“Hacking has traditionally been a man’s world. But women are quietly breaking into the hacker subculture, a loose group of computer enthusiasts who meet in online chat rooms and at real-life conventions.” (Segan) Hacking communities resemble most high-tech environments, including computer science and engineering, in that women are a minority. In 2005, in a book called Gender, Ethics and Information Technology, British scholar Alison Adam dedicates a chapter to hacker culture in relation to the gender imbalance in technology. The chapter, named Hacking into Hacking: Gender and the Hacker Phenomenon, offers one of the first overviews of women’s participation in hacker communities and philosophies (Adam, “Hacking into Hacking” 128). Adam’s work supports the claim that the field of hacking contains the fewest women, in terms of technological environments. In her view, gender is one of the most contentious issues facing the movement; there is no proper dialogue about getting
27 more women into hacking (as is often the case with technical fields in general), nor is there a promise of high remuneration for their skills (as is the case with the IT industry of computers and engineering). According to Adam’s pioneering reading, purely statistical research on the number of women in the community is not enough. On the contrary, constantly publishing low statistics on women in hi-tech environments could just support the idea that women are less suited to technological work than men. Moreover, Adam thinks it is possible that there are more female hackers than anyone suspects, who choose to remain invisible for different reasons, including a lack of motivation to expose their gender due to the tendency for the contributions of women in technical fields to be suppressed, neglected, or wrongly attributed to men. Adam insists that there are numerous aspects of hacker ethics and principles that complement the philosophies and values of many women. Equality, freedom of information, access to technology and tools, sustainability and a limited disposability for gadgets (and objects in general) are among those principles. In addition, learning, teaching and sharing experience are important values for women, including especially those who educate children.
While Adam’s research on the absence of women in hacking tends to be limited to women only, and is written from an outsider’s point of view, there are a few common points between hacking and other IT fields that she points out and that deserve attention. According to Adam, more analysis of the discriminatory character of hacker values and philosophies according to gender in practice is needed. Key areas include the ideals of meritocracy as egalitarianism, the freedom of information ethic, and the hacker work ethic. Adam’s critique addresses these subtopics in the following ways.
Meritocracy as egalitarianism. Adam addresses, in her critique, the well-known principle that “[h]ackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position” (Levy 43). This ostensibly egalitarian point of view does not acknowledge differences among people based on their levels of involvement or the specifics of their age, race, diplomas, workplace, physical conditions, or perceived special knowledge. Unfortunately, this principle, which places the emphasis on those who are seen as contributing the most, is not very beneficial for women. According to Brazilian scholar Graciela Selaimen (Selaimen), within hacker communities such as the Free Software
28 development groups, meritocracy represents an important principle for inclusion. She says, “If women weren’t included, it was because they hadn’t contributed enough – so, why should they deserve any recognition?” (ibid.). As Adam points out, equating egalitarianism with meritocracy ignores practical differences among members in terms of their realistic opportunities to contribute. It is not feasible, for example, for many women with children to stay late at night due to family obligations; likewise, people with disabilities are often deterred from frequenting a particular space because there may be stairs that render the lab inaccessible. Ignoring such practical realities in the name of an ideal equality of opportunity minimizes the contribution and thereby the status of some. Therefore, while egalitarian ideals are promoted, there is in practice no corresponding egalitarianism concerning who is who in the hacker movement.
The freedom of information ethic. Adam states that while the notions of freedom of expression and speech may be supported in theory by essentially every hacker, regardless of gender, the activism of female (feminist) hackers may sometimes look different. For instance, some feminist hackers use their advanced IT skills to track down child pornography sites and report them to law enforcement (e.g., antichildporn.org and condemned.org), projects that some hackers might see as infringing upon the right of freedom of expression claimed by such sites (Adam, “Hacking into Hacking” 143). In this way, Adam indicates, feminist hackers (and women in particular) are more likely to be involved in hacktivism with a political or ethical goals, and their hacking might attract the disapproval of their peers by prioritizing their own values and social rights struggles over traditional hacker libertarian principles (ibid.). As Adam suggests, the work feminist and hacker activists consider important may not be what most hackers consider important. The new work ethic. The third key area of contestation of the hacker ethic, according to Adam, is the way hacking is perceived by women and men. For example, the combination of leisure and learning activities within hackerspaces has essentially transformed the traditional notion of a “work ethic,” giving rise to a new sort of hacker work ethic (Adam, “Hacking into Hacking” 144). This hacker ethic looks quite different from the Protestant or Marxist work ethic that views work as a moral duty, and play and leisure as the opposite of work. Time is no longer just money, and work is no longer just a moral duty, when work
29 is seen as compatible with leisure and playful activity. In other words, the hacker ethic takes a passionate, joyful and playful approach to work that is about much more than just making money, since non-monetary values such as freedom of expression are considered paramount (ibid.). The problem with this attractive ideal is that women often possess less free time than men for play and leisure activities (ibid.). According to Adam, this is why the hacker work ethic is in the end unachievable for many people (especially women), whose social duties and material conditions do not permit them to engage in the freedoms to which hackers aspire.
While there are statistically fewer female hackers, women are obviously interested and attracted by the same opportunities that attract men to hacking spaces: to make things (including the chance to repair, re-purpose, and adapt gadgets to their own needs), to meet and learn from other people, and to share their own experiences with others. For these reasons, Adam concludes her critique with a call for an alternative, feminist version of the hacker ethic—a “gender hacker ethic” that accommodates the values and lifestyles of female hackers, rather than constantly requiring them to try to fit in with an ethic and a philosophy not originally developed with them in mind (Adam, “Hacking into Hacking” 146). As the next section shows, such initiatives are both possible and desirable.