Sigh… As usual, I’m late to the debate. In a recent issue of Newsweek, technology columnist Steven Levy pointed out the lack of women and minorities in any substantive list of top blogs and bloggers, and argued for some sort of remedial action. (Oh, great. Affirmative action on the Internet. That’ll be a walk in the park!) Levy’s concern was sparked by a well-publicized comment by Keith Jenkins of the Washington Post:
My fear is that the overwelmingly [sp] white and male American blogosphere, hell bent (in some quarters) on replacing the current ranks of professional journalists with themselves, will return us to a day where the dialogue about issues was a predominantly white-only one.
Their argument has Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute (who ain’t timid, I’ll warn you) breathing fire in an article in the New Republic Online (I know, it’s Bill Buckley’s Conservative rag, but I tend to sniff a lot of flowers in the media bouquet). She argues for the Web as a haven for the voiceless:
If the quota mongers really believed these claims, they should welcome the Web enthusiastically, since it is a world without gatekeepers and with no other significant barriers to entry… They can get their product directly out to readers with no bigoted editors to turn them away.
And who’s to say which blogs are written by men or women? Unless they bear the individual’s name prominently, blogs lend themselves well to anonymity on all levels, which is one of the most attractive things about blogging, for me.
But a bias toward male bloggers does exist, and Mac Donald thinks she knows why:
If the top blogs link to other top blogs, [Newsweek's] Levy assumes that they are doing so out of race and gender solidarity… Here’s a different explanation for why the Blogosphere is dominated by white males: because they’re the ones producing the best product. Sorry, ladies, but there aren’t as many of us engaged in aggressive, competitive opinionizing and nonstop consumption of politics as our male tormentors.
Ouch! That stings! But I’m afraid she might have a point. Women have a lot of passions that they express in the Blogosphere, but how many of us are out on the vanguard for real social change? Are we really willing to stick our necks out, to provoke an argument, to risk getting flamed? I have some real opinions and some substantial social wish lists, but, when I write my posts, I find myself easing up on my language and even qualifying my arguments so I don’t appear too… what? Strident? Angry? Opinionated? Bitchy? And I’m probably not the only one.
I know there are some loud women’s voices out there. I cruise their blogs. I listen, and sometimes respond, and even link to them. But, as I told ByJane, there is a real difference between breast-baring exhibitionism (as practiced by some popular female bloggers) and good, clear, argumentative writing. The shock of the F-word peppered throughout a blogpost — of any origin — no longer titillates me. It just makes me want to send the writer a good thesaurus. Shock talk won’t mask weak writing.
I don’t think social issues, technology and politics are or should be everyone’s focus in the Blogosphere. If you’re passionate about children or midlife issues or religion or the natural world or literature or design, then, please, blog about it. But I think we need to blog brilliantly, not half-heartedly, using crisp prose and sharp imagery, employing all the tricks and tools the Web has to offer. If we have strong opinions and our arguments are clear, we don’t need to qualify them. And we need to support and promote each other, with links and blogrolls and blog communities.
That’s what the so-called gatekeepers are doing. If we are going to crash the gates, we need to be a force. And, for me, any sort of legislation or government oversight of the Internet aimed at improving our “minority” profiles would absolutely kill the whole spirit of the wonderful, unfettered Web.
July 31, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Fuck fuck fuck fuck…..sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Okay, dollink, I think your case here tends to veer in the direction of male chauvinism. That is, you are accepting that the “best product…[is] aggressive, competitive opinionizing and nonstop consumption of politics.” This is the same kind of thinking that the New Critics used when they reified the American Romantics over the Damned Scribbling Women. The guy were writing about serious shit that appealed to these 1950s (closeted gays, some of them) males who saw the space race relegating them to eternal, feminized pussydom. So they made sure the study of literature only included the studly men who were dealing with Serious Issues, and women got relegated to chick lit. Thus, you are in this piece, reconstructing the argument against women writers, that we should only write things that men will think are worthwhile in styles that are approved by men. Shame!
August 1, 2008 at 7:59 am
Oh, not so, my darling. I think we can write passionately about all SORTS of things, and those subjects have a validity of their own beyond what a male-dominated community considers worth reading. Social change embraces a broad spectrum of issues, including eldercare, family support, child welfare, and female enfranchisement at any age or state. I’m just calling for some excellence in expression and even some outright bravado is speaking about our issues.
Oh, good! I’ve sparked a debate! (And it’s never occurred to me to send YOU a thesaurus! You’re articulate enough!)
August 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Although I am passionately interested in politics, I neither want to write (or even usually read) a blog “engaged in aggressive, competitive opinionizing and nonstop consumption of politics”. My reluctance (in reading, at least) is partly because of the very democratic nature of the internet. All voices (if you can find them, and I accept that is a real if) are equal — mixed with informed commentators there are a lot of ill informed bigots, male and female, writing a lot of nonsense — most of it in a breathless, shouting, and yes, profane, tone. I would really rather get my news and political commentary in the oldfashioned way, or if on line, from trusted sources — it’s easier to sift, frankly. (Now I understand your point is precisely that the trusted sources are not linking to women, but read on.)
The blogs that engage me are, on the whole, about people’s lives and thoughts, stuff that has no voice elsewhere. I’m interested in stories. I’m interested in what people do and how they think.
These sorts of blogs are often, though not exclusively, written by women. Alas, even these do not, as you have implied, regularly rise to the heights of “excellence in expression”. Far from using “crisp prose and sharp imagery” they are more likely to be badly spelled, badly punctuated, and clicheed. They are rightly ignored. In fact, they are too much noticed. They should be ignored a lot more. (I’m wondering just how to do that, though it seems a really good idea in theory.)
On the whole, despite a discouraging tendency for mediocrity to seem to get rewarded, really good writing, from men or women, usually finds its way to the top in the end, whatever the genre. I don’t think the “gatekeepers” — whoever they may be — could keep out the kind of writing you are calling for. If women do not, on average, rise to the top in the aggressive political sphere it may be because, as Jane has suggested, the men are defining both the sphere and the top.
But finally, yes, you’re also right: the tendency to temper one’s tone to fit in, or be liked, is probably more feminine than masculine — and those women who want to get noticed as commentators in whatever world would do well to to take your advice and show some bravado.
Sorry. Long comment. But I know you like debate!
August 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Thanks, Duchess. Well reasoned, and well written. You’re one of the bloggers who should be read. And I say that knowing you don’t always agree with me!
August 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well, it’s true: I have not quite forgiven you for saying that British women had thick ankles. (But thank you for your kind words.)
August 2, 2008 at 9:07 am
If some British women have thick ankles, it’s to compensate for their FABULOUS COMPLEXIONS. Believe me, it’s easy to hide thick ankles. Bad skin just hangs out there for everyone to see!
August 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Just teasing
August 4, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Duchess isn’t British; her ankles are all-American slim.
And….reading her response reminded me of all the critical conversations I’ve read about women’s writing. There’s a whole genre of letters and journals coming out of the 18th century that are fascinating. And really, wasn’t Pepys just writing about everyday bullshit?