Why I'm Not a “Phenomenal Woman”

Cruising around the web recently, I noticed a couple sites that had this “Phenomenal Woman of the Web” banner on them. Naturally, I had to check it out. I mean, I'm interested in Phenomenal Women. I've certainly known some. And, well, I like to think I might qualify for something like that.

I checked out the site. A bit disappointing, unfortunately. Some cringe-worthy rudimentary poetry and basic statements about women being as important as men (duh), and being “against domestic violence.” (Geez, like a woman's going to say, “Oh no, I'm FOR domestic abuse”?) But the webcrafter did seem to have a sizable network of women -- always a good thing to connect to, IMHO. And well, why not get declared a “Phenomenal Woman” -- I'm a Leo, we like these sorts of things.

So I'm filling out the little boxes on the application form. I'm almost done and I come to the section that says

Are you the person sitting behind the keyboard (The Webmaster) of your site?
Yes: __ No:__ *REQUIRED*

Yes. (Though I generally prefer alternative terms like “webcrafter.” “Webmaster” certainly conveys a sense of power, but it sometimes feels more like power-over than power-with. Where there's a master there may be a slave and that doesn't sit right with me. But anyway...) I check the box, feeling quite confident. Then:

Is this site maintained exclusively by yourself:
Yes:__ No:__ *REQUIRED*

No prob. When we first started the site, I assumed Paul would be the webmaster, as he had more experience. But I picked up HTML quite quickly; I do all the coding, design and maintenance myself at this point. Sometimes Paul gives tech advice, but that's about it. So, Yes. I check the box. Then:

Are you the “Sole Owner” of this site?
Yes:__ No:__ *REQUIRED*

Wait. What does she mean by “sole owner”. And why is it in quotes? Technically, our site is in Paul's name. The site space comes free with our CompuServe account, which we had for many years before web pages were around. And since he was into computers long before I was, the account is in Paul's name. Hmm... This could be a problem. I leave the box blank and read on:

If you answered No to any of the 3 questions above, you will not be considered for this seal, please do not go further. Please don't apply if you are a part of a company, and construct their site. Or if you are a part of a site, example: your site is located within your friends, boyfreinds, husbands etc. That is not considered a “Sole Owner.” Your site must stand alone.

Whoah. So, I guess I don't qualify. bummer.

But the more I think about it, the more the “Sole Owner” thing irks me. What about women who do all the programming for a site that isn't registered in their name (well, like me). Why does she assume that a woman who doesn't own a site completely by herself would be necessarily working within a “boyfreinds” [sic] or a “husbands” [sic] site? Are all relationships with men that domineering in her world? Maybe. Doesn't she understand that women and men can co-own things without the man or men being the dominant force in the collective? Sad, but given some of the other statements on her site --implying that being a R.N. is a “lesser” profession than being an M.D., as one woman pointed out-- this may reflect such conditioning on her part. Or maybe she's just not communicating whatever it is she means by “Sole Owner”. Did she put it in quotes because she thinks it's a muddy concept? Is she clear on what “Sole Owner” means?

So, I decided to ask her about the “Sole Owner” thing in her guestbook:

Sun Oct 11 20:14:02 EDT 1998
Name: Kathryn Theatana
Site Title: Moonstone Circle
Comments:

What about the politics of collectivism, classism and ableism?

I'm the designer of our site. I type all the HTML and do all the other work inherent in maintaining it. But I don't exist in a vacuum -- I also publish the work of other members of my circle, and they sometimes give me advice and input, which I acknowledge. I have the site for my own expression, yes, but I also do it in service to the group to which I belong. This is my expression of mothering -- looking out for the members of my tribe. [ed. note - I mentioned the mothering thing 'cause she was big on mothering -- raising children -- in her statement about what makes a "Phenomenal Woman."]

So, as I'm not the sole owner, I don't qualify as a “Phenomenal Woman.” And what about disabled women who can't afford to be the sole owner of a site?

Beannachd Bhrighid Leibh,
Kathryn Theatana

No response.

A few days later I checked her guestbook to see if there was any response there. She hadn't answered anyone else, either. Maybe I hadn't made it clear that I wanted to see this addressed. So I tried again:

Thu Oct 15 22:06:48 EDT 1998
Name: Kathryn Theatana
Site Title: moonstone circle
Comments:

So, do you respond to these guest book entries?

I'm still waiting for an answer about the class bias of requiring that a “phenomenal woman” have the financial resources to be the sole owner of a site. Ever tried living on disability?

--kathryn

OK, I didn't intend the last sentence to be mean, only moderately provocative. I didn't feel mean or angry when I wrote it, but maybe she took it that way, for the next morning, lo and behold, the following “phenomenal” flame arrives in my e-mail:

16-Oct-98 05:31:13
Sb: WAKE UP CALL
Fm: [email protected]
To: Kathryn Theatana
[From: "The Phenomenal Women Of The Web"]

Have I ever lived on disability? NO. I have a healthy body.

Have I ever lived on welfare? YES. For the last 2 1/2 years. with a 5 year old I might add, with the following bamnrupcy, and loss of cars, and loss of all my self esteeme. I have just in the last few weeks returned back to work.

How dare you question ion if someone who is “less fortunate"could not uphold the standards of maintaing their own site.. thus making it phenomenal. I think perhaps you have spent too much time on the pity pot... regarless of what disibility you have... ANYONE can have thier own site... and still be a phenomenal women.

I suggest a wake up call... and quickly. Your self pity is killing you.

Nancy Imelda Schafer

Thu Oct 15 22:06:48 EDT 1998 ~Spyder~

Nancy Imelda Schafer

Spyder's Empire http://www.spydersempire.com

**Founder and Home Of: The Phenomenal Women Of The Web http://www.phenomenalwomen.com

Editor-in-chief of Empire:ZINE http://www.spydersempire.com/empirezine

* Spyder's Poetry Empire - Poetry and Writing Forum http://www.spydersempire.com/poetry.htm

Page me at: UIN: 2764460 http://wwp.mirabilis.com/2764460

Spyder's Sports Empire http://www.spydersempire.com/sports

http://www.spydersempire.com/bravo

Empire Of Postcards and Virtual Flowers http://www.spydersempire.com/postcards

Alcoholics Anonomous

http://www.spydersempire.com/empirezine/spotlight/published/march/aa-open1-m arch.htm

* Ovid

Yup, all that stuff I reduced down to small type was actually in her e-mail to me. But it was at normal size with lots of huge empty line breaks I cut out. I guess no one ever told her that you should limit the size of signature boxes. It seems to be the entire table of contents for her site.

So, dear reader, what did I do? I returned once again to the “Phenomenal Women of the Web” guestbook and pasted the text of her message back onto her guestbook page, so the other women can see her amazing compassion and healing energy. I bracketed it with my response:

Fri Oct 16 21:03:55 EDT 1998
Name: Kathryn Theatana
Site Title: Moonstone Circle
Comments:

Well, I just got a response to my earlier entries in this guestbook (see two messages farther down in this guestbook).

Today I received the following fascinating response in my e-mail.

Nancy's e-mail to me: .........(see above)..........

My response:

Nancy dear, you do not know me. You don't even know my level of ability, disability or class status. And you certainly don't know me well enough to assume that I have self-pity, let alone a terminal level of it.

Nancy, I asked a question about the politics of classism, ableism and collectivism as they apply to your organization. You responded with personal attacks. What kind of example is this for women recovering from abuse (whom your site intends to serve)?

You assume that “ANYONE” can have a website. This is simply not true. The web so far is overwhelmingly monied and white. Not “Everyone” can afford computers, let alone the time and resources to build and maintain a site. Some women have the skills, but not the financial resources to OWN a site and all the equipment -- why should they be considered any less “phenomenal” than women who have more money?

Some talented women webcrafters do their work in collectives, consortiums, and/or on sites that are owned by their whole family or the groups who hire them for their webcrafting skills. Why do you discount their work? Perhaps you missed the point of my questions. Or perhaps your requirements are not clear to me. I do see that you put “‘Sole Owner’ of the site” in quotes. Perhaps you could clarify what this usage --“Sole Owner” vs Sole Owner-- signifies to you. Meanwhile, please lighten up. Flaming women who inquire about your organization is not good policy, IMHO.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Theatana

Well, I was glad to have posted her words where the other women could see them. I didn't expect much else.

The next morning, much as I expected, she had deleted my message from her site's guestbook. Seems she likes to censor women's contributions to make sure she comes out looking good. The main good that I can see coming from her site is that she offers bulletin board space for women to discuss issues of abuse and recovery. This is a notable service, and potentially valuable, as it allows women to network and connect with one another independent of outside interference or censorship. But now we see that she does censor women who question her policies or refuse to be silent about her verbally abusive treatment. This puts the value of her networking service in a completely different light.

Clipart Castle Snake animation by Phil Baker. Purple variation doktored by kpt/katharsis

Why have I bothered to recount this? Well, because initially I found it amusing, for the most part. People keep creating all these awards to give themselves. Usually these banners are more for self-promotion than any true judge of the value or integrity of a site. And I have to say, I don't really see much of a common thread in the sites Nancy chooses as “phenomenal.” Yes, they're all by women, one assumes. But there doesn't seem to be much of a standard regarding quality, be it of content or presentation. Every page of her site devotes a lot of primary space to advertising her own projects, and the rest of her domain is given over to fan-pages for various, disproportionately male, musicians and writers (names of artists listed above at the end of her e-mail to me).

Quite disturbing to me is that one of her lauded artists is the execrable Woody Allen. I happen to find Mia Farrow's allegations of child abuse quite credible. Even if he didn't molest their five year old daughter, which I believe he did, his sexual relationship with his foster-daughter was and is unconscionable. I don't believe that amusing, interesting, or even brilliant writing makes up for criminal pedophilia. What is she thinking lauding this man on a sight that claims to be against abuse?

And the “Phenomenal Women of the Web” page itself is more than a little embarrassing -- rife with spelling errors, unclear communication (Hey, she's not “sole owner” of her site, either; the space is donated by some other company!), and muddy thought processes. Her take on feminism is basic at best. It may have been progressive thirty years ago, but these are messages (“if he hits you, leave!” “You don't have to settle for being a secretary if you really want to be a lawyer.”) that I've been hearing since childhood. I guess there are some women for whom these are still new and revolutionary ideas, and perhaps this site, with its basic language and rudimentary concepts, may appeal to them in a way more extensive analysis does not? But I don't know -- I think that's underestimating and insulting the intelligence of the women who seek out this sort of site. And I wish getting women out of abusive situations was as simple as saying “just leave!”

The intro page tosses around the p.c. word salad of “it doesn't matter if you're...(black, white, etc...)” but I don't get any sense that she actually gets it. For a woman who's been on welfare, she doesn't seem to understand the classism and ableism inherent in some of her statements. Or, if she does get it, she doesn't seem to have the communication skills to communicate these values in a non-defensive or non-hostile way.

Nancy Schafer may or may not be doing good things for the community. I assume that her bulletin boards and listings of women's websites are helpful to some women. But if her response to my questions about her politics (or, perhaps, just her lack of clarity) set her off this badly, I have to wonder. And worry. Most of the women signing her guestbook speak of having survived abuse. It pains me to think this is the type of treatment they may receive from her.

If she stays out of the process, the site may be (or may become) a worthwhile place for those recovering from abuse to connect with others. Once one gets deeper into the site and bulletin boards, there should be plenty of room for contributors to go into more in-depth analysis of the cycle and politics of abuse. But given the webmaster's track record, I would first try other options (and other websites).

Women in general may feel inclined to check out her search engine of women's sites, though it is limited to those pages she has chosen and moves very slowly. But given Nancy's behaviour of flaming at women, I simply cannot recommend this site to women who are in a vulnerable place in their healing. Though I was able to laugh at her response to me, there were times in my past when it would have emotionally scarred me to be verbally abused like that. How horrible it would be for a woman in crisis to turn to her and get similar treatment.

Summation: Generally unfavorable. Cannot recommend this site without serious reservations.

HOME to Moonstone Index (moonstone logo copyright © 1998 kpt/katharsis ink)

back to reviews

copyright ©1998 kathryn theatana for big electric celt productions
[email protected]
copyright on all other contributions reverts to the original authors
graphic on "nonphenomenal" seal courtesy of the death crones