The NYT, writing about BlogHer08 in a Styles section article titled Blogging’s Glass Ceiling, bemoans,
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).
Let’s give the NYT a helping hand and link to my colleagues at that panel (it was a panel with a question and answer session, not a seminar) Morra Aarons-Mele, Mona Gable and Angry Black Bitch, none of which were ignored by anyone (except the NYT, perhaps).
The panel was liveblogged, if you would like to read it.
By the way, Kara Jesella, the writer of the article, is very nice and talked at length to all four of us after the panel session, but her editor obviously coudln’t think of linking to our blogs in the article.
Any of you ladies who want to be taken seriously as a political blogger would do well to follow Vox Popoli‘s advice (via Robert Stacy McCain) :
1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.
2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.
3. Don’t post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.
4. Don’t threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.
5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.
To which I add Ronald Reagan’s famous words,
It’s still trust but verify. It’s still play, but cut the cards. It’s still watch closely. And don’t be afraid to see what you see.
Check your sources, and blog on. [And make corrections immediately – I misattributed Vox Popoli’s quote to Robert, and corrected it immediately]
As I said in the panel, your blog is what you make it.
BONUS
I talked to Rachael Myrow of The California Report radio program on KQED public radio. (Note to Sam: She asked how many visitors I’d had that day, and I said 2,000)
Bravo Fausta! Shame on the NYT for not linking bloggers such as yourself – keep blogging!
I get an intinctive rage reaction when I read “glass ceiling” articles, because I know doggone well that American women are not oppressed — especially not the kind of careerist college-educated women who always crop up in “glass ceiling” articles. They are, in fact, very privileged creatures, not victims.
Yes – the claims of oppression are ridiculous. No one there was oppressed, and the only “glass ceiling” bloggers face is that which they inflict upon themselves.
good advice
some of the best bloggers out there are women… fausta, greta, jane……..
Glad you went to represent Rightwing women, Fausta. That many women at one time puts me in a bad mood. 🙂
Baldilocks, I feel your pain. It was the first convention I’ve attended where 99% of the attendees were women, and I’m not used to that. Fortunately my friend Jane Goodwin was there and we had a great time.
This isn’t the first time the NYTimes has put an article about women on the blogosphere/political activists in the Style section rather than the news section. I also had a chance to chat with the author, who was great. Now if we can get her editor to take us seriously. She wasn’t there to cover the joint session I was one with Netroots Nation (by simulcast).
Someting to keep in mind when puzzling out the reasons behind an article such as the one in the Times is secondary consequences. The placement of an article will frequently determine:
— Whose eyes will land upon it;
— What else he’ll see and read.
The Times has been struggling to keep its readership up. That has a direct connection to its critical revenue stream: advertisers. It’s a good bet that the placement of the “blogging’s glass ceiling” article was an attempt to mollify an advertiser (or several) whose wares are sold principally to women.
Of the unprincipled reasons for doing anything, the most powerful are sex and money. When a corporation’s behavior is at issue, follow the money!