Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog

The fucking New York Times strikes again with their abysmal coverage of issues relating to women’s activities in the public sphere. In this article entitled “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling”, Kara Jessela covers the BlogHer conference held last week in San Francisco, California.

First of all, does it surpries you one fucking bit that this article–about the business activites of women bloggers–is in the Fashion/Style section of the Times? Cause you know, anything women do is all about fashion and style, it’s not real manly-man shit like business and sports and technology. The Times article about how “blogging can KILL YOU!!11!!!!1!ELEVENTY!1!1!!!!” was in the Technology section of the paper. You know why? Cause the article is about how manly-man Cheeto-huffing bloggers could DIE!!!! from manly-man stress-induced disorders like HEART ATTACKS!!1Q!!1!! Cute little laydeez chit-chatting about blogging and other little cute shit they do on the Internet? Fashion/Style.

Here’s the first two paragraphs, which basically set the dismissive feminizing tone of the entire piece:

FOR two days last week, many of the men’s bathrooms at the Westin St. Francis Hotel here were turned into women’s bathrooms. The stalls on the second floor were lined with note cards featuring nurturing messages like “You are perfect.” Nearby, women were being dusted with blush and eye shadow, or having the kinks in their necks massaged.

There was a lactation room, child care, and onesies for sale emblazoned with the words “my mom is blogging this.” No doubt they were.

Yeah, those fucking laydeez are so heinous, they even took over the manly-man bathrooms!! And they’re such feeble-minded superficial silly bitchez, all they care about is “nurturing messages”, neck massages, and the trappings of femininity. LACTATION!!1!!!!11!1!! Why aren’t those bitchez at home taking care of the damn baybeez properly, anyway!?!?

Check out the pernicious hidden rhetorical trick embedded in these two paragraphs:

A few months before last year’s conference, Kathy Sierra, a technology blogger, received death threats from commenters on a variety of blogs. It prompted a flurry of discussion at BlogHer about whether women were the targets of particularly vituperative online attacks.

This year, women seemed to have moved on to other issues, such as gaining influence and making money. There were practical workshops on issues like building Web traffic and using open source software, sessions that dealt with emotional issues related to blogging, and specialized meet-ups (like one for baby boomer bloggers).

A “flurry of discussion” about whether women are disproportionately targets of vituperative attacks on the Internet? How about doing some actual, you know, motherfucking journalism, and investigating whether women are, indeed, subject disproportionately to vituperation on the Internet? It’s not real hard to find the answer.

And here’s the nasty rhetorical trick: “Women seemed to have moved on to other issues, such as gaining influence and making money.” Yeah, because dealing with a daily barrage of sick-fuck violently misogynist e-mails and comments is, like, totally irrelevant to women’s pursuit of influence and profit on the Internet. “There were practical workshops on…” Yeah, because sick-fuck violent misogyny on the Internet has nothing whatsoever to do with the practicalities of women’s blogging activities on line.

There were tears at many emotional panels, and also much hooting and applause, whether in response to news that Michelle Obama had just written her first blog post on the BlogHer Web site or that Michelin would be giving away a set of tires.

Those silly Fashion/Style blogging bitchez are just so irrational and emotional, crying and hooting and applauding! Not like the manly-man Technology bloggers, who are so manly, that they KILL THEMSELVES with manly HEART ATTACKS!11!!!1! Goddamn, the NY Times just never fails to piss me the fuck off.

Author: has written 16 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

89 Responses

  1. Posted At Feministe: Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog « PhysioProf

    [...] 26, 2008 Snippet of this post: The fucking New York Times strikes again with their abysmal coverage of issues relating to [...]

  2. Beth
    Beth July 26, 2008 at 4:38 pm |

    This isn’t the first time an article about women, or feminist issues, has ended up in the Fashion and Style section.
    http://tiny.cc/nUxn7
    I really adore the NYT most of the time, but this is getting more and more annoying.

  3. ilyka
    ilyka July 26, 2008 at 4:50 pm |

    Wow. I know I’m drowning in obvious sauce saying this, but that really wasn’t a very good article.

    I think what bothers me most, though, is that there are valid criticisms to be made of BlogHer. They just can’t be made, apparently, by the Times.

  4. Radfem
    Radfem July 26, 2008 at 4:52 pm |

    Maybe blogging wouldn’t be so “harmful” to women if anonymous cowards weren’t threatening so many of us for doing so. Sometimes it’s stressful enough to deal with this crap so that it almost feels like harm, but it’s because of the racist misogyny that’s so often used as “expression”.

  5. m. leblanc
    m. leblanc July 26, 2008 at 5:14 pm |

    I read that this morning and couldn’t come up with anything to say about it that wasn’t “argh argh argh bleeeehhhhhhh.” Good work, PhysioProf. I knew I was going to be sent over the edge when I got to “You are perfect.”

  6. Peter
    Peter July 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm |

    Other prominent female bloggers who did not attend the BlogHer conference agreed that there are unique challenges that women in the blogosphere face. “Women get dismissed in ways that men don’t,” said Megan McArdle, an associate editor at The Atlantic Monthly who writes a blog about economic issues.

    Yeah, this seems totally true.

    She added that women are taught not to be aggressive and analytical in the way that the political blogosphere demands, and are more likely to receive blog comments on how they look, rather than what they say.

    What??! Who is “teaching” women to not be analytical on their political blogs? This is the first I’ve heard of this! Do women have to go to some school or seminar to be taught this? I’m calling bullshit. Digby and that gal at Firedoglake (forget her name) are just about my favorite political bloggers, and they blow the socks off most of their competition.

  7. Screaming Lemur
    Screaming Lemur July 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm |

    Ohhh MyGoddess. That’s… just…. special.
    And why, might I ask, is the phrase “a flurry of discussion” or even “a flurry” of anything never used in articles that discuss ‘OMGZ serious manly man’ things? Cause that word is so dismissively insignificant and frothy to me. Like, “there was a flurry of gossip at the hen party last Tuesday when Edna wore that miniskirt”. Come on NYT, it’s not a weather report. Stop using ‘flurry’.

  8. Jill
    Jill July 26, 2008 at 6:08 pm | *

    What??! Who is “teaching” women to not be analytical on their political blogs? This is the first I’ve heard of this! Do women have to go to some school or seminar to be taught this? I’m calling bullshit. Digby and that gal at Firedoglake (forget her name) are just about my favorite political bloggers, and they blow the socks off most of their competition.

    And Digby also blogged under a gender-neutral psuedonym until she “came out” last year. Megan McArdle gets on my nerves, but I do think she’s right that women are smacked down for being aggressive, even online (but then, women are smacked down for being online at all, so there’s that), and she’s obviously right that women get more comments about their looks than men do.

    But I think, Peter, you’re right that despite gendered social norms, there still are a lot of wonderful, analytical, aggressive female bloggers — the problem isn’t that they don’t exist, it’s that many of them aren’t recognized as immediately or as easily. Or when they are recognized, they’re dismissed as hysterical or angry or whiny. Men can get mad and it’s legit and passionate; when women get mad, we’re harpies. Obviously Jane and Christy at FDL and Digby are exceptions, but part of what makes those women so phenomenal is that they are incredibly thoughtful and accurate and insightful; the kind of commentary they put up is some of the best on the internets, and blows many of the similarly-situated boy bloggers out of the water. I don’t want to name names, but I think it’s pretty clear that when it comes to insight and sheer intellect in commentary, the only Big Boys I can think of who approach someone like Digby are Glenn Greenwald and Matt Yglesias. Then again, I don’t read a ton of the Big Boy blogs so what do I know, but I think it’s pretty clear that Jane, Christy, etc had to be twice as good to get where they are.

    My boyfriend was one of the “big boy” bloggers until he quit relatively recently. He wrote a book about the various failures of the Bush administration, and he blogged about foreign and domestic policy issues that absolutely infuriated him. I don’t think he has ever gotten the kinds of comments that I’ve gotten — he’s been told he’s a traitor, but not that he’s hysterical. He’s been called an asshole, but he hasn’t been told that he should be raped. He’s been told he’s an idiot, but he’s never been told that he should just “calm down” and quit being so hysterical and angry.

    That does make a big difference. And it certainly feeds into how a lot of women write — I know that I check myself pretty regularly to make sure that I’m not sounding to “angry” all the time so that people will take my arguments more seriously. I try not to throw around words like “patriarchy” or “privilege” too often, because those words get dismissed in ways that other words evaluating politicized situations don’t. So it does affect how you write — and of course, no matter how calm or collected or unemotionally analytical you are, if you attach a female name to a piece of writing, a whole lot of people will (usually unconsciously) not think quite as highly of it.

  9. skippy
    skippy July 26, 2008 at 6:43 pm |

    you’re an idiot physioprof, just calm down and quit being so hysterical and angry.

    ok, j/k, glad to see you’ve gotten front page status at feministe, one of my fav female blogs.

    i skimmed the article and didn’t actually see any names of the lady bloggers i read…no jessica of feministing, none of the ladies from this blog, no digby, no firedoglake, etc etc etc.

    so once again the nytimes is behind it (the times, that is).

  10. Notorious P.A.T.
    Notorious P.A.T. July 26, 2008 at 6:55 pm |

    Teh

    Please don’t.

  11. ouyangdan
    ouyangdan July 26, 2008 at 7:21 pm |

    *headdesk*

    I am not surprised, remember when that article about anorexia and bulimia were featured in the fashion/style section not too long ago (in a paper I can’t remember, don’t know it was specifically the Times)? Any thing that has do do w/ women gets shut into that section and others like it, and the argument I always get is “well that’s what they read, so at least it is being seen by it’s demographic”. Well, if all of the things relating to us weren’t published in the fucking style section we wouldn’t have to read them there. For fuck’s sake. Aren’t we always being yelled at for our “women only spaces”? Maybe if we weren’t herded off like cattle to these spaces it would be different.

  12. SophiaPriskilla
    SophiaPriskilla July 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm |

    Sorry, I think the Style section is appropriate for articles on the general culture of the blogosphere, no matter what part of it. Stories about war, major human rights abuses, environmental and health problems, natural disasters, and world politics belong in the front section. How people blog about these things is not news. It’s cultural commentary, and the Times is right to treat it as such.

  13. Dana
    Dana July 26, 2008 at 7:55 pm |

    I do wonder how much this happens in the papers I read – sticking relatively important/interesting articles in “Fashion and Style”. I wouldn’t know as I read the main news section, world, and letters. I’m not interested in travel or fashion or sports or business. Hmm

  14. Peter
    Peter July 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm |

    And Digby also blogged under a gender-neutral psuedonym until she “came out” last year. Megan McArdle gets on my nerves, but I do think she’s right that women are smacked down for being aggressive, even online (but then, women are smacked down for being online at all, so there’s that), and she’s obviously right that women get more comments about their looks than men do.

    But I think, Peter, you’re right that despite gendered social norms, there still are a lot of wonderful, analytical, aggressive female bloggers — the problem isn’t that they don’t exist, it’s that many of them aren’t recognized as immediately or as easily. Or when they are recognized, they’re dismissed as hysterical or angry or whiny. Men can get mad and it’s legit and passionate; when women get mad, we’re harpies. Obviously Jane and Christy at FDL and Digby are exceptions, but part of what makes those women so phenomenal is that they are incredibly thoughtful and accurate and insightful; the kind of commentary they put up is some of the best on the internets, and blows many of the similarly-situated boy bloggers out of the water….

    Oh, I totally agree. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. I’ve talked to some female friends about the gender “expectations” in cyber space. Some people – particularly men – seem to get very agitated when a women on a message board forum or on a blog are aggressive and analytical. I’ve seen it a million times. Personally, I dig it when anyone is very passionate and analytical about – so let loose with the cuss words Sister Jill!

    Oh, and you’re right about Digby. She and the gals at FDL have to be twice as good as a man. And I can recognize it. I hardly go a day without reading her blog. I heard somewhere about Digby blogging under a gender neutral name, and I don’t remember the exact reasons for it. But, I guess it might have something to do with the issues you articulated. Thanks for sharing, I understand what your saying.

  15. SophiaPriskilla
    SophiaPriskilla July 26, 2008 at 8:03 pm |

    Just to add some specific perspective – the stories in today’s NYT news section include such headlines as “In Cambodia, Land Seizures Push Thousands of the Poor Into Homelessness,” “Despite Rebel Losses, Cocaine Sustains War in Rural Colombia,” “At Least 29 Killed in Explosions in Indian City,” “Assassins in Zimbabwe Aim at the Grass Roots,” “After Iowa Raid, Immigrants Fuel Labor Inquiries,” and “Prosecutors State Case in First Guantánamo Trial.” There’s an astronomical level of privilege and entitlement in claiming that the problems of a handful of (mostly American) women with the leisure time and money to maintain blogs somehow automatically deserve the same kind of press treatment.

  16. skippy
    skippy July 26, 2008 at 8:13 pm |

    sophiapriskilla, i believe physioprof’s original complaint was that this story wasn’t in the businesssection, not the news section.

    stop being so hysterical, calm down.

    j/k! j/k!

  17. Ian
    Ian July 26, 2008 at 8:17 pm |

    The Iron Law of Story Placement in the New York Times: If it bleeds (during its menstrual cycle), it leads (the Style Section, and only that section).

  18. Dianne
    Dianne July 26, 2008 at 8:42 pm |

    He’s been called an asshole, but he hasn’t been told that he should be raped.

    In general, I think you’re correct, but just to point out, PZ Myers did get some pretty ripe threats, including threats of rape, over the “cracker incident.”

  19. SophiaPriskilla
    SophiaPriskilla July 26, 2008 at 9:10 pm |

    Fair enough, PhysioProf – although in the online edition, the article is now in the technology section. In the business section, I’m seeing articles on the following subjects: housing-finance relief legislation, Qantas problems/fatigue (the placement is a non sequitur, it seems to me), Hollywood market trends, ecological interest in economic stimulus packages, immigration raids and the labor market, the textbook industry, and the microeconomics of the home energy market. The commercial aspects of a small sector of the blogosphere really don’t register on anything like that scale.

  20. RacyT
    RacyT July 26, 2008 at 9:59 pm |

    sophiapriskilla: to reiterate, once again:

    Hint: The issue is the differential treatment of articles about female bloggers versus articles about male bloggers

    The article about the men was placed in the Technology section. The article about the women was placed in the Fashion/Style section.

    I mean seriously, what’s not to get? It was a commenter who mentioned business. Go back and read the original post again, please.

  21. urbanartiste
    urbanartiste July 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm |

    I don’t think anyone would disagree that an article about the BlogHer conference should circumvent a global news story about war, economic crisis, etc. But the bigger picture here is regardless whether it is a women’s blog conference or women being murdered at random in a foreign country, women in the newspapers and media in general are not taken serious enough to warrant top hierarchal concerns.

  22. Charity
    Charity July 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm |

    Don’t forget the snarky line about women getting “all Katie Couric” about sexism on the web.

  23. SophiaPriskilla
    SophiaPriskilla July 26, 2008 at 10:28 pm |

    RacyT: Fair enough – poor reading comprehension on my part, coupled with the Times’ having the feminist bloggers piece in their tech section by the time I got to it. I will give them credit for that correction – although I do agree that the tone of the article is problematic, to say the least.

    Go back and read the original post again, please.
    Read it again – yes, you are right. The tone of it distracted me from the content, but that is my issue, or, at the least, a separate issue. Thanks for calling me on it.

  24. Hilary
    Hilary July 27, 2008 at 12:52 am |

    Has the NYT ever defended their habit of putting ALL women’s articles, whether they are about health, technology, business, or whatever, in the style section? It is getting really, really old.

  25. lynx_wings
    lynx_wings July 27, 2008 at 2:13 am |

    What section SHOULD this article be in? I can see the logic in putting a blogosphere article in the Style section, but this story seems like it could fit elsewhere.

    the quotes here don’t seem to go with the outrage directed at them. The article has some small issues, but I didn’t find it particularly heinous.

    Yeah, she mentioned that male bathrooms had been converted, but honestly, were I writing the story, I’d probably mention it too. Nurturing messages in bathroom stalls are just fucking funny.

    Kara Jesella is describing a very estrogen-y environment, but I don’t get a whole lot of mockery. If she’s being inaccurate, that’s one thing, but just describing the massages and such is nothing to get upset about, particularly since she’s writing this for the style section.

  26. Eileen
    Eileen July 27, 2008 at 5:01 am |

    “Nurturing messages in bathroom stalls are just fucking funny.”

    Why? I mean, affirmations may not be my thing, but it isn’t a joke unless you make it one. Is it something to be mocked because it’s something women are more likely to do? Is it inherently inferior clipped out political cartoons or graffiti? “Haw haw, some bitch thought it would be nice to make strangers feel good! Haw haw haw!” I don’t get it.

  27. Ogre
    Ogre July 27, 2008 at 5:05 am |

    Radfem, it’s not idiots threatening women. It’s idiots threatening anyone they disagree with, regardless of gender. Welcome to the internet.

  28. J. Bowen
    J. Bowen July 27, 2008 at 6:29 am |

    Awww, da wittle wady is mad. Wanna wowwy pop?

    You know, you should smoke some pot and read your post. Maybe you’ll figure out why people don’t like whiny feminist blogs. Who the hell cares if bloggers (regardless of their sex) are victims on online abuse? That’s like two airline pilots flipping each other off as they pass in the air. Get a life.

  29. leishman
    leishman July 27, 2008 at 9:18 am |

    OK–help me understand this (I’m a guy). Female bloggers have a conference for women bloggers. Implication #1: Female bloggers are a specific subset of the universe of all bloggers. Implication #2: Said conference is to highlight/support “Women in …….(medicine, academia, blogging, animal control, etc.).” If I understand the complaint, it is that the article was placed in a section of the Times most read by women, rather than in news, technology, business, etc. Question: So is the complaint that a “Women in …….” should have been placed in a not-primarily-read-by-women section? To what end? So that the male readership was more likely to read it? (They wouldn’t anyway, any more than a “Nigerian blogger conference” would be of broad interest to non-Nigerians.)

  30. M. Simon
    M. Simon July 27, 2008 at 9:50 am |

    If you don’t quit your whining I’ll eat your genitals until you scream.

  31. Holly
    Holly July 27, 2008 at 10:34 am |

    The typical “the author of this post must be a woman!” assumption gets more and more hilarious by the day.

  32. Jill
    Jill July 27, 2008 at 11:03 am | *

    Who the hell cares if bloggers (regardless of their sex) are victims on online abuse

    Apparently you care enough to read the post and comment on it.

    Just sayin’.

  33. SoE
    SoE July 27, 2008 at 12:24 pm |

    If I understand the complaint, it is that the article was placed in a section of the Times most read by women, rather than in news, technology, business, etc. Question: So is the complaint that a “Women in …….” should have been placed in a not-primarily-read-by-women section? To what end? So that the male readership was more likely to read it? (They wouldn’t anyway, any more than a “Nigerian blogger conference” would be of broad interest to non-Nigerians.)

    No, the complaint is that all articles about women are placed in fashion n style. Article about healthin general – health. Article about women’s helath – fashion n style. Article about blogging – technology. Article about women blogging – fashion n style.

    Maybe they could just rename fashion n style to women’s stuff and make proper subcategories, or even better, make a second edition of the nytimes with “all stuff wimenz r interested in n menz wudnt bother 2 read anyway”.

    And yea, I would read the article about Nigerian bloggers, just like some men apparently read the article about female bloggers.

  34. SoE
    SoE July 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm |

    Oh and I’m sorry for the spelling, my keyboard’s been playing up lately.

  35. Lindsay Beyerstein
    Lindsay Beyerstein July 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm |

    I don’t blame the Times reporter. I was a speaker at BlogHer two years ago and I can attest that the conference was a corporate lifestyle marketing juggernaut targeting the disposable income of upper middle class women with lifestyle blogs.

    Not all the panelists or attendees fit that demographic, of course.

    Still, the whole event had the look, feel, and consistency of a lite yogurt commercial. It was all about cheesy affirmations and premixed candy-colored cocktails and test driving Saturns in the parking lot.

  36. Matt
    Matt July 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm |

    Hilarious! You’re mad because the Times discussed the ridiculous set up at the conference… AND because that same set up makes it hard to take the event seriously!

    HINT: Stop complaining about the coverage (because it sounds like you were lucky to get anything!) and fix the damn conference.

    I have never been to a conference where it was planned to include nurturing anything… I prefer it that way. I am not saying that you shouldn’t care about nurturing… but maybe you could find a better place to enjoy it? Like at home?

    No one is stopping you (or interested in stopping you) from playing in the “man’s world” (how ridiculous is that concept?!) but if you’re going to do so… stop trying to change it before you even participate! If you want to play by a different set of rules, that is great too, but don’t complain when people recognize it is not the same rules that men play by!

  37. Lindsay Beyerstein
    Lindsay Beyerstein July 27, 2008 at 1:26 pm |

    Matt wrote:

    No one is stopping you (or interested in stopping you) from playing in the “man’s world” (how ridiculous is that concept?!) but if you’re going to do so… stop trying to change it before you even participate!

    Matt, notice that you’re posting this comment on a feminist blog that enjoyed a national reputation before BlogHer existed.

  38. Her Bad Mother
    Her Bad Mother July 27, 2008 at 2:51 pm |

    Matt says: “I have never been to a conference where it was planned to include nurturing anything… I prefer it that way. I am not saying that you shouldn’t care about nurturing… but maybe you could find a better place to enjoy it? Like at home?

    No one is stopping you (or interested in stopping you) from playing in the “man’s world” (how ridiculous is that concept?!) but if you’re going to do so… stop trying to change it before you even participate! If you want to play by a different set of rules, that is great too, but don’t complain when people recognize it is not the same rules that men play by!”

    Whatever.

    What makes the BlogHer conference extraordinary is that it opens up space for women to function as both their kick-ass writer/tech-geek/business selves AND their nurturing selves – I brought my 8-week old son (I’m the bobbed head behind said infant in the photo on the NYT page) to the conference and was able to participate fully precisely because of that environment. Hell, I whipped out tit and nursed him in front of the audience while speaking on the subject of online activism. That’s not whussy-girly ‘nurture’ – that’s kick-ass women-rule nurture, and any organization that facilitates that sort of thing deserves more than a puff style piece.

    Keep it at home? Fuck that backwards bullshit.

  39. Rob Farrington
    Rob Farrington July 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm |

    Oh, will you please grow up? There are half a dozen blogs I read every day, but my first port of call is always Rachel Lucas’s blog. Yes, I’m obviously a wingnut, but you won’t find a single person in the world to say that I’m sexist or misogynistic.

    Her site is bookmarked not because she’s female, but because she has erm…y’know, something to say? You should try it some time.

  40. Sailorman
    Sailorman July 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm |

    I agree with the general sentiment: this doesn’t seem like a Style event. Not that I read Style all that much but aren’t those usually parties, fundraisers and things where there are Pictures of Well Dressed Smiling People With Their Arms Around Each Others Shoulders? This seems more like a business, or technology, or political, issue.

    But I agree that putting “you are perfect” on a bathroom stall is absolutely hilarious.

  41. lynx_wings
    lynx_wings July 28, 2008 at 1:31 am |

    “Nurturing messages in bathroom stalls are just fucking funny.”

    Why? I mean, affirmations may not be my thing, but it isn’t a joke unless you make it one. Is it something to be mocked because it’s something women are more likely to do? Is it inherently inferior clipped out political cartoons or graffiti? “Haw haw, some bitch thought it would be nice to make strangers feel good! Haw haw haw!” I don’t get it.

    ***

    It just seems over the top. I giggled when I read about it. I’m not a very sentimental person, and sincere affirmations (or sincere anything, really) in bathroom stalls just strike me as funny. It has nothing to do with how “feminine” they are. It’s unexpected, and a kind of maudlin, and it’s in a fucking bathroom stall, and that makes it funny. It’s funnier than graffiti, which is just lame, and about equal with political cartoons, but much less funny than Bible verses. Also, bathroom stalls have a captive audience, so there’s the whole idea of people getting affirmed whether they like it or not.

    While I may be a bad feminist for giggling at over-the-top sentimentality of bathroom affirmations, the author of the piece is really just doing her job and describing an event that she’s being paid to describe. She mentions the bathroom stalls, but doesn’t go out of her way to mock them. Or any of the rest of it, actually. I felt like PhysioProf’s reaction to that particular paragraph was an overreaction.

  42. Asehpe
    Asehpe July 28, 2008 at 8:25 am |

    Is it really necessary to be so critical and dismissive? As far as I could see, there is some quite serious criticism of BlogHer that needs to be taken into account. Why not try to improve instead? Show your enemies what you’re worth by doing professional work, period. Articles such as this one will not really help.

  43. PhysioProf
    PhysioProf July 28, 2008 at 9:25 am |

    Jesus Fucking Christ! Did somebody whack a concern troll nest with a stick?

  44. Sailorman
    Sailorman July 28, 2008 at 1:18 pm |

    Physioprof, don’t be so upset. Here, let me help:

    You Are Perfect.

    Read it. Print it out. Put it in the bathroom when you poop.

    Don’t you feel better already? You can thank me later.

  45. Pajamas Media » Sisters: The Path to Punditry Isn’t Paved With Baby Powder

    [...] previously ran an article on blog marketing. It was in the Fashion and Style section — proof, some bloggers claim, that the story itself is patently dismissive and patronizing. Just another example, some [...]

  46. jayne
    jayne July 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm |

    Asehpe: “Is it really necessary to be so critical and dismissive?”

    Yes.

  47. Donna
    Donna July 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm |

    Oh, will you please grow up? There are half a dozen blogs I read every day, but my first port of call is always Rachel Lucas’s blog. Yes, I’m obviously a wingnut, but you won’t find a single person in the world to say that I’m sexist or misogynistic.

    Rachel Lucas? Okay, I’ll say it. You are sexist and misogynistic.

  48. Liminal states » Gender, race, age, and power in online discussions, chapter n +1 (DRAFT)

    [...] Blogging’s Glass Ceiling in the New York Times (nicely analyzed by PhysioProf in Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog on [...]

  49. Ugly In Pink
    Ugly In Pink July 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm |

    To be fair, my poop is perfect, and I like to be reminded of it.

  50. Dee
    Dee July 28, 2008 at 5:43 pm |

    SophiaPriskilla says: Sorry, I think the Style section is appropriate for articles on the general culture of the blogosphere, no matter what part of it.

    I think the point being made was that articles about male blogging appear in the technology section while articles about female blogging are found in the fashion/style section even when the female blogging articles are about business.

  51. Mel
    Mel July 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm |

    So, leishman, are you arguing that women writing about, say, science or economics or politics are ONLY interesting to other women? Men cannot possibly find the words of women interesting?

    Because that’s pretty stupid, and rather sexist.

    Incidentally, I read blogs by men, and Muslims, and English professors, and all sorts of people who fit into categories that I don’t belong to. So I’m pretty sure it’s possible to be interested in the writings of people who aren’t exactly like us.

    Plus, basic objection: which category do blogs fit into better? Technology (which they are) or Fashion and Style (which most aren’t)? If the NYT wants to turn the Fashion and Style section into a “general culture” section, maybe they should rename it to Culture or Lifestyle.

  52. anna
    anna July 28, 2008 at 11:11 pm |

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who was annoyed this article was printed in the Fashion & Style section . . .

  53. Cassy Fiano » Cry of the Bloggress

    [...] so the BlogHer chicks were upset about not being taken seriously, and then the fembloggers spontaneously menstruated when they noticed the article was in the Fashion/Style section of the Times. I would like to thank [...]

  54. Subway
    Subway July 29, 2008 at 4:01 am |

    Hell, maybe the NYT knows who reads the most of what sections, wanted more women to see the piece and, having a better pulse on their readerbase than anyone here, decided to put it in the section that more women read. Not saying it’s right, but I think it’s hardly indicative of just another patriarchal conservative conspiracy over at the Times.

    As far as affirmations in bathroom stalls? It’s funny, silly, misplaced, and it has nothing to do with gender. The last thing I would want to do is read how I’m perfect while cleaning up my private parts. Reminds me of when I was in the service and they would post general orders or the NCO creed at eye level above the urinals. Like I wanted to read about how to be a good leader while holding my dick. I laughed every time and that was a decidedly masculine environment.

    But hey, just use edgy language and colorful words and that suffices for good blogging right?

  55. Subway
    Subway July 29, 2008 at 4:03 am |

    I also find it highly entertaining on this hard hitting blog by women, about women and their plight of not being taken seriously and being relegated to the style and fashion while I’m looking at an American Apparel ad on the righthand side with a woman in a bikini.

    You guys are great!

  56. Blogging about women’s issues is adorable « bianca bean

    [...] Blogging about women’s issues is adorable Thank you, Feministe, for your business as usual and on this day, for this. [...]

  57. Women Are Discriminated Against On The Internet–Wah! Wah! « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

    [...] blogosphere is full of whiners. Just get better at it ladies and maybe someone will give flying flapjack about [...]

  58. anon
    anon July 30, 2008 at 3:10 am |

    I knew Subway was lying about the American Apparel ad, so I loaded the page up in IE, and holy shit! Sexist, racist American Apparel is featured here!

    Fuck my boycott of it then. I’m buying more and buying their stock!

    If it’s good enough for Jill, it’s good enough for my grrrls.

    Also, the article about men in blogging, was not an article about men in blogging. It was an article about stress in blogging. I still can’t give a shit about it, but you’re misrepresenting it.

    To sum up:
    BlogHer conference was corporate, and targeting a rich demographic.
    BlogHer conference contained many silly elements, including non-consensual forced affirmations within the restrooms.
    The silliness of the BlogHer conference was discussed in the Style section, where
    Good Feminists will dislike the conference, and be outraged that the discussion of the stupid conference was in the Style section, because it should have been in the National News or the Business section, not in the section that discusses culture.

    Good Feminists should click on the American Apparel ad, but don’t buy anything, they are misogynist and racist fucks.

    Jeez, I think this blog is a parody blog because the feminists I know aren’t so fucking greedy, stupid, and vain.

  59. rocinante
    rocinante July 30, 2008 at 9:28 am |

    “What makes the BlogHer conference extraordinary is that it opens up space for women to function as both their kick-ass writer/tech-geek/business selves AND their nurturing selves – I brought my 8-week old son (I’m the bobbed head behind said infant in the photo on the NYT page) to the conference and was able to participate fully precisely because of that environment. Hell, I whipped out tit and nursed him in front of the audience while speaking on the subject of online activism. That’s not whussy-girly ‘nurture’ – that’s kick-ass women-rule nurture, and any organization that facilitates that sort of thing deserves more than a puff style piece.

    Keep it at home? Fuck that backwards bullshit.”

    Point taken.

    I’ll make you a deal: You go ahead and do what you do (and do so well). You are free to do so and welcome to do so. I will not oppose you or support any policy that overtly prevents (or tries to prevent) you.

    In exchange, do not ask me (or attempt to coerce me, through law or custom) to support, subsidize, celebrate, appreciate, praise, validate, reinforce the behavior you describe, nor impugn my worth as a person or member of society if I choose not to do so.

    Fair enough?

  60. rocinante
    rocinante July 30, 2008 at 9:33 am |

    Oh – I guess I’m not the only one who finds American Apparel kinda softcore porny…

  61. Basket of Kisses | Women as a niche market

    [...] Fashion/Style section in mainstream media. I could give a thousand examples, but most recently is this article in the New York Times about the BlogHer conference. An article about female bloggers is (of course) “niche” [...]

  62. Mambo Bananapatch
    Mambo Bananapatch July 30, 2008 at 12:41 pm |

    Gee, this hysterical, shrieking, kicking-and-screaming tantrum makes me take feminists even more seriously than I did before! Nobody would DARE laugh you off as a brain-dead, humorless, petulant idiot now! You GO, honey!

  63. Media Channel - Home
    Media Channel - Home July 30, 2008 at 1:09 pm |

    [...] Feministe blogger PhysioProf’s complaints was that the story was published in the Styles section, the section of the paper reserved for trend [...]

  64. anon
    anon July 30, 2008 at 1:32 pm |

    It’s not just softcore porny rocinante, it’s underage sex porny. And lots of sexual harassment lawsuits friendly run by a guy who admits to using his status to sleep with employees.

    http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/07/30/i-hate-sweatshops-now-which-one-of-you-wants-to-suck-my-dick/#comment-2613

    If you can ignore nine deuce’s anti-semitic paragraph in that link, which was probably ignorance on her part and not anti-semitism, she lays the case out pretty well.

    But screw it. If it’s good enough for Jill, uber-feminist, I’m going to start buying American Apparel for all the women in my life.

  65. Miraploy
    Miraploy July 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm |

    “What makes the BlogHer conference extraordinary is that it opens up space for women to function as both their kick-ass writer/tech-geek/business selves AND their nurturing selves – I brought my 8-week old son (I’m the bobbed head behind said infant in the photo on the NYT page) to the conference and was able to participate fully precisely because of that environment. Hell, I whipped out tit and nursed him in front of the audience while speaking on the subject of online activism. That’s not whussy-girly ‘nurture’ – that’s kick-ass women-rule nurture, and any organization that facilitates that sort of thing deserves more than a puff style piece.

    Keep it at home? Fuck that backwards bullshit.”

    It’s ok to have a nurturing environment for a conference, but it’s a whole another thing to have a tech conference be turned into NURTURE NURTURE NURTURE. HELLO???!!!

    You can do whatever the hell you want, where you want. Just don’t expect me to be interested in it.

  66. Sarah
    Sarah July 31, 2008 at 12:17 pm |

    It depends on who you’re trying to appeal to, but one thing that might help you ladies compete with male bloggers is more judicious use of foul language and epithets. One of the reasons I tend to read male bloggers 10-to-1 over female bloggers is that they write confidently and rarely bother with the pseudo-macho trash-talk to establish their cred or whatever it is you’re trying to do.

  67. Peepers
    Peepers July 31, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    Oh mys, yeses, PhysioProf! What Sarah says. If only you were more ladylike in your language, she might be able to respect you as much as she respects the male bloggers. ‘Cause male bloggers write differently than you do. See?

    That is assome.

    Or maybe — waitaminnit — what Jill said: of course, no matter how calm or collected or unemotionally analytical you are, if you attach a female name to a piece of writing, a whole lot of people will (usually unconsciously) not think quite as highly of it.

    This has been a lovely illustration of that point.

  68. Peepers
    Peepers July 31, 2008 at 1:37 pm |

    Thanks, Prof. Thanks for discussing the NYT’s pink ghetto. Thanks, too, for securely and confidently being the target of a host of assumptions about how only chicks could be interested in all of that girly-whatever chick stuff and, ergo, anyone who discusses that stuff deserves dismissal. Honestly, I have never seen it illustrated so well.

  69. bs
    bs July 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm |

    wow. blogher seems condescending. the new york times doesn’t seem to have invented the details. saddest of all, here i am, watching a man (apparently?) rush to our defense.

    you got a feminist trifecta here! tell you what… if you don’t want to be in the nyt’s pink ghetto, liberate yourselves and stop reading it.

    if you don’t want female bloggers to be categorized as precious, you should probably reject these marginalizing events. this is chick stuff. it’s why they called it “blogher”. i saw people complaining that netroots was the same weekend. it’s your choice. you are always free to marginalize yourself. and no, i do not think being a woman is marginalizing. any quality can be if you let it. i don’t read mommy blogs because i don’t have kids, but that doesn’t mean i think less of mothers. it just means i don’t have much interest in their material yet.

    if there was an event called “bloghim”, would you attend? or would you reject it as a marginalizing event for the patriarchy? would you protest it? would you comment if they gave out toy soldiers as swag? if i visit blogher.com right now, the first post (under the featured ones) is convention details and the second is about angelina jolie’s babies. the third is about the house of representatives apologizing for slavery, and the fourth is a recap of project runway. i’m not kidding. if half the content is stuff that typically already is in the style section, then why shouldn’t they cover it there?

    i’m starting to think this was not a miscategorization on the nyt’s part. it’s not about technology simply because it’s a woman using a computer; it still matters what she chooses to do with it.

  70. Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2008-07-31

    [...] Feministe » Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog “Does it surpries you one fucking bit that this article–about the business activities of women bloggers–is in the Fashion/Style section of the Times? Cause you know, anything women do is all about fashion and style, it’s not real manly-man shit like business and sports and technology.” About the recent NY Times piece on BlogHer. [...]

  71. Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2008-07-31

    [...] Feministe » Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog “Does it surpries you one fucking bit that this article–about the business activities of women bloggers–is in the Fashion/Style section of the Times? Cause you know, anything women do is all about fashion and style, it’s not real manly-man shit like business and sports and technology.” About the recent NY Times piece on BlogHer. [...]

  72. Bushfire
    Bushfire July 31, 2008 at 11:53 pm |

    My god, where do all these morons come from?

  73. heatherjlc
    heatherjlc August 1, 2008 at 12:49 am |

    In this article entitled “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling”,

    Uhm, perhaps you may want to start with some appropriate grammar to be taken a bit more seriously.

    One is entitled to ….

    Something is titled …

    Just an FYI. Basics matter.

  74. lynx_wings
    lynx_wings August 1, 2008 at 4:36 am |

    Re: American Apparel ads

    Wildly off topic, but anyway: I’d rather buy from a company that is sweatshop free than a company with ads featuring fully-dressed models and owned by a CEO who doesn’t jack off in front of reporters. I can deal with the suffering of a couple journalists much better than I can deal with the suffering of thousands of badly treated, starving workers in third world countries.

  75. MissFrou
    MissFrou August 1, 2008 at 10:18 am |

    In all seriousness…

    There are so many things that are beyond annoying with your “teh laydeeeeez !!!!Q!!111!!!ELEVEN!!!!” rant that I can’t even begin to go into it all.

    Maybe if you had laid off the TEHs and the !!!ELVEN!!!s in your post, your message would have actually gotten through and people wouldn’t feel the need to point out things like, oh I don’t know, your flawed arguments or your grammatical errors as much.

    Bitching about not being taken seriously in a way that NOBODY, including other feminist bloggers, could take seriously isn’t doing us any favors.

  76. Nikita
    Nikita August 1, 2008 at 1:21 pm |

    PhysioProf… I totally <3 you… :)

  77. Taking female bloggers seriously at PunkAssBlog.com

    [...] (while still maintaining the trappings thereof, and being conventionally attractive, of course) and vocal and “unladylike” feminism, gain the temporary approval of professional misogynists. They get patted on the head and trotted [...]

  78. anon
    anon August 3, 2008 at 4:13 pm |

    My god, where do all these morons come from?

    The evidence is that it’s women studies departments generating most of them. PhysioProf was probably poisoned in the womb.

  79. Women, Blogher, and Netroots Nation | Bloggers For Change

    [...] Feministe blogger PhysioProf’s complaints was that the story was published in the Styles section, the section of the paper reserved for trend [...]

  80. AMERICAN NONSENSE » Women, Blogher, and Netroots Nation

    [...] one many of the BlogHer attendees rightfully blasted: Among Feministe blogger PhysioProf’s complaints was that the story was published in the Styles section, the section of the paper reserved for trend [...]

  81. Would you like some cheesecake with that? « Silverstar’s Magical Adventures (and assorted rants)

    [...] Times talking about Blogher, and putting it in the style and fashion section. Then there was the outrage at the tone of the piece, and it’s placement in the Style and Fashion section. Then there was [...]

  82. The NY Times Continues To Totally Suck My Ass « PhysioProf

    [...] why, why does the motherfucking Times continue to insist on capriciously covering some–but not all–blogging in the Style/Fashion [...]

  83. The NYTimes does it again… at SoE in a new home

    [...] the hell do they have to post each and every article about women and girls in the “Fashion and Style” section? And then [...]

  84. Liminal states » Is netroots non-diversity a myth?

    [...] Blogging’s Glass Ceiling in the New York Times (nicely analyzed by PhysioProf in Teh Laydeez Are So Cute When They Try To Blog on Feministe) are the highest-profile treatments I’ve seen of this topic since Jose Antonio [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.