I was having lunch with a friend today and trying to explain why I both like the internet and the blogosphere and all that it has wrought, and at the same time think the critics might be right about its part in the decline of civility and human interaction. I still have hopes for the former, but the the last few days have been a real example of the latter.Honestly, the objectification of women through the media or porn or bloggers or whatever is not really high up on my list of threats to the future of women or humanity. If some dude wants to put some scantily clad girl on his blog and drool over her, frankly, I could give a shit. The myopic focus on this crap on many feminist blogs and magazines both bores and frustrates me -- there are real problems in the world! But is it sexist? Of course. Why deny it? Why try to make it into something it's clearly not? I love progressive men, but they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to being unable to own up to their own issues or admit when they're wrong. In the absence of a better, gender neutral alternative, man up already. I really don't get the point of getting your panties in a wad just because people expect more from you than being the online equivalent of a lad mag. High expectations -- how dare they?!
Other things that annoy me about the blogosphere:
- People who like to present themselves as snarky and sarcastic, but have no ability to detect snark or sarcasm from others.
- The fact that even though this blog has four regular posters, very few other bloggers or commenters bother to differentiate us or recognize that we are not a monolithic DAKOTAWOMAN.
- How mean it makes me want to be.
- The tendency for other bloggers to attribute views to us that we have never expressed and often do not hold.
- Almost all political blogging is critical -- looking at some news or public figure or something and commenting on it, often negatively. But when someone on DakotaWomen does it, it's almost always characterized as 'whining'. Now, this post is whining. I'm feeling whiny. Can you see the difference?
- Meta-blogging. So I'll stop now.
13 comments:
I agree, Kelsey, with your comment on meta-blogging. I figure I'll do enough writing about blogging for my dissertation! :-)
It's weird: before this week's discussion of objectification started, I was wondering if I could just start an ad blog, loaded with Google AdSense and all the celebrity/tabloid content I could cut and paste and link. Aim for the national audience and big Google juice, rake in the cash from the ad clicks of the mindless, and use the cash to subsidize the local reporting and other fun I'd like to do with the Madville Times. I decided against it: it's just not worth it to me to spend even a half hour creating an ad blog filled with fluff and (forgive me) T&A, just to get page views from people who would never learn anything or stick around for a real conversation.
High expectations—there's a really good point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we bloggers like to think that, in a few ways, we are better than the corporate media trying to own our mindspace. I worry that Todd is putting commerce over content, conversation, and community. The latter are the things we blogs can do better than the mainstream media. If we focus on ratings and ad clicks, we lose whatever meager advantage we can claim. I may be as nervous about that prospect as I am bothered by the objectification.
I never realized, until my brief (and not unpleasant) involvement with the KELO blogs, how focused other bloggers are on page hits. As far as I know, I was the only person who didn't want some kind of hit tracker, and we didn't use one here on DW until very recently, and I still never look at it.
It seems like the wrong thing to emphasize.
And thus far, I think we've used our hit tracker almost exclusively to look up commenters IP addresses :)
I'd add that one of the things that suck about the blogosphere is anonymity. Spare me the explanation of why you feel the need to be anonymous. I have to think your insistence on anonymity is at least in part because you don't want the whole world tying your extreme views with you.
But the price you pay is that you are all lumped together as a monolithic DW. I've read your blog for a while and can honestly say I cannot discern one difference between anyone of you and therefore I don't even notice the name at the top of the post - for all I know they are four names in one persons head. One of the numerous lifeless things about this blog is that nothing personal is ever shared that would give context for your point of view. And therefore, you lack the distinct personalities you lament here that you don't have.
Cory is the blog expert but I'd think anonymity is a significant lid on the success of a blog and the seriousness which with one considers your ideas.
Simply because our user names do not included middle initial and social security number does not make us anonymous. I am significantly less anonymous as "Kelsey" than you are as "Voices Carry". I would say that close to 90% of our regular readers know who we are and the rest are not interested in finding out. The fact that you apparently don't read our blog regularly enough to know who I am isn't my fault.
This is a good discussion, but I think you should also engage the discourse on other blogs.
I found you via a friend's post at South Decola. After you ignore some of the crude things said in the comments, I think it's worth your while to join that discussion as well.
I have found going to the source (i.e. male progressive bloggers) in a diplomatic way can take the discussion to another level.
Either way, I like your work here. Keep it up!
Sorry. Forgot to provide the link.
I just don't feel like Scott is really open to discussion when he posts things like that.
I'd compliment his blog first. Then, give some rationale for your position. I also don't get the feeling that this post was directed at him. I think he's taking this a little too personally. Honestly, when it comes to social change, both blogs are nearly on the same page. That's my two cents.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but Scott has said enough things in the past that I'm a little reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt. You are correct that this post was not directed at him, but any attempt to flatter him at this point would probably come across as a little insincere on my part.
Fair enough.
If you want, check out my blog, living in misery. I think of myself as a progressive man who also happens to be feminist. I welcome an open dialogue, even when it points out my own hypocrisy.
Later.
Was just looking at your blog when you sent that -- good stuff! :) I actually spend a lot of time with thoughtful, progressive, feminist men (including being married to one). If it weren't for the internet, I might start to think that's all there was:)
I actually do like South Dacola, and I tend to agree with Scott's perspective on city government in particular.
As with most of the "criticism" we receive from other bloggers, his comments about how whiny we are came out of nowhere, it seems. I have nothing against any of them, I like reading their blog, and I'll continue to check them out. I dunno.
Like your blog as well, comoprozac.
Post a Comment