boredom
I’m spending my easter mostly studying economics. (I have to write an essay on “competative markets”), and I’m getting quite bored with this, so trying to distract myself in anyway possible. Just read a good article on the wealth gap between black and white Americans.
I aso heard about the debate on why women don’t write blogs. Blogging is another one of these things like science, activism, comedy, juggling, chess playing, computer stuff that women don’t seem to do. This could possibly be why.
20 comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m not sure about this ‘women don’t blog’ claim. Indeed, I think all claims made about blogs as a whole are likely to be false, because what you see of the ‘blogosphere’ is conditioned by where you start and where that links to. People used to claim there were no left-wing blogs, but this is obvious bollocks - it’s just that the famous right-wing blogs don’t link to left-wing blogs (what a surprise), so if you start from Instapundit, you don’t see many left-wing blogs.
I think, in fact, more women write blogs than men do. A small random sample of Blogger blogs gave me four women to one man, while checking five random livejournals gave me one woman, three men and one from which the gender wasn’t immediately obvious; so, at the very least it’s not obvious that ‘women don’t blog’. What is, doubtless, the case, is that the self-important bloggers who waffle on about crushing ‘old media’ are mostly men who link to other self-important men. The fact that they don’t think there are many women bloggers says more about them than it does about blogs.
Comment by Tim @ 4/5/2005 12:07 pm
I’ve actually hardly looked around the “blogosphere” - I just assumed it was true, because the left wing blogs that i have looked at - seem to be written by men - lenin’s tomb, dead men left, etc.
Comment by rachel @ 4/5/2005 1:42 pm
Women mostly write blogs about knitting, shopping and ballet. Oh, and fucking.
The tedious placard-waving is best left to men.
Comment by Marty @ 4/5/2005 3:21 pm
I bet it lines up with income/leisure, which would account for lower participation of women per other demographic category. Gender perhaps is less interesting in the analysis of who blogs than class, age… More academics than dentists, I’d wager. More childless folks than mothers of young children….Mme. Alphonse Van Worden
Comment by Alphonsevanworden @ 4/5/2005 5:09 pm
Marty - are you sure that you are not just noticing the blogs that live up to female stereotypes. Most of these (with the exception of the ballet one) look as if they could have been written by men trying to satirise women.
Comment by rachel @ 4/5/2005 7:06 pm
From what I’ve heard, quantitively Tim might be right with his ‘I think, in fact, more women write blogs than men do.’ Read somewhere that the ‘average’ blogger is a teenage american girl, though Mme A van W has a point (what about jodi dean at icite tho - kids and politics! we’ll have to tear up the rule book…).
Anyway, surely the main point is that you have to have access to a computer - and 2/3rds of the world haven’t even made a phone call.
Comment by infinite thought @ 4/5/2005 11:15 pm
An interesting debate certainly and of course one that affects me, since I am a female blogger.
Personally I have never questioned who blogs and why. I always assumed that for every right-winger blogging their thoughts, there would be a left-wing counterpart to match them. Likewise, male and female bloggers.
I’m not quite sure if I ‘live up to female stereotypes’; I’ve never thought my blog represented the ‘female view’ (whatever that is). But I have been accused of being a man many times.
At first this annoyed me - why should any women writing openly about sex be automatically assumed to be male? But I also understand it: the majority of pornographic/sex sites are run by men, so it would figure that blogs pertaining to be from womens’ perspective on sex would most likely be by ‘men trying to satirise women’.
In my case however, this is not true: I am a woman. But I cannot vouch for any other blogs, which is a shame: one would hope that as women, we have many voices and represent an interesting diversity online - sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case - if people reading doubt the blogs ‘authenticity’ then that undermines the writer, especially if she is actually a woman.
Any more views on this?
Comment by The Girl @ 4/6/2005 12:31 am
Interesting thoughts The Girl - which open up the whole can of worms concerning veracity and authenticity. Is Belle de Jour ficticious? Does it matter? Does a print of a famous painting give the same pleasure as the orginal?
When browsing blogs, it’s important to maintain a healthy cynicism about what’s being read, but when this decends into the nihilism of denying everything, then you’ll never get anywhere.
Oh, and do you fancy a shag? I’m 24, open-minded, live in London and can travel.
Comment by Marty @ 4/6/2005 1:03 pm
The girl: just realised that it was actually quie bitchy to suggest that your blog (and others) were men trying to satirise women. I had a look at it again and it is pretty good, i like the “differences between what men and women mean when they say they will call” item. I’m just a bit disappointed by the lack of political commentary by women (or perhaps these sites just aren’t linked to).
Comment by rachel @ 4/6/2005 2:00 pm
Oh for Godssake stop with the tired arguments about how men and women are intrinsically different. Women are not a homogenous group and neither are men. To talk about “differences between what men and women mean when they say they will call� is just pandering to common ideas about how there is some massive difference between the the two groups. It’s absolute bollocks! You could read that in fucking Cosmo or something! It’s one step away from essentialist notions of how the sex of a persons body determines their role in life. Sure you aren’t saying that men act the way they do solely because they’ve got a penis [and women because they have a vagina] but you are reinforcing notions that there is some kind of appreciable different between the way men and women act. This just isn’t entirely true or a useful method of analysis [this is where you’ll probably want to throw valid arguments at me about how the shared experience of women and men as socialised into their gender roles makes it okay to discuss things in terms of binary opposites]. People, especially those that appear to be radical and/or feminist, should be challenging such notions. There aren’t two genders and that’s it. Gender [as well as other social characteristics] is fluid. I am a woman and I am a feminist but my feminism isn’t grounded in some idea that there is some massive difference between me and men. Sure, there are differences but these run along many, many lines [class, race, sexual orientation, space, place, size] not just simply gender. The attitude of “men do this� whilst “women do that� will get you nowhere.
Sorry if that’s all a bit harsh [esp. the swearing]. I am writing whilst smiling, it’s not meant to be offensive.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Comment by Laura K @ 4/6/2005 5:00 pm
“Women are not a homogenous group and neither are men.�
Quite right, of course they aren’t. Neither are “class, race, sexual orientation, space, place, size�. This is not to say that there are no differences between them as groups.
“There aren’t two genders and that’s it. Gender [as well as other social characteristics] is fluid.�
Well yes, of course. But that goes for absolutely everything. At some point we force reality into convenient boxes so we can talk about it. What is a table? A plane of material on legs? What if the legs are 1mm high? What if they are a mile high? What if there are a million legs and they are *just* not touching? What is a table? You know one when you see one.
Admitting that there are differences between “men� and “women� (and outside of social science and critical theory, more or less everyone does) does not mean claiming that they are solid, eternal and universal, just that there may be diverging tendencies. The danger is that one may be privileged over the other: the male seen as standard, the female as inferior. We must be eternally vigilant to spot unspoken assumptions and hidden value judgments – I am constantly frustrated by media portrayals of men as beer-swilling, football loving, emotionally-stunted, insensitive bores – but we must also be careful not to force people into our own preferred theories. There is perhaps a parallel here with race/ethnicity. Are we all the same or do different groups have different (and equally valid) ways of experiencing the world? If ethnic diversity is welcomed, and people seen as different but equal, then may men and women be non-identical? If there is a “black consciousness� then why not a male one?
Identity politics, eh? What a minefield.
Comment by Alistair @ 4/6/2005 5:58 pm
Of course I’m not a gender essentialist, but there are differences between the way men and women as groups, overall tend to behave. For instance, there are far more male physicists. I think this is due to patriarchal oppression, rather than innate differences. I don’t see why ignoring the differences in the way men and women tend to behave would be in any sense liberatory
Comment by rachel @ 4/6/2005 6:09 pm
“I am constantly frustrated by media portrayals of men as beer-swilling, football loving, emotionally-stunted, insensitive bores”
I hate this to. I don’t drink beer!
“The attitude of “men do thisâ€? whilst “women do thatâ€? will get you nowhere.”
But there are some activities that “men” do far more than “women” and vice versa. Surely by studying *why* and *how* there are more male comedians (for example), is surely the way to root out prejudice and discrimination, rather than turning a blind eye to the facts.
Of course, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and breaking statistics down along other lines (race, class, etc) may be more useful in identifying causes for these societal imbalances.
As a capitalist, destroying all forms of discrimination is essential to allow society to get the best people doing the work they will be best at. For example, I’m sure there are some fucking funny women who never get the chance to shine, and this makes me sad.
Comment by Marty @ 4/7/2005 10:43 am
Hmm - actually that’ss a bit of a crap comment. What I was trying to say was, it’s possible to acknowledge that there are far more men in
comedy without thinking that it’s their “maleness” that *causes* them
to be funnier, like there’s nothing about someone’s blackness that
*causes* them to keep nicking my fucking scooter.
Comment by Marty @ 4/7/2005 11:18 am
JahJah: If ethnic diversity is welcomed, and people seen as different but equal, then may men and women be non-identical?
I’m not saying men and women are, or should be, the same. This is precisely the point. They are not the same. They are non-identical in very very complex ways. It’s useless having a binary understanding of it as it supresses differences with gender groups.
“Different but equal� means, to me, some kind of happy pluralism. That’s no good and not good enough.
The notion of equality rests completely on there being difference, if individuals were the same then it would make no sense to ask for equality. I would like to see equality on the grounds of differences… Equality in a form which doesn’t put categories of people against each other. Black people aren’t totally different to white people. They should not be in opposing, different categories. Similarly, I don’t like the idea of me as a women, being intrinsically different to you as a man. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Difference is created by society. Binary opposites are created by society [through language]. So if I insist on equality [which I do] then I want it to be on grounds that individuals are all different and should gain equality by challenging the labels [etc.] that are placed upon them.
Now I’ve confused myself with all of this and its complexity and think that I am wrong. But I always think I’m wrong. Maybe I should go back to being a regular feminist, it really is much easier! Knowledge will be the death of me.
Rachel: I don’t see why ignoring the differences in the way men and women tend to behave would be in any sense liberatory
It’s not about ignoring the differences it’s about recognising that a lot of the differences discussed are completely and utterly false. Do you REALLY, honestly think that men and women mean different things about when they say they’ll call?! Come on! The differences are much more compex than that…
See above answer to JahJah, also.
JahJah: I am constantly frustrated by media portrayals of men as beer-swilling, football loving, emotionally-stunted, insensitive bores
Oh c’mon! In most films, TV shows, etc. men are the complex, thinking characters with main roles. Even in independent cinema and TV this is the case. Women are sidelined or just used as objects of lust.
Marty: But there are some activities that “men� do far more than “women� and vice versa. Surely by studying *why* and *how* there are more male comedians (for example), is surely the way to root out prejudice and discrimination, rather than turning a blind eye to the facts.
I think often that’s a view often articulated. I can’t talk about comedy but in music [of the punk, indie, rock variety] people often look for the reasons why women don’t rock, when – really – they are rocking. There are fucking shiteloads of women making AMAZING music it’s just that the popular music media just prefers to cover skinny white males. If you look in the pages of Plan B magazine or whatever then you would get the impression that there are just as many women in music as men, but if you looked in NME you would get the impression that rock music can only be made my males…
Comment by Laura K @ 4/7/2005 4:12 pm
Laura, you’re railing against a straw man. No one here is talking in terms of binary opposites except you: binary opposites vs no binary opposites.* You can talk about “green” and “yellow” without thinking of them as opposed to each other.
“Oh c’mon! In most films, TV shows, etc. men are the complex, thinking characters with main roles. Even in independent cinema and TV this is the case. Women are sidelined or just used as objects of lust.”
You’re right about this. Women tend to be used as audience for a man’s jokes and virility. Look at adverts though, men are either thrusting business morons or pathetic boy-men who can’t even cook dinner.
“So if I insist on equality [which I do] then I want it to be on grounds that individuals are all different and should gain equality by challenging the labels [etc.] that are placed upon them.”
I’m with you. But to me, saying that all differences are created by society is as dogmatic as saying that all are “natural”. As George Michael said, “Listen Without Prejudice.”
* Did you like that one?
Comment by Alistair @ 4/7/2005 4:37 pm
To be honest, if you looked in NME you would get the impression that rock music can only be made by cunts.
I’m not sure where this leaves feminism.
Comment by Marty @ 4/7/2005 4:42 pm
you’re railing against a straw man. No one here is talking in terms of binary opposites except you
Rubbish! What the hell is saying “Men mean this” and “Women mean this” saying then? It’s pitting [?] them against each other uneccessarily [plus a load of old tosh]! That’s the main thing that pissed me off… Just discussing “things that men do” [blog] and things that women do [shag] or what-have-you should create this kind of argument. It’s necessary.
binary opposites vs no binary opposites
That’s my favourite, ever.
rock music can only be made by cunts
No, that’s actually true. You do have to be a cunt to be in a band. For example, look at me!
Comment by Laura K @ 4/7/2005 4:51 pm
To be fair, Laura, I don’t think there’s that much space between us. We’re just two of the only people left in a discussion which had many more participants. We’re falling into the trap of thinking of the other as the “other”.
;)
Comment by Alistair @ 4/7/2005 4:58 pm
Bog off!
Comment by Laura K @ 4/8/2005 9:58 am