I think this is a good time to call someone Sugar-Tits.
The New York Times wrote about about the Blogher conference (it’s a “community for women who blog”! yeeeee!), which complained about “blogging’s glass ceiling” and how all these women bloggers are so powerful and creative and smart yet just can’t get taken as seriously as men’s blogs such as DailyKos. Which, who takes DailyKos seriously? That’s really the big question on my mind.
I’ve written about this before, and as ever, what makes me roll my eyes at the whole thing is the air of entitlement - I blog, therefore I should be taken seriously. The article mentions “top blog” lists by Techcult and Forbes and implies that it’s just wrong that more of these women bloggers aren’t on those lists, but almost every Blogher blog they mention in almost the same breath is a mommyblog or a diabetes blog or a romance blog. Is this that confusing?
Anyway, so the BlogHer chicks were upset about not being taken seriously, and then the fembloggers spontaneously menstruated when they noticed the article was in the Fashion/Style section of the Times. I would like to thank the writer of that post I just linked to for reminding me how important it is to use the F-bomb in moderation. Jesus. Also, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d find it easier to take the feminists seriously if they didn’t express their displeasure like this:
Yeah, those fucking laydeez are so heinous, they even took over the manly-man bathrooms!! And they’re such feeble-minded superficial silly bitchez, all they care about is “nurturing messages”, neck massages, and the trappings of femininity. LACTATION!!1!!!!11!1!! Why aren’t those bitchez at home taking care of the damn baybeez properly, anyway!?!?
Yes of course, that is exactly what the NYT was thinking. Pigs!
Speaking of pigs, The Other McCain dares to inflame the wound in his role as a patriarchal misogyny oppressor, and Vox Day goes further with a list of things to do if you want to be taken seriously:
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.
Which led to me being dragged into this because as we all know, I routinely violate rules #2 and 3 and yet I’m one of Vox’s favorites, which was pointed out a few times in his comment thread, and thus was born the Lucas Exception by Vox Day, which states that “if a female blogger can be confirmed to be as amusingly bloody-minded as Rachel Lucas, she may post about her dogs or other non-feline pets, so long as such posts are not made more than thrice per week. Kids and cats are still right out.”
Don’t be jealous. Not everyone can have an Exception named after them. You see, Vox gets me.
Which reminds me of something I often want to say here because once a while, someone will not get me and will misinterpret my penchant for the dog pics. I believe the reason I get the Exception, the thing that Vox and most of you (but not all) understand, is that I don’t think the dogs are cute. I think they’re ridiculous. I am mocking them. With affection, of course, but still.
Also, I don’t particularly want to be taken seriously. Would I have a photo of myself in a helmet on my About page if I wanted to be taken seriously? Come on now. For those who haven’t figured it out yet, that’s kind of the whole point of all the dog stuff: a helpful frequent reminder that I’m not trying to be a political blogger. That’s too much pressure and I don’t want it. I also am not smart enough for it.
Shit. This has turned into one of those scattershot, no-real-point ramblers of a post. I can’t think very clearly this morning and I suspect it’s because after reading all this stuff about the fembloggers and mommybloggers, my body is trying to align its hormonal cycle with them. It’s very confusing.
UPDATE: The Other McCain (sexist oppressor!) says dog-blogging is intrinsically wrong, but that I am “cute” and thus am granted a waiver. I feel so subjugated right now…in the good way.
UPDATE #2: In the comments, Tully of Stubborn Facts nails something right on the head that I wanted to say about all of this but couldn’t because I was getting all hormonal and shit:
What’s missing in the Vox Day list of things you must do “to be taken seriously” are the underlying assumptions….
Number one is the assumption that you WANT to be taken seriously. Sometimes unserious gets points across much better and is actually much more effective because it entertains while illustrating instead of boring us to death with snooty dry lectures. EX: Rachel Lucas, Iowahawk, ScrappleFace….
Number two is the assumption that the goal of blogging IS to be taken seriously. Huh? Surely that’s the goal of many bloggers, but certainly not all. Some folks want to help educate others. Some folks want to point out interesting web content for a wider audience. Some folks just want to express themselves. Some want to network. Some want to “find community” that’s lacking in much modern life. Some folks want to fire up some particular political faction. Some want to actively entertain. Some cross the lines and do more than one thing, accomplishing more than one goal by being solidly entertaining writers who can keep you reading and coming back for more. To my mind those last are the very best of the blogging web. Even the ones I don’t remotely agree with politically–I keep reading them, because they communicate well and offer something substantial besides rant & screed.
I suspect that what many of those fembloggers were REALLY whining about is that they blog about their oh-so-serious convictions and pet issues and presumed “progressive cognitive elite” views, and find their screeds falling on deaf ears because [a] they’re boring their potential audience to tears, and/or [b] their audience simply isn’t buying their BS, and tunes them out.
EXACTLY!! I read some of the blogs in question, and I’m sorry ladies but there are only so many lectures about the MomBlogging Revolution and Powerful Womyn and all that happy horseshit that a person can take. It’s not only tiresome on an intellectual level, most of it is the precise opposite of entertaining. Which in my mind, is what blogs are for. Entertainment. Even if they’re educational too, they have to be entertaining on some level to get anyone to come back. Otherwise we’d just read books.
I humbly suggest that Our Dear Leader take a break, drink some coffee, put stuff on your dog and shoot some guns. That’ll probably fix it.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:36 amESTFunny you mention BlogHer today. I’d never heard of it but surfed over there somehow. I did a search for your name. Not there. I did a search for some sort of HUMOR category. Not there. Looked under “Entertainment” blogs. Not entertained.
I’m my own “community,” I guess.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:39 amESTJesus H in a man-zier…
July 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amESTDamn… non-feline, huh? Apparently I will never be taken seriously as a blogher. Good thing that wasn’t something I was expecting anyway.
If you had named your picture “Cutest Bee” instead of “Saddest Bee”, I never would have come back. There is a difference in attitude that makes it fun to be here.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:47 amESTRachel, you had me at “spontaneously menstruated.”
–Cosmo
July 28th, 2008 at 10:52 amESTI knew you’d enjoy that link.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amESTWell, the Short
BustBUS is for the Exceptional, don’cha know!Edit: I’s excepshunal too :P!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:12 amESTThanks, Charybdis!
Isn’t the solution to not wanting to be stereotyped to STOP ACTING like the stereotype? You know, instead of reinforcing it?
Anyway, I like the way felicity thinks.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:17 amESTSomeone should start a band called “The Lucas Exception by Vox Day,” or even just “The Lucas Exception.” That’d be awesome.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:38 amESTI think you mean “Special.”
July 28th, 2008 at 11:46 amESTYou know, I’m not sure I’ve read the word “cute” on this blog. ever. Thank you, Ms Lucas.
Not that I’m allergic to cute, it’s just that cute and Rachel Lucas: President of the World don’t really go.
And about that quote from some feminazi. Are you fucking kidding me? Do they really talk like that? That has to be a fake.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:50 amESTbuzzion,
Google “exceptional children”!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:56 amESTROTFLMAO!! I think I laughed up a lung!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:56 amESTI’m pretty sure Likeks violates 2 & 3 also, or at least he did back when (G)nat was a baby. Seemed to work out OK for him. I think you can get away with breaking 2 & 3 as long as the others are covered, ESPECIALLY the “have at least half a brain” bit.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amESTFred “Tell me more about Rule 6, Bruce” the Fourth
I love that you have your own exception.
I read & love a few of the mommybloggers, but really it’s a personal journal, what’s to be taken seriously?!?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pmESTFelicity, I don’t think I want to. PC Bullshit really turns my stomach.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pmESTIf we have to get subjected to one million mommy and kitty blogs from females, in order to get one Michelle Malkin, one Rachel Lucas, one LaShawn Barber, and one Baldilocks, then I think it’s worth the price. All four of them are better reads than anything at Kos, and for that matter, 95% of the male bloggers.
Actually, I would posit that the best female bloggers are just as damn good as the best male bloggers. There are just more male bloggers.
And how convenient that the blogher thing didn’t point out that the second most recognized blog on the left is the Huffington Post.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pmESTYour abuse of dogs is fun. It’s better than watching my son trying to hide from our dog during a game of fetch. They both get a lot of exercise from it so it’s good for them.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pmESTI like pie.
Sorry. Got distracted.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pmESTbuzzion,
July 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pmESTHeh — too true! “Exceptional,” “special,” “gifted” — they’ve turned them all upside down!
uh, would that be “hair pie”? The kind you eat “down at the Y”?
sorry to ruin the thread so early.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pmESTNot “har-pies”?*
*pl. of harpy
July 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmESTOh geez, these womyn have too much time on their hands if they can sit around and bitch about this kind of crap. No wonder they don’t get the ‘respect’ they think they deserve if that’s how they write. I just want to make fun of them.
The beauty of blogs is that any idiot can start one. If write well, have a unique voice and market yourself you can succeed. If you suck, you suck, don’t be a whiny baby about it. I have a craft/photography/cooking/dog & chicken blog. That’s right, my chicken posts are some of the most popular. I have some really cool readers who, weirdly, like a lot of the same things, and it’s a lot of fun. I don’t feel a need to include a link here, because I’m pretty sure the majority of Rachel Lucas readers are not into the whole crafty/chicken thing. I like coming here for the snark and the politics and the dogs and post titles like “I think this is a good time to call someone Sugar-Tits” and the awesome funny comments :o)
July 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pmESTWell that’s the thing. Special essentially is a PC term as well, but I think its moved to the point where it is no longer a PC term. The PC term is no longer PC so gotta grab a new one. I think the efforts to look for new PC terms is “Exceptional” if you get my drift.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pmESTI am utterly baffled at how anyone could think there is a “glass ceiling” in online blogging. I mean, seriously, what kind of idiocy does it actually take to conceive of such a thing? You pretty much have to believe that there is a massive conspiracy of male bloggers who, somehow, are magically preventing anyone from ever visiting these female blogs. How this is done I can’t imagine. Is there some sort of viral program out there that automatically redirects me away from any female blogs I might decide to access?
As for Vox Day’s “rules for being taken seriously”, I think #3 and #4 should be viewed more as “guidelines” than hard and fast rules. Blogging about your life, your relationships, your kids, or your pets will usually mean less traffic than you might otherwise get if you wrote a hard-hitting political post. People are simply more interested in the latter than they are in any of the former.
If you’re good enough you can get away with it to a certain extent. But since most people aren’t that good, it’s best to stick to the guidelines.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pmESTJust enough in that one construction to know what they’re whining points are going to be about.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pmESTHow do you expect a level playing field if you keep taking yourself off it?
Damn straight–I agree 100% with Lucy. We all suck sometimes, but then again, sometimes we’re all capable of hitting one out of the park. Readers tend to let you know which side of the fence you fall on.
My site talks about Vegas, poker, cooking, and way too many personal details. But I get the most traffic whenever I talk about food and recipes. I think the subject of ‘cole slaw’ holds the record for most comments, which irritates me to no end. Just goes to show that you can’t control what turns on your readers.
Here, however, I come for the snark and political rants. And I’m waiting for the day I can call somebody ‘Sugar Tits’ and not get kicked in the nuts. Or fired.
Mikey
July 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pmESTThat, I think, sums up radical feminism in a nutshell.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pmESTNah, it’s just that after reading stuff like that your IQ drops about 30 points and you start to babble incoherently.
Don’t worry it’ll pass… just step away from the computer, have a cup of coffee and then visit the Sig Arms and/or O.F. Mossberg websites.
As for being taken seriously… Maybe if they wrote like you or Michelle Malkin, or Mary Katharine Ham, or LaShawn Barber or any number of intellectually honest thought provoking female bloggers instead of their usual verbal diarrhea they would be taken seriously.
But then again what do I know?
July 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pmESTVery cool to have an Exception named after you.
I’m still holding out for a Sanction to be named after me…
July 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pmESTDearRachel,
Isn’t a “Lucas Exception” one of those fancy Quantom Physics thingies that Jean-Luc Picard is always talking down to us about on Star Trek??
v/r
July 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pmESTmike
DearRachel,
Of potential interest to your Loyal Minions is that the “Lucas exception” is a legal determination that pertains to property law. See page 4 of this link for an abstract of a paper examining a particular application of Lucas.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol162/16_abstracts.pdf
Yours,
July 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pmESTmike
DearRachel,
It is, of course, “quantum” not “quantom.” At least I got “physics” right.
And I sure hope the “Lucas exception” is a good legal precept, seeing as how it appears to relate to taking property. Maybe a legal eagle reader will shed some light.
v/r
July 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTmike
See, right there is the problem. Not for me, of course. I think it sounds like Ahnold. But it just pisses me off every time I see it. I wanna say, “you’re not the boss of me!!!” Which of course is why I leave a comment, but strictly of my own volition.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pmESTDearRachel,
Explanation of the Lucas Exception here:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol162/adams.pdf
Oh no! It appears that the Lucas Exception provides a limitation to an otherwise categorical requirement for the government to compensate a property owner for the economic benefit of “taken” property. So it is not inconceivable that some poor property owner will go to court and be told that the guvamint doesn’t owe him anything “because of the Lucas exception.” Your name will be cursed throughout the land!
On a happier note, it appears that courts have had a difficult time applying the Lucas Exception. So at least you are difficult to figure out.
v/r
July 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pmESTmike
Sometimes, calling people “sugar tits” is totally appropriate.
Once again, rachellucas.com entertains while educating.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pmESTWhat’s missing in the Vox Day list of things you must do “to be taken seriously” are the underlying assumptions….
Number one is the assumption that you WANT to be taken seriously. Sometimes unserious gets points across much better and is actually much more effective because it entertains while illustrating instead of boring us to death with snooty dry lectures. EX: Rachel Lucas, Iowahawk, ScrappleFace….
Number two is the assumption that the goal of blogging IS to be taken seriously. Huh? Surely that’s the goal of many bloggers, but certainly not all. Some folks want to help educate others. Some folks want to point out interesting web content for a wider audience. Some folks just want to express themselves. Some want to network. Some want to “find community” that’s lacking in much modern life. Some folks want to fire up some particular political faction. Some want to actively entertain. Some cross the lines and do more than one thing, accomplishing more than one goal by being solidly entertaining writers who can keep you reading and coming back for more. To my mind those last are the very best of the blogging web. Even the ones I don’t remotely agree with politically–I keep reading them, because they communicate well and offer something substantial besides rant & screed.
I suspect that what many of those fembloggers were REALLY whining about is that they blog about their oh-so-serious convictions and pet issues and presumed “progressive cognitive elite” views, and find their screeds falling on deaf ears because [a] they’re boring their potential audience to tears, and/or [b] their audience simply isn’t buying their BS, and tunes them out.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pmESTHeh. I live less than 20 miles from Sugartit, KY.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pmESTWayneb,
Here’s a new Sugar Tit friend for you.
Tee hee!!!
More totally inappropriate place names whose citizens could be called derogatory names.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pmESTIncidentally, “Blogher” sounds kinda dirty.
“I blogged her. Did you blog her?”
“Yeah, I totally blogged her. I blogged her all night long.”
“I blog her every day and twice on Sundays.”
July 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pmESTWhy all the discrimination against dog-blogging? It must be a feline conspiracy!
July 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pmESTOh, 14 K, now my ribs hurt again. That’s just classic. To wit:
“I was saving myself for Jesus but I couldn’t wait no longer.”
And that list is so incomplete it doesn’t even have French Lick or Assaria on it.
Anyone who wants to can call me Sugar Tits. Won’t bother me a bit and Mrs. Tully will be vastly amused.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pmESTWell, since they named a Priciple after me, it’s totally approriate they should name an Exception after you!!
Sugar tits … that SO sounds like a cereal I would like, but that my diabetes would frown upon.
BlogHer … immediately made me wonder where the BlogHim list is kept and why I haven’t found it. Personally, I think you can safely be judged by the company you keep. I found my way here some time ago based on a recommend from Bill Whittle. When you get favorable mentions from some of the smartest (and rightest) folks in blogdom, whu gives a flting fig what “best of ….” list you’re on. (On the other hand, a favorable mention on Kos or Huddy would be an automatic WTF).
July 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pmESTWell said, Tully. This the point that so many people seem to miss when discussing why virtually all of the recent overtly leftist movies have crashed and burned at the box office. Most pundits seem to think that it has something to do with either the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy or some failing of the audience (i.e., they’re too busy bitterly clinging to their guns and religion to listen to righteous message that war is bad and we’re killing Mother Earth).
But in fact it’s much simpler than that. The movies in question are BORING. Americans do not go to movie theaters to be lectured and scolded for two hours. They go to be entertained, and these movies are utter failures as entertainment. They are sermons, and nobody wants a sermon disguised as a movie.
And so it is with blogs. The vast majority of the feminist blogs are written by angry, humorless scolds who spew hatred and resentment. Is it any wonder they can’t attract a sizable audience? Who would want to read that stuff day after day?
Rachel has a large and faithful audience because she writes clever, funny, and entertaining posts. Her blog is actually enjoyable to read, and that’s what matters.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pmESTTully:
Whoops, sorry that’s not a more comprehensive list.
This Sugar Tit, KY, MySpace has to be a parody, right? RIGHT?!!!111!!1one!!
pete in midland:
I thought the EXACT same thing. This is for you!
July 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pmEST“Number one is the assumption that you WANT to be taken seriously.”
Well, there are several ways one can be taken seriously. I wouldn’t take cheap shots at Rachel, because I know she has bigger guns in that fight. In that way I take her seriously, which is what cannot be said about these BlogHer girls.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pmESTAt least they didn’t call it a Bloghole conference.
WayneB, is that anywhere near Monkey’s Eyebrow, Kentucky?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pmESTI hear that Sugar Tits are one of Hugo Chavez’s favorite breakfast foods. Does he really eat them? Or does he just collect the cards?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pmESTHmmm…I applied to be part of that network but am not sure that I actually am. Not sure I really want to be.
Although my other blog is just a private journal (not the home zookeeper one). I don’t care who reads it…but do like visitors into my world.
I never cease to be amazed by their ass hattery. *sigh*
July 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pmESTI read a serious Blogher once, all I could think was, I want my Mommy!
July 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pmESTYou wanna be taken seriously, ladies?
You just need to add some fishnet stockings and ridiculous fantasy — that’ll up the quantity of traffic, pronto!
Quality, on the other hand …
I give you the Other McCain’s RCHL LUKIS, and a humble commenter’s take on the reality of Rachel’s blog.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:47 pmESTI hope you get a re-education camp with a nice view.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pmEST@14K: Aw man, now I need a new monitor — I just shorted mine out by spraying Co’cola all over it.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pmEST14 K - Oh, good LORD! Thank goodness I didn’t check that one out while I was at work!
Yes, that almost has to be a spoof (I hope!). I don’t know that many people that close to Cincinnati who are like that. Besides, that’s a damn long drive to Louisville - I can’t imagine someone could drive that far (over 60 miles) for Room Cleaning pay.
On the other hand, I DO know a few people who are like that, and we have some awfully strange pseudo-Evangelical types around here, so it’s just within the bounds of possibility that it’s NOT fake.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:02 pmEST…and Lucas goes in for 3 from center court!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pmESTTully - no, not close to Monkey’s Eyebrow. We’re up in Northern Kentucky, close to Cincinnati.
And I agree with scottkellyfa711 - I need a new monitor (and keyboard) after that last one from 14 Karat!
July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pmESTIf I see one more Mommy blog I am going to break things and beat up kittens.
F___ing right tired of running into their mommy crap every damned minute of every day when I go blog surfing. This is not to say that I hate Mommies, though. Far from it. It’s just that for a single guy like me who is ever searching for hot babes that totally get me, I have to weed through the pollution of mommy and married bloggers before I can finally find one who is single, only to find that dagnabit, she’s engaged.
God I hate you all.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pmESTRachel’s blog is like the blog version of the Glenn Beck program: “what you are reading is the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.”
July 28th, 2008 at 11:57 pmESTRCHL LUKIS — the short bus to edutainlightenmencation.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:36 amESTRachel, in the process of hunting around for what was being said about the BlogHer NYTimes article, I was very pleased to find this post and your blog.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:57 amESTI was hoping you have a spot on Facebook and/or Twitter but couldn’t find that info on your blog. Could you please share that with me?
@lindasherman
When I first started blogging many years ago, I thought I wanted to be taken seriously. Then I realized, I’m not really a serious person, by nature, and being serious all the time wasn’t that fun.
It’s a good thing I don’t care if I’m taken seriously anymore because I violate the first three rules. I just do it for fun and a place to say the stuff I don’t always say in real life…because I’m trying to learn tact and all that. That angst has to go somewhere.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:58 amESTYou had me at the freakin title of the post and didnt let up.
I keep experiencing what Dennis Miller calls receiving body blows when I read your blog.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:19 amESTAmen Rachel!
July 29th, 2008 at 7:46 amESTDamn.
14k’s stark reality makes me pee my pants with glee. Holy shit that was funny.
Also I really think that Myspace is a joke. It’s too over the top. And the spelling is all correct (from the parts I read, that is). Awesome pic of “her” though. She’s got a bitchin mullet. Kentucky Waterfall, I’d guess.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:06 amESTI don’t think the dogs are cute. I think they’re ridiculous. I am mocking them. With affection, of course, but still.
I was going to call you on this, mocking dogs. But then I see you’re in Texas, and I don’t mess with Texas chicks, no matter how cute. It’s yes ma’am, no ma’am, please pass the gravy, ma’am.
(and yes I’m one of those Aggies)
July 29th, 2008 at 8:42 amESTCommenter Joanna said it best over here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sisters-the-path-to-punditry-isnt-paved-with-baby-powder/
July 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pmESTOw. Oh, holy crap it hurts. Hysterical laughter is meant to be let out, even into an austere and library-like office! When they wheel me into the emergency room, my only explanation will be, “14K…”
July 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pmESTAh, Rachel, how much I enjoy your posts on issues like this. Nothing offers me more endless amusement than reading about the indignant, self-righteous internet hordes who cannot believe it would be possible for any INTELLIGENT person to disagree with them or their particular issue. I find your excoriation of them to be equally amusing. I remember fondly your rant against controlling housewives and the follow-up rant on demanding men.
If I may, I will say that I only patronize two blogs on a daily basis: Rachel Lucas, and Neptunus Lex (www.neptunuslex.com). As one poster mentioned, I patronize these blogs because they are entertaining, enlightening, and aligned with my interests. Other blogs, whether about feminism, conservative politics, or music of any kind, have failed to catch my attention. It doesn’t matter that one of two favorite blogs is written by a man, the other by a woman. But I suspect here I am preaching to the choir.
I also blog myself. I have a narrow interest here - I blog mostly about my life and my religious views. NOT really interesting to anyone but my family and select friends. I use my blog really as a means of self-expression. I suppose someone would probably call it a waste of internet-space, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a dearth in that department, so I don’t worry about it. And I think it would be pretty ludicrous if I demanded to be taken seriously (seriously, my life and perspective is the most important thing in the world! pay attention!). I guess I am just emotionally healthy enough to not rely on the reaction of total strangers to validate my life.
By the way, Rachel, I would say that “Sugar-tits” implies that the object is attractive, and self-righteous/judgmental female bloggers do not seem like they’d be very attractive. And your comment about “being subjugated in a good way” cracks me up.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pmESTPeregrine John:
Oh hell. The last thing I meant to do was mess with your insurance deductible … : )
July 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pmESTWell, aren’t I the straggler? I really have to move your url higher up in the bookmarks.
I spent 13 years working in a university. I knew (and hid from) herds of those do-gooding feminist complainers. Haven’t kept in touch with any of them since my retirement, much to their surprise.
By the way, “The Lucas Exception” sounds like the title of a paperback murder mystery.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:37 amESTHave you submitted your blog to be listed? They don’t just assume that all women bloggers would like to join and list them willy-nilly.
BlogHer doesn’t have a particularly feminist agenda - it’s just an aggregation community where women bloggers can find each other. Quite a few of the feminist blogs taking issue with the reportage of the convention being placed in the Style section aren’t even members of BlogHer, they just don’t see why it didn’t get placed in the technology or business section like reportage of the Netroots Nation convention did.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:35 amEST