ILN Journal: Indian Literary Narratives

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): ILN Journal: Indian Literary Narratives

Digital Voice: Technology as a Tool of Oppression and Liberation in Christina Dalcher’s Vox

Submitted
4 December 2025
Published
2025-12-30

Abstract

Digital feminism combines feminism and digital tools; the core purpose of digital feminism is to demonstrate how women utilize the internet as a platform to share issues and promote empowerment. This study focuses particularly on the two main concepts under digital feminism: technofeminism and cyberfeminism. Technofeminism suggests that technology and gender are profoundly linked, frequently intertwining with masculine dominance, yet it also authorizes women’s empowerment. Cyberfeminism visualizes digital realms and the cyborg as instruments for combating and surpassing gender restrictions. Overall, they demonstrate that technology has the potential to both suppress and uplift women's individual freedom. The study aims to highlight the technofeminism and cyberfeminism aspects in Christina Dalcher’s text, Vox. The study’s methodology utilizes three technofeminism and cyberfeminism concepts: Gender Technological oppression, Gender-based digital divide, and Cyber empowerment. There were numerous studies conducted on technofeminism and cyberfeminism, but they were done using a quantitative method; yet, the researchers have used a qualitative method to analyze the text. This paper explores how Vox interconnects with the concepts of technofeminism and cyberfeminism through the experience of the protagonist Jean’s active fighting against the restriction of the authorities that stop women’s communication with the wrist electronic counter and her intelligence in identifying a new formula for serum. These findings prove the text can examine how technology works as both a tool of oppression and a source of resistance. Further, this study also allows subsequent researchers to explore and incorporate digital-related concepts and theories, such as digital feminism, cyberfeminism, and technofeminism, to analyze the text.

References

  1. Alevizou, G. (2020). Civic media and technologies of belonging: Where digital citizenship and ‘the right to the city’ converge. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 16(3), 269–290.
  2. Alam, N. (2024). The impact of social media on women’s rights movements: Empowerment, challenges and future directions.
  3. Antonietti, R., Burlina, C., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2025). [Title missing—add].
  4. Arez, G., Ince Yenilmez, M., & Kantar, G. (2024). Reconstructing feminism through cyberfeminism.
  5. Barua, A., & Barua, A. (2012). Gendering the digital body: Women and computers. AI & Society, 27(4), 465–477.
  6. Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 868–876.
  7. Bleich, E., Bloemraad, I., & de Graauw, E. (2015). [Title missing].
  8. Bray, F. (2007). Gender and technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1), 37–53.
  9. Buskens, I., & Webb, A. (2009). Doing research with women for the purpose of transformation. In African Women and ICTs (pp. 9–21). Zed Books.
  10. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.
  11. Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149.
  12. Clark-Parsons, R. (2021). “I see you, I believe you, I stand with you”: #MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility. Feminist Media Studies, 21(3), 362–380.
  13. Clarke, A., et al. (2015). [Title missing].
  14. Cockburn, C. (1983). Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. Pluto Press.
  15. Craiut, M. V., & Iancu, I. R. (2022). Is technology gender neutral? Human Technology, 18(3), 297–315.
  16. Craiut & Iancu duplicated — keep one.
  17. Cutrupi, C. M., Jaccheri, L., & Serebrenik, A. (2026). Gender diversity interventions in software engineering. Computer Science Review, 59, 100812.
  18. De Siqueira, G., Malaj, S., & Hamdani, M. (2022). Digitalization, participation and interaction. Sustainability, 14(8), 4514.
  19. Eileraas, K. (2014). Sex(t)ing revolution. Signs, 40(1), 40–52.
  20. Ensmenger, N. (2010). Making programming masculine. In Gender Codes (pp. 115–141). Springer.
  21. Escaño, C. (2023). Postdigital visual arts. In Encyclopedia of Postdigital Science and Education.
  22. Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79–95.
  23. Fernandez, M., & Wilding, F. (2002). Situating cyberfeminisms. In Domain Errors! (pp. 17–28).
  24. Gill, R. (2005). Technofeminism. Science as Culture, 14(1), 97–101.
  25. Gill, R., & Grint, K. (2018). Introduction: The gender–technology relation. In The Gender-Technology Relation.
  26. Gurumurthy, A., & Chami, N. (2019). Towards a political practice of empowerment in digital times. In Power, Empowerment and Social Change (pp. 83–98). Routledge.
  27. Gupta, P. (2015). Comparative study of online and offline shopping (Master’s thesis).
  28. Haraway, D. J. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65–107.
  29. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene… Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165.
  30. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Manifestly Haraway. University of Minnesota Press.
  31. Harmer, E., & Lumsden, K. (2019). Online othering. In Online Othering (pp. 1–33). Springer.
  32. Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2015). Embodied harms. Violence Against Women, 21(6), 758–779.
  33. Hill, C., & Lawton, W. (2018). Universities, the digital divide and global inequality. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(6), 598–610.
  34. Hulus, A. (2025). Execute_reboot(): MetaTech feminism. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101172.
  35. Keipi, T., Näsi, M., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Online Hate and Harmful Content. Taylor & Francis.
  36. Klowait, N. (2018). Anthropomorphism in media equation research. AI & Society, 33(4), 527–536.
  37. Kularski, C., & Moller, S. (2012). The digital divide as continuation of inequality. Sociology, 1–23.
  38. Leach, L., & Turner, S. (2015). Computer users do gender. Sage Open, 5(4), 1–12.
  39. Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. MIT Press.
  40. Lupton, D. (2013). The digital cyborg assemblage. In Handbook of Social Theory.
  41. Magenya, S. G., & Hussen, T. S. (2022). Feminist peace for digital movement building. In Feminist Conversations on Peace.
  42. Massey, D. (1995). Masculinity, dualisms and high technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 487–499.
  43. McQuillan, H., & O’Neill, B. (2009). Gender differences in children’s internet use. Journal of Children and Media, 3(4), 366–378.
  44. Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The internet for empowerment. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781–802.
  45. Michael, K., & Ahlborg, H. (2024). Gendered energy care work. Nature Energy, 9(8), 947–954.
  46. Mukred, M., Asma'Mokhtar, U., Moafa, F. A., Gumaei, A., Sadiq, A. S., & Al-Othmani, A. (2024). The roots of digital aggression. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 100281.
  47. Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Kaakinen, M., Keipi, T., & Oksanen, A. (2017). Routine activities and online harassment. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(4), 418–432.
  48. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression. New York University Press.
  49. Oudshoorn, N., Saetnan, A. R., & Lie, M. (2002). On gender and things. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25(4), 471–483.
  50. Pande, R., & van der Weide, T. (2012). Globalization, Technology Diffusion and Gender Disparity. IGI Global.
  51. Pérez, I., & Sanz, A. (2021). Post-digital children’s literature. Neohelicon, 48(1), 127–141.
  52. Pilcher, I., & Whelehan, S. (2004). Fifty Key Concepts in Gender Studies. SAGE.
  53. Polat, M., & Polat, S. (2024). Revisiting Cyberfeminism. Reconstructing Feminism through Cyberfeminism, 275, 9.
  54. Ragnedda, M., & Gladkova, A. (2020). Understanding digital inequalities. In Digital Inequalities in the Global South (pp. 17–30). Springer.
  55. Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. MIT Press.
  56. Rashid, A. T. (2016). Digital inclusion and social inequality. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(3), 306–332.
  57. Reddy, R. C., Bhattacharjee, B., Mishra, D., & Mandal, A. (2022). Barriers to enterprise data science. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 20(1), 223–255.
  58. Rotem-Mindali, O. (2025). Gender differences in safety perceptions. Travel Behaviour and Society, 41, 101103.
  59. Shapley, G. (2011). Post-digital photography. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 10(1), 5–20.
  60. Sikka, T. (2017). Technofeminism and ecofeminism. In Ecofeminism in Dialogue (pp. 107–128).
  61. Van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Estudios críticos del discurso.
  62. Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity.
  63. Wajcman, J. (2006). Technocapitalism meets technofeminism. Labour & Industry, 16(3), 7–20.
  64. Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 287–298.
  65. Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152.
  66. Wajcman, J., Young, E., & Fitzmaurice, A. (2020). The digital revolution: Implications for gender equality.
  67. Yang, C. (2023). Digital exclusion, gender oppression, and digital feminism. Columbia Social Work Review, 21(1), 23–42.
  68. Yasmin, M., Jabeen, T., & Noor, S. (2025). Examining digital hate. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 100759.
  69. Ye, L., & Yang, H. (2020). From digital divide to social inclusion. Sustainability, 12(6), 2424.
  70. Youngs, G. (2015). Digital transformations of transnational feminism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.