Chris Nolan, "Blogging Was Just the Beginning:
Women's Voices are Louder Online" (Page 5 of 5)
It has long been a trope of the feminist movement that
commercialization necessarily exploits women. So feminists, like many
advocacy journalists, have turned to the nonprofit world and to academe
for refuge from harsh commercial reality. Ms Magazine, for
example, is run by a foundation, and there is no shortage of nonprofit
groups aimed at encouraging women's work in university-based media.
There have been plenty of valid reasons for this: In a world where media
production costs are often daunting—even for profit-making
enterprises—feminist undertakings struggle for support and large
audiences. It's easier to sell 100 lipsticks than it is to move 100
hardcover books—or it was until Amazon.com came along.
But, as Amazon demonstrates, the Internet is a great equalizer.
Someone living in a rural county or town can, with a few clicks of a
mouse, access a bookstore as rich and varied as any you might find in a
big city. And big city bookstores are, of course, fighting for survival.
Amazon's global reach flattens the marketplace for what it's selling. In
this world, it's brains—who's faster, who's better, who's cheaper—not
brawn that works best. The Internet is ruthless, of course, but it's
also a place—particularly now that its technology is very easy to
use—where strong voices can be found without a great deal of effort. In
addition, working online is inexpensive. The costs—even for a
relatively complicated undertaking like mine, Spot-on.com, are
small.
With all this activity, we're gong to see lots of new voices. They'll
come from new, yet-to-be started sites, some commercial, some not. Some
will be one-trick ponies that make big splashes but don't endure. Others
will grow quietly and find long-term readers and fans. Even more
heartening, much of what's happening on the Internet right now is clumsy
efforts to test the medium. Think back to the early black-and-white
sitcoms made when television was a fresh new medium. Compare them to
what's on your screen today. That's how far we have to go.
The tremendous interest in blogging—on the part of readers and
writers—was the first wave. For some, it was a great experiment. For
others, it's become an avocation. For some like me, a job. There's more
out there to be discovered beyond the world of blogging, because what we
have now—no matter how technically sophisticated it may seem, no matter
how editorially appealing, no matter how popular—is temporary.
Anyone worried, concerned, or interested in what's happening online
would do well to look ahead to what can be done, rather than back to what
hasn't been or is not being done in the news outlets we've come to rely
on. When I look at the Internet I see a vast array of competitive
voices, some crazy, some sane, some left, some right, some foolish, some
devilishly shrewd. In that, I see enormous possibility for women to
shape, change, and even control political commentary in new and vital
ways.
Endnotes
1. You can easily read the exchanges that took
place on WashingtonMonthly.com and other sites involved in the Spring
2005 discussion of women and online political writing. Here is Kevin Drum's initial post:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/
individual/2005_02/005691.php.
Here is a sampling—with links back to the women bloggers who wrote
to and about his remarks—of comments on what he said. It's a very good
list of sites run by and for politically-minded women:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/
individual/2005_02/005705.php.
Here is the post I wrote: http://www.spoton.com/
archives/000696.html.
And here is a second post that I wrote summing up the state of
affairs online at the time, tracing how Drum and others came to their
particular point of view. Much of it still holds true:
http://www.spot-on.com/
archives/000712.html.
Katha Pollitt's initial post for WashingtonMonthly.com is here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/
individual/2005_03/005908.php. [Return to text]
|
