Bloggers, Women Bloggers or Women Who Blog
31 07 2006BlogHer 06 is over. A blogging conference for women. From the accounts I’ve read so far it seemed to be pretty good, certainly from the reports on the BlogHer website. I think it’s great that women’s voices are being heard on-line through blogging. They’re in every sphere of the economy so no surprise they are in blogging.
At the same time I feel a little uneasy that women who blog are being defined as… well, Women bloggers. Why? Not that they aren’t women and not that they aren’t bloggers. But why describe themselves by their gender?
Do you ever hear people talk about men bloggers? Or a male blogger? I don’t. They say simply bloggers. No gender attached. In what way is a “blogger” different from a “woman blogger?”
Does it matter anyway that women bloggers are often defined by their gender? (and by the way I know there are many bloggers who are women who prefer not to be described as a woman blogger, but simply a blogger. For this reason many remain anonymous or use an indefinable or male pseudonym).
Does it enhance or hinder women as bloggers? What image appears in your mind when you hear “blogger” to when you hear “women blogger?” Does it depend on what they blog about? Or does it not matter?
I view this in much the same way as I view the Poker landscape. I prefer the term “Poker player” to “Women Poker player”. In other words it shouldn’t matter if you are a man or a woman, you are simply a Poker player. In blogging as in Poker, it seems that bloggers who happen to be women for whatever reason seem happy to define themselves as women bloggers, rather than simply bloggers. And even BlogHer’s tag-line is “Where the women bloggers are”.
Back to my Poker analogy, with the exception of the professional Poker players there is a big difference in how women play poker compared to men. And many men (and some women) players consider women’s Poker as somehow “less” (less competitive, less aggressive, less in your face).
Is it the same with blogging? Are women bloggers warmer and fuzzier? Or are we just as apt to be stroppy as men? Are we taken seriously when it comes to blogging? Or should we feel we have to hide our light under a (virtual) bushel?
Hm, when I think of a blogger, it’s a person writing something and publishing it. Gender doens’t really matter, even in the comments. But then, I just might be a male chauvinistic pig without knowing it!
Just joking. This is somewhat the same dilemma that affirmative action was faced with. You can not deny that in the beginning, there might have been more male bloggers than female bloggers. However nowadays, I think that the statistics are more representative of the population.
BlogHer is more about giving women access to resources and networking, isn’t it?
Cheers
Thanks for commenting - yes I think Blogher is about giving women access to resources and networking.. my question then becomes, would they not have this access without Blogher?
Given I followed the trail here from blogher, I’m curious why you are a member if you find a site devoted to women bloggers to be objectionable?
@nelle - Did you bother to read the post at all? If you did, did you really understand it? If you did either I don’t think that you would be asking me that question. Exactly where did I say that I find a site devoted to women objectionable?
Objectionable in the sense you dislike the idea of differentiating by gender. I apologise for implying something stronger. The fact is, there is a need for blogher, it serves good purpose. Perhaps one day that need shall not exist, but until then…
Thanks for clarifying. Objectionable is a strong word and nowhere in my post did I say I found anything, even the differentiation of bloggers by gender objectionable. I did say I felt uneasy about it and not that I disliked it, (which is your interpretation), and that is because of the stereotyping that I feel tends to happen. My preference is that I would rather a blogger should just be known as a blogger. But that was why my article was a series of questions, chief of which was “does it enhance or hinder women” to be called women bloggers, rather than simply “bloggers”.
You could add so much more to the conversation in terms of insights if, instead of simply stating that “there is a need for Blogher” and “it serves good purpose” (both rather vague statements which leave plenty of room for assumptions) you actually expanded on what that need is and what that purpose is as you understand it. I hope you will consider doing so, because that way we all learn. And I might just get answers to some of the questions I asked.
Great post, and even better final comments.
best regards,
UG