Sisters: The Path to Punditry Isn’t Paved With Baby Powder
Attendees at BlogHer were treated to 7 a.m. yoga sessions and demonstrations of the iRobot vacuum cleaner. Some of them positively oozed about the Sesame Street suite, which provided not only snacks but full-length DVDs of Elmo and Grover, “probably the most amazing celebrity you could have brought to the conference.” But now they’re upset that the conference is being treated in the press as something less-than-substantive.
Please. Can anyone imagine the organizers of Netroots Nation putting up signs in the bathrooms, as BlogHer’s founders did, assuring their attendees “You are perfect”? Or SWSX offering free beauty makeovers? Do any of the political, gamer, tech, or geek conferences promote a panel discussion about Beautiful Blogging and how the medium can be used to promote “love, trust, positivity, hope, empowerment”? Or one on blogging as a healing force? Do they offer seminars on crafts?
For some, the emphasis on socializing, attending cocktail parties, and garnering invites to private suites felt less like a computer-related conference and more like old college sorority days. Even a mainstream print journalist attending the conference, pen and paper in hand, saw it more about socializing with other women than an actual source for learning about technology, business strategies, and honing one’s skills at political punditry:
The only difference between me and the mommy bloggers, foodies and political junkies is that I write for a living, and most of them live to write. Their blogs are their diary/creative outlet. They sneak time from kids, partners and day jobs to share their innermost thoughts with total strangers.
Those who claim there’s a glass ceiling in the blogosphere note that TechCult’s list of the top 100 internet celebrities includes only 10 women and Forbes‘ list of 25 web celebs contains but four women (and Perez Hilton). What they don’t note, however, are some of the glaring differences between writing a blog about politics and writing a “Mommy Blog” that occasionally explores political topics (as mine admittedly does, but then again, I don’t take umbrage to being considered a “mommy blogger”).
As one glass ceiling skeptic notes: “At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.” Women who disregard that will continue to find themselves wondering Why Baby Poop Don’t Get No Respect, but the fact is that such topics simply don’t hold universal — as in, trans-gender — appeal the way politics does. “Maybe other frustrated mothers of toddlers can find some comfort in seeing they’re not alone. But it’s not going to land you in the Politics section or draw comparisons with Edward R. Murrow,” says the skeptic.
In this year when a record percentage of people are going online for political coverage, women who want equality on the web — and by that, apparently, they mean getting as many calls from the mainstream media as well as ad revenue from their blogs — might want to consider whether there’s really a glass ceiling, or whether they themselves have shut out a wider, more profitable audience. The internet’s 50 most influential women have figured out something that you, apparently, have not.
Call yourselves “Mommy Bloggers” if you want, organize conferences and “online communities for women,” and attend conferences supposedly about technology but write only about the “hunky” celebrity chef‘s cooking demonstration or the cocktail parties. But don’t blame over half of the internet — in other words men, as well as women looking for serious news coverage — if they assume you aren’t going to offer anything they’re interested in.
It’s not because you’re a female. It’s because you bore them.
Hi Katherine:
I appreciate that you can manage to discuss this with some actual analysis involved, as opposed to the posts I see from people who on the one hand rail against mainstream media, and then on the other, take the article at absolute face value! Your assessment of the ratio of topics on the agenda seems off to me as the one who programmed the agenda, but you know, everyone builds their own BlogHer agenda. There were seven simultaneous track designed to provide something for literally everyone in the blogosphere, including geeks, political wonks, activists, business bloggers and yes, those identity bloggers, moms and non-moms. Unlike NRN and SXSW we are not for a niche of the blogosphere, we are literally for any bloggers across any topic…hence the need for such a broad spectrum of topics.
I think the NY Times placement is a hot button issue because they are trying to have it both ways. They acknowledge that women bloggers, including those pesky personal bloggers, have a tremendous readership, and associated commercial influence. Many people would be surprised at the traffic and revenue that personal bloggers brings in…because there is, in fact, a big audience for their insights, opinions and just good storytelling. The Times wants to acknowledge that non-trivial influence and power, while condescending to the bloggers behind it at the same time. To me that’s the disconnect.
PS-if there were actually affirmation cards in the restrooms (which I didn’t personally see) they weren’t placed there by the organizers, but rather, I assume, by a well-meaning attendee. I don’t know who it was, but I hope she just continues to do her thing, if she believes in it and is passionate about it. That’s what blogging is supposed to be about.
It’s not because you’re a female. It’s because you bore them.
Sort of like the WNBA and Women’s Studies.
There are plenty of women bloggers who write about politics and current events, mostly overseas. Is it telling that the most popular female blogger outside of politics is Ree the Pioneer Women? Last time I checked her blog was ranked #46. She may ‘tell it like it is’ and be a hardcore Mommy blogger but she has a huge following of loyal readers. One recent post had over 13,000 comments in less than a day. That doesn’t sound like a glass ceiling to me.
http://thepioneerwoman.com
Wow Kate..harsh. I would try to think of something clever to respond back with but I’m afraid it would end up boring you.
There will always be women whose idea of high culture is gossip and shopping, just like there will always be women who would rather curl up with a quantum physics book. Both lifestyles are fine, as far as they go. But when the former demand the same respect as the latter without providing the same level of achievement, they shouldn’t be surprised when people laugh in their faces. And, frankly, as long as the former group is more vocal and visible than the latter, the laughter will be aimed at the whole group instead of just the part. Is shoe shopping the devil? No. But nobody who makes a career of it should be put in the same category as someone who actually works for a living.
This is a well-thought, well-written post. I applaud your willingness to share your frank observations.
I don`t see why a conference aimed at women in particular needs to be disparaged. Yes, there are a lot of mommy bloggers and maybe that is boring to men, but the fact remains that many women also write quality blogs on other topics and I think that should be recognized, as well.
If femamle bloggers want gender-neutral respect, perhaps not attending a BlogHer conference is the beginning. If a woman is blogging mostly about female-specific issues, then she ought not complain that she’s not getting treated equally.
Male bloggers who blog about sports go in the sports section, don’t they?
Btw, I can’t imagine a BlogHim conference.
Not everyone who blogs wants to be influential in tech and political circles. Some of us do it because we love it, and we need to write. If I bore you, you can click on through, I am ok with that. Those who do enjoy will stay, and participate.
I think the problem with the New York Times article (and this one as well) is that it marginalizes women. We can love shoes, hate makeup get massages (or not) and still at the end of the day, be damned competent. Why must we choose? I say we simply rewrite the “rules”to make them what we want. I fiercely agree with Erin Vest concerning the placement of the article in the Fashion & Style page. I even asked my husband to read it and that was his first comment, about how demeaning to women the placement was. He is a computer engineer and he also had the observation as Erin: tech conferences are never placed in the Sports or Outdoor Leisure sections.
We may not all be political bloggers, but we ARE a political force. And we aren’t going away any time soon.
I was on two political panels at BlogHer08 and had little interaction with the mommy bloggers. At BlogHer you can focus on what interests you, the attendee, and in my case, it is political blogging.
What is ironic about the NYT article is not that they put it in the Styles section (I have no problem with that at all) but that they only mentioned by name the personal blogs.
In my post from yesterday I posted links to the other political panelists, Morra Aarons-Mele, Mona Gable and Angry Black Bitch, none of which were ignored by anyone (except the NYT, perhaps).
While main stream media and traditional media may give us the stories we need to create a political mindset, it’s ultimately our family and friends that help us truly form our opinions. Sometime between “pass the mac-n-cheese” and “please don’t put peas up your nose” is when the truly influential political commentary takes place.
As for what the Blogher conference was and what it wasn’t – I’m not sure why we need another tech conference? Mommy bloggers attend SWSX too. Blogging isn’t all about tech so why must all conferences cover the same topics? Must they all have Hooter type girls running around covered in stickers? If someone found a reason to have a car show at SWSX I don’t believe anyone would bat an eyelash – with mascara or without.
BTW, I must have used the wrong rest rooms. Didn’t see any affirmations posted anywhere.
I don’t know about a glass ceiling. Ms. Berry has a valid point- people will not visit a site that bores them. Male or female, a blogger is more likely to attract a large readership if he/she can write interestingly about many topics. Focusing primarily on a single issue will naturally tend to limit one’s audience.
That being said, let me add this:
Women, by virtue of being child-bearers, through their historic role as the “fairer sex” and “home-maker”, and now in their role as business professionals, are a multifaceted group. They are not a monolith that walks in lockstep. As a group, and as individuals, they can hold a variety of different opinions and interests; from make-up to macro-economics, from toddlers to tort law. That their writing and gatherings reflect this should not be surprising, or a reason for derision, IMO.
Is a women blogger really any less a serious thinker for writing a piece on baby care or makeup, than a male blogger for writing about sports or his latest electronic acquisition? In my opinion, no, but unfortunately a lot of people appear to have decided that so-called women’s issues are not serious, and unfairly marginalize those who choose to write about them.
That many men and women do not find “mommy blogging” interesting does not mean that the topic is trivial. The care, education and upbringing of the next generation should be an important and even a political topic.
I had my own criticisms of BlogHer (http://leftcoastcowboys.blogspot.com/2008/07/blogher-debate-rages-on-what-are-rules.html) which continue to multiply the traffic on my site, so the topic is resonating. But I attended as someone without children and managed to find plenty of sessions that offered great advice on technology platforms, traffic generation, photography and writing.
Yeah, I smirked a little at the Lactation Lounge. Then I met some of the mommybloggers who had multiple kids requiring 24/7 care. BlogHer was one of their only extended breaks. So let them have massages and some girl-time with their tech. There was enough content there for everyone.
Back in the 70′s I remember that many women agreed with the cultural canon that women’s writing was not “real” writing, being personal and so not universal. The arguments made here are the same ones I read thirty years ago.
Back then, some women, Aunt Hen-like (as opposed to Uncle Tom), did quite well, for girls, writing in the same vein as men. And a few Olympian talents shone through gender biases effortlessly. But what about the rest of us who are neither male-identified nor Nobel quality? Do we “stifle ourselves” as Archie Bunker was wont to shout?
When a whole segment of the population, passionate, educated and talented, finds its writing disparaged and denied a place at the publishing table because it carries no interest for the 49% of the population who happen to be male (a minority if you do the math) this lack impoverishes us all culturally. Book publishing has caught up with the reality of women’s writing and is making a profit from it. But the blogosphere has no such incentive to change. Fellow bloggers will not profit from the success of subject matter they have no personal stake in. It would be the same as if the book publishing community let the authors decide who deserved to be included.
I find this need to attack what does not harm you puzzling. Men don’t fear that one group of men acting foolishly will reflect badly on them. Why should you care how these women act unless you feel deep down that women are second class and you despise it.
Funny, I wonder if a mostly male internet gathering that focus on the connections but on the side included mens ‘hobbie’ forums ( such as sports and hunting and NASCAR ) would have been sent over to the ‘sports’ section.
Doubting it.
On the Internet, nobody knows if you’re male or female.
If, under these conditions, you still can’t make it — don’t blame sexism.
We have started an online business magazine for female internet heroes. We bring news about women entrepreneurial, executive achievements, about raising capital, deals, launching companies etc. Most of the time this news is on page xxxxx at websites; if you put it all visibly together then it will be clear to ‘the world’ that women mean business too.
History repeats itself endlessly. When I marched for women’s rights, I honestly believed that the advancing the needs of women would make a difference in our lives, the lives of our spouses, children and other family members. But, as I have watched the last 40 years go by, the “women” appear not only to have gotten higher on the ladder of success, but a large majority have only achieved more sluttish behavior, lost a good deal of their morals, caused over 40 million abortions and are still more concerned with themselves than ever before! So, Katherine, don’t be surprised. Why should females be any different today than they have been for thousands of years? They, after all, still depend on males. If and when that changes, I fear the consequences to humanoids.
BTW…what do you define as “top of internet list of women bloggers”?
The very term “Mommy Blogger” screams of don’t take me seriously. There is a whole world of female bloggers on techgeeks who want nothing to do with talk of the consistancy of baby poo, their poo or what rehap lohan will go to next.
Mommy Blog IS boring. Blogher is losing membership for the same reason many young women found the key speaker/webcelebs to be boring. Lack of intelletual stimulation and substance. grrrr! How do we expect to be taken seriously?
Wow. Thanks for the link love, however, the picture you’ve painted about BlogHer is naive in my opinion. Have you ever attended a BlogHer conference?
As someone who attends all these conferences…cough…I can do my best to connect some dots for you.
At BlogHer (had you gone) you would have obviously not missed the panel on open source with 2008 Google-O’Reilly Open Source Award Winner Angela Byron. Or maybe you would have skipped the morning brunch offsite where we met to create a position paper to be submitted to the Democratic National Committee for inclusion in the party platform…seeing as you are Pajamas Media and all. But back at the BlogHer con you might have seen the race and gender session that brought the house down? No? Missed that…ok how about all the political sessions with congresswomen and surrogates and netroots? No? Then you must have seen the Content sessions and monetization sessions and the OTHER open source session, and the fundraising and activism online session and the online photography session …I could go on.
Of course at SXSW I attended a Sex, Intimacy & Online Relationships…one about “Why Sewing and Knitting Still Matter” and “Diaper Diarists” oh and also “Pet Blogging: Not a Fluffy Puppy Story” but hey, you probably didn’t hear about them because they weren’t in the style section of the NYT.
Silly me.
Yes, Ladies, keep this in mind:
We want you to attend to your appearance, so that you don’t resemble the Hideous Harridans of the Left (http://www.singularity2050.com/2006/12/a-picture-is-wo.html).
We want you to have children, both to avoid abortions and to save us from the demographic disaster predicted by Mark Steyn. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760)
But no matter how much of your time, attention and money it takes you to remain beautiful and bear children, for God’s sake, remember.
We don’t want to hear about it. That would bore us.
Katherine,
Agreed.
Unless we start embracing other things women can do and are succeeding in doing, all we’ll have at our disposal and more importantly at the disposal of younger generations of women, will be the usual; hoa to look to get a man, being a mommy, the latest recipe for cupcakes and how we can fix our bodies to look like megan fox. It limits what’s important about the human being, our BRAINS.
Yes, is there a place for the Mommy Bogher? yeah, for mommies. SOme girls have other ideas…
http://www.nerdgirls.org/indextv.html
http://www.witi.com/center/conferences/2008/siliconvalley/
I think they should do away with the Style section all together. Obviously the very fact that it exists is demeaning to women.
Let’s face it, we perpetuate our negative rep which is why we end up in the Style section.
Additionally, men (and other women) look at us like, “uh yeah, mommy bloggers how cute = stuff the movers and shakers of the world need not be concerned with.”
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/26/teh-laydeez-are-so-cute-when-they-try-to-blog/ has it spot on.
Eh. Unless you already have a large media organization behind you, you will have an audience of exactly 0,000 readers unless there is a “voice” behind your blog. And for women, that “voice” is one that says “I am like you, I have the same struggles.” Women want to read about the lives of other women. In my opinion, this is what makes us better.
When you don’t pay attention to or demean the importance of the realities of day to day life, you miss big picture things. Things that should find their way into urban design, policy discussions, legislation, and political movements. The personal is political. I don’t care how old the phrase is, it’s still true.