Ka-BLOG: Reclaiming ICTs to End Violence Against Women

What?
ka-BLOG! is a 16-day blog fest for the Take Back the Tech Campaign being organized by APC's Women's Networking Support Program and GenderIT.org. It is a call to everyone - especially girls and women - to take control of ICTs (Information Communications Technology) and how we can prevent the use of ICTs for Violence Against Women.
Why?
The intent is reclaim women's critical participation and contribution to ICTs (see this blog for some great examples) and to help establish women's rights to move freely online without harrassment or threats to safety.
There is a increasing recognition of the connection between VAW (Violence against women) and ICTs. You can learn more from the genderIT.org site
How?
Sign up as a "Ka-BLOGger" and write about the connection between violence against women and technology for 16 days beginning November 25th.
There are other ways to support the campaign, including adding a "TakeBacktheTech" icon on your blog and writing something a post that includes your thoughts on the link between violence against women and technology. This might include a personal story, a statistic, a resource, or pointing to some photographs. Be sure to tag your post with the campaign tag "takebackthetech" and link back to the campaign site.
Campaign Tag: takebackthetech











Whats an ICT?
I'm sorry but I'm totally confused? Are ICTs creating violence against women by giving trafficers access to computers to organize thier trafficing?
Posted by: Too embarassed to say | November 24, 2006 at 12:08 PM
I have put a link to your blogpost in mine.
It is a shain of links we have created fore this speciel day
"International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women"
I hope you dont mind.
//Fancy
Posted by: FANCY | November 24, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Here is theshain of links to you.
I think you can copy from my page, then the url come with the names.
aFairytale, Sweden
Alma Mater, Sweden
Anna-Lena, Sweden
Anna-Lys, Sweden
Antonio Pires, Portugal
Attan, Sweden
Beth, USA
Bigga, Sweden
BozaNova, Sweden
Catrin Mattssson, Sweden
Erwin Loyd, Slovakia/Netherlands
Family Lore, United Kingdom
Fancy, Sweden
Gunnar, Sweden
Halmstad Tjejjour, Sweden
Ian Hall, Australia
Ida, Sweden
Jack North, Sweden
Lars-Eric, Sweden
Lasse Pettsson, Sweden
Lill-Tanta, Sweden
Lisa, USA
Lourdes Daza-Gillman, Sweden
Mother Mary Carol Anne, Canada
Män i Örebro, Sweden
Pia-Lotta, Sweden
Rexy, Sweden
Sarah Lindon, United Kingdom
Shamau, Maldives
Starwalker, EU/US
Stilettokiss, Singapore
The Answer's 42, United Kingdom
VendettanBettan, Sweden
Åsa, Sweden
I have shange you country thanks to make me see it.
//Fancy
Posted by: Fancy | November 25, 2006 at 01:02 AM
Hello Beth,
I dont know where my comment I wrote to you yesterday has gone??? I am sorry I wrote Australia instead of USA ... I have corrected that now. I wish you a nice day. // Anna-Lys
Posted by: Anna-Lys | November 25, 2006 at 03:15 AM
Anna,
You left a comment on the post above! Thanks for the correction and linking to me. It is amazing that you've collected so many links in so short of a time.
Fancy: Thanks for adding the chain of links.
Posted by: Beth | November 25, 2006 at 03:03 PM
heya tooEmbarassedToSay,
i don't reckon ICTs *creates* violence against women as such. i think it gives it a new quality or dimension.
in terms of the traffickers question, yeah, i guess traffickers now can hide their tracks more efficiently, able to get a bigger market both for the subjects (customers) and objects (trafficked women), have a better way to manage their money issues etc etc etc. so in this sense, traffickers of women and girls are benefitting from ICTs the 'same' way that most privileged people who have access to ICTs do.
but at the same time, not just bodies are trafficked, but images as well. or bodies may be trafficked to one country, while images are trafficked to another (to avoid stricter laws related to trafficking from one place to another). what then does this mean? can the shuttling of images from one locale to another constitute trafficking? are we barking up the wrong tree? or do laws just have to change to adapt to the new 'conveniences' that ICTs bring to traffickers? has the definition of trafficking itself changed fundamentally?
i think these are the kinds of emerging connections that hasn't been completely unravelled yet. i guess this is what the campaign is aimed at doing..
Posted by: jhybeturtle | December 04, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Hello Beth,
... and tnx!
I think the number of names has increased even more by now.
How are You? And what is that "Grasshopper Media" you have on your blog?
(( hug ))
Posted by: Anna-Lys | January 17, 2007 at 11:04 AM