Clancy Ratliff, "Attracting Readers: Sex and Audience in the Blogosphere" (Page 2 of 4)
Silenced by Sexuality: Sex, Attraction, and Women's
Participation
On the Weblog Right Wing News,
John Hawkins encapsulates a somewhat
extreme version of the argument about women's use of sex in their
blogging:
So while women can be successful in the blogosphere
without ever showing a pic or mentioning sex, if you're a female blogger
and you're attractive, you'll get more traffic if you post your picture
on your page. And if you're so inclined to talk about sex, hey why not?
It's only going to bring in more visitors . . .
"But John, but John, that's so unfair!"
The reality is that most men enjoy being around &/or being flirted
with by pretty women—even in the cyber world—and you need to just accept
it. Being surprised that's the case is like being upset that your dog
enjoys chasing a ball or chewing on a bone more than going to the opera.
That's how it is, was, and will probably always be and if you're shocked
or angry about it, you have the problem, not the dog.[6]
While Hawkins by no means represents all male bloggers, his view is
shared, and stated, by other men in the "where-are-the-women" threads
when the subject of sex is raised. Here, (hetero)sexuality's place in
blogging is as natural as a dog with its bone. However, Hawkins'
uncritical treatment of the issue of sex and attractiveness, while
crudely put, represents another common assumption in the blogosphere:
Flirtation and the expression of sexual desire, provided they are
unthreatening, are both acceptable; after all, bloggers are human beings
with urges, and Weblogs are spaces for the free expression of thought,
with nothing off-limits. Men and women are free to write about sex and
to respond to others' writing about sex. As a consequence, however,
women's full and uninhibited participation in blogging can be lessened.
As examples of this inhibition, I turn to examples from the Weblogs of
political science professor Daniel Drezner and Washington Monthly
professional blogger Kevin Drum.
On three occasions, Drezner posted photographs of women on his Weblog,
DanielDrezner.com:
actor Salma Hayek, Miss Afghanistan 2003 Vida
Samadzai, and Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Veronica
Varekova. He discussed their attractiveness, and other men left comments
on the posts agreeing with him. In March 2004, in response, Laura
McKenna wrote at her Weblog, Apt. 11D:
After surfing around for a while amongst the big shot
bloggers, they did seem to link only to each other a lot. I rarely saw a
link to other women. (Allison Kaplan Sommers [sic] recently posted that maybe
her latest pregnancy would get her linked by
Instapundit, since nothing
else she wrote seemed to get her noticed.) The pictures of Salma Hayek
or Miss Afghanistan weren't offensive, but it did set up a Maxim
atmosphere. There is a fraternity amongst the current events bloggers
that does, inadvertently I'm sure, exclude women.[7]
McKenna is not the only woman to use the "fraternity" metaphor to
describe the political blogosphere. Another common metaphor for it is
"locker room," neither of which is particularly inclusive. I would add
that it is significant that McKenna posted these thoughts on her own
Weblog—her own space—and not as a comment at Drezner's Weblog. However,
a woman calling herself "Cali (girl)" did leave a comment at Drezner's
Weblog, which reads:
I think what puts some women off from Dan's blog is the
occasional racy pictures or comments about sexy women, or the like. Now,
it's not outrageous. In fact, racy is probably too strong a word. But
after reading/seeing, in a short time period, the pictures of the
Sports Illustrated woman and the Selma (sic) Hayek in red,
I just felt that Dan seems to be writing JUST for men at times. Which is
fine, I'm not judging. Just saying that it makes me go to other sites
for the economics stuff I used to come to this site for, because I'm not
sure when he's going to be doing his just for men stuff.[8]
This comment left on Drezner's Weblog by a woman posting under the
screen name "adoherty" also suggests that the photographs make some
women less inclined to participate in the conversations under his
posts:
[Drezner] says "Maybe it's because of posts like this one
[which links to the photograph of Varekova]" but then notes that he
hasn't received any objections. Well, this particular female lurker
wouldn't object, because it's his blog & he can say & post whatever he
wants to. "Posts like this one" do, however, create a sort of boys'
club-house atmosphere that contributes to my disinclination to speak
up.[9]
Taken together, these two comments are very illuminating. Given the
nebulous, silent presence of lurkers, it is difficult to claim with any
validity that the element of sexual attraction in blogging does or does
not deter women's participation, or to specify to what degree. Further,
both women here emphasize that it is Drezner's prerogative to say what
he wants on his own Weblog; the importance of individual freedom and
decreased presence of community norms could be a reason that expressions
of sexual attraction are not criticized more strongly in political
blogging. Still, while many exceptions exist to the contrary, I would
argue that most bloggers want both to have individual freedom and to
create multiple forums (their own Weblogs and those at which they
comment) of open participation, unconstrained by exclusionary practices,
however subtle.
At Drum's Weblog, a reader with the pseudonym "SSJPabs" (2004)
writes,
I'm going to be really annoying and chauvinistic and
non-liberal about this because I FEEL like it... ...are they hot?
Do they have pictures of themselves on the site?
Wonkette is INFINITELY
more interesting because she's got a decent-to-good rack. That's what I
want to know.[10]
True, this comment could easily be read as a joke, but a reader with
the pseudonym "Eukabeuk" responds, "basically, it's a sad truth that
*most* men don't give a damn what women think unless they have a nice
rack. It's the perpetual presence of comments like these that drive
women away from this type of forum."[11]
Far from being a social
difference that can simply be bracketed, the female body is conspicuous
in the blogosphere, and its presence can be disruptive. While women
can—and sometimes do—obscure their gender by using gender-neutral
pseudonyms, women who participate as women can expect, if not
harassment, at least some flirtation: agreement with and praise of their
words with the added acknowledgement of their physical attractiveness,
reminders that they are different.[12]
|