/hacking-
the-spaces/. [Access May 9th 2014].
Hancock, A.M. 2007. ‘Intersectionality as a normative and empirical
paradigm’. Politics and Gender, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.248-254.
Haraway, D. 1988. ‘Situated Knoweldges: The Science Question in
Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’ in Feminist Theory
Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, 2nd edn, eds C McCann, & S Kim,
Routledge, New York, pp.370-383.
Harding, S. 2009. ‘Standpoint Theories: Productively Controversial,’
Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy’, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 192–200.
Harding, S. (ed.) 2004. The feminist standpoint theory reader : intellectual
and political controversies. Routledge, New York.
Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell. University
Press, Ithaca.
Hartsock, N. 2004. The feminist standpoint. In The feminist standpoint
theory reader, ed S Harding, S, Routledge, New York, pp. 35–53.
Henry, L. 2014. The Rise of Feminist Hackerspaces and How to Make
Your Own. Model View Culture: Technology, culture and diversity media.
Available from: http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-rise-of-feminist-
hackerspaces-and-how-to-make-your-own. [Access May 6, 2014].
Hill Collins, P. 1998. ‘It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race
page 8 / 9
 Journal of Peer Production
ISSN: 2213-5316
http://peerproduction.net

and nation’, Hypathia, vol. 13, no.3, pp. 62-82.
hooks, b. 1990. Yearning: race, gender, and cultural politics. South End
Press, Boston.
Jaggar, A. 1983. Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman and
Allenheld, Totowa.
Jordan, T. & Taylor, P. 2004. Hacktivism and Cyberwar: Rebels with a
Cause. Routledge, New York.
Kelty, C. 2008. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software.
Duke University Press, Durham.
Taylor, P.A. 1999. Hackers: Crime in the Digital Sublime. Routledge,
London.
Toupin, S. 2013. Feminist Hackerspaces Safer Spaces? DPI magazine.
Available from: http://dpi.studioxx.org/fr/feminist-hackerspaces-safer-
spaces. [Access May 6th, 2014].
Turkle, S. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit.
Granada, London.
Wilding, F. & Critical Art Ensemble. Notes on the Political Condition of
Cyberfeminism. Available from:
http://www.obn.org/cfundef/condition.html. [Access February 3rd, 2014].

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V. & Giotitsas, C. 2014. ‘Production and governance
in hackerspaces: A manifestation of Commons-based peer production in
the physical realm?’ International Journal of Cultural Studies, February
vol. 13, pp. 1-19.
Mann, S.A. 2013. ‘Third Wave Feminism’s Unhappy Marriage of
Poststructuralism and Intersectionality Theory’, Journal of Feminist
Scholarship, vol. 4, Spring.
Wolf, A. 2012. Dear Hacker Community – We Need To Talk. Available
from:http://www.ppanda.us/2012/12/dear-hacker-community-we-need-to-
talk.html.[Access May 8th, 2014].
Yuval-Davis, N. 2006. ‘Intersectionality and feminist politics’. European
Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 193-209.

McCall, L. 2005. ‘The Complexity of intersectionality’, Signs, vol. 30,

no. 3, pp. 1771-1800.

Maxigas 2012. ‘Hacklabs and Hackerspaces – Tracing Two Genealogies’.

Journal of Peer Production, vol. 2, pp.1-10. Available from
http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/hacklabs-
andhackerspaces/. [Access on January, 16th, 2014].

Muñoz, J.E. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer
Futurity. New York University Press, New York.

Nafus, D. 2012. ‘’Patches don’t have gender’: What is not open in open
source software’. New Media Society, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 669-683. Nash,
JC 2008. ‘Re-thinking intersectionality’. Feminist Review , vol. 89, pp.
1–15.

Reagon, B.J. 1983. ‘Coalition politics: Turning the century’ in Black

feminist anthology. Ed B Smith, Kitchen Table Press, New York, pp.
356–368.

Salamon, G. 2010. Assuming a Body: Transgender and Rhetorics of

Materiality. Columbia University Press, New York.

Skeggs, B. 2008. On the economy of moralism and working class

properness. Eurozine. Available from:
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-04-28-skeggs-en.html [Access on
May 10, 2014].

Skeggs, B. 2004. Class, self, culture, Routledge, London.

Skeggs, B. 2001. ‘The toilet paper: Femininity, class and mis-

recognition’. Women’s Studies International Forum. vol. 24, no. 3-4, pp.
295–307.

Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of class and gender: Becoming respectable.

Sage, London.

Spinks, J.R. 2013. Hacked Off: The hacker-activist community seems to

leave no safe place for women. The Magazine on Medium. Available
from: https://medium.com/the-magazine/4c423793a831. [Access May 9th,
2014].

Taylor, P.A. 2003. ‘Maestros or misogynists? Gender and the social

construction of hacking’ In Dot. cons: Crime, deviance and identity on the
internet, ed Y. Jewkes, Cullomptom: Willan, pp. 126-146.

page 9 / 9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)