BlogHer

According to Pew (link is pdf), more than half of all bloggers blog anonymously or under a pseudonym. So I wonder if everyone was lying, coming out naked or drawn from a self-selectively-skewed sampling, because I was the only pseudononymous blogger I met at the BlogHer conference.

"So what's your blog?" was the opening refrain to many conversations. Multiple choise choice [duh!]: (a) "Oh, I blogged more in the past, but not much lately, but I'm thinking of getting active again" (which is true); (b) "Mrs. Borden's Parole" (which is false); (c) "I don't want to say, I'm too embarrassed" (which is true); (d) "If I told you, I'd have to kill you" (which is false b/c I'd just kill myself)....

This may not be a fair generalization, but it seemed like a mommyblogger's conference. At least it seemed like I was meeting a lot of mommies (who presumably were bloggers, or else why would they be there?).

A lot of the sessions were interesting. From what I read of the first conference, I guess I was expecting more interaction within the room, but it seemed like most of the presentations were just that -- presentations, and while they all had Q&A, few of them were room-wide discussions, and that's too bad. There were a lot of really interesting women there, but it seemed like I heard mostly just panelists and presenters.

Now maybe I'm just too burnt out on politics, but I think the most boring session was the politics session. At first the room wasn't even that crowded, but people started to come in after it started. It was kind of unique, with one woman (whose name has escaped me) being kind of the Sally Jessie Raphael, walking around the room with the microphone, getting questions, having a panelist answer, and then opining herself.

I don't know. The whole political thing bores me these days -- which was kind-of addressed, at least the burn-out "dark night" kind of angle. Me, I'm just bored with stupidity. And so I guess I was hoping that we'd have some sharp commentary on the political scene. Maybe I just slept through it. It just seemed like this session was the opposite of what I'd expected, because while the panelists for the most part did not engage each other in debate, it almost had this kind of kumbayah feeling, like, Isn't it just so cool we're all blogging about politics (but let's not really get into it).

It was kind of fun seeing Lindsay Beyerstein up there, and for a conserative, Ann Althouse was reasonably non-offensive -- at least her statements were mostly devoid of party-line jingoism.

(I can already hear the protests about my admittedly over-generalized characterizations of that session and the people. Well, share it. Maybe we can have the exchanges that did not happen there.)

I also liked hearing Jarah of Fresno Famous, who was funny talking about how odd her town is. And hearing about Lindsay's harrowing encounter with the gubmint post-Katrina, and a soldier's (?) threat of "disappearing" her and her friends when they trespassed onto prison grounds where an unofficial morgue was supposedly kept.

The room was overwhelmingly liberal in the I'm-skeptical-of-anything-the-government-does kind of way (which used to be a conservative trait before conservatives embraced fascist values), so at least I didn't feel out of place.

Just bored.

But the conference itself wasn't boring. Arianna Huffington and Grace Davis were almost more political in their closing keynote. Arianna's story about losing her social circle of friends when she dropped conservatism and embraced liberal values was interesting. As someone whose politics haven't changed much in xx years (while the parties have raced righward), I'd never thought about losing all of one's friends just for dropping GOP gang colors.

Still, looking back I can see why the majority of bloggers who blog anonymously or under a pseudonym don't seek out an event like this. In many ways, it was like going back to high school, with clicques and -- how do you spell what sounds like "soashiz"? and then the rest of us.

Biggest hoot: Seeing a blogger named Liz Henry living it loud (to the extent that she is the subject of not one but two of the more outlandish appearances in the Flickr BlogHer photos [and that's 'nuff said]).

Biggest disappointment: Missing Lauren, formerly of Feministe, who's now blogging under a male name and suddenly garnering all sorts of respect. Go figure, huh?

Kim Ponders on Blogher writes a compelling post Fear Up Harsh where she begins,

Last week’s New Yorker highlighted the 2 ½ year efforts of Alberto J. Mora, the Navy’s former general counsel, to avoid interrogation techniques like “fear up harsh�—increasing the prisoner’s fear level to such extreme that he feels compelled to confess—that violate the Geneva Conventions.

This goes to the highest levels in the government,

That was the point Mora made when he went public in the New Yorker with a 22-page memo documenting his long, unsuccessful struggle to keep Bush administration officials not only within the law, but also within the our long-standing tradition of fair and humane war practice.

The blog, the New Yorker Article, and the 22-page memo are truly worth a careful reading.

Author Ponders, concludes,

Our alarming disregard of the Geneva Conventions after the 9/11 attacks is, to me, the worst crime we have committed against ourselves as a free and open democracy since the days of Japanese internment during WWII. In allowing ourselves to commit torture on war criminals, we have negated the very values we stand for.

Forrest Church in his book the "Seven Deadly Virtues" reminds us that we must pick our enemies carefully, for in the end, we will become like them.

This latest revelation reminds us just how far down that road the United States has gone.

Media girl posted a blog topic So what's wrong with a little objectification, anyway? As science fiction writer, J. F. Rivkin once complained, the cover of the novel (and even the title) often is not under the control of the author, so I have no arguments with author Marrit Ingman, unless she disabuses me of that presumption, about the "babes" cover of her article about Blogher.

Perhaps Second Wave Feminists have no sense of humor about their political struggles and trivializing women's topics is grist for the mill.

I was a young activist and I recall the cover of Ms Magazine - we called it "M" "S" in those days - which had an article about "why we aren't laughing." Like Polack, black, Jewish, Italian, Irish, and other ethnic jokes, jokes about women are legion. In 1973, I framed this picture and hung it on my office wall as "protest" against the "Rad Libber," (Radical Female Liberation) jokes that were making the rounds. It did not stop my boss from making his own jokes about the woman in the drawing and exactly what "movement" she would be making.

About 15 years ago, Andrew Dice Clay drew jeers for his jokes that demeaned women - women as bimbos and airheads.

Women tend to laugh to hide discomfort and mask embarrassment or even anger.

Make a racist joke to a minority, and chances are the person will call you on it. Make a sexist joke about females, the woman is expected to laugh. If she gets annoyed, then it means she has no sense of humor.

I am sure no one meant any real harm in putting up that cover and were it the Onion, I might think it was trying to make a satirical point, but the cover seemed out of place given the rest of the article.

I hope that this is not part of the post-Roe world.

Like "Lois Lane," "Clark"s" jokes aren't funny any more.

I suppose it's cool that the Blogher conference has gotten such high-profile attention from the Austin Chronicle, but I can't quite get over the fact that the editors ran with this cover.
Here Blogher is about empowering women's voices, and the spin they put on it uses cheap sex appeal, while also echoing the really bad movies of the '50s, like, um, Queen of Outer Space....

Three American astronauts are on the first manned mission to Venus, and when they arrive, they find the planet to be inhabited solely by women with high heels and short dresses. Unfortunately, they are immediately imprisoned, for the queen who rules Venus hates men... Suspecting the astronauts to be spies, she now plans to destroy the Earth. So now it's up to the three men (and some friendly Venusians) to overthrow the wicked queen and save the Earth.

Yes, that's right, get a few women together and they automatically hate men and want to take over the world. Those familiar with the genre of the times know that there were many movies like this, drawing on cultural fears of women who don't live to be in the arms of their man, much like the alien invasion movies played off of the red scare.

The final plot point of most of these movies was when the evil women finally succumbed to romantic advances by their male captives, dropped their guns and presumably rushed off to happy lives spending their nights on their backs and their days in the kitchen. Silly, uppity women, they just didn't know their place!

And this is the image the Austin Chronicle decides to run with to position Blogher in the minds of its readers.

The article itself is quite complimentary, introducing the founders of Blogher and the stuff they're talking about in panels at the SXSW festival.

"Women who write about family are 'mommybloggers,' while men who write about family are 'personal bloggers,' incorporating personal elements into their blogs," Des Jardins says. "It's so easy to call someone a 'mommyblogger,' to say that they write 'just' about family."

"As though so much of our great literature and art isn't about family relationships," Camahort points out. "When Arthur Miller wrote All My Sons, nobody said, 'Oh, he's just a 'daddy playwright.' Nobody calls him a 'male playwright.' I think that's why women are rightfully apprehensive."

Fellow BlogHers Stone and Casino – who Stone describes as an "unashamed, unabashed feminist blogger" – will continue the talk about marginalization, identity, and their implications in "Public Square or Private Club: Does Exclusivity Strengthen or Dilute?"

A serious enough take, and it's presented without any snark or sarcasm.

So what's with the overtly sexist cover? I've never been to Austin, but I hear tell it's a liberal town, so maybe they will all "get it." But really, this seems like a rather cheap shot to me. Imagine an African American blogger's conference with a Sambo-like caricature on the cover, or an Anti-Defamation League conference with a caricature of an "evil Jew" with a long hook nose. This cover says that women empowered want to emasculate men (note the three women seemingly doing just that) while lounging around as objects of desire.

If that's the political climate we have in liberal areas, no wonder ERA never passed and forced pregnancy is the political fad du jour.

So now in this post-O'Connor era, with the Roberts/Scalito court taking on the foundations of Roe and South Dakota making it quite clear that "protecting innocent life" does not include women, period, we're moving into a regressive era. For some good reading on these issues, check out these BlogHers....

Morra Aarons, If You're Pro-Choice and Not FURIOUS Today....:

Get angry. Write an op-ed. Post to your blog. As Amanda suggests in this post, call Rep. Hunt. If you want to call your Rep, click here for more information.

Any other ideas? Post a comment.

This bill is extreme- it doesn't allow for abortions even for victims of incest or rape.

Amanda, The shit has hit the fan...:

Earlier this morning, several major newspapers published articles revealing South Dakota to be the first state to challenge Roe V. Wade head-on. The Mount Rushmore State Senate voted last night to pass a bill that outlaws all abortions, even those intended to end a pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

(Comment: "wow. in what year are we living again?")

Melinda Casino, in Around the Dial: "And so it begins..." The Supreme Court will review a late-term abortion procedure - Part 1 and Around the Dial: South Dakota, Summers resigns, Science, and VW, links to sharp posts by some of our favorite feminist bloggers.

Click and read....

We were so rough, so tough, so radical ... and oh so young.

I look back to my own roots in the Women's Movement of the later 1970's, and the shoulders we stood on and recall the retrospective of a dear friend who recounts it vividly in A Year of Living Dangerously: 1968 and how things changed - and the world turned on an idea - Female Liberation!

"It has begun!" The words were galvanizing, chilling; the implications were massive, dangerous and revolutionary; their seriousness precluded euphoria. I knew that the liberation of women was not going to be easily won, nor won through any moderate means. I knew that once I had embarked on this path, there would be no stopping short. Reality shifted, and I felt myself to be in a new world.

It was a different era and we saw a different reality from what young women see today.

It was a terrifying and dangerous time. We felt that we were laying our lives on the line in a way the boys of The Resistance weren't even contemplating. We saw the violence and hatred that demands of personhood and dignity for women brought out in men who until then appeared normal. These were many women's "nice men". They were the apparently-dignified conservatives, the open-minded liberals, the justice-hungry leftists, the apolitical hippies. These men gave us every indication that they would choose open warfare, to the death, rather than yield any privilege, including the psychological privilege of feeling superior. We felt we were girding for an apocalypse in male-female relations. It was startling--and deeply disturbing--how frequently men responded to our direct but courteous remonstrances about sometimes-small issues of behavior with the verbal and body language of physical violence.

And how far we've come.

I am amused today to find young women who scornfully declare that they are "not feminists" taking for granted their rights to do some things we scandalized our feminist comrades for suggesting in the early days. I spoke the other day to a young "not-a-feminist" with a shaved head and remembered the scandal, the uproar, the outrage Cell 16 created at a feminist conference in New York City in 1969. We were speaking from the stage on the subject of the political implications of our making ourselves into conventional womanly women through the cultivation (often at the expense of great time and effort) of stereotypical feminine appearance. To dramatize this, we included a bit of guerilla theater: one of our number who had luxuriant long blonde hair had decided to cut it to a more practical chin length. To help us make the point about femininity, she had also agreed to have us cut her hair on stage. There was pandemonium in the hall, with women standing up and screaming "don't do it!" One woman shrieked, "Men like my breasts, too; do you want me to cut them off?" In 1994, in contrast, my young "not-a-feminist" acquaintance considered her shaved-head haircut practical and rather interesting. If it shocked anyone, or if someone chose to regard it as "unfeminine," so much the worse for them.

It was a time when our lives went on hold,

Beyond the matter of whether one ought to stay in an abusive relationship, we questioned how much time and energy ought to go into working out "personal" relationships even of a more promising sort, and asked whether women ought to be devoting themselves to raising children. Although we didn't condemn good sexual relationships or worthwhile family life, should these be found, it is true that, at that historical moment, we thought it best for women to stay free for making the revolution. Even good relationships take time and energy, time and energy that we needed in getting the word to women about the possibility of a better way of life, time and energy that we needed for the struggle. And isn't it obvious that a guerilla must be free? Hence we wondered at women who professed to be dedicated to fighting for female liberation and who also chose to have children. We felt that children became the hostages of the system; women's need to protect children make us vulnerable to male threats and bribes. We might be willing to bring the world down on our own heads through a revolution total enough to effect true liberation for all, but we flinch in contemplating the danger to innocent little ones. Of course, in our apocalyptic thinking, we never envisaged this struggle being one that would go on for twenty, fifty, a hundred years. In this, too, we were progeny of the sixties: we were going to remake the world in the next two or three or five years. There would be plenty of time for "a personal life" later.

This week Coretta Scott King passed, also and so I think of Martin Luther King's last speech,

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

The women of the Second Wave of Feminism are passing and we still are not free and the ERA is a curious footnote of history.

We wait and wait and wait.

Yet it has been good company that we have kept. We sorely miss those who will not get to that mountain top, but whose example gives strength to those who are still on the climb.

A definite "no" comes from the fashion agency slides, who gave fashion model and blogging tech aficionado Anina an ultimatum:

either quit doing the technology stuff, or leave the agency. they say that fashion and technology do not go together.

they say,that i can not do both things and that i must choose to either be a model, or do the tech stuff. they say i will not find an agency in paris who will accept for me to do the both. and so i have been thinking deeply about what i am to be doing.

modeling makes me money, tech does not. i love tech, why should i have to give it up.

Why indeed? mobilejones, who is blogging on the new BlogHer community website, writes:

Anina's story isn't unique. Many employers are concerned about their employees blogging, and as a result, some people blog anonymously.

The concerns of the modeling agency aren't clear, but it does raise what is likely to continue to be a tough choice for employees. When an employer dictates your activities outside of work, what recourse do you have?

My question is what this agency is afraid of. Nicole on cruel to be kind ponders this:

I find it hard to believe that an agency - which is living from what their models bring as business to them and lives from the fact that her models get more famous - would threaten as an ultimatum "just" because of she is a bit geeky. There is a second side of the story I would love to hear. Then again, yes they may be just as stupid as that.

Back on BlogHer, trishaokubo notes that Anina's management company has backed her in this conflict:

It brightens my heart to hear that WOMEN Management has stepped up to the plate to support Anina. I don't mean to get on a soapbox here, but this is a great example of the kind of support that we're looking to foster amongst ourselves here at BlogHer.

Anina, who was at the BlogHer Conference last year, writes about her support and reveals, perhaps, why the Fashion Powers That Be may not appreciate her blogging:

i would never suggest, with my 360fashion project, or anything that i do, to work without an agency. it's too risky. you risk not getting paid, being mistreated, lied to, and whole host of things that as a little independent contractor can happen to you. my 360fashion project is not to REPLACE the need for agents, otherwise i wouldnt have ps-models in there. it is only to say that as there is less money happening in the fashion industry, on non-monetary collaborations, the 360fashion system can facilitate the interaction.

i dont see the problem of two people even, agreeing to work together, and then calling their agents to arrange the paperwork (i do think however, then the agent should take less commission). more proactive and independent fashion professionals i think would be happy to work this way, as they could arrange their own projects, work, and such. maybe that is what the industry fears when we speak about new ways to collaborate and communicate. for me, it gives then a doubled effort to get work, i am making my connections on one side and the agency making connections for me on the other side--it's a win win situation if everyone is on the same team. possession is ego.

so my mother agency explained to me from the french agency side, what happened to my couture show booking (that's why this whole situation happened--because i flew back for a job, that i understood to be a job, that was cancelled, and then no one informed me). a lot of press showed up to film me, and when i was not there, they were very pissed off. when the french agency said that i spoke directly to the client (the thing that made them so angry), my mother agency vouched for my professionalism and did not buy their story.

Today Anina is not modeling, but she is working ... showing Swiss TV how to blog.

Update 29 May 2006:

The last sentence, now crossed out, apparently was a bit ambiguous. The "today" referred to that particular day of the post, but some people, apparently, were reading it as meaning that Anina no longer models at all. I regret that anyone got that impression from my imprecise writing.

Anina corrects:

hi media girl,

in this post it says i am not modeling and this is not correct info. i am modeling. i have lots of agencies and even a new agent in paris.

http://mediagirl.org/node/1098

thanks for the correction!
great article and breakdown of the situation.
best,
anina
www.anina.net

The BlogHer 2006 online registration system is live, as Elisa Camahort has just announced at the BlogHer website.

If you mised it last year, the BlogHer conference is a gathering of women to meet and debate their favorite blogging interests. Men are invited as well!

Here is a snippet from the announcement, please visit the BlogHer site for further details about the mission and ethos of BlogHer:

We are a two-day conference, and we are allowing people to register for individual days or both days, as they so choose. Remember, Day One is techie and hands on. Day Two is culture, conversation and community...

The organizers are calling for speaker proposals, so now's your chance if you're interested in presenting a topic for debate or a presentation.

(Okay, Media Girl - you've had fair warning, no excuse not to attend now... :D ;))

Hope to see you all there!

Related links:

Save These Dates: BlogHer '06
Hotel Room update: Get 'em while they're hot.
Day One Schedule and Call for Speakers (and the Clarification)
BlogHer Vission, Mission and Position Statement

Blogs are chaotic.

What if I went to the news stand and all the magazines were listed not by their subject but by their circulation? Maybe I could sift through the titles and find some promising candidates, but what if inside the magazine, people were writing articles off-topic? What if there were articles from other magazines attacking the magazine's authenticity and its very right to exist?

Chaos.

What if there were self-appointed tracking system gurus who claimed they accurately tracked popularity? Even if they are right - despite all indications - is popularity the goal? Readership is not leadership. If "Playboy" outsells "MS Magazine," what conclusions should I draw?

If there was one thing, and only one thing, that I took home from the July 2005 BlogHer Conference was that the playing field is flat. There is no clear leader. There are millions of blogs.

Who can keep up with it?

Seriously, the volume of output is staggering.

Is the conversation in Yankee Stadium better than in a graduate seminar at Stanford just because there are more people there? And who can hear it at the Stadium, and they're all watching the same game out on the field.

There are two factors as I see it - the gate and the quality. If the blog is out to make lots of money, the traffic numbers become important and the barriers to entry are rather small. The readership is it's own staff - not like Playboy or MS that need to generate content. The readership is its own content. Granted, there may be servers and hosting fees, but nothing like the costs associated with publishing the New York Times or Sports Illustrated.

BlogHer was a retreat of sorts -- get away from the guys (and most blogger conferences are nearly all-male) and sound off about what we care about. Some of the discussion was about dealing with people indifferent or unfriendly to your views, and how many of us simply don't want to deal with that.

And yet without mixing it up with the guys, there's little way for us to get our views across. Even our search engine rankings suffer because men tend not to link to women, they link mostly to each other.

Roxanne says suck it up, trolls are a fact of life. Deal with it. In fact, "anger can be used to our benefit." I say absolutely ... as long as you don't let it swallow you whole.

Now Feministing's Jessica, guest blogging on Bush vs. Choice, calls for us all to mix it up and be heard on the most popular progressive and liberal blogs, forums and community sites out there:

With the Roberts nomination front and center, choice is being talked about more and more, especially on some of the most well-known political blogs. But what’s disturbing is that choice and abortion are being discussed—in blogs and in the media—more as a political tool than as an issue that affects women’s lives.

So NARAL is issuing a call to action. We’ve listed five of the some of the most well-known progressive blogs below—go to them and make your voice heard. Use their comments sections to make sure that choice is being discussed as something that affects women, not just politics.

Daily Kos
Perhaps the most well-known progressive blog, Daily Kos gets ridiculous hits and covers a broad spectrum of issues. Like many political blogs however, it could use a nice dose of women’s voices--especially on choice.

Eschaton
Right up there with Kos, this blog is super well-known and insanely comprehensive. There are literally hundreds of comments for some posts, so pro-choice voices can get lost in there--make sure it doesn’t happen!

My DD
Another big one, My DD is run by co-bloggers Jerome Armstrong and Chris Bowers. While their Roberts coverage has been great, it would be great to see more on the choice aspect.

The Left Coaster
A terrific group blog, The Left Coaster recently posted about the latest polls on abortion. Go check it out, and make sure the conversation isn’t all about numbers.

Swing State Project
The Swing State Project focuses on election news, covering key races across the country. This is a great place to make your voice heard on local and state choice issues.

Note: All these blogs do amazing work...but it never hurts to increase the choice factor!

Suck it up, mix it up, say it out loud! (And be sure to check out the other posts by feminist luminaries at Bush vs. Choice.)