Because You Haven't Really Arrived As A Feminist Until You've Bitched About Being Condescended To By The New York Times

So, this story is a whole THREE DAYS OLD - which is like 6 months in gossip years - but still. It's not really gossip - it's internet feminist meta-commentary, yo - and it involves US (as in we, your betches, and not the print tabloid that is a mainstay of dentists' waiting rooms and cottage privvies everywhere) and so we would be remiss to overlook it. We are, after all, nothing if not self-absorbed.

Here's the thing: you see that picture on the upper left, there? That's me. Well, actually, that's my baby, and the back of my head. A little forward, right in front of me, is the stunning Sweetney. Dana is somewhere within licking distance. And holding the microphone for me while I prattle on and on and on and on about some matter of global importance is Mom-101 (honorary betch). Why do you care? Because that picture was on the front page of the New York Times Style section. Which, depending upon how you slice it, is either mind-bogglingly cool, or a slap in the face with a cold, wet patriarchal noodle.

The picture was taken at the BlogHer conference that took place the other weekend; the accompanying article was entitled "Blogging's Glass Ceiling," and it told a story of the conference that highlighted the upkeep of the restrooms and women bloggers' tendency to whine dramatically about being marginalized as members of writing and tech communities by those communities and by the mainstream media. Oh, and I think that it might have mentioned something about lactating. And make-up. And Oprah.

Which, you know, is a semi-accurate representation of the conference experience. I wore make-up; I was lactating. I didn't see Oprah there - last I checked, she wasn't keeping up with her blog - but I'm pretty sure that I whined a little bit. Here's the thing, though: that conference - and the women attending it - was and were and are about so much more than make-up and free chocolate. And we whine for a reason. We whine because when we raise our voices? We get relegated to the Style section. We're not news, we're not tech, we're not business - we're style. Which is a little irksome.

But I'm not interested in bitching about that right now. I'm still pretty tickled to have had my name dropped anywhere in the New York Times, so it would be disingenuous of me to voice full outrage at having been dropped onto the front page of the Style section. What I am interested in bitching about: the misogynist blowhards who have been bitching about the women who have chosen to bitch.

The blowhards, apparently, have nothing better to do than to stay on the lookout for any evidence of women forgetting their place in society. Have we dared to dip our toes into the dangerous waters of business and technology? Are we trying to swim with sharks? Well, then, we should not complain when someone points their fingers at our frilly bathing costumes! We should be grateful to be noticed, we with our puffy flotation devices and our silly mom-blogging girl-blogging dog-paddle splash-splash games! Which don't deserve any recognition to begin with! So suck it up, silly girls! And maybe try growing some balls and getting a real blog! (*grab crotch here*)

To wit:

This: And as for you, you idiot HuffPo woman whining because the New York Times ran this story in the "Style & Fashion" section: Look a gift horse in the mouth, why don't you? You're lucky they even bothered to cover your stupid "BlogHer" conference.

And this: If a female blogger wants to be taken seriously, it's not at all difficult:

1.  Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.

2.  At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.

3.  Don't post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets. 

4.  Don't threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you. 

5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.

The reality is that most female bloggers aren't taken seriously because they don't merit it.

(LATE EDIT: Oh, and? We are also, apparently - or at least I am, on the basis of having written this post - "narcissistic, brainless, lactating cows"! *pumps hoof in air*)

Whatever.

Here's a thought for you gentlemen: most male bloggers aren't taken seriously. Most bloggers, as has been pointed out in nearly every post that I read on the subject, don't make enough money for gum off of their personal sites, regardless of gender. But are male bloggers courted as relentlessly as female bloggers, individually and as a community? No. Women bloggers - and especially bloggers who fall into the 'parenting' niche of the blogosphere - are actively and aggressively courted by corporations and PR firms and literary agents and media conglomerates. LOTS of us. MOST of us. So we're not bitching about Big Business ignoring us - anyone who spent a minute at the conference could see that Big Business has a big mother-effing hard-on for women bloggers - we're bitching about getting respect out of the deal. They want us - they like our missives on lactation and body image and fear and depression and love and all that girly shit. They take us plenty seriously. They know that there's a big audience for that girly shit. But they're still being coy about showing us the money. So we're doing our damnedest to support each other in getting what we deserve - full credit and decent compensation for our talent - and not just putting out for a steak dinner and an "I'll call you" note in the morning.

So when NYT does a puff 'Style' piece on us, yeah, we roll our eyes. Chocolates and flowers. Thanks, but no thanks. We'd rather not be looked at as perfumed commodities, things to fuck and exploit.  We'd like to be recognized for the force that we are.

So. That photo that was featured on the front page? It was taken during a session on the topic of whether mom-blogging is still (STILL!) a radical act. It was taken in the moment just before I stood up, babe in arms, fresh off the tit, to say that we know that mom-blogging - WOMAN-blogging - is still radical because there is still so much animosity, so much hate toward it, so much deprecation of it, so much dismissal of it, so much effort put into its marginalization. What is radical about it is that we push on, demanding to be heard, and demanding recognition of our worth as mothers, women, writers, business-people, innovators, people, against the ignorance of those who would keep us down.

Thank you, misogynist blowhards of the Internet, for helping me to demonstrate my point.

Postscript: NYT responds.

Comments

[Maria]

Thank you.

[heels]

*fist raised in solidarity*

[the ex]

Honestly, I wish we could all stop having this back and forth about the validity of mommybloggers. Dooce, Amalah, Sweetney. Those are the first three names I think of when anyone says blog. It’s fecking obvious that ‘mommybloggers’ are a valid force. So, catch up mainstream media! It’s about damn time.

[Poppy Buxom]

You tell 'em, Catherine!

What kills me is this is the same controversy female novelists were embroiled in in the 19th and 20th centuries. "They just write silly romances for silly women." Um, George Elliot, anyone? Georges Sand? Virginia Woolf? Jane Austen?

We're WRITERS. And so fucking what is you're not our audience.

Now go cover another videogaming convention in Vegas.

[Ammie aka Sleeping Mommy]

Will you take me under your wing and teach me your ways sensei?

[misha]

its funny but (i think b/c of the previous post) last night I had a dream that Dooce was like the new Ellen of amex commercials. Odd.

[misha]

duh - she was in a plane (all the cross country travel that "A list" bloggers do. I almost never remember my dreams and what an odd one to remember

[anna]

Yay for the misogynist blowhards.

Bottom line: the NYT printed the articlewhere the editors felt that it would be best received. And the writer of the article can bitch all she wants about 70s feminist issues but she’s the one who focuses on eyeshadow and uses Katie Couric as a verb.

[theclevermom]

Hear hear!

[Nadine/Scarbiedoll]

The piece irked me and I couldn't put my finger on why. Thanks for putting it all together so passionately and articulately.

[Katie Kat]

I think I luff you... (and the slow clap starts...)

Right on, AND beautifully said.

[Queen of Spain]

I love you.

That is all.

xoxoxo,

the blowhard's favorite and mentioned 'idiot huffpo woman'

[jaelithe]

I'll admit, a part of me did feel kind of bad that the first thing I Tweeted when you sent out a link this ADORABLE picture of your bebeh in the NYT was, "It's in the STYLE section?!?!?!" Instead of "Jasper is so cute! And he's in the New York Times! And so are women bloggers!"

But then I saw all these wonderful women agree with me that such was dumb, and write about it.

And then I saw this unlovely ungentleman you mention illustrate our point.

And now I don't feel bad at all. Jasper IS cute. It's great that he, and BlogHer, were in the NYT. But we want the Technology section, please. Now.

[Stefania/CityMama]

My girl-crush on you just grew even more ardent. Marry me?

[Glennia]

"...anyone who spent a minute at the conference could see that Big Business has a big mother-effing hard-on for women bloggers..." The brilliance of that line alone blows my mind.

The thing is, the male blowhard-osphere is not something I take too seriously. They need to get a grip on something other than their small dicks.

[sweetney]

back off Stefania, she's MINE. :)

[Lisa Stone]

HerBadAssMother, right on.

While I hate to send these guys traffic, I'll definitely be using these links as a perfect example of the hatred aimed at women who dast raise their voices -- I just wish I had saved other examples from print, tv, Internet, because I've seen this in every newsroom I've ever worked in. The higher a woman's profile, the more hate mail and vitriol aimed at her. These constant exhortations to Shaddupville, snuck into posts and comments and emails are part of the reason this community means so much to me. The good news: Looks like we'll be providing the haters for material for years, saddling up our computers (implanted chips?) in the rest home. Nobody better Twitter my Depends.

[Suburban Turmoil]

*Stands and applauds* *for an inappropriately long time*

[Suebob]

A perfect 10.

It just kills these guys that women's truths about their lives are being read and taken seriously. It is unimaginable to them how the experiences of half the population are of interest to anyone.

[laurie]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks for writing what I felt. Thanks for putting it so well. Just thank you, thank you, thank you.

[April]

They're just jealous because there's no such thing as BlogHim.

Mom Bloggers and Woman Bloggers are courted so hard, I'm on a first name basis with my UPS delivery guy. And I'm not even an A-Lister. I'm what I call an "LMNOP-List" Mom blogger.

Companies are discovering the Power (yes, with a capital P) that women and moms have and I think it scares the bejeebus out of these "blowhards". Anytime a woman or group of women becomes a threat to the patriarchy, they puff up their chests and try to dismiss us. So thanks for deflating them. You rock. That is all.

[Gwen Bell]

Said it on Twitter, I'll say it here: this is one of the best posts I've read in days...+for serious, I hope people GET THE MESSAGE.

We're looking at just the NYT article right now, but I see the covers of this month's technology review w/Leah Culver blowing a massive bubble that _completely covers_ her mouth. Wired's cover model, Julia Allison dressed to the hilt...

I'm saying, we can see this as an isolated event, but I really think we need to ask questions of _all_ that surrounds women in tech right now. And push back. And raise our voices. And do it in as level-headed way as we can...

I don't want to play by the guys rules of blogging or technology. I want us to make our own...BlogHer is proof on top of proof that we are.

I want us to be able to wear the heels to work and still be taken seriously as a computer developer or a graphic designer. If you want to tell me it can't be done, I'll tell you we haven't made any progress as a society since the 40s or earlier.

Let's show that it can be done by doing it. And supporting the women who are.

[Major Bedhead]

(I haven't read all the comments; apologies if this has been said already.)

Why is it such a bad thing to write about women's...stuff? Like our lives, our kids, our pets, our friggin' periods. Why, if those topics are covered well, written well, why is it less important that a man wittering on about baseball or bars or hunting? We are women, right? Should we remove every vestige of being women by refusing to write about anything that has anything to do with being a woman? Why can't we write about those things in addition to writing about depression and politics and all that other stuff? I don't get the comments from the NYTimes readers - they seem to be suggesting that, in order to be taken seriously, we must be more like men.

Well. Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

[Barchbo]

I don't blog, but I respect and enjoy the dialogue and profile that blogging fosters. Great post - I linked it to Kirtsy.

[myrnatheminx]

I had a comment on my own site along these lines (the majority of my readers are men). I responded by telling them "I had just attended the OpEd project session with Jennifer Pozner and Catherine Orenstein---about as serious, educated, and hard-nosed as they come. Pozner takes on the likes of Bill O'Reilly day in and day out. Suck it!" (or something to that effect). It's like they're determined to prove out points for us by those idiotic comments but don't realize it. The biggest problem is that it still continues to happen. That's why more women needed to attend that session, so that we know how to call ourselves experts, take names, and kick ass like we should--as a huge force!