Geekiness Not Just for Men
Oh look, here’s Catherine Bennett confirming much of what Lucy and I said in But What About? the other day – on the ‘why aren’t there more women writing blogs and editing websites and doing Euston-type things?’ question. It’s not, as I pointed out, because they’re not allowed. One reason I offered was that a lot of them think, stupidly, that it’s a childish guyish geeky thing to do, and that they’re better than that. Now here’s Catherine Bennett doing just what I was talking about:
A couple of months ago, an American robin, Turdus migratorius, made it across the Atlantic. News reports showed a long row of birdwatchers, waiting, with the utmost patience, by a garden wall in Peckham, London. Almost all of them were men. I wondered, at the time, if this – minus binoculars – is what a reception party of bloggers would look like. Now, thanks to the drafters of the Euston Manifesto, a pub-born project that has just launched as a real-life political alliance, the question has been answered. It is, indeed, what a reception party of bloggers would look like.
Good for them – the patient watchers. That’s not a bad or a stupid thing to do; it’s not bad or stupid to be interested in birds; what is the sneer for? I bet Bennett wouldn’t sneer that way at women who watch ‘Neighbours’ of an afternoon – she’d think that was elitist, she’d be embarrassed to sneer (I’m betting – I don’t know for a fact), but to sneer at people watching for a bird with binoculars is fair game. Why is that? As it happens, the most passionate birders I know are women; one of them goes on trips to Africa and Brazil to watch birds; and she knows a lot more women birders than I do. But even if that weren’t the case, it might be that women were missing something of value by not themselves watching birds, as opposed to being more grown-up and sensible by ignoring birds. Bennett is claiming (apparently without realizing it) that women are better than men because they have narrower interests. They have better sense than to watch birds or mess around with blogs or politics. Well – I respectfully disagree. And guess what – I’m a woman.
I doubt if she’s looked much further than Comment is Free, and found the spartist slanging matches there a bit tedious. Don’t we all ? You didn’t seriously expect her to do any real research for this (highly-paid) drivel did you ?
Yellow, scarlet, black
Apparition in motion
Western tanager
Good guesswork, Tingey.
I read some blogs, and I suspect that some folks think blogs are too narcissistic, that is, full of the bloggist’s cats or health problems or something; other folks would like to blog but are daunted by the technical mysteries, and still others think they could do it but suffer from TMS–Too Much (stuff) To Do. Then, too, some might get so distracted by all the other junk online that they might never stumble across a good blog, and don’t know it can be done.
If you do a search on feminist blogs you might turn up some [more] good ones. Ampersand [Alas, a Blog] has a fair list. I like Pandagon,Feministe and I Blame The Patriarchy. Maybe there’s some helpful sites on how to start one that isn’t that eye-wrenching white type on black. If more women know, more women might get going. That’s just my guess.
Picking up on what’s right in front of your face–that might be something we all need to work on. Bennett seemed not disdainful of birders but of bloggers. I had no idea the situation in Britain was so totty…
Some blogs of course are too narcissistic, but I think Bennett was talking about specifically political ones.
And the nonsense is still being churned out over there. This is a very well-entrenched trope, this ‘women have better things to think about than politics’ nonsense. To wit:
“Political blogs compound the problem, because most women don’t want to confront the keyboard for the purpose of bandying insults, swear words and arguments about recondite abstractions (the stuff of websites such as Harry’s Place).”
Recondite abstractions, at Harry’s Place? What recondite abstractions? And why are women supposed to be not interested in those anyway??
“As ‘real’ politics have become more and more attuned to feminine concerns and values (witness Cameron’s current schtick) the Eustonistas’ invocation of large issues and principles sounds quaint and fusty. Incidentally, birdwatching *is* quite popular among ladies.”
What the hell are feminine concerns and values??!
Note the horrible ghetto thinking, note the condescension. Note the idea that women don’t care about large issues and principles. Gaaaaah.
“For every 1 male blogger talking about politics, tits and ass, there are 10 Mommy blogs where thirty something women talk about babies, kids, the dry cleaning, and offer humorous tales of their men and all their perceived failings.”
Aaaaaaaaaaaaarggh!
Normally I have a lot of time for Catherine Bennet, but I think she is spouting off here about a subject of which she has very limited knowledge. Could be that columnists are feeling threatened by alternative and less passive/ receptive ways of looking at political discourse.
This is so depressing. It’s basically the ‘women shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads about politics’ argument dressed up in different clothes. Yes, a lot of political blogs are male dominated, but how is this going to change if women stay in little ‘mummy blog’ enclaves and talk about babies and shopping?
It is so depressing. Exactly what I’ve just been saying over there. That’s exactly what it is – the clothes aren’t even all that different! Dry cleaning! I ask you!
I found it difficult to take Bennett’s latest column very seriously, but I really can’t fault her given the general mediocrity of the “good” comments on her most recent columns and the unbelievable nastiness (and misogyny) of the worst ones; see her latest column and the one on John Prescott’s personal conduct for sterling examples of the latter. It’s true that no-talent hacks have always bullied their way into columns the “professional way” in the past, and that there’s not much point in moaning over this latest innovation to the Guardian’s comments pages online, but if I were Bennett, I would be just as annoyed by the vandalism on webpages reserved for my writing as a good writer should be. My guess is that professional chauvinism and insecurity over the challenge posed by the likes of MrPikeBishop, Brenzone et al, barely figure into it, though of course it’s a comfortable explanation for some.
As for Bennett’s possible female chauvinism, as evidenced by a reluctance to criticize trivial, stereotypically feminine pursuits, I’m rather skeptical; her “Fashion for Grown-Ups” column is pretty tongue-in-cheek, and it’s apparent from reading, well, dozens of her columns that she has no patience with defenders of astrology, New Age therapies, “natural” childbirth, “pop feminism” etc.
Ah – I hadn’t thought of that – that Bennett has formed her ideas of the subject from the comments there. Yes, that would do it. I mostly don’t read them, because they’re mostly so bad – though I do sometimes, on an interesting post, just in case Inayat has dropped in.
It’s not so much her reluctance to criticize trivial, stereotypically feminine pursuits that I’m attacking, though, as her assumption that certain trivial pursuits are in fact (more or less universally) feminine pursuits. I don’t see why she wants to assume that; and it’s this widespread and unfortunately too-little-questioned assumption that gets me down.
Apologies: I didn’t read the second paragraph closely enough.
No problem! And you prompted me to read her Prescott comment, and it’s a good one.
Actually, reading some of the CiF comments, it would appear that blogs are a place where men can get away with being total carping cissies without the normal risk of public shame and humiliation. A bit like road rage then, but with fewer lay-by knifings.
And another thing – is Bennett going to sic the sisterhood on me if ever I turn up at a mummy blog and try to join in a discussion on nappy changing (a subject ever close to my heart right now)?