Blogher -- What's the Goal?

That's why I voted "A Step Back".

You guys are more than welcome to point out where they were excluding men.

They aren't. I don't understand your invitiation Stacy. My vote wasn't because I thought they were excluding men... it was because I feel that a group based around gender equality is a step backwards for equality.

Promoting gender equality is a step backwards for gender equality? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Do you mean that building a community for female bloggers is a step backwards for equality? I fail to see how this is so. Can you explain to me how it is any different from other groups that build communities? Are conservatives destroying the cause of conservative by coming together at conventions? Is the NAACP harming blacks? Should the GBLT community disburse in order to further their cause?

Stacy, I wrote:

a group based around gender equality is a step backwards for equality.

You wrote:

Promoting gender equality is a step backwards for gender equality?

I agree with my statement, disagree with yours. My statement was intended to imply that promoting a specific equality does not help the overall cause of equality, but rather it introduces an unbalancing. Your statement is confusing... not sure what you're trying to catch me with there :)

I should have added... I don't think additional debate on this topic will solve much :)

@ bmvaughn:

Naw, not trying to catch you, I just don't understand what you are saying.

My statement was intended to imply that promoting a specific equality does not help the overall cause of equality, but rather it introduces an unbalancing.

So are you assuming that it is balanced to begin with, then? I see this veiwpoint quite often, and I've never quite understood what it is baed in, exactly. Maybe you can explain where you are coming from?

When I look at the world, I already see it unbalanced. So I fail to see how, if I try to tip those scales to be equal, how that still unbalances the scales. If I tipped them too far, sure. Or if they were even to begin with, and I tipped them, sure. But as it stands right now - the scales are imbalanced. We can't just "wait" for them to unbalance themselves - every gain in equality has been fought hard for by those trying to achieve it, the ideas were never put forth because of a benevolent move on the part of the privledged in society.

So do you think that there should never be groups that try to advance their standing in our society to an equal playing field? Should things like the civil rights movement and the first two waves of feminism never existed, for example? Should people just waited it out and hoped it would change? Or do you think it's only a factor now - as in the problems of race and sex are solved and racism and sexism just doesn't exist? Should we just accept that the playing field will never be level – that privileged group in society just got that head start and there's nothing to be done about it? Or if not, how should one go about taking down social barriers that prevent them from having the same opportunities as everyone else?

I understand the notion of: "Well, if everyone was just treated equal, inequalities would not exist". But I think it's a wistful, pretty type of statement that doesn't really address anything, it's like saying "Well, if people just didn't fight in wars, we'd have world peace". It really does nothing to help the situation at all, only absolves the person saying it from looking into the problem any further.

@ Brian

Sometimes they certainly don't do their best to promote their cause nor do they do much to encourage understanding in a lot of cases.

Sure, nobody's perfect. But is it to the point where these groups would be better off not existing?

As for understanding - there are things that no one is going to understand. Take homosexuality, for example. I can explain as thoroughly, logically and as nicely as possible why gays should have the same rights in our society as any other hetero couple. But for someone who's religion teaches them that homosexuality is evil, no matter how I dress up that opinion, they are going to take it as offense because homosexuality itself goes against their core values. What does one do in this type of situation?

Back to Blogging – we know that half of bloggers online are women. We know that women are just as technologically capable; we know that good writing is not based in gender or ideology. Yet, we also know that (as a whole) women are not getting the traffic that some male bloggers do – we find that female bloggers are not predominantly featured on the A-list. If it's not ability, and it's not representation, what do we attribute this to? And how do we remedy this situation based on that?

I haven't really been keeping up with a large portion of this thread, but I thought this was interesting.

When I look at the world, I already see it unbalanced. So I fail to see how, if I try to tip those scales to be equal, how that still unbalances the scales. If I tipped them too far, sure. Or if they were even to begin with, and I tipped them, sure. But as it stands right now - the scales are imbalanced.

I see this thought quite often, in terms of sexism, racism... all the -isms. And I have to say, it's pretty valid. I can't say I fault someone for attempting to bring things into proper order.

The problem, as I see it, is that while it does help bring things closer to balance, it also has the serious potential to create what I'll call the sway. Pushing in the other direction is all well and good when circumstances are out of whack, but what happens when the momentum gained from the gain of balance pushes it into unbalance from the other side? Will those pushing for balance realize it and correct themselves? Won't those on the other side push back, creating sway again? It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Picture an old scale, like the type held by Justice in statues and paintings. Imagine we add a grain of sand at a time, over the course of several years. Eventually, the scale balances. We can see it when it reaches that point, and stop at a reasonable time. Now imagine that we are, instead, adding 10 lb weights. Each time balance isn't achieved, we add another. Then another. Before long, things have tipped too much. We can't subtract the weight we've put on that side, so we put weight on the other side. Eventually, the same thing happens. Back and forth forever.

Add to this the fact that people see balance in different ways. Some people see sexism as unbalanced favoring men, some see it as fairly equal these days, and some even see males as beginning to be "oppressed." When people don't agree on when a balance occurs, there can be no agreement on where pressure must be applied.

This is really more pondering on the nature of inequality as a whole, I suppose, rather than specific ramblings on BlogHer. Still, I thought that point was an interesting (and common) one worth responding to.

Hey Watts, haven't seen you around in a while.

I think you are correct in what you are saying, we see this with liberal and conservative politics - it's backlash after backlash after backlash.

And I think that's why it's really important not to have discussion like this break down into a "You're a misogynist" / "Are you accusing me of being misogynist" dynamic. It's a discussion that needs to be kept open, because fears of being hit with one of the two accusations might make the debate end up in an echo chamber which will yield very uninformed and biased accounts on how those scales are doing.

Yeah, for the past week I was enjoying sandy beaches of an island on my honeymoon. But it's good to be back discussing these sorts of things.

My fear of the unbalance does involve keeping a dialogue open, and I really think it's important for people to listen to the other side. While I know you wouldn't agree that males are being oppresed in our society (I wouldn't either), we have to listen to their concerns and recognize that it's coming from a valid place. In some instances, there are issues being raised against males due to the counterbalance. Take a look at television advertising, for example; it's difficult to find a place where one particular group of people is more frequently and publically made the object of fun.

If we ignore those complaints based on the fact that there are other issues at stake, even more serious ones, I would say we run the risk of deafening ourselves to the time coming when men (or whites, or whoever is on the currently privelaged side) actually are being slighted.

I hear you on that one Brian. Though, on my part, it is somewhat due to lack of trying and defeatism around the inequality of being a white male. Yes, you read that right Stacy.

Yeah, for the past week I was enjoying sandy beaches of an island on my honeymoon. But it's good to be back discussing these sorts of things.

Liar. ;)

While I know you wouldn't agree that males are being oppresed in our society (I wouldn't either), we have to listen to their concerns and recognize that it's coming from a valid place. In some instances, there are issues being raised against males due to the counterbalance.

As long as they are valid, yes. But not all of them are. Which is why I ask for the reasoning behind the statements. If there isn't any, or if the logic is completely off or unsupported, I don't really feel an obligation to take them seriously. You'd be surprised at how many accusations are hurled at feminists that are completely without basis.

Seriously, breeze through those links. They range from the absurd to the hilarious.

The TV thing you brought up is interesting. I've heard the complaint many times before (in regards to sitcoms, mostly), and it's a reasonable one. However, one thing that strikes me with that is that the notion of the dumb dad is an exaggeration. It's the joke. Ha, look at how dumb he is. But check out what the wife is doing most of the time. She's a homemaker, she raises the kids, etc. And this isn't a joke. It's not a "Ha ha, she's doing the laundry again!" No, it's just a given. 'Cause that's just what the wife does. I think the only show I've actually seen make fun of it was the Simpsons.

Not saying that I'm pleased with the "dumb dad" thing or anything, I don't blame people for being upset at it and voicing that concern. But at the same time, I guess don't see this as an area that is more harmful to men than women, or that we can blame equality or feminism for it. I never saw a bunch of feminists march up to ABC and demand that all fathers be made to look like idiots, you know?

I hear you on that one Brian. Though, on my part, it is somewhat due to lack of trying and defeatism around the inequality of being a white male. Yes, you read that right Stacy.

I'm not sure the point of the snarky jab there. So am I to take it that you're not going to address anything I brought up in my response to you?

This is pretty much what I'm getting at. How can you make an accusation that fighting for gender equality somehow leads to more inequality, yet not give a single reason as to why you feel that way? And if you don't back it up, why should I give your argument so much as a second thought?

What about the @!$%# dad who wants nothing to do with his kids? That's pretty predominant in television.

Is it? I can't really think of any shows off the top of my head that fit that one, at least not in a malicious way. I can think of a ton that do the "dumb dad" thing (Simpsons, Family Guy, Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens), which can have the aspect of "Oh oh, there's a diaper that needs changing but football is on! Watch my hilarious hijinks as I try to get out of it!" crap. Is it a separate thing or just part of the "dumb dad" fad?

But check out what the wife is doing most of the time. She's a homemaker, she raises the kids, etc. And this isn't a joke. It's not a "Ha ha, she's doing the laundry again!" No, it's just a given. 'Cause that's just what the wife does.

Granted, Stacy. But ironically, you pretty much did what I was referring to when I said this:

If we ignore those complaints based on the fact that there are other issues at stake, even more serious ones, I would say we run the risk of deafening ourselves to the time coming when men (or whites, or whoever is on the currently privelaged side) actually are being slighted.

Of course the media depictions of women are unhealthy and wrong. But right from the start, my comment was pointing out that we can't let laser-like focus on one issue blind us to the existence of another. Women's portrayal in media shouldn't let us shrug off bad portrayal of men either. You stated that you don't like the "dumb dad" stereotype, then instantly went on to talk about the women's issue, giving it more attention. ;-)

Anyway, I was really referring more to commercials than sitcoms. These 30 second spots pack just enough time in to mock a male (not necessarily a father). The female is sometimes depicted as a housewife, but not always, and that is not the focus of these ads. Unlike sitcoms, the chance for character development doesn't allow us to really see the woman's profession. There is, however, just enough time to see the woman roll her eyes at her idiotic husband / boyfriend / brother.

Watching Lost -- I'm heartened to see Michael fighting for Walt -- in more ways than one. (I'm only halfway through Season two -- so please don't expand upon that thought!)

Just wait till--nahh...

Granted, Stacy. But ironically, you pretty much did what I was referring to when I said this:

Well, to clarify, I was basing off of this line:

In some instances, there are issues being raised against males due to the counterbalance. Take a look at television advertising, for example; it's difficult to find a place where one particular group of people is more frequently and publically made the object of fun.

I disagree with both of these lines, which is why I addressed them. First, I think women's equality helped men to look at these stereotypes and take offense at them, stand up and say "You know what? I don't really dig being portrayed this way." The second one I already went into – that I believe the more subtle, institutionalized stereotypes are more harmful.

I was thinking though, after I posted that, I do see an area where it is more like the laundry thing - where it's not really a joke, just "how it is" in terms of men. I see this when it comes to sex - the whole "Men will @!$%# anything that walks" type of thing. Sure, "jokes" ensue based on this stereotype - watch Chandler fumble his way around pretty girl and all - but the idea behind it isn't really a joke, it's a given. I guess if I were to look at it, I'd find that trend more damaging for men, for the same reasons I find laundry wife more damaging.

Women's portrayal in media shouldn't let us shrug off bad portrayal of men either. You stated that you don't like the "dumb dad" stereotype, then instantly went on to talk about the women's issue, giving it more attention.

Well, I am a feminist, Watts. Obviously, my area of expertise is going to be the stereotypes and gender roles that affect women. There's a bit more to it that just having an opinion, there's a lot of research to be had as well. Anyway, I think the fact that it appears I don't have much to say on the subject is hardly equal to me "shrugging it off". If I were to try to close down debate on the subject, I'd see where that is coming from.

I think that men should step up and say that they are not cool with it. women should support them in this, but how far does that support have to go? Can it go both ways? If men are not out on the picket lines with me for every single issue I personally believe in, can I make a claim that men don't care about issues relevant to women? That they are content with the status quo? Of course not. So is it fair to turn that same mentality around and throw it on women or feminists, and claim that if we do not encompass every single aspect of gender we have somehow failed the sexes? I think not.

Interestingly enough, there is a trend to shut down debate this way – by saying that "Men deal with X too! What about them?" It's has a "gotcha" aspect to it – the fact that if I can find an example of something that you are not putting 100% effort into, it means that your cause is actually invalid.

I saw it a lot during the Roe v Wade for men thing. Suddenly, out of the woodwork were thousands of men coming on and complaining about the injustice of the family court system, how they are discriminated against, etc – why don't feminists care about the fathers?

And a lot of us were like, whoa, that really sucks, I didn't realize it was that bad. What can we do about it? What are you doing about it? Can you give me information about how I can help? The response?

Crickets chirping. For many, the only reason they were behind that "cause" was because it was a good "gotcha" to throw at feminists, to claim that they were against men because they never took up this cause. Which is a damn shame, because it is a huge problem, and one that really needs to be worked on.

I think this is one of the major areas where there is a lot of mistrust. When I do hear the "But men experience X too" argument, I'm usually on my guard. It just seems like if someone cared so much about equality for all genders, they'd be going after the ones that are actually feeding the problem rather than the ones that just aren't addressing it to the level they'd like them to.

As a disclaimer – Not saying you're trying to do any of this, just trying to explain why it might be initially looked on with some reservations.

Anyway, I was really referring more to commercials than sitcoms. These 30 second spots pack just enough time in to mock a male (not necessarily a father). The female is sometimes depicted as a housewife, but not always, and that is not the focus of these ads.

Do you have any examples? Right off the top of my head, the only one I can think of is that Friday's one where they are all hollering about the meat. REAL MEN EAT MEAT! GRRRR! Ugh. I just hate it.

Unlike sitcoms, the chance for character development doesn't allow us to really see the woman's profession. There is, however, just enough time to see the woman roll her eyes at her idiotic husband / boyfriend / brother.

True, I doubt that people look at the man and say, "You know, I bet when it comes to physics, he's actually brilliant." But I also doubt people look at the swifter lady or the fabreeze lady and assume they are lawyers, or that it's Tuesday, and the husband dusts on Thursday.

One of the trends I've noticed lately is that there are more commercials designed to make men feel bad about their appearance. This is something women have been putting up with for years – the message that "You're flawed! But if you buy this, you won't be anymore!" But it seems there's been a huge increase in this with products aimed towards men as well within recent years. I don't know if it's due to an increase of men caring about their appearance, or if advertisers thought the mind job worked so well with women, it probably would with men as well. Either way, it's a shame. A step for equality in the complete wrong direction, and maybe even more of an underlying problem to come due to fact that issues of there stereotypical physically perfect male are not discussed as much as the stereotype of the physically perfect female.

Gee, Stacy, these talks with you turn very quickly into novellas. ;-)

I guess if I were to look at it, I'd find that trend more damaging for men, for the same reasons I find laundry wife more damaging.

I was thinking about the sitcom thing a bit last night as I watched Curb Your Enthusiasm. Which not only has a sharp, admirable wife, but an extremely dim, socially-inept husband. Double points!

Personally, I don't particularly find sex-seeking man or laundry-wife particularly damaging in the sitcom world, but perhaps that's just me. Sitcoms are based on the notion that they are funny because they imitate real life. And though we can begroan the fact that certain strides haven't been made, the fact remains that real life is that way. In our society, women do more often take care of the house chores, and men are fairly frequently looking to get laid. Sitcoms imitate life, rather than dictating it. It isn't saying this is how things should be, it's saying it's generally how things are. And to a certain extent, they're pretty much right.

The difference in my "stupid husband" scenario is that this isn't the norm. Or at least, one would hope not. The foolish, obnoxious, slow-witted husband in desperate need of constant saving from his extremely undeserved wife is not a social norm; at least, not according to my observations (given that in real life, most strong women marry strong men to compliment them). Therefore, this isn't an imitation of life, but rather a statement of opinion. We then see this mindset rub off into real life. Gather around some 40+ aged married women and watch them make fun of their husbands. It's in good fun to them, sure, but it's in the same vein as the sitcoms that the mindset came from. Rather than life determining what goes on TV, TV is determining how people perceive life.

This has the added detriment of teaching males that it's okay to be that way. If my wife is going to be condescending and treat me like the house fool, I may as well earn it by not doing anything to prove myself unworthy, right?

Do you have any examples? Right off the top of my head, the only one I can think of is that Friday's one where they are all hollering about the meat. REAL MEN EAT MEAT! GRRRR! Ugh. I just hate it.

Mmmm, meat.

Anyway, not off the top of my head. I would just suggest watching about an hour or two of TV during prime time. Excluding program promos, keep a little running tally of how many times a male is seen as the stupid one. Keep in mind, of course, that it's only an older male, and only a white one. When it isn't the wife pointing out his stupidity, it's a black guy or a kid. Seriously.

I don't know if it's due to an increase of men caring about their appearance, or if advertisers thought the mind job worked so well with women, it probably would with men as well. Either way, it's a shame.

I'd say it's because more recently males have been attempting to be better looking. The "metrosexual" culture, as it were, before it was even called that. But yes, it is a shame. I'm saddened when any part of culture decides that the way to get equality is to (a) do something horrible to men that had already been done to women or (b) allow women to do something horrible that men have been doing for years.

You know, I think I'll try to do an article tonight that can spark up a discussion about these things. I'm not feeling the best lately, so I'll probably just watch some TV tonight (as much as I can stand, anyway). I'll try to jot down some stereotypes I notice on both genders and then open it up for discussion. I think it would be interesting to see what other people pick up on and how they feel about these representations.

This way, Brian can have his article thread back. Sorry Brian, didn't mean to hijack the thread. :(

The worst it can do is distract Brian a bit. ;-) But I'd be interested in reading that article, Stacy.

If it helps at all, I found this New York Times article on the trend of male media portrayals, which led to two sites on the subject:

Society for the Prevention of Misandry in the Media
Stand Your Ground

They both go a tad farther than I would, suggesting boycotts and letter-writing campaigns, but they are a fairly good (if incomplete) index of some of the more blatantly insulting ads that have been out recently.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with bloggers who have an interest in common - in this case, being female - getting together.

This is where such groupings lose me - what do these bloggers REALLY have in common other than similar types of anatomical attributes? Are women really that homogenous? I don't think they are, but what do I know?

And if we're going to create movements based on broad anatomical considerations, should there be a movement and conference for blond bloggers? Or Left-handed ones?

I mean, the NRA membership is overwhelmingly male, and I am male, so I guess I have something in common with them, but that doesn't mean I actually have any interests in common with them.

Sure, I suppose there's always an element of preaching to the choir, but I see little harm in this event in itself. If people aren't interested then fine, but I think it's a grand idea that similarly-minded bloggers should get together like this.

You're article is titled: "What's the Goal". Well, not too sure on that but perhaps they just want to raise the profile of women bloggers? Dooce is one of the highest profile blogs around anyway, male or female.

My question to those at Blogher or who are behind its implementation: Why? Putting up a fence never seems like a good idea.

I don't see this event as "putting up a fence", more of a celebration of one particular element of the blogosphere. It's of no interest to me, but it is to a number of female bloggers (and some men) who turned up at the event.

No problem as my mac was having issues this morning as well!!!

Thanks,

K.P.

I mention it in the comments, but there was the lady who said that it's the responsibility of powerful women to hire and promote other women -- which I think is BS.

And that's fine, I'm just saying that I'd like to read the actual words of the speech rather than go by someone's impression of it.

There's a difference in suggesting that women that are in a position to do so should help bring more women into a sphere where women are lacking in number, and suggesting that women should only hire women no matter what the qualifications of the applicants or the job they are applying for are. There is also a difference in suggesting it and claiming there is something wrong or anti-woman about them if they don't, you get what I'm saying?

Still, this was not an attack on Blogher -- it was a question about it's direction.

I understand that, but by putting lines in such as:

Reading blogs about the event (by women) makes me think that this may be a bit of an overstatement: It feels like an event by women for women -- whether it truly is or not.

and

It tells me that I have a choice: I can read blogs by men, or I can enjoy a "more different" style of blogging from women.

You are putting your opinion in there, so you do kind of put a burden of proof on yourself.

The female blogger that Jeff Croft linked to doesn't really say much about the conference, she is more musing on her personal perceptions of feminism in general. If you read her final thoughts, you'll see that she was more disapointed in the lack of discusssion regarding technology more than a notion of a polarization of gender. She links to a few of the speakers she enjoyed.

But she also apparently really likes Bon Jovi. I think that causes her some credibility. (Just kidding)

Anyway, a lot of the bloggers that I usually follow haven't posted up full reports yet. I'll link them for ya when they do.

But she also apparently really likes Bon Jovi. I think that causes her some credibility. (Just kidding)

Ha! The Bon Jovi CD was in the swag bag from Saturn at the conference. I just thought I'd give it a listen.

Argh, sorry Brian, I meant to respond sooner. But then I wanted to write out an answer as to why I felt BlogHer was important. But then it turned into more of an answer about why some feel these communities (online or off) are needed. And then I thought it was lacking some things like a sense of history, so I had to add more, blah blah.... And now, it's an article in process.

I'm going to get it posted though, I swear. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow. ;)

Just wanted to address some things on here:

Except, I'm only expressing my view of how what "I" think when I read about Blogher. I can't really prove my perception, nor do I think I need to.

Well, okay, perhaps burden of "proof" might be a bit strong. More what I was inquiring into is why you think these things. What gave you the idea that it was a girl's only club? What gave you the impression that women are asking you to choose between reading male blogs and female blogs? Was it a workshop during the conference? A speech? Impressions from bloggers that were there? And if so, which bloggers/conference attendees?

I think you're sort of proving my point by the way you're defending the conference:

And now I have confusion. Can I ask what point I've supposedly proven? Because when I read this line here:

I honestly like to think that I read as many women as men (especially on Newsvine) and so I think I'm as good a person as any to raise these questions. My motives aren't to demean the idea -- but to clarify some of the issues I have.

It almost seems that you are perceiving attacks where they do not exist.

I've not accused you of any of these things you are trying to defend here. I didn't come on here and say that you were male, so you have no opinion. I also did not come on here and say that you probably ignore female bloggers, so you have no opinion (Both of these statements seem to suggest that I have accused you of being sexist or tried to claim that you have no right to voice your opinion on BlogHer based on the fact you are male, and I'm not sure where you got that from).

I have not assigned sinister motives to anything you are doing here.

What I said was that I felt that it would be better for the article if you had linked to items which influenced your perception on it. You agreed, but instead of providing that, you went on the defensive. I guess I don't really think it's an unreasonable request, nor is it a veiled attack.

There's no need to defend it because I'm not really attacking it. I'm asking questions and trying to understand the process. I'm also trying to lend my point-of-view so that women who are attending or organizing can understand one of the hurdles that they might face.

Yep, got that. And I don't see anything wrong with it, either. But I think that to help, your point of view would be more helpful if you explained why you interpreted it this way. Do you feel this way any time groups gather? Or was it something unique to blogging? Or just something unique to this particular conference?

It's pretty straightfoward, to me. Like I said:

BlogHer's goal is to raise awareness of female bloggers, the issues they face, to celebrate the ones that broke into the mainstream, and helped other women get there.

I guess I don't really see why that would rub someone the wrong way. So for me, explaining why it did rub some the wrong way would be helpful - I'm being sincere when I say this. Is it the perceived goal itself, or how these women tried to accomplish that goal? And with either, why?

On a somewhat related side note:

You know what might be an interesting project for an article? Cruise some blogs being your normal self but using a feminine name. See if people treat you differently. I would guess that some would, but I think it also really depends on the site. For instance, I've never had it happen that much on Newsvine, I remember someone told me to "calm down" once when there were people on the thread that were using a much more hostile tone on the thread, but other than that it's been cool. Compare that to a blog like Protein Wisdom, where I expressed an opposing opinion in an immigration debate and was called a @!$%#, ugy, and fat for it (But, to be fair, that blog is quite the cesspool of humanity). But anyway - you never know what you'll get, and it would be interesting to document something like that.

That study just goes into the demographics of who's actually blogging. Just because a blog exists doesn't mean it's being read.

If you look at rankings on Techorati, you'll see that only a few of the top blogs are run by women.

I think a large part of it tends to do with the actual representation of women in certain fields. There's still a gender gap when it comes to things like technology and science. And, it just so happens that these types of blogs tend to be the most popular blogs.

Not to say that there are not those who wish for some of these blogs to remain a boy's only club. There are quite a few women that blog anonymously or under a male psudonem in order not to catch that sort of flak, and that is a problem - they shouldn't have to hide their gender in order to not gain this type of attention. Some just want to talk about tech, not talk about how hot they are or find themselves in the position of being the female spokesperson for sexism in their respective fields ("othering"). And I think having to deal with these thing that women uniquely have to face can turn some women off of blogging.

I don't really see it as a unique online phenomena. It's more of a reflection of society.

Yes, tech, science... and to that I'd add politics. One thing I've noticed is that what we call "A" List bloggers all tend to link to (and internally refer in their entries to) other "A" List bloggers. Those links, as well as pings and trackbacks, out to other blogs are important, as Technorati can attest to, and if more women bloggers were linked to, pinged, trackbacked and referred to in blog entries, they would likely see more readership. Still, there is only so much room at the top of any list, whether it's figured in readership, links, or whatever metric. None of those measure actual quality, but they do measure preference in some ways... on the other hand, television programming is supposedly based on that sort of popularity and I don't see that it's done tv-land all that much of a favor in terms of quality television.

Personally, I don't think BlogHer puts up fences anymore than a bunch of Irish bloggers getting together in a pub, or even hosting their blogs all on one system, does. It's really not much different than what various Writers' groups in the last two centuries have done, and I tend to see these groups like that.

Do all women (or all women bloggers) really have gender-related issues in common, enough to justify having a convention around it?

As in "All women bloggers face this or that"? I wouldn't think it can get that specific. When it does, I think that's where you have problems come in, we can't sum up every woman's experience based on a few.

I have a feeling that a lot of other variables would effect it. A woman who blogs about science is going to face different responses than a woman that blogs about her kid. A woman who blogs about technology on Newsvine will probably get a different response than a woman who blogs about technology on SlashDot. And so on. But there does seem to be patterns, and I don't think it hurts to look at these patterns and examine why they exist.

Maybe they do, I'm not saying they don't, only that it wouldn't really interest me because I never felt that being female had anything to do with my blog.

And no one says that it has to be. If you don't want your gender to factor into your blog, then you should be able to run it without that aspect. I don't think there's a huge push to demand on all female bloggers to emphasize the fact they are female or shame ones that don't as sister-haters. You might see this in more of the feminist blogosphere, where it is gender that is discussed, but as far as women bloggers in general, no.

But there are women that do want this community, and I see no harm in that. No one is forcing anyone that doesn't want to be there to go, and no one is trying to claim that women are bad or irresponsible if they don't wish to be part of it.

Hey, do you have a link to your blog?

Thanks for asking!

Obstination

In general, people have links to their blog or home page, if any, on their "column", as Brian Ford does, the little house icon right next to his name (near his pic), at top of page.

Newsvine is a fine example of an online community where women do have a voice that is heard. And I've seen women like Molly and Veerle garner lots of respect in the Web Standards community.

I've also had multiple experiences of saying something on a forum or blog, having no response, seeing a guy say the same thing afterwards, and being recognized for exactly what I had said earlier. I know that's anecdotal, but after it happens to you a few times, you wonder if you are invisible.

So, at least BlogHer brings attention to the subject of women blogging seriously, or serious women blogging!

kathy, sound points all. can mos. def. understand your position that the tagline could be misinterpreted in the manner you stated. even a small shift in semantics..."where women bloggers are," for example...might be able to communicate the concept while at the same time providing a semantic clue that there isn't an intent to "speak for" anyone else.

changing gears a bit, one thing that really (positively) struck me was the evolution of the theme, from the "where are the women bloggers?" theme of '05 to a much more personal "how is your blog changing your world?" theme for '06. many great stories were riffed on said topic...