Pleasure and Pain

Improving the human experience one day at a time

Pleasure and Pain: photos by Whitney G. Hess
← 10 Worthwhile Twitter Bots Links from 7/13/2008 to 7/24/2008 →

I Am Not A Woman Blogger

July 20th, 2008 · Comments

I am a woman (if the photo on the right wasn’t clear). But I am not a woman blogger.

BlogHer ‘08 is going on in San Francisco right now. I know some ladies who are there, and it would’ve been great to be there just to meet a new-and-noteworthy group of people.

But I have to be honest — something about it just doesn’t feel right.

BlogHer is a community for women who blog. Their mission is “to create opportunities for women who blog to pursue exposure, education, community, and economic empowerment.” I am totally in support of anyone with the ambition to get themselves heard, involved, and recognized. I have huge aspirations and it’s great that there’s an organization who wants to help me achieve them.

Let the record show that I have nothing against this organization. Please do not send me hate mail.

The thing I’m struggling with is the woman qualifier. Is a woman blogger someone who writes about women’s issues, or simply someone who has a vagina? I think it’s nonsensical to draw attention to a blogger simply due to the latter. Lots of women can write, read, and think. We don’t need to be congratulated.

I can’t help but wonder if this distinction is actually hurting us; it’s a segregation. How would we feel if there were a BlogHim? (Doesn’t sound as good without the double entendre.) But wouldn’t a bunch of women get up in arms about men trying to distinguish themselves from us by holding their own conference? Isn’t being considered among the men a sign of success?

Now before you get all angry and say that I’m a traitor to my own kind, please hear me out. Of course I recognize that there are many fewer women in technology and we need services/organizations/outreach to support and encourage women in the field. Hell, if a very special teacher hadn’t approached me in the 8th grade and strongly suggest that I sign up for the Computer Science class in high school, I might have ended up a lawyer or a math teacher (thank you, Dan Kramarsky).

Instead I was one of two girls in the course, and ended up taking the same course for all four years of high school because it was the only course they offered. My CS teacher encouraged me to continue my path at Carnegie Mellon and put me in touch with his friend, the Assistant Dean of the School of Computer Science (thank you, Charles Rice).

I was one of 30 women in a freshman class of 135. (The graduating class before I got there had more Daves than women — I shit you not.) Boys frequently came by my dorm room to see if I needed help with the homework. Not because I asked them, but because they assumed I needed it. They were wrong.

I ended up dropping computer science after 3 semesters, but not because I couldn’t hack it. With the exception of a dismal showing in Discrete Math (pure torture), I had all As and Bs. But I was tired of spending my weekends in the computer lab hunting for misplaced semicolons. Instead, I wanted to write — English. So I switched.

Still, if I hadn’t gone to Carnegie Mellon, I might never have been introduced to the term “Human-Computer Interaction” or the exploding field of researchers, practitioners and evangelists behind it (thank you Mark Stehlik, thank you Scott Kaufman, thank you Richard Scheines).

Oh, and if I’d never gotten a degree in HCI, I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be writing this blog right now. Thank God for that.

My point is: look at all the men who encouraged me along the way. I can say with absolute certainty and sincerity that not one of them ever told me that they expected I’d be a successful woman _______ someday. They just said I’d be successful. No qualifier.

Because no matter how you slice it, a qualifier is a limit. And there is nothing stopping me from playing with the big boys. No need to call attention to my gender because in my mind it has nothing to do with it.

The other day ReadWriteWeb posted their list of favorite “women bloggers.” These are great women, but they deserve recognition for much more than their chromosomes.

I want to see a list of favorite redheaded bloggers, and I better be on it!


Like this post? Please share it!
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Google
  • Kirtsy
  • Reddit
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Related Posts

Tags: ··

Trackbacks

Viewing 40 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I have 2 reactions to this:

    1) You are absolutely right. It's not a distinction that needs to be made.

    2) Get in the kitchen and make me a turkey pot pie.
    • ^
    • v
    Agreed! I feel the same way. Thanks for saying it.

    Especially
    > I want to see a list of favorite redheaded bloggers, and I better be on it!

    ( me too :-)
    • ^
    • v
    You're absolutely on target. More than anything else, we should encourage "BlogUs"
    • ^
    • v
    Whitney, you and I obviously share the same view point on this. Any label/qualifier for *us* is a negative one, one that leads to separation of the 'whole' group.

    The truth is though that many people still need the labels in order to organize their own place in society. They need to feel like they belong to a specific sub group, a specific club. I suppose that I've always likened this to whether someone is a 'team sport' player or a loner.

    There's nothing wrong with either approach. We all have to be who we are, and live our lives true to ourselves. We have to be careful to accept every individual on her own merits, and to make assessments of her based on her own merits and accomplishments, rather than on her associations or lack thereof.

    Thanks for the thoughtful post.
    • ^
    • v
    "Lots of women can write, read, and think. We don’t need to be congratulated." Well said.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey, the guys swinging by your dorm room to "help with homework"? They were trying to flirt with you in a horribly misguided geeky way. Sure, some of 'em were idiots who thought girls couldn't do math, but most of 'em, they just didn't know how to talk to a smart lady except as a tutor -- the only role they ever had in high school. I know. Caltech had a similar ratio and population draw.

    As for my take on BlogHer, I'm torn. I think that BlogHer should be one of many conferences that bloggers attend, not the only one. There's still need, imho, for a space where women can take tentative steps towards technology without being drooled on by inappropriate clods and also without having a simple difference in communication styles make them feel inadequate.

    I think you had an earlier blog post (or it was *someone* in my twitter-sphere) about why there weren't more women presenters at IASummit, or why women didn't ask questions at conferences. I feel the hope is that they get their conference chops started at BlogHer or similar conferences, and then they go take over all the other conferences.

    And now *I* sound horribly condescending about BlogHer being a "starter conference". *sigh* I guess I do see it as somewhat marginalizing, although I also see it as necessary. And people who don't need to be "starter-ed", they should still go to BlogHer, too. Because mentors are important.

    I'll stop blathering in your comments now.
    • ^
    • v
    What makes more sense is qualifying the type of blogging you do. Your blog focuses on user experience so you are a "user experience blogger". Who cares if you're a man or a woman? Do women blog about usability so differently that it needs a qualifier?
    • ^
    • v
    I'm with you on this one Whitney. I do not see a reason why there needs to be a conference just about women bloggers.

    It's been tempting to create a BlogHim conference, but then all the women would think I'm sexist, which I'm not.

    I really do not see a reason to actually create the distinction about women and men bloggers, it's just one big blogosphere family to start with! Com'n people!

    But you're entirely right, Whitney. Your post sums it up well.
    • ^
    • v
    Answering the call for male perspectives, here are my thoughts on this:

    I completely agree with you. The only difference gender makes here is perhaps the perspective in which blog posts are written. A woman may view certain topics different to a male, but even then there will be women who agree with men and vice versa.

    It's definitely unfair to celebrate a bunch of bloggers because of their gender, the content should be all that counts.
    • ^
    • v
    Matthew, thanks for the male perspective ;)




    Vicki, Steve, Rachel, thank you.





    Martha, you make a great point that I failed to mention in my post. It's extremely important to note that these are only my feelings, my beliefs as a woman, a direct result of the way I was raised and the environment in which I live. I can definitely understand how other women in other generations or from other backgrounds might have had very different life experiences and who may greatly benefit from/emotionally need this type of support system. This in no way is a slight on those people. It's just not me.





    And Sarah, thank you for your comments. It's not rambling in the slightest and I'm thrilled that you chose this place to lay your thoughts. Like Martha said, there is a relevant purpose to BlogHer for some people, and it may just be that it isn't the right fit for others of us. I've certainly never been intimidated by men (thank you, Mom!) and so I have no apprehension about attending/participating in/speaking at conferences within my industry. I, personally, never needed training wheels or a training bra. But that's just me.
    • ^
    • v
    Whitney,

    Like Matt, I only have two statements to make:

    1. Labels are overrated, people that willingly label themselves are definitely out of touch with reality, with themselves and with society. Why do I make such a broad statement and how can I support it? Well - I make it because I'm on the internet and I can say (write) whatever I damn want. And how can I support it, you ask? That's easy - BlogHer is only for women, that - in itself limits you. You're no longer a blogger at a conference - you're a woman at a women ONLY blogging conference of sorts.

    2. People who label themselves, willingly and can't understand that we're so past that stage in life - where you should KNOW that regardless of what people say, you TAKE what you want and when you need it. And that you don't let anyone keep you down, well then they are plain retarded.

    And just for kicks and giggles, and to throw some qualifiers - I comment as a Dominican, dark skinned - most of the time confused as a "black man", a Computer Engineer, an Artist, a Designer, and a Hispanic, who tries his luck at being a User Experience kinda person.

    Wake up.
    • ^
    • v

    Samantha and Dave, I've asked myself that same question. Do I sound different in the way that I write? Do I bring a female perspective to design and usability? Do I evaluate like a girl?


    To Jonathan and other men out there, I'm curious to know if the female distinction actually creates problems for you. Are there networking opportunities where you don't feel welcome? Have you come up against issues of sexism in all-male gatherings or organizations? What is the male experience like in relation to these women's issues?

    • ^
    • v
    Ahh the wonders of Identity Politics.

    Is the "Woman _______" identifier a political, organizational, practical , socially impressed suffix?

    BlogHer is, of course, much more a "moms blog" network than a "woman" blogger network (Parenting is their focus in ad sales materials, you'll find). Women, then, end up sharing information, stories, etc, of being a mother. And, while mothering is a similar experience to being a father, there are some practical reasons to share information just as mothers ("Which breast pump chafes the least?" is a too easy example).

    Now, of course there's much more to being a woman than the possible designation of "mother," and BlogHer is there to cover that too (only 58% of their readers are mothers).

    But, regardless of the identity and the role they're playing in society, I generally have no object to coming together in self-identified groups and talking about common issues of that identity.

    Would it be a bad idea for Jewish bloggers to meet and talk about Jewish issues? No. Just don't meet about other stuff and use Judaism to leave people out.

    In this sense, BlogHer is a win for me. Women's issues are discussed by women who self identify as women bloggers. Now, if that energy was direct to other activities (i.e. singling you out for NOT being there --- "traitor!") then I'd feel differently.

    But no. BlogHer seems to be largely productive and inclusive. Can't ask for much more from a group lead, fundamentally, by identity. All too often that's not the case.
    • ^
    • v
    I think that your post provides an objective opinion on the nature of social media in general these days. What modern social media gurus consider the "social graph" really consists of microfractures and fissions of these smaller other networks of people united by causes, beliefs and shared experiences of all kinds. But they ebb and flow, and mutate. The stronger networks are united by numbers, and you end up with factions - and these factions either grow or fail. But that's sort of the point, isn't it?

    Whether it be "Ice Cream Lovers", "People who like the OC", or "woman bloggers", these factions are what build communities and these communities are where real impact is felt.

    As far as the assertion that "women bloggers" is an objectifying term, I instead consider the semantic difference in terms of "women who happen to be bloggers". This is the way I tend to think of a group like this - is that people should be identified as themselves first, and then by what they can contribute. I think typecasting overall allows for too easy a route to diminishing someone's opinion. Making someone "too this", or "too that" makes the whole group suffer.

    Short answer - anyone should be allowed to be whatever they want to be, and choosing to associate with people who happen to share their interests and experiences shouldn't be subjugated because of it. :)
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Whitney. Thanks for your thought provoking post. I read it early this AM and sent you a few twitters. Let me take a moment to expound on my thoughts (140 characters is definitely not enough for this one).

    I just spent the last three days @BlogHer. It was a great experience. I am working on my review in the next day, so be sure to keep an eye out. As you know, I go to many tech conferences, and it was truly unique experience to be at one where the majority of attendees were women, not men. While there are a lot of mommy bloggers in attendance, the event itself spans multiple verticals. In fact, there was a great panel on women without children and how they navigate that identity in the business world and in the blogosphere. While that issues doesn't come up on InternetGeekGirl.com specifically, I can tell you that as a 37 single woman, it comes up in my personal and professional life BIG TIME. That's a perfect example of how BlogHer content uniquely spoke to me both as a woman and as a worker (which is a goal of the show imho).

    I totally get that your comments are not directly at BlogHer. And my response is not meant to be a defense of the event (or any conference). [NOTE - i'm not affiliated with blogher in any way]. I would merely like to argue for the VALUE of identifying as a women blogger.

    "Because no matter how you slice it, a qualifier is a limit."

    Some people find qualifiers to also be the building blocks of community, and I don't find that limiting. Of course, all communities have their draw backs, but the benefits usually outweigh the costs. Otherwise, why be a member?

    My first reaction to your post was sadness. I feel I have let down the younger generation. This conversation we are having (as nate pointed out) is the basics of identity politics. I was deeply involved in that world early in my career. We used to argue about the word feminist. Well, it's basically the same argument, in a different context.

    BTW - I AM A FEMINIST and always will be!

    All I can say Whitney is that as woman in business (albeit 13 years older than you), I have seen this issue from all sides. I had many male and female mentors in my life. I do not solely identify myself with any one community, nor does my gender drive my career. I have always done exactly what I've wanted to in life, and always will.

    For me, the bottom line is that I have benefited much more than I have given to the "cause." So many women have walked before me in biz and fighting for social justice. I never want to forget those women and I always want to encourage the younger generation of women to keep up the good fight and stick together!

    It is great that your mentors pushed you to be the best you can be. No qualifier. I can assure you that if it weren't for their female colleagues and the way in which they pushed the limits and forged new ground.. you'd have no where to use your fabulous skills.

    Women still struggle for equality across the board. Sexism is rampant in the business world. By continuing to identify together and help each other, we can only hope that girls 13 years young than you will have even more opportunity.

    Play with the big boys all you want. I do! I love it. But I also know that by embracing the experience of being a woman blogger and sharing knowledge, content and experience with that community, I will play more effectively, and be more likely to achieve success!


    As for @dingman's comment about a BlogHim. We have that already my friend - it's every other tech conference.

    so - hope this makes some sense. I'm sitting in a coffee shop in San Fran and rushing from one big boy meeting to the next. :)

    I'm a woman blogger. I'm a woman in business and I damn good at what I do.. regardless of what you call me.

    Thanks Whitney.

    Best,
    Stephanie
    • ^
    • v
    Whitney,

    We are who we are. Red heads with opinions!

    The only time it really matters is at concerts -- when the lines to the women's room is over a block long.

    ---

    Seriously though, I have mentored young women and there are still many who feel inferior and need extra encouragement. Don't loose site of that, and help when you can. It's not a sexist thing, it's just a fact. Be happy you're strong, and share!

    All the best.

    Maxine Appleby
    • ^
    • v
    I totally agree with you, Whitney. I also agree with Stephanie, above, to some extent. I think there is a difference in generations with regards to this country's view on gender, race, etc. issues. I was raised to view everyone as equal, regardless of all that, and now I find people who are 10–15 years older than me insist on perpetuating these distinctions.

    The fact that these distinctions (a conference just for female bloggers) exist means that the problems and struggles faced by the earlier generation haven't gone away, and if that's the case, I'm in support of anything that helps those struggling to succeed and overcome the challenges.

    Certainly, I don't want people to treat me any differently because I'm a woman. Something about these distinctions make me think people are saying, "That's a pretty good idea... for a girl." And that bothers me.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Whitney,

    First of all, thank you, for a great, well-written, thought-provoking post. I'm sorry I'm late to the party... been meaning to read this for days but am just getting around to it now.

    When I first read your post, I agreed with you completely. I did a lot of thinking in college about "equality," especially in the many African American literature courses I sought out. I have always been of the school of thought that believes that the only true form of equality is when what you call "qualifiers" - sex, age, race, religion - fall away, and people are judged on their merits and skills, rather than their qualifier.

    But Steph Agresta's comment (also very well-put, by the way), really brought home the other side of the argument for me, which is that you can't separate qualifier from "qualifyee." These things are part of who we are, and what's more, they allow us to build communities around shared values and interests. And the fact is, some groups remain discriminated against for their qualifier, and organizing communities around those qualifiers helps offset those discriminations.

    So you see, I'm torn. Your view seems like the optimist/idealist's view. Steph's seems like the realist's view. At it's heart, this argument is very similar to the affirmative action debate.

    In the end, I don't think there is one right answer. You're both right. But maybe the middle ground is to embrace our qualifiers, while not letting them define us or say anything of our value as bloggers--or as people. And I think you did touch on that in your post.

    Thank you again. And I hope to meet in person very soon!

    Much love,
    Shelley