Virtual Communities as Safe Spaces Created by Young Feminists: Identity, Mobility and Sense of Belonging

Abstract

Young people often use online social networks to extend their social relationships beyond geographical limits and to explore their interests with people that are not part of their local community. In some cases, young people feel that belonging to online communities may serve as a refuge, a safe and stable place, in a modern society where everything else is moving. In this chapter we analyze how a sense of belonging develops for young members of virtual communities, as well as what mechanisms of regulation and self-regulation are adopted by young people actively constructing their identities in online spaces. We draw on the results of an ethnographic case study of Feminismes, a Facebook group with high participation of Spanish youth, aged between 15 and 29 years old. We aim to contribute to the intersection between sociology, education and technology, from the theoretical perspective of belonging, and by drawing upon social theories that approach the changing nature of the late modernity, and new ways of social participation. The results of our study indicate that a shared sense of belonging to a community that encourages personal expression in the face of oppression may make social bonds stronger. Nevertheless, creating safe spaces online also raises some contradictions between feeling free and establishing boundaries, or between promoting social inclusion as well as social fragmentation.

Full text

123
© e Author(s) 2019
S. Habib and M. R. M. Ward (eds.), Identities, Youth and Belonging, Studies in
Childhood and Youth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96113-2_8
8
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces
Created by Young Feminists: Identity,
Mobility andSense ofBelonging
RaquelMiño-Puigcercós, PabloRivera-Vargas,
andCristóbalCoboRomaní
Introduction
Since the Internet began, there have been academic discussions in many
elds about how computer mediated communication (CMC) might
inuence the lives of individuals, interpersonal relationships between
people and the social institutions that emerge from human relationships
(Rheingold, 2000). A term that has been broadly used to approach
online social interactions has been ‘virtual community’. However, this is
a controversial term, since it has generated debate around the tensions
between the promises and limitations of cyberculture, the relationship
between online and ‘real’ life, and the notion of community itself (Bell,
2001).
R. Miño-Puigcercós (*) • P. Rivera-Vargas
University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
C. CoboRomaní
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Ceibal Foundation, Montevideo, Uruguay

124
e term ‘virtual community’ was used by Rheingold (1993) to
describe the webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. Later, it was
dened as a group of individuals with shared interests (Figallo, 1998) that
regularly gather together to discuss the subject of interest shared by its
members through online platforms (Kilsheimer, 1997). However, spe-
cialized literature doesnot always provide clear boundaries between the
concepts of virtual communities and online social networks (Gomez,
2006).
In dierent forms of online social networks, several of their members
never meet face-to-face but they feel thatthey belong to a group of peo-
ple with similar interests and characteristics. Likewise, that lack of physi-
cal experience does not aect the possibility of sharing common interests
that enable the development of social capital, such as arts, culture, activ-
ism and politics. One of the collectives that make use of online social
networks is young people. According to the study Digital Youth, most
youngsters in their middle-school and high-school years use online net-
works to extend their friendships and some use them to explore their
interests and nd information to which they have no access to through
their local community (Ito etal., 2008).
In order to dierentiate virtual communities from other forms of
online social networks, we use the notion of community as a social space
created and maintained by people who havethe necessity or the desire
of a safe shared space. In theorizing community, we develop Hobsbawm’s
conception of communitarianism to do with the necessity shared by
people to create a safe refuge, since “men and women look for groups to
which they can belong, certainly and forever, in a world in which all else
is moving and shifting, in which nothing else is certain” (Hobsbawm,
1996, p.40). Virtual communities, although not a novel concept, still
refers to an online environment where some people nd a place to
socialize in a dierent way thanin face-to-face interaction (Rheingold,
2000).
Studies conducted in the eld of computer mediated communica-
tion (CMC) show that a repeated characteristic invirtual communities
is the shared sense of belonging of members. e idea of belonging has
been taken for granted in many studies or dened as a personal feeling
to be part of certain group, place or location (Youkhana, 2014). As
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

125
Antonsich (2010) states “sense of belonging” is a phrasing that remains
vaguely dened and undertheorized, because researchers usually have
not asked “what do you mean when you arm that you belong here”.
Nevertheless, in the last ten years, the theoretical approach to belong-
ing and the politics of belonging have been explored by many academ-
ics, starting an emerging eld of research (Antonsich, 2010; Stahl &
Habib, 2017; Youkhana, 2014; Yuval-Davis, 2011). Since youth are
active users of online social networks and they feel they are part of vir-
tual communities, a branch of this study would be youth belonging and
politics of belonging in communities that are created and maintained
online.
is chapter analyzes the emergence of new forms of online social net-
works as safe spaces. In order to do this we discussthis phenomena using
a case study of young people from Spain whocompose the virtual com-
munity Feminismes. e two key questionsthat we explore are: (a) What
sense of belongingness is evident in the construction of the identity of the
young members of virtual communities and (b) What mechanisms of
regulation and self-regulation used by young people in online spacescan
be identied?
Youth, Feminism andOnline Spaces. Historical
Context, andConceptual Approach
Nowadays, discussions on feminism are becoming mainstream in o and
online settings. Despite variations in the degree of presence and accep-
tance of these conversations and how this may change between historical
and political contexts, feminism has been brought to the forefront by an
increasing number of individuals and institutions, both in mass media
and in social media (Keller, 2012). In this sense, Butler (2011) and
Touraine and Rivera-Vargas (2017) argue that we are living in an era of
intersubjectivity, where ideas like feminism, social participation, and
democracy are more valued that in previous times. Butler (2011) even
argues that in the present, the feminist debate is necessary and inevitable,
and should be part of all social spaces, in a transversal way.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

126
e digital media and the current interests of young people have facili-
tated this transformation. Nevertheless, Loader and Mercea (2011) rec-
ognize that it is necessary to avoid the utopian optimism of digital
democracy. e deterministic idea that social media are inherently
democratic and inclusive is probably dead by now. Having said that, the
limitation of the digital spaces does not deny the possibilities of individu-
als or communities to engage in democratic practices.
Young people are more likely to become politically active through the
Internet. Digital environments where youngsters can engage (if they have
the interest and or the social capital) with expressions of social diversity,
inequality and cultural dierence as important sources that can empower
or inuence democratic innovation. e easy access to online environ-
ments has promoted the participation of many young people in virtual
communities, becoming key spaces in their lives. According to Jenkins,
Ito, and Boyd (2015), social media allow young people to interact with
others who are radically dierent than them and therefore, they can be
exposed to new ideas and people. Contradictorily, Fu (2017, p.2) sug-
gests it is a way for youth to connect with “others who share similar values
and enable a sense of political and spiritual belonging which can help
them navigate their opportunities and clarify values”.
Online feminist discussion spaces are not new and neither are indi-
viduals who try to disrupt and undermine these spaces, those usually
denominated “trolls” (Donath, 1999). In a case documented by Herring,
Job-Scheckler, and Barab (2002, p.373), we see how online discussion
spaces on feminism “are usually a target of negative attention from indi-
viduals, mostly men, who feel threatened by or otherwise uncomfortable
with feminism”. Dixon (2014) draws a similar conclusion when she ana-
lysed the online feminist identity, based on the study of the Twitter
hashtag #Feminism. According to the author of the study, online discus-
sion forums provide a new arena for the enactment of power inequalities,
in this case related with gender.
e historical context of Spain would explain why it has been neces-
sary for women to create and share spaces to discuss gender issues. e
last eighty years of historical, social and political events in Spain have
been marked by a long period of both physical and ideological repression,
followed by a transition marked by silence and unresolved conicts.
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

127
e ideal of women during the Franco dictatorship (1936–1975) was
based on the Catholic moral; it was considered that women must not
have extra-familial work, but mainly accomplish their duties with the
paternal and marital authorities (Manrique, 2014). erefore, the model
of women was an obliging mother and wife adapting to patriarchal val-
ues. A gender segregated educational system contributed to the indoctri-
nation not only of woman but also of other excluded individuals, although
education was at the same time a stronghold from which to oer resis-
tance. Not surprisingly, many feminist organizations were formed to face
the values and ideals projected in the patriarchal and heteronormative
discourses and ethos.
Methods
rough the research project ‘Youth Virtual Communities: Making
Visible their Learning and their Knowledge’ (Alonso etal., 2016), a team
composed by 12 researchers conducted seven case studies in virtual com-
munities with a high participation of young peopleaged between 15 and
29years old (DevianArt, El Libro del Escritor, Feminismes, Cosplay España,
Kabua and OpenMind). e project commenced in October 2015 and
was carried out for one year.
e rst stage involved an intentional sampling of 24 virtual commu-
nities to understand and categorize their characteristics and functions. In
the second stage, 7 communities were selected to carry out the case stud-
ies during a period of 6months. Two researchers contacted the adminis-
trators of each community to negotiate the conditions of the research.
e anonymity of the participants was maintained, and only the title of
the communities is mentioned.
For six months, the researchers conducted 2–3 interviews and observa-
tion sessions in each community. e interviews and observations were
interconnected, since the main focus of the observations was to nd evi-
dence of the content of the interviews. In total, 18 interviews were con-
ducted (12 with administrators and 6 with participants of the
communities), and 35 screen captures were made.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

128
We adopted a digital ethnography approach when studying the cases
(Hine, 2005), which helped us to better understand the online interac-
tions of this community. e interviews with the administrators and the
conversations in the group suggested that other private and public online
communication channels were used within the community, but we did
not have access to that data. e thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006) led us to orient our results to better understand the themes of
social relationships, communication, sense of community, ownership and
privacy.
In this chapter we specically present our analysis of the experience of
participants in the virtual community Feminismes. In this case study, our
ethnographic work was carried out in six months, where we analysed the
virtual platform on Facebook, and we carried out three interviews1: two
with administrators of the community, Mary (28) and Simona (24), and
one with a participant, Markus (27).
Context
Feminismes is a virtual community of 2971 members, mainly Spanish
youth, which operates as a private group onFacebook. It was created in
2011 as an open group, but the members decided to become a private
group on 2015 and a secret group on 2016. erefore, Facebook users
who want to be part of the community have to be invited by the mem-
bers of the group and accepted by the administrators. Being accepted as
a member means having access to the content of the group, being able to
post messages and participate in the discussions. Feminismes is described
as a group where “ideas, information and activism on feminism are
shared, debated and exchanged, usually in Spanish.”
In the description of the virtual community, the members specify that
all people are welcome, since dierent approaches to feminism exist and
constructive exchange of ideas is always enriching. Nevertheless, all mem-
bers have to follow some rules of participation to be part of the group and
they keep the right to expel a user who does not adhere to these rules.
Firstly, sexist ideas and attitudes are not allowed. Secondly, every idea and
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

129
every person has to be respected and insults are not accepted. irdly,
people who do not consider themselves feminist can participate only if
they express their ideas with respect and they do not question the exis-
tence of feminism. Finally, heterosexual men are invited to be part of the
community, only if they do not abuse of their power by constantly post-
ing messages to the group.
rough our research, we learned that some of these rules were not cre-
ated from the beginning, but rather they emerged from specic moments
and situations. e gure of the administrator was created because of situ-
ations of power abuse. Several members of the community expressed the
need that some administrators moderate the discussions when a member
became aggressive and disrespectful, to ensure the security of the group,
and four women volunteered to become administrators.
A priority of the individuals who created the group Feminismes was the
necessity to share experiences, complexities and frustrations related with
being part of a patriarchal society. In our analysis, we could see that for
the participants we interviewed and observed, belonging to the virtual
community was associated with security, mobility and inclusion. We
were compelled by our interest to study both social relationships between
the individuals and group identities.
The Virtual Community asaSymbolic Safe
Space
Belonging often refers to specic localities and territorialities (Antonsich,
2010; Ottone & Sojo, 2007; Youkhana, 2014), but in our case, we
wanted to explore the meaning of belonging to a virtual space.
Consequently, we conceptualize Feminismes as a symbolic space, described
by its members as a space of familiarity, comfort security and emotional
attachment, a feeling of being at home (Antonsich, 2010; Rivera-Vargas
& Miño-Puigcercós, 2018). In researching Feminismes we were witness to
articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings
(Massey, 1994) or “Virtual Togetherness” (Bulger, Bright, & Cobo,
2015). Our understanding of virtual communities is not restricted to the
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

130
dimension of time or space. Although the members of the communities
studied were located in dierent geographical locations, the sense of ‘vir-
tual proximity’ played a key role. In other words, acknowledging that
thoughcommunity members did not necessarily share location, time or
space, they all expressed their sense of belongness for being members of a
common network of social relationships.
A main theme that emerged in our analysis was the need to create a
safe space and maintain it, so members of the virtual community could
feel free to discuss ideas and share experiences. One member, Markus,
attributed the possibility of feeling safe to the nature of virtual environ-
ments, where technology mediates communication. Markus felt safer in
online settings because he was able to express his ideas without feeling
frightened.
Reexivity—and of course the feminist ght—is extremely necessary now-
adays, and virtual environments help a lot of people to say what they want
to say. On the one hand, it is because they are safer, and on the other hand,
it is because aspects such as shame or charisma of certain people, which are
important in face-to-face situations, are relativized in virtual settings
(Markus).
e necessity of feeling safe was mentioned repeatedly in the discus-
sions in Feminismes and in the three interviews. It was clear that safety
was not only an individual challenge, but also collective, which led to
some of the members of the community thinking about nominating
administrators. In the interview with Mary, she explained that when she
became an administrator, the participants started to tag her in conversa-
tions, especially when conictive situations or discussions arose. Her atti-
tude towards this practice was positive and hopeful, because she thought
that it was, in her words, “the only way to control the security of the
group.”
If we take into account that the administrators of the group functioned
as gatekeepers, eectively “controlling” the security and deciding who
should and who should not have the possibility of belonging to the com-
munity, we could consider that these administrators might be creating a
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

131
new form of leadership to shared power. Given that fact that administra-
tors take decisions on behalf of the rest of the members of the community,
this person plays a privilege or hierarchical position of power or inu-
ence. is suggests that the existence of an administrator within the vir-
tual community reproduces a position of power that also can be seen in
traditional hierarchical organization in today’s society (e.g. companies,
government, or armies).
Controlling the norms of the virtual community by deciding who was
able to participate was a sociocultural practice apparently accepted by the
majority of the group, to keep it as a space for discussion and identity
building. We can see an example of this acceptance when one administra-
tor posted the following message to the group, proposing to turn it into
a secret group.
e administrators have a great concern for how the climate of security and
condence that we like to enjoy can be preserved. Here is our proposal: to
turn the closed group into a secret group, in which new members can only
enter by direct invitation of some member of the group. Personally, I am
against the loss of freedom in favour of security, but I consider that the
Internet, and Facebook, is broad enough to accommodate all kinds of ide-
ologies (including patriarchy and sexism, even if it keeps attacking us) to
have to ght against it also within the group. (Message posted by an admin-
istrator of Feminismes).
In the second part of the administrator’s message, we identied a ten-
sion in her narrative, since she was proposing to control the access rules,
but she did not want to lose freedom of speech. erefore, security in the
virtual community was based on the maintenance of balance between
two dierent sets of values and practices. On the one hand, the adminis-
trators wanted to facilitate freedom of expression because a certain degree
of security opened up possibilities to generate disruptive discourses and
to build their identities. On the other hand, they also wanted to forbid
sexist and aggressive discourses that were making it impossible to main-
tain a dialogue with peace and respect. We believe that this kind of struc-
ture of power, even if it generates tensions, is a driver of promoting the
sense of belonging and identity in the community.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

132
Tensions ofBelonging toOnline andNon-
online Contexts
According to the participants of Feminismes, the creation of a safe virtual
space served in contrast to their real lives,a space to discuss feminist ide-
ology and construct their identities as feminists. e participants empha-
sized the need to share what it feels like to be female in a patriarchal
hegemonic global context “which dismiss women’s attempts at speech as
‘irrelevant’, ‘personal’, ‘subjective’ or ‘particular’” (Lewis, Sharp, Remnant,
& Redpath, 2015, p.10). erefore, the creation and the sustainability
of Feminismes can be understood rstly, as a strategy of resistance to mar-
ginalization in traditionally male dominated spaces, and secondly, because
they don’t feel they belong to this patriarchal world.
Antonsich (2010) suggests that it might be necessary to move towards
studies that look at the plurality of scales at which belonging is articu-
lated. For instance, exploring not only the relation between ‘here’ and
‘there’ but also what ‘here’ means in its multiple layers. We might look at
the plurality of contexts to which the individual belongs, and the dier-
ent senses of belonging that are generated. Also, it may be important to
explore conicted senses of belonging, as well as conicts that are avoided.
A good example of a tension arising from belonging to diverse contexts
is the desire that compelled Mary to join the community. When we inter-
viewed Mary, she expressed that since she was a member of Feminismes,
she started to get answers to the discomfort she felt as a woman with
some attitudes and situations in her everyday life or the “disjointed-
ness”she experienced. rough her interactions in Feminismes and other
social networking services, such as Twitter, she began to understand that
mainstream patriarchal values were behind her discomfort.
Some questions that emerge from our conversations with Mary are
mentioned by Antonsich (2010): Can individuals feel belongingness to
dierent places and groups? How do they manage dierent senses of
belonging? Do they act dierently in some spaces because of the other
places or groups they feel they belong to? According to Antonsich (2010),
in order to belong, people should feel recognized as an integral part of the
community where they live, as well as being valued and listened to. In
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

133
this sense, based on the empirical data and the patriarchal conguration
of the society, we consider that young oppressed women might experi-
ence diculty to feel a sense of belonging to the physical places through
which they transit, such as their home, workplace, school, neighbour-
hood or other online settings. Belonging to an online safe space like
Feminismes, where they are able to share and discuss dierent forms of
direct or indirect discrimination, might allow them to feel a sense of
belonging. In some cases that can even inuence their self-identity or
behavior. At the same time, participants are possibly engaging in the dual
process of refusal and reclassication, as a coping mechanism to under-
stand their attachments to the other communities to which they belong
(Stahl & Habib, 2017).
The Dirty Work ofFeminist Boundary
Maintenance
Favell (1999) denes the politics of belonging as “the dirty work of
boundary maintenance” because it concerns the physical or symbolic
boundaries that separate the world population into ‘us’ and ‘them’.
rough our analysis of Feminismes, we see that participation in the vir-
tual community cannot necessarily be translated into a fully developed
sense of belonging. Primarily because members have to build and main-
tain the sense of security in the group as well as develop a number of
practices, rituals and ‘regimes of belonging’ (Youkhana, 2014).
rough the interview, Markus reected on the similarities and dier-
ences between human interactions through online and oine settings
and he expressed that “virtual life is a parallelism of real life”. On the one
hand, he pointed out that virtual relationships feel more anonymous and
the users feel freer “without the risk of being physically harmed if you say
something controversial”. On the other hand, the diversity of people of
the “face-to-face world” is also present in the virtual world, since “there
are all kinds of people […] with all kind of attitudes, positions […].
People with whom you can negotiate, speak and reect and people who
have a more victimizing or taxing attitude”.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

134
Negotiation was a cornerstone of belonging to the virtual community.
Every ‘politics of belonging’ involves claiming for belonging as well as the
power of granting it (Antonsich, 2010). A process of negotiation was
always in place. Often times, this process started when some dilemma or
aggressive discussion appeared in the debate and the administrators
addressed the challenge by trying to “bring order”. For example, Markus
was oended in several debates and he explained how the administrators
‘intervened’.
What I have seen is that the administrators intervene quite a lot when some
member is rude, oensive or he generates hate. In some debates where I
have been oended, an administrator proposed me if we wanted to remove
him [from the group] because he was being discriminator.
As we can see, the formation of the feminist identity in the group was
interrelated with the distinction the participants made between them-
selves and those who they considered ‘others’. We agree with Wyn (2014)
that the Internet enhances connections and facilitates multiple identica-
tions, but it also intensies boundaries between groups. According
to Keller (2012), this happens because in a group created by feminist
young women it would be contradictory to position as neutral and impar-
tial on the confrontation between feminist and non-feminist ideas.
Previously, we have considered how spaces such as Feminismes might
become active promoters of social inclusion if they emerged as bottom-
up initiatives, that is, from community needs and interests (Miño, Rivera-
Vargas, & Salazar, 2017; Rivera-Vargas & Miño-Puigcercós, 2018).
rough our research we addressed how members of the virtual commu-
nity Feminismes were promoting dierent mechanisms of social inclusion
(Ottone & Sojo, 2007) by helping each other to rethink their identities
as female, transgender or homosexual (Dixon, 2014) and through encour-
aging other participants to share their feminist ideology and experiences
of oppression. On the other hand, they also promoted fragmentation by
not accepting the presence of individuals who were not respectful
aboutfeminism (Keller, 2012).
“It is not easy for all of us to express ourselves and to participate; it is
necessary to respect the other people and try not to occupy and abuse of
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

135
the collective space, to make it pleasant and useful for everybody” (Group
description in Facebook). is declaration indicates adesire to promote
a more democratic and equitable society or, more specically, a society
without male-dominated practices, with spaces where old established
identities can be questioned and more equitable politics of belonging can
be created.
e virtual community Feminismes would be an example of a social
institution that promotes change of male dominating power relation-
ships. For example, in a post to the community, one of the administrators
expressed: “usually about one hundred of requests are received every
month, of which almost a half are rejected”. Due to the signicant
amount of requests the administrators received from trolls, they created a
complex system to identify them, by asking them the reason why they
wanted to be part of the community and which member invited them.
Every time the administrators accepted a request, they sent this message
to the new member:
We have approved your request to participate in the group Feminismes. I
warn you that we do not have much tolerance with the cisgender male
participation -in the case that you are-. Many members of the group
wanted a not-mixed space. I suggest you to sit in a corner, read a lot and
write a little, and if you do, do it with respect, humility and assuming that
you can be criticized. Patriarchal deconstruction is a challenge for all. You
are welcome [to the group]. (Message posted in Facebook by the
administrators).
With this message, the administrators claried that not all attitudes
were allowed in the group. Participants who did not respect feminist
ideas and insulted other participants were not welcomed in the commu-
nity. As Antonsich (2010) suggests, we should reect on the extent to
which our personal, intimate feelingsof being‘at home’ in a place may
derive from the comforting realization of others’ absence. Forbidding
sexist attitudes and practices in an online space might be understood
both as creating immediate fragmentation between the dierent mem-
bers of the community, but also as promoting social inclusion in the long
term for feminist discourse in the society.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

136
Final Thoughts onPolitics ofBelonging
andTransgressive Identities
According to Foucault (in Palmer, 1998), ‘who we are’ is not an individ-
ual matter, but aproduct of forms of external agencies. e societal
modernity has made evident that individuals need to constantly learn to
regulate themselves regardless ofif they are interacting with others in vir-
tual orface-to-face environments. However, these forms (and norms) of
regulation evolve along with the adoption of novel spaces where people
are transformed with and by others.
In this chapter we have analysed the symbolic resources used by young
people who are members of the virtual community Feminismes to create
and maintain a safe space. e rst question addressed in this chapter was
what sense belonging plays in the construction of the identity of the
young people who participate in virtual communities. Firstly, as known,
the sense of belonging or community is not exclusive of the Internet Era.
A comparable sense of belonging has happened previously with other
technological inventions, for instance, public postal systems or telephone.
Noteworthily the Internet has allowed people to extend their social net-
works regardlessof the geographical distance. Some authors have debated
that social relationships created through interaction in virtual environ-
ments are supercial (Rheingold, 2000). Nevertheless, we think that a
shared sense of belonging to a community focused on a form of expres-
sion in the face of oppression might make social bonds stronger. e
conversations people have online can inuence the way they think, work,
understand the world and relate with others. e members of the com-
munity who were interviewed expressed that since they were part of
Feminismes they started to get answers to their discomfort about patriar-
chal society, understanding better their personal situations, building a
sense of sorority with other women and bringing what they have learned
to other social contexts, such as their workplaces.
e second question we addressed in the chapter was aboutwhich
mechanisms of regulation and self-regulation were adopted to and within
the community. In this sense, we have seen how the structures of power,
freedom and control are very interesting drivers that could enable or
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

137
inhibit feelings, a sense of belonging and identity. e members of
Feminismes felt free in the community, but at the same time they inter-
acted in a hidden virtual community that had explicitly stated rules,
where boundaries were policed. is apparent contradiction shows the
eorts of Feminismes for being both a sustainable and a safe space.
Finally, we consider that the virtual community Feminismes is an
example of a social institution that promotesachange to male dominat-
ing power relationships. Despite the fact that a hidden community might
not entail large-scale changes, we have seen that this is not an isolated
case, but that the need to create and participate in feminist communities
is growing in dierent countries, both face-to-face and virtual. erefore,
we conclude by pursuing the interest of doing more research on politics
of belonging through virtual feminist communities across countries, con-
texts, languages and cultural frameworks. is would inform how gender
inequalities are being contested by young feminists through both face-to-
face and online settings and how individual and collective patriarchal
discourse and practices are being challenged.
Note
1. We asked for written consent to use their information, but we are using
nicknames to protect anonymity.
References
Alonso, C., et al. (2016). Comunidades Virtuales de Jóvenes. Hacer visibles sus
aprendizajes y saberes. Madrid: Centro Reina Sofía sobre Adolescencia y
Juventud, FAD.Retrieved July 20, 2017, from http://adolescenciayjuventud.
org/que-hacemos/ayudas-a-la-investigacion/archivo-ayudas/ampliar.php/Id_
contenido/126667/
Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging: An analytical framework.
Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659.
Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London: Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Retrieved June 6, 2018,
from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

138
Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. (2015). e real component of virtual learn-
ing: Motivations for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and indus-
trialised countries. Information, Communication & Society, 18(10),
1200–1216.
Butler, J.(2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London:
Routledge.
Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist online identity: Analyzing the presence of hashtag
feminism. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(7), 34–40.
Donath, J.(1999). Identity and deceptionin the virtual community. In M.A.
Smith & P.Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp.29–59). London:
Routledge.
Favell, A. (1999). To belong or not to belong: e post national question. In
A.Geddes & A.Favell (Eds.), e politics of belonging: Migrants and minorities
in contemporary Europe (pp.209–227). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting Web communities: Building relationships, increasing
customer loyalty, and maintaining a competitive edge. NewYork: Wiley.
Fu, J.(2017). Online spaces of belonging in China. In H. Cuervo, J. Wyn,
J.Fu, B.Dadvand, & J.C. Bilinzozi (Eds.), Global youth and spaces of belong-
ing in China, Australia and Tanzania. Melbourne: Youth Research Centre.
Gomez, M.V. (2006). Contemporary spheres for the teaching education: Freire’s
principles. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 52–65.
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for
safety online: Managing trolling in a feminist forum. e Information Society,
18(5), 371–384.
Hine, C. (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford
and NewYork: Berg.
Hobsbawm, E. (1996). e cult of identity politics. New Left Review, 217,
38–47.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P.G.,
etal. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of ndings from
the digital youth project. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from http://digitalyouth.
ischool.berkeley.edu/les/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf
Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2015). Participatory culture in a networked era.
Cambridge: Polity.
Keller, J.M. (2012). Virtual feminisms: Girls’ blogging communities, feminist
activism, and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society,
15(3), 429–447.
Kilsheimer, J.(1997, April 7). Virtual communities; Cyberpals keep in touch
online. e Arizona Republic, p. E3.
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.

139
Lewis, R., Sharp, E., Remnant, J., & Redpath, R. (2015). ‘Safe spaces’:
Experiences of feminist women-only space. Sociological Research Online,
20(4). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.socresonline.org.
uk/20/4/9.html
Loader, B.D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media
innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication &
Society, 14(6), 757–769.
Manrique, J.C. (2014). Incidencia del ideal de mujer durante el franquismo en
el ámbito de la familia y la actividad física. Feminismo/s, 23, 47–68.
Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Miño, R., Rivera-Vargas, P., & Salazar, C. (2017). Jóvenes y comunidades virtu-
ales: Generando espacios y redes de participación social. In P.Rivera-Vargas,
E. Sánchez, R. Morales-Olivares, I. Sáez-Rosenkranz, C. Yévenes, &
S.Butendieck (coord). Conocimiento para la equidad social: Pensando Chile
globalmente (pp. 153–157). Santiago de Chile: Colección Políticas
Públicas—USACH.
Ottone, E., & Sojo, A. (2007). Cohesión social: inclusión y sentido de perte-
nencia en América Latina y el Caribe. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from
http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/2812
Palmer, D.E. (1998). On refusing who we are: Foucault’s critique of the epis-
temic subject. Philosophy Today, 42(4), 402–410.
Rheingold, H. (1993). e virtual community: Finding connection in a computer-
ized world. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Rheingold, H. (2000). Rethinking virtual communities. Retrieved September 5,
2017, from http://www.rheingold.com/VirtualCommunity.html
Rivera-Vargas, P., & Miño-Puigcercós, R. (2018). Young people and virtual
communities: New ways of learning and of social participation in the digital
society. Páginas de Educación, 11(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.22235/
pe.v11i1.1554
Stahl, G., & Habib, S. (2017). Moving beyond the connes of the local.
Working-class students’ conceptualizations of belonging and respectability.
Young, 25(3), 268–285.
Touraine, A., & Rivera-Vargas, P. (2017). Actores, conictos y reformas en
sociedades de comunicación global. In P. Rivera-Vargas, E. Sánchez,
R. Morales-Olivares, I. Sáez-Rosenkranz, C. Yévenes, & S. Butendieck
(coords). Conocimiento para la equidad social: Pensando Chile globalmente
(pp.153–157). Santiago de Chile: Colección Políticas Públicas—USACH.
Wyn, J. (2014). A critical perspective on young people and belonging. In
Handbuch Kindheits-und Jugendsoziologie (pp.1–14).Springer, Wiesbaden.
Virtual Communities asSafe Spaces Created by Young…

140
Youkhana, E. (2014). A conceptual shift in studies of belonging and the politics
of belonging. Social Inclusion, 3(4), 10–24.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). Power intersectionality and the politics of belong.
FREIA Working Paper Series, 75. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from http://www.
freia.cgs.aau.dk/Publikationer+og+skriftserie/Skriftserie/
R. Miño-Puigcercós et al.