Who do you read? And is it because they’re men or women? or for an actual good reason?

The Anchoress
Maggie’s Farm
Aunt Aggie
Megan McCardle
LaShawn Barber
Terri Goon (of course!)
etc

Plus a bunch of men.
Three Sources
Environmental Republican
Glenn (of course)
Ed Morrissey (Hot Air)
Powerline
etc

What does it mean? Therein lies our/my taste. Clearly I’m mostly interested in political stuff when online, clearly leaning right and clearly a person who believe women should not be taken seriously ? huh?

From the NYTimes:

Yet, when Techcult, a technology Web site, recently listed its top 100 Web celebrities, only 11 of them were women. Last year, Forbes.com ran a similar list, naming 4 women on its list of 25.

“It’s disheartening and frustrating,” said Allison Blass, a BlogHer attendee whose personal blog at www.lemonade-life.com is about living with Type 1 diabetes.

At the seminar “How to Take Names and Be Taken Seriously as a Political Blogger,” many women said that their male colleagues and major media groups tended to ignore them, and to link to them less often (unless they are Arianna Huffington).

You’re right Allison. I don’t take you seriously and I don’t give a rip about your diabetes. Cry me a river.

What else is in the article entitled “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling”. How about this gem:

Ms. Dimont had just attended a panel called “Taking Care of Business.” Her blog about products and design “went from a hobby to a business so fast,” she said, echoing a common sentiment. She said that companies like Target and Hewlett-Packard regularly furnish products for her to give away to her readers. Chevrolet had provided her with a Malibu Hybrid for the week of the conference, in return for writing about the event on BlogHer.

“I think they knew I’d love the car so much I’d want to write about it, too, on my blog,” Ms. Dimont said. Still, she added, “I’m not making any money off of it.”

“I’m not making any money off of it”, though somehow it’s a business and somehow I got the value of an actual car for an entire week. hmmmm?

Ms. Klein’s popular blog, Greek Tragedy, chronicles her personal life and helped her earn six-figure book deal, while Ms. Armstrong’s snarky mommy blog, Dooce.com, is so successful that her husband quit his job to help her manage it full time.

How many male bloggers can say the same thing? And why would I want to read about Ms Klein’s personal life while I’m looking for news? And why would I want to read about parenting?

The blogosphere is an equal opportunity business. Megan McCardle notes that

“Women get dismissed in ways that men don’t,”

And so? Everyone gets dismissed for something. Megan thinks that women aren’t aggressive enough yet I can say honestly I took Michelle Malkin off of my must reads because she is irritatingly aggressive. Same with the JAWA report and the AntiIdiotarian. (who’s cussing started bugging me – and I’m not opposed to cussing. It was the over do of it.)

Vox Popoli comes up with rules for women who want to be taken seriously. My comments are in the brackets below.:

1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff. [that sounds like a good plan for both men and women]

2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.
[This all depends on what’s making you famous Vox. Waiter Rant would be hard pressed to keep his 2million hits if he started talking about the food]

3. Don’t post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.
[Frankly I think we all like a little insight. Ed Morriseys’ “Little Captain” (I have no idea how to link to the defunct Captain’s Quarters), Ace o Spades lack of a love life, Lilek’s Gnat, and Rachel Lucas’s dogs.]

4. Don’t threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.
[I’ll agree with this one]

5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away. [I’ll agree with this one]

Vox does give the Lucas Exception

which states that “if a female blogger can be confirmed to be as amusingly bloody-minded as Rachel Lucas, she may post about her dogs or other non-feline pets, so long as such posts are not made more than thrice per week. Kids and cats are still right out.”

Frankly if Rachel Lucas got herself a cat and did not post a picture of it wearing at least a pashmina I would probably have to call her a pussy for following so closely to some dude’s ideas of “the rules”.

And then I’d have to drop her. Because if she’s going to follow said rules, she’s not worth my time anymore. And therein lies the crux.

We have X hours in every day. Glenn Reynolds is popular because his posts are always short, he always updates and he’s usually got something we want to read about. Same with Drudge if you want to call him a blog.
I used to read the NeoNeoCon all the time, but I just don’t have time. So it’s back to Scott and JK and Vodkapundit etc, etc. If they be guys, so be it.

Even this post is too long to bother with. If you’ve made it this far……Welcome to a “girl’s blog” you rebel you!

UPDATE: A link concerning a man’s POV from a dude who blogs about his life.

Every time I saw a female blogger write the expression “male blogger” this weekend, it was a code name for “tech” or “political” bloggers like Techcrunch or Daily Kos. It was as if these female bloggers had the exact same viewpoint about male blogging as the New York Times. While “Female Blogging” represented a wide range of views, from writing about shoes, knitting, to talking politics, “male blogging” was still dressed in a suit and tie. I read the term “male bloggers” countless times, not once described in a way that includes me.

Yeah. What he said.

UPDATE: Based on the comments below I think I must not have been clear. If you’re female and you’re blog isn’t getting enough hits to satisfy you, you either a) haven’t promoted yourself b) it isn’t that good comparatively c) you haven’t established any regularity/loyalty from readers or d) like b it just isn’t that entertaining.
That’s it. It’s not because you’re female. You can test this theory by starting a 2nd blog that is a copy of the first only with a man’s name. Yes – it’s that easy.

19 thoughts on “Who do you read? And is it because they’re men or women? or for an actual good reason?

  1. very nice! I definitely think you’re right — people read about what issues they are interested in and whose voice they like — female or male.

  2. Totally agree…actually I often read for quite awhile and then have to go figure out if it is male of female out of curiosity–

  3. Pingback: Citizen of the Month » I Have a Dick, Just Like the Writers of Techcrunch

  4. Hi, this is Allison Blass, the one quoted in the NYT article.

    I’ve been following the responses to the BlogHer article for the past few days and I thought since you address me directly in your post that I would leave a comment.

    I completely agree with you that people should read topics that resonate with them, topics that they are passionate about. People have different styles of writing that they like. It’s why there are so many different types of books in bookstores. Something for everyone. Clearly you have no interest in diabetes, so I am no offended that you don’t want to read my blog. If I didn’t have diabetes, I probably wouldn’t want to read my blog either!

    Here is the proper context for my quote. When I was speaking to the journalist, she had asked me why I came to BlogHer. I told her that in my field – social media – it’s very common to hear from men on the subject. Coming to BlogHer is inspiring for me as a young woman because there was such diversity of women who attended. I said that it was disheartening and frustrating that men are the majority, but that it is inspiring to see so many women who are gaining recognition for their work.

    My only question remains is this: You said you don’t “take me seriously.” Why is that? Is it because I write about diabetes (a topic you have no interest in) or because I am a female blogger or is it something else? I’m just curious.

    Thanks.

  5. Hi Allison,
    I’m glad you visited. The “Take you seriously” part is connected to the quote in the NYTimes, which is actually not your quote but “many women”.
    It’s a comment that women who are writing specifically about women’s issues (in this case a woman with diabetes – which, being a health issue is certainly different from a man) are complaining to the universe that they don’t get attention. If you are looking for attention, then you need to blog on a subject that has a bigger niche.

    I should have been clearer in the “serious” part. I’ve never read your blog, so I don’t take any complaints about it’s unpopularity seriously.

    It’s good you found inspiration at Blogher but I am concerned that you are disheartened simply because men are in the majority of “famous bloggers”.

    Blogging has been around many many years and it started off with mostly men. That’s a very good reason why they are the more famous and more read than women.

    Read the link to the guy above in the update. Can you imagine him going to a conference and then complaining that he’s not read enough? Or that he’s not gotten rich off of his blogging?

    His niche is smaller.

    We are all individuals and we all have niches. Getting a group of people together to get ideas and insights is a fine idea. Getting a group of people together so they can define themselves as victims of a male dominated field is not an attractive trait.

    Read me and trust me because I’m female and am needy and I know what I’m talk about. (stamp of the foot)
    vs
    Read me and trust me because I’ve been around a long, long time and I’ve proven that I will not steer you wrong. (smile)

    Take your pick.

    ps – I’m a woman and I don’t have a ton of readers, but a) I’m not really pushing myself out there and b) most of what I say is said by a zillion other bloggers. How many blogs can a person read in one day?

    The average blog has 1-3 readers. Anyone (male or female) with more than that can be considered a success and really needn’t complain.

  6. Terry,

    Thanks for writing back.

    A few comments:

    1) My quote was not about me. It was about the state of web celebrity and what I interpret as a bit of ego-drivenness that men do to promote themselves, regardless of whether they actually have something new and interesting to say.

    2) I am actually a very well-known diabetes blogger and I have no need to become “famous” for anything but that. I was not complaining to the universe that I don’t get enough attention. I was merely stating that the people have a tendency to highlight men more frequently than women.

    I don’t think that because blogging was started by men that it means they deserve to be more “famous” than women. Time shouldn’t be the reason.

    If anything, the way the NYT treated this article by placing it in the Style section rather than the Tech section is an example of what I’m talking about. It’s rather ironic that my quote which is about how men and women bloggers are treated differently is in an article which then caused a controversy about how men bloggers are treated differently.

    But rest assured, I am plenty happy with my popularity and that was not at all what I was trying to say. In fact, that was only about a minute or two out of my 20 minute conversation with the journalist! C’est la vie…

  7. Whoops, I meant to write Terri! Sorry about the typo.

    BTW- I re-read your note and you said “in this case a woman with diabetes – which, being a health issue is certainly different from a man.” Type 1 diabetes in women is almost the same as it is in men (minus the pregnancy and hormones part!) so I actually have a lot of men who read me. Just wanted to clarify that I don’t write a “women’s health blog about diabetes.” It’s just a diabetes blog, plain and simple.

  8. Well there you go. Now I’ve learned something. Though I would think the “hormones” part would be enough to make it a woman’s thing.

    If I had a major disease, I suspect I would go to a woman’s site over a mans due to the perspective.

    And I do believe “time” is a good reason. Staying power, daily blogs are all good reasons to be loyal to the blogs you started out reading.

  9. Terri: Day-to-day life with type 1 diabetes is pretty much the same. Testing blood sugar, counting carbs, taking insulin… it’s the same no matter who you are. The only difference is the part when a woman is pregnant, when there are different challenges. And sometimes your “monthly cycle” can cause challenges, but I don’t write about that very much. Very boring. But the medicine and technology is the same, so it’s not much of a woman’s thing. Though maybe I do have more female readers than men… I’ve never actually thought about it.

    I suppose time is a good reason in some cases, but I think there are a lot of up-and-come male and female bloggers who deserve some attention for their insightfulness.

  10. And there in lies my problem!!!

    No one “deserves” attention for insightfulness.

    And I can’t imagine someone like Boing Boing suggesting that he “deserves” more attention than he gets.

    The blogosphere is a free for all. There is only so much ‘insightfulness’ out there and only so many hours in the day.

  11. Very interesting dialogue. Keep in mind – if you have no expectations, you can not be disappointed.

  12. Maybe that if you don’t expect to ever have readers, then 1 or 2 should be enough to make you happy. Not really sure that’s the way to go either.

  13. I said that it was disheartening and frustrating that men are the majority,

    Maybe it is the lack of coffee, but I don’t see the connection. There is an exceptionally low barrier to entry into blogging.

    All you need is a computer and internet access and you can broadcast your message to millions.

    No one is preventing you from succeeding.

  14. Exactly Jack. “disheartening”? “frustrating”?

    It sounds like Alison IS succeeding, and certainly more so than the millions of men trying to break into the field, so I’m REALLY unsure what her deal is.

    The top 100 is the top 100. Men or women they have it going on. Which doesn’t mean that 101 is a loser.

  15. My “deal” is that there are men who are being famous because they over-promote themselves. They think they are contributing to society when most of them are simply echoing someone else or they are simply capitalizing on their personal connections. What is disheartening and frustrating is that those millions out there who are blogging insightful and intelligent entries aren’t being sought after because they don’t have the right connections. I never said blogging was hard to do. Blogging is very, very easy to do. I was 19 years old when I started. I’m not saying that men are the majority of bloggers. Far from it. Maybe this just comes down to my perceptions, but I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that reverence men get is slightly out of proportion with reality.

  16. My “deal” is that there are men who are being famous because they over-promote themselves. They think they are contributing to society when most of them are simply echoing someone else or they are simply capitalizing on their personal connections

    What do you call Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. Sounds like the same thing to me.

    What is disheartening and frustrating is that those millions out there who are blogging insightful and intelligent entries aren’t being sought after because they don’t have the right connections.

    If you make that a general statement that is not gender specific I haven’t any problem agreeing with you.

  17. The “reverence” that men get?
    I am not sure where you are coming up with your perceptions Allison.

    I believe they exist in you because you’re around a bunch of women who insist that they don’t have the equality simply because they are women.

    If (and it’s a big if) men are famous only because they promote themselves, then if that’s what the woman blogger wants to do, then that’s all she need do.

    LaShawn is a perfect example. She worked incredibly hard to build up a base and now she blogs full time (I think – I’m pretty sure) and makes her living at her writing.

    Jack is correct. Paris promotes herself and got famous.

    You say you are famous in your niche – so what exactly is the problem? Is it with someone else?
    Who?

    Kos’s blog is irritating to read no matter how famous he is. Glenn’s is not. Kos is more famous. So what?

    If you think you’ve found someone insightful that you want to promote, then promote them?
    Start another blog and use your celebrity to direct people to it and call it “the pointer to insightful up and coming bloggers”.

    You have not come up with examples/points here except to note that you have perceptions that seem more like misperceptions to me.

    Where are you finding that women bloggers are not taken seriously simply because they are women?
    Arrianna Huffington?
    Michelle Malkin?
    Atlas Shrugs?
    NeoNeocon?
    Dr. Helen?
    Who?

  18. It is pertinent because—-if Allison had no expectations of fame and glory, she would not at this time be disappointed. Men who over promote themselves? Women don’t? Sounds more like a sexist argument to me. Like Jack says, take Paris Hilton, what has she contributed to the good of society? The Huffington Post – one of the more dispicable, rude, intolerent, and divisive blogs around (unless of course you agree with them), tho not even close to the Daily Kos.

Comments are closed.