Launching a blog of, by and for women is bad for women!

Comments

8 comments posted
I suspect that many blogs

I suspect that many blogs nowadays are fluffy at first, especially if written by people who have never blogged before. There's some pressure to populate the blog with entries, and if the authors tend to be reporters or columnists who typically write a long piece a couple of times a week, they may feel the need to just get posts up. Broadsheet will likely get better -- there are good reporters working on it.

And I entirely disagree with women on women's issues being ghettoization. It's actually people writing about issues that are important to them and have a direct impact on them. I can write about women's issues all I want -- and many of those issues are important to me, what with the fact that I live on this planet with women, too -- but positive change affects me more on a global level than directly.

Josh's picture
Posted by Josh (not verified) on 25 October 2005 - 7:48pm
Good point on the fluff

Remember the first days of the Huffington Post? Egad!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 October 2005 - 10:03pm
Broadsheet

Hey, I'm honored that you posted *my* comment, out of all the ranting and raving. I have been one of the mildest voices.

Here's the thing: if the editors of Salon wanted more "female oriented" stories, why not just put them up front? Why create a separate blog for them? Why would I look for stories about Harriet Miers in "the ladies' blog," instead of, ya know, on the front page? Are they afraid "the guys" will object? To me, that smacks of self-ghettoization, and just seems weird.

Douglas Moran's picture
Posted by Douglas Moran (not verified) on 26 October 2005 - 10:20pm
It's not mutually exclusive, is it?

What Broadsheet does doesn't mean sucking content out of the front page or Daou or anywhere else, does it?

Guys have plenty of places where male voices dominate. Why is a place set aside for women's voices so threatening to so many? I'm just curious.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 October 2005 - 11:18pm
It's appears to be mutually exclusive, yes

Media girl, yes, it does appear that the content is being left off of Salon's front page section and put under the "Broadsheet" rubric. e.g. a story about Rosa Parks, and a story about Harriet Miers, were under "Broadsheet," but not on the front page.

So the question is, why? If Salon wants to increase the "women's voice" influence, why not just *do it*, rather than shunting it off into a new area? Why is doing that rather than just posting the stories up top a *good* thing? What constitutes a "woman's story," anyway? A story about women? Any woman? So will any story about, say, Hillary Clinton appear there rather than in the top area? Condi Rice? Margaret Thatcher? How are we supposed to guess? And given that the editor-in-chief is a woman, why bother putting in it's own pink area? It seems senseless to me.

There's a big difference to me between a woman starting a blog and focusing on the issues of interest to her, and an existing magazine starting a "blog" to which men and women contribute but into which are shunted "women's stories" that don't end up appearing in the top area. It smacks of, I dunno, segregation to me.

Douglas Moran's picture
Posted by Douglas Moran (not verified) on 27 October 2005 - 6:09am
A Counter-example

Media girl, here's a perfect counter-example: today's top article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2128818/nav/tap1/) is clearly a "woman's story;" it's about a study on college-aged women, and the article is written by a woman. But Slate put it as the "above the fold" headliner story on their main page. Why can't Salon do that? Why create a separate area?

It seems to me that, if we want to give women's issues a wider hearing, the thing to do is *not* to shunt them off into their own area; put them right out there, for the love of Pete.

Douglas Moran's picture
Posted by Douglas Moran (not verified) on 27 October 2005 - 6:39am
How is this a women's issue?

If Broadsheet showed signs of actually seriously considering women's issues, I'd have no problem with it. But with headlines like "Pussy Saves Broad" and locating an article about Rosa Parks there instead of on the front page of the news, I can't take it seriously. It feels too much like the old days of consigning women's news to the style or society section, you know so it won't get in the way of real news.

Cheryl Fuller's picture
Posted by Cheryl Fuller (not verified) on 31 October 2005 - 5:28pm
As I said

It's not about the approach of Broadsheet, but the very fact that it exists that has so offended so many.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 October 2005 - 5:48pm