09.01.04
Posted in fun at 10:19 am by
I’m taking the Hugo Schwyzer challenge. Hugo in one of his latest installments took the effort to count and itemize each blog on his blogroll and categorize them as male and female.
His challenge all started with an article written by a man, Matt Stoller. The article–though I didn’t read it thoroughly–was about women blogging politically, or more correctly it was about women NOT blogging politically (or his perception that this was a rarer occourance.) This was followed up by a rebuttal from Amanda at mousewords.
Thus Hugo counted his blogs and challenged a number of folks to do that as well. Amanda’s logic in expecting 50/50 men and women in a blogroll seems to be based upon the notion that a good approxomate split between men and women is about half and half. This is quite possibly accurate. My thought is this (and I’m happy to have this admittedly raw thought critiqued) isn’t it quite possible for that number to include more women than men and have that be just? I mean, it would seem plausible that if of all the bloggers out there half were men and half were women then a just blogroll would be 50/50. But if there are more women bloggers out there, regardless of the topic, a blogroll would need to be greater than 50/50 to be a “just blogroll” that is representative.
I’m not sure if there’s been any research done on this, and if there has it probably is making its way to the stacks, and as such it would be pretty difficult to find. Although, if folks at typepad or blogspot were a representative sample we could make an estimation of the approxomate split.
This does beg the question, though, what if men were the more popular sex in the blogosphere? Should they be linked to more often than women? Personally, I think not. My reasoning is this. We live in a man’s culture, it’s never hard to hear the male opinion–just turn on the television watch the news, even the female anchorwoman tells you what a man wants to hear. We as a society need to place the woman’s voice in the forefront–we are lacking without it. Hearing the male voice is unconscious–it’s the default. One must go out of their way to hear a woman’s point of view. Since that’s true–I think we should then GO OUT OF OUR WAY to make a woman’s voice heard…unless you’re really ready to argue that a woman’s voice is unimportant?!?
Okay, so the Hugo Schwyzer challenge for a badchristian blog…:
6 women
11 men
hmmmm….looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me. It rather does prove my point though, the default is to hear the voices we’ve always heard–to never allow change to happen. Thanks Hugo, Amanda, and friends, for the wake-up call. And, keep posted–I’m on the warpath for some good female voices!
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/01/the_hugo_schwyzer_challenge/trackback/
Posted in fun at 10:19 am by
I’m taking the Hugo Schwyzer challenge. Hugo in one of his latest installments took the effort to count and itemize each blog on his blogroll and categorize them as male and female.
His challenge all started with an article written by a man, Matt Stoller. The article–though I didn’t read it thoroughly–was about women blogging politically, or more correctly it was about women NOT blogging politically (or his perception that this was a rarer occourance.) This was followed up by a rebuttal from Amanda at mousewords.
Thus Hugo counted his blogs and challenged a number of folks to do that as well. Amanda’s logic in expecting 50/50 men and women in a blogroll seems to be based upon the notion that a good approxomate split between men and women is about half and half. This is quite possibly accurate. My thought is this (and I’m happy to have this admittedly raw thought critiqued) isn’t it quite possible for that number to include more women than men and have that be just? I mean, it would seem plausible that if of all the bloggers out there half were men and half were women then a just blogroll would be 50/50. But if there are more women bloggers out there, regardless of the topic, a blogroll would need to be greater than 50/50 to be a “just blogroll” that is representative.
I’m not sure if there’s been any research done on this, and if there has it probably is making its way to the stacks, and as such it would be pretty difficult to find. Although, if folks at typepad or blogspot were a representative sample we could make an estimation of the approxomate split.
This does beg the question, though, what if men were the more popular sex in the blogosphere? Should they be linked to more often than women? Personally, I think not. My reasoning is this. We live in a man’s culture, it’s never hard to hear the male opinion–just turn on the television watch the news, even the female anchorwoman tells you what a man wants to hear. We as a society need to place the woman’s voice in the forefront–we are lacking without it. Hearing the male voice is unconscious–it’s the default. One must go out of their way to hear a woman’s point of view. Since that’s true–I think we should then GO OUT OF OUR WAY to make a woman’s voice heard…unless you’re really ready to argue that a woman’s voice is unimportant?!?
Okay, so the Hugo Schwyzer challenge for a badchristian blog…:
6 women
11 men
hmmmm….looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me. It rather does prove my point though, the default is to hear the voices we’ve always heard–to never allow change to happen. Thanks Hugo, Amanda, and friends, for the wake-up call. And, keep posted–I’m on the warpath for some good female voices!
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/01/the_hugo_schwyzer_challenge/trackback/
He he he…gave me a chuckle though!
Headless-in-England said,
September 3, 2004 at 10:45 am
BC-
Thank you for being supportive. I mean that. But here is something I must give to you. If a woman has a sucky blog, don’t feel obligated to link to it or guilty about thinking it sucks. The truth is the greatest enemy women face are themselves. Until we rise to the challenge internally, we don’t deserve to be placed on the same footing as men.
I say this to you because I do not want you to feel guilty, etc, and because I do not think you are in danger of erring in the opposite direction - which is to ignore women who are capable.
And btw, I’m glad you linked to my blog!
Brandon said,
September 3, 2004 at 6:14 pm
No worries, Headless. As of now I’ve linked to 8 womens and 12 mens blogs. I’m waiting to find blogs I like, are updated regularly, and fit my overall theme. What I want to avoid is defaulting to the male voice.
I’m not sure I understand your statement, “Until we rise to the challenge internally, we don’t deserve to be placed on the same footing as men.” I have some knee jerk reactions to this…but before I share those I think I’d better understand you point better. Can you help me to understand?
Headless-in-England said,
September 4, 2004 at 11:16 am
My comment first of all, was written quickly and it was probably not as clear as it should have been. I apologize for any bruises (from knee-jerks!).
As to the meaning of the comment, here’s what I was aiming at. We form ourselves. Society forms us. God forms us. Our family forms us. So, in other words, we are very much in the process of “becoming” our entire lives. That becoming is rooted in what we believe, and what we have been told to believe, and what society accepts as true, etc.
That said, women have believed (generally speaking, of course) certain things about themselves - ie, we are more timid, less courageous, more mild, less challenging, more silly, less clear thinking, etc.
As we believe, so we become.
Therefore, until we are willing to examine the beliefs that shape us, we will NOT be courageous, rational, challenging, clear-thinking, etc. And so, we who have formed ourselves into quite silly beings, do not deserve a place among those who are attempting to be reasonable.
As a side note, we tend to devalue certain things that are feminine (emotions) in light of characteristics that are masculine (reason) to the detriment of everyone. But we must be willing to show in situations like this, by our lives, the high value of emotions and reason fused, rejecting dualism. This burden belongs to both male and female. And it has yet to be carried.
And so, I know you want women to be included, but even if we are given a place at the table, so to speak, we will be out-of-place due to our own creation of ourselves UNTIL we BECOME the people who belong at the table - whatever table it is.
I, for one, am not interested in being a part of the table of golf players, and I don’t care at all that I am “excluded”. But, the lady golfer who wanted to golf with the boys, by God, if she deserves a place at the table, you sure as **** better not deny her based on her sexuality.
Whew! That was long! What do you think?
Brandon said,
September 4, 2004 at 1:56 pm
I’m glad I didn’t do a knee-jerk, I wouldn’t have understood your point as I do now. I argree in part.
I think that the stereotype of what women are IS in part created by women–so I agree with you. But I also think that historically men have driven a system of power that foisted a certain stereotype upon women. These forces have shaped gender roles to be what they currently are today. So, while I understand your point about becoming who you are so that you may belong, I would argue that to a certain degree you already those who you are, and you belong just the way you are.
After all, as you point out on your blog, equality isn’t about sameness. That’s why it’s so vitally important for me to hear a women’s perspective even if it’s in something as simple as my linkblog. Because women bring something to the table that men are innately unable to bring. And that something–we need it to be complete.
“based on her sexuality.” You meant sex here right? Not sexuality?
He he he…gave me a chuckle though!
Headless-in-England said,
September 4, 2004 at 6:07 pm
Ha! Yes, you’re right - I suppose when I get into my feminist mind frame, I can just start rolling with it and not pay attention to details - like the meaning of words…although now that I think about it, aren’t there times times when the word “sexuality” is used like this? I mean, it seems you are right, now I’m just second guessing…
Anyway, yes of course, men have played a part in shaping the role and image of women. It is simply that I wish to avoid the ever popular trap of claiming the “moral highground” based on victimhood, ie, “I should be included ’cause you’ve done bad things to me.”
Of course, if you are wanting to hear about the experience of being a woman - a discriminated person in society - then by all means, speak to a woman. But if you want to hear someone engage serious issues about carborators (I don’t even know how to spell it!), then LIKELY you should talk to a man. Not because men are innately inclined to know more about cars and car parts, but because GENERALLY SPEAKING, women have not engaged the “issue” of…you know, spark plugs. Of course there are women who are great mechanics, and should you NOT want to hear from them becaue they are women, then you have done wrong. But to ask ME to elaborate on the necessity of proper air flow through the air filter in a diesel engine because you would like to hear a woman’s perspective on it, would be, honestly, a rather silly waste of both our times.
Of course this is not what you mean, and you and I both know that what we are really discussing here (if you’ll let me be so bold) is the exclusion of women’s voices from the discussions of theology. This is a great and terrible travesty, really, it is. But the GREATER travesty is that women have been taught and are being taught (believed and continue to believe) that they need not bother wrestling through theological issues, only instead, they should find a man to be their head and find their way through the leadership of a man.
If I could only recount for you the many times I have heard this from women’s mouths. “I’m really feeling very spiritually dry - if only (husband’s name) would take up his leadership of me…” or “I don’t know if it’s right or wrong, I just trust (husband’s name). Besides, as the head of the household, he is ultimately responsible for my spiritual wellbeing…”
BC, maybe this is information that only a woman could know because perhaps women only talk like this to other women. But the thing is, when it comes to the character of God, the Trinity, the Church, eschatology, whatever, these women do not have “a woman’s perspective” on the issues. Instead, because of what they believe about themselves, they only parrot the “male perspective” - and so much so that they honestly are not ABLE to experience anything but what their “head” has taught them (be it father, pastor, husband, society..). For this reason (and we have moved far away from blogs now), I don’t care about women’s perspectives becaue they are women, I care about thinking people’s opinions from both sexes.
As for those women who are so firmly steeped in blind, thoughtless submission - they need us still. They need us to question them and to give them freedom to experience life from THEIR shoes and not (just) the shoes of their man. They need to hear discussions. They need to have questions put to them…
In the end, of course, there will be - and are - women who would vehemently disagree with me, but it IS a woman’s perspective at this point, because they have owned it.
Once again I am really long. I do look forward to anymore discussions, though. Perhaps we will have to start a new comment section if I continue being so long winded…!
Brandon said,
September 5, 2004 at 12:32 pm
I think, Headless, that much of our difference in rhetoric arises from the fact that we each have the unique ablilty to say things from different ability that are acutely true. You can claim that women claim victimhood too often. It is not my place to say this–but quite fair for you to voice your perspective. Likewise, it is less acceptable for you to claim that women have been driven around by a tyrrannical male hand throughout history. Our voices allow us to have different messages so that we can both attain the proper ethos.
Headless-in-GR said,
September 8, 2004 at 11:15 am
Yes. More later.