The Sheila Variations

Hey Shiela. Thanks for the props, which also reminds me that I have been meaning to stop by and say hello to you;-)

The LLamas treat their lovelies well, and I generally trust their taste. Well, generally.....heh.

The last thing us intelligent ladies is to be ushered into the Top 100 or 1000 as mere "tokens." Hopefully, our message will prevent this crap. If we are recognized, it should be for our wit and intelligence.

As a white male, I'm rather upset I don't have more readers. Have we surveyed for an anti-Irish bias out there?

I say we start rounding up minorities and women and forcing them to blog at gunpoint. The ones who do not cooperate can be set up in blogging camps where they are denied food daily until they make at least three 200 word entries.

That ought to settle the problem.

Bill,

I think it might be an anti-warship bias going on. Not sure though.

emily - hahahahaha

"Blog - or DIE!"

On the up-side.. it's only a problem for the 'blogosphere' *ahem*

And "The perks of alpha bloggers"???

Slightly connected to the topic, I love this quote from an article a while back in the Chicago Tribune - "We have barely had the time to grow a real nice navel here in the blogging world, and we're already gazing at it. Amazing!"

I'm troubled by the implications of this revelation of extreme bias. Since I am a male who has a blog, and Sheila is a female who has a blog with a readership at LEAST 2000% greater than mine, in light of the fact that I'm operating at a massive advantage to her as a member of the oppressor (male) class, that must mean that she's something like a 10,000% better writer than me. Now of course I'd never deny red's vast superiority to me as a writer, but 10,000 fecking percent is a rather depressing figure to contemplate. I guess I'm going to have to go off in search of an avocation where males have an even more immense advantage than we do in blogging...
;-)

MikeR...this must be very injurious to your self-esteem. Maybe writers like Sheila who are unfairly good should have some sort of handicap applied...like a timer on their computer so it only runs 15 minutes a day, or some such.

Yeah, I realized while I was talking about women & blogging that I got plenty of traffic from guys. Felt whiny.

David - that's a cool idea, except that as a frequent reader of this site, I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face...

"...blogging is not a regulated activity in any way."

Not yet, you mean, and it's exactly the self-righteous, condescending, morally superior, patronizing, paternalistic attitude like that conveyed this article that invites in--indeed, that would welcome with open arms--regulating this new medium to death.

OK, maybe that's hyperbole on my part, but this isn't a context in which winning style points for tact and subtlety is likely to do any good. Just as banning flag-burning would probably be the only thing that would ever get me to burn the flag, regulating blogging would probably push me into starting a blog to do NOTHING but break whatever regs were being imposed.

Hmmm - other than those I've actually met (and Bill who just told us in the comments here), I really don't know and hadn't thought about the race or gender of anyone on my blogroll - until that jackass at Newsweek brought it up.

The beauty of the internet is that you can be anyone you want and will be judged, literally, on the content of your online character - until or unless you're caught posing.

As for the "white male" bias, I think there is (or was) actually more of a "female bias", because women are a highly-sought-after minority on the internet (although this seems to be fairly quickly evening out, although maybe not the highly-sought-after part).

A good example is the blog called "Hot Abercrombie Chick". Some guy scarfed some free photos from a Yahoo photo album of a cute girl wearing an "Abercrombie" t-shirt, then created a blog claiming to be a young coed philosophy major pictured in said photos. That blog has incredible traffic, makes money, etc, and there is reportedly a very dweebish guy actually behind it.

As you may actually be aware Red, an attractive female with a blog will get more traffic than an anonymous man with the same content, especially if she has photos.

So I think that guy at Newsweek is dead wrong, in addition to being a sexist, racist politically-correct jackass.

This whole discussion reminds me of how we used to joke about the handicapped Eskimo lesbian.

If the handicapped Eskimo lesbian showed up, she would automatically become the chief of any organization she wanted, because according to the quota system employed by the federal government, she could not be denied anything she wanted, because no one had ANY handicapped Eskimo lesbians.

It was a joke until some guys from Alaska got smart - they found the handicapped Eskimo lesbian, formed a company and made her the president, and started competing for government contracts. Because they could never be turned down, they now dominate all kinds of government contract services around the Pacific rim, and they've all made millions.

As the old cartoon had it, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

Now they not only want to know whether you're a dog or not, they want to know what breed you are and exactly how many millimeters long your ears are.

Sheesh.....

Great response to the article. I agree with you completely, and I, for one, don't link to you to balance things out gender-wise.

If you do stab someone with a fork, I could blog about it and link to you, which would help me make my quota for the week...

Wow. Okay, for the people who are having a hissy fit about the "lack of women alpha bloggers" or the "lack of Black alpha bloggers," maybe they need to think about it this way:

Imagine a big, big party, to which everyone has been invited. Now, send someone around to the little different knots of conversation. Now, have some anal-retentive person start tallying who is speaking the most and who is being listened to the most. If those people are predominantly the "majority" class (although, I would argue that women are hardly a minority), start slapping duct tape on the mouths of the majority people and start goosing the minority people until they speak.

Sound ridiculous?

Well, yeah, worrying about who's blogging and who's a "top" linked blogger is kinda like that.

(yeah, yeah, preachin' to the choir here, I know)

I dunno. I read a LOT of blogs. Actually, most of the ones I read (because I read a lot of education-blogs and craft-related blogs) are by women. I don't pick blogs because of who writes them, I pick blogs because they're on topics that interest me and are well-written.

there are a lotta blogs out there that frankly, suck eggs, and I don't spend my time reading them. I'd hate to have someone "force" me to read them because they're by some underrepresented group. Or worse, have someone tell a person they can't blog because there are already "too many" white bloggers, or affluent bloggers, or college-educated bloggers, or whatever.

I mean, criminy. Having a blog is kinda like walking into the Speaker's Corner section of the public park and standing up on a soapbox - there's not exactly a big barrier you have to cross to do it, besides having computer access and being literate. (And in some cases, I'm not all too sure about that last criterion).

I can't help but wonder if there is a more sinister side to this article. After Rather's demise and the blogger coverage of the Food for Oil scandal, mainstream media has recognized that it has reason to fear blogs and undoubtedly wants very much to discredit them. Trying to tar them as inherently sexist, racist, and discriminatory perhaps doesn't make much sense, but it is very shrewd in that charges of discrimination could lead to governmental regulation of blogs, which would be a crucial step in defanging the political influence of bloggers.

That's my paranoid conspiricacy theory for the day.

Bryan and Dave J are on it. Not Yet is the term of the day. I Can Say No More™.

Ok, I'm in the minority here, and may get DE-LINKED, but I'll try to defend something of this point of view. First of all, the discussion really got going because of a lack of female voices on op-ed pages. Which is a question of barriers to entry, or at least institutional practices, unlike blogs.

For blogs, of course, it's a little silly to make this point, since you should be able to link to whoever you want. It's a hobby, after all, even for someone like Andrew Sullivan. But it's also possible that a guy has a bias that he's unaware of, and would like to correct, if he were aware of it. (I think Kevin Drum or Matt Yglesias are like this; both have been linking to many more women in recent weeks.)

For myself, I feel that sometimes guys don't take some of my political points seriously because they are thrown in with more personal reflections. Which I become aware of when one guy does eventually pick up my point, and then a million guys link to HIM. I'm perfectly willing to grant that this is sensitivity on my part, or mostly my imagination, but I think there's some degree of truth to it. That idea makes sense to me, in theory, that the very same information is easier to take from a culturally more authoritative voice. Is that so crazy?

CW - Well, I like to believe (call me Pollyanna) that people read me (even when I had the photos up) cause they liked my content. I don't mind that people know that I'm a woman - I don't feel any need to hide it. I have no idea why people read me, or how most people get to me. Most people Google "Cary Grant" and come upon my insanity. Or Google "Central Asia" (heh heh) and find my essays on Turkmenistan.

The fact that a chick wrote them is irrelevant to most. The fact that I had pictures up is also irrelevant, in terms of how most people seem to get to me. My blog is about CONTENT. I guess - I have no idea what it's about. But what do I do here? I write. I write like a maniac. People seem to like to read what I write.

Anne -

My comment is sheer anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth. It was a male who first linked to me (Ben Kepple - thanks, Ben!!) - and no, it wasn't because of a political post, it was my compilation of Battlefiedl earth reviews - heh heh.

In terms of being taken seriously, I can say that 100% of the condescending emails and comments I have received have been from men. 100%. Take that for what it's worth. But I don't dwell on that, because the majority of the men who visit me, and read me, do not treat me that way at all. AT ALL.

I think, too, it really depends on how you define blogging. There are bloggers out there who take it really seriously, as another form of journalism. And so their blogs are mostly about blogging and the plight of bloggers. I find this intensely disinteresting and don't read those blogs. It's too much like a mirror turned on itself. I like people who write about topics that interest them. (Even if I'm not interested in said topics!!)

So the more ambitious bloggers, the ones who use the terms "MSM" in every post, for example, have more of a vested interest in pointing out inequities, (perceived inequities.)

But still. From my tiny corner of the blogworld:

Men have been very generous to me, they link to me, they write to me, they comment here, they are engaged in whatever conversation I bring up. (Women, too - I'm just talking about the different genders at the moment). But I refuse to believe that my male readership only came here because I had that black-and-white crying picture up. Maybe that was part of the appeal, but not the whole appeal.

I like reading blogs written by interesting people. Every person on my blog-roll is an interesting person. And I'm an interesting person. Men and women come here, cause they're interested. Plain and simple.

There are men who seem truly disturbed that I have my own opinions. Opinions that do not jive with their own. So they write me drippingly condescending emails, telling me to read this article or that article, in the hopes that I will be better informed. These people are pricks, and they have no business taking up ANY space in my brain.

Mike R/David F:

hahahahaha

"I say we start rounding up minorities and women and forcing them to blog at gunpoint."

:: raises hands ::

Geezus, Emily, you could just mention that I've been neglecting my Livejournal.

"First of all, the discussion really got going because of a lack of female voices on op-ed pages."

A discussion railed upon by Maureen Dowd, who was, of course, completely oblivious to the irony of HER being the one writing about it. Boo-hoo, poor little MoDo doesn't get taken seriously because she's a girl. No, she doesn't get taken seriously becuase she's an unserious person who treats everything she writes about as trivia.

"That idea makes sense to me, in theory, that the very same information is easier to take from a culturally more authoritative voice. Is that so crazy?"

No, it's not crazy, but it does sound a bit overblown in the American context. Compare how many female op-ed columnists there are per capita in the US with, say, Japan, and then you'll get a real sense of where men's voices actually ARE treated as more authoritative.

Oh and Anne, I think I already de-linked you because you liked the movie Talented Mr. Ripley. Heh. But then I put you back on because of your story about Mitterand.

You know, every day is a new day for de-linking!!

Sheila,
For the record, I only link to your blog because you are a hot chick.

I, of course, de-linked you for writing about other chicks that I don't find so hot. But then I imagined you and the Bronte sisters in a four-way and re-linked you because I am a pervert.

hahahahaha

Yeah, women can be such jealous bitches, right? How dare you link to a hot chick when I also am a hot chick? There's only one hot chick on the block, sister. Personally, every single person on my blog-roll is chosen because I find them hot. Plain and simple.

wutzizname:

Yeah. Better get blogging, buddy. We're keeping a very close eye on you.

Maybe if you put up the "Rise and Fall of the Third Witch" photo....

hahahaha That would definitely draw in an interesting crowd, Ken.

Hi Anne,

Your points are well taken, and I'm sure it is true that the chauvinism you perceive among bloggers exists to some degree or another. What worries me the most about this debate is the possibility that "lack of diversity" will be used as an excuse for the censorship of political speech, and I don't think that this possibility is too far fetched. As a cautionary tale, it is worth recalling the attempt on the part of Al and Tipper Gore to get "South Park" censored. "South Park" is, of course, a very vulgar and nasty show. It also makes brutal fun of the American political left. So the Gores wanted to censor it because it was nasty and vulgar. Lesson learned here is that nastiness and vulgarity are not sufficient criteria for censorship because those criteria will most definitely be abused for the purposes of censoring political speech.

Similarly with the criteria of diversity and sexism. If Joe Chauvinist wants to have a blog exclusively devoted to saying nasty things about women, and if he wants his blogroll to contain links only to male bloggers who also say lots of nasty things about women, then it is very much in all of our best interests that he be allowed to do so, because if the government ever grants itself the authority to regulate or censor blogs, we can be assured that Joe Chauvinist will most definitely not be the blogger that the government goes after. Joe Chauvinist is not on anyone's radar screen. The criterion of diversity will certainly be abused for the purpose of censoring political speech.

So as much as I hate to say that bloggers need to close ranks on this issue, what I'm saying is that bloggers need to close ranks on this issue and to resist firmly any attempt at regulation on any grounds whatsoever.

Oh and CW, about Eskimo lesbians (did I just actually say that?)

It reminds me of a funny conversation I had with a couple of friends about the Oscars - we were talking about how you had to play

1. a crazy person
2. a mentally retarded person
3. a handicapped person

in order to get an Oscar. It's the ROLE that wins the Oscar, not the actor.

I said at one point, "Yeah, to win the prize, you've gotta play a limping retarded Inuit."

Now that's a movie I'd like to see.

Bryan -

I'm right with you. I agree completely. I resist that type of regulation, and I also resist that mindset, in general.

If I had a blog-roll made up ENTIRELY of female bloggers - what would it be to anybody else? If I only linked to women, who the heck really cares?

I don't.

You know what? The marketing people from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy have introduced "blogs" from Arthur, Marvin, and Zaphod. No Trillian. No Eccentrica. Three men (well, two men and a robot with a male voice). No women. I think this is definitive, irrefutable proof of sexism in blogsville. I'm going to go make a protest sign.

Sheila, clearly you want to entice me, with all this danger of delinking. Make me work for your approval.
It's all a ploy.

But I told you you could de-link me because Mating is my favorite book! There's got to be a give and take here, for me to get any fun out of it.

at the risk of being stoned, who the fuck is glenn reynolds?

beth - hahahaha

He's the Instapundit (over on my blog-roll somewhere.) If he links to you, your site will crash because of the traffic. Whatever. He's linked to me before. But life has gone on as before. And he never put me on his blog-roll.

Asshole. No, just kidding.

btw, has it not occurred to anyone that this might be because whites are overwhelmingly more likely to own a computer with access to the internet than blacks?

if there is a bias, it's brought about by the same biases of the "outside world", not by bloggers being racists. christ.

oh, ok. instapundit i know. the name i didn't.

well, guess my site's staying up for a while...doesn't he only link to conservatives?

But still - just to get back on the Glenn Reynolds topic:

I refuse to tally up everyone he links to, because I find that whole mentality disgusting- but he seems quite "balanced" to me. He links to Lebanese bloggers, Afghan bloggers, women bloggers, white male bloggers, black bloggers - He links to whoever is talking about whatever interests him.

Also, if you want to blog, you will find a way. You could set up a blog out in cyberspace without even owning a computer. That's what public libraries are for (or - er - one of the reasons.) If you MUST blog, and you do not own a computer, there are still free ways to do so.

beth -

Uhm, I don't think so. He's not a conservative, so I'm not sure where that idea came about. He links to people who write feckin' cat blogs and recipe blogs too. haha

Mostly, it's just current events, and law blogs - he's a libertarian law professor.

My biggest problem with the concept of bias in blogging (other than the obvious stupidity of anyone worrying about it - and people say I have too much free time?) is that this is something that can or should be corrected. What business is it of anyone's who or what I read? Should I be re-educated because I haven't read a book by a woman author in four months?

If blogs are about anything, they're about people being free to write and read any damn thing they want without anyone's interference or interpretation. The PC police are talibanning the blogs - looking for Errors of Faith when there is no state religion to begin with.

PS For the record, I am a handicapped fat hermaphrodite from Calgary named Hilda