« Is it sexism or is it just me? | Main | Libraries, tech, and gender »
October 24, 2003
halley suitt on blog gender politics
Halley has a great post today called "The Politics of Male Blogging," in which she takes aim at Blogstreet's "100 Most Influential Blogs:
Posted by Liz Lawley at 10:52 AM in General | Permalink
Comments
One of the most infuriating things about such lists is that they're OBJECTIVE. You know, it's not an interpretation of the blogosphere, no no, it's fact: these blogs are more influential because more people have them on their blogrolls. How can it be sexism when it's just counting links?
This is really just the old boys network made visible and translated into hard numbers, isn't it?
Posted by: Jill at Oct 24, 2003 12:18:09 PM
Blogstreet's top 100 is heavily biased towards (primarily) political blogs, with a minor, as it were, in tech blogs. While I don't buy the "women blog personally and men blog politically" meme, I generally find that more men focus more closely on those two subjects--politcs and tech--to the exclusion of other areas in their blogs. This makes it more likely that they will select each other in their links. It used to be that the political blogs were tilted further to the right, but that's changing slowly.
There's also a huge bias towards longevity in these blog rankings. Ted Barlow (whom I pick on because I know him personally) hasn't posted to his own blog since September 2. He posts over at Crooked Timber, but many people, including me, still have his site blogrolled. How influential is he if he's not posting? Then there's the whole issue of the blogroll of abandoned blogs. If Ted has me blogrolled, as he does, but his blog isn't getting new material, how "influential" is his link to me and what weight should it have in terms of determining my blog's influence?
I think Technorati can give a better measure of who is momentarily influential because it distinguishes between links to main pages and in-site links (to items). Even that isn't perfect, but it does distinguish current references from what are generally static links.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Oct 24, 2003 2:05:47 PM
Jill - I'm not at all sure they are objective. The algorithm they allegedly used which is listed on the page doesn't seem quite right to me. That's why I'm trying to find out more. Thanks for the comment.
Ginger - Lots to interesting things to think about here, thanks. Just the notion of what "influence" means is still up for grabs? Does a political blogger's endless rehashing of right/left/center this and that, influence the world more or less than what I write about alpha males or alpha females? Who is really to judge? If their stuff makes you think, but my stuff makes you laugh, which has a better influence in the world at large?
Posted by: Halley Suitt at Oct 24, 2003 5:38:04 PM
i'm really happy someone else noticed this. i thought it was just my newbie-ness; i only seriously entered the blogosphere (out of my cave) a couple/three weeks ago, and it surprised (and bothered) me that almost all of the blogs with buzz, the popular and well-respected and oft-cited--and usually political--blogs are written by men. don't get me wrong, i like them and read them, but there is no reason a successful political blog--or topical blog--can't be written by a woman, yet, either there is a reason, or their math is way off. and fwiw, why can't a blog make you think and make you laugh?
Posted by: jen crane at Oct 24, 2003 6:07:32 PM
the fact is that focus is a very highly ranked feature in most people's conceptions of communication. impersonality and objectivity is also much more highly ranked than the personal and subjective for communicating non-artistically. newspapers have for a very long time sought that perfect null-author voice where the personality and subjectivity of the author is minimized in keeping with the flat, measured paradigm of a linear-typography page or newtonian physics. as the dominant example of good expository or revelatory writing today, people of both genders tend to select for it.
there are women who are perfectly happy to do a good job of writing or speaking in that style, but it has been my experience that this perspective and communicative voice comes much more easily to men. you could make a very credible argument that this is a bad set of general selection criteria, but then you're starting to spelunk the domain of taste and our general cultural baggage instead of just strictly easily measured characteristics; i suggest you don't go there unless you're ready to open up that can of worms.
--random noise
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 25, 2003 1:00:47 AM
Well her numbers aren't right, but the sentiment is. I counted 13-14 and if you add 1/2 each for Blogcritics and Samizdata maybe the total is 15 of 100. Still low, but not unrepresented.
Posted by: Kevin at Oct 26, 2003 1:02:04 AM
When the main factor determining what constitutes a 'top blog' is popularity as measured by blogrolling.com links, political blogs that are concerned with the hot topics of the day are likely to get more links than blogs of a more personal nature. The question is whether these popularity contests are meaningful. McDonald's hamburgers are probably the most popular of all hamburgers. Are they the best? Reality TV is hugely popular. Is it quality entertainment?
If an art gallery were to mount a show of the most popular 100 works of art, would it be more interesting than a showing of new works by an unknown genius? Counting links is an easy way to create a Top 100 list. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily follow that the most popular is also the best.
I am the editor of a Yahoo-style, human-edited directory of over 6,500 Canadian blogs (www.blogscanada.ca). Our monthly top blogs showcase is built by culling through nominations made by humans and judged by humans. Algorithms and link popularity have just about nothing to do with who gets picked. BTW, misbehaving.net's Caterina Fake (caterina.net) was on our most recent Top Ten list along with a couple of other female bloggers. I have recruited a female judge for future 'competitions' and am actively looking for at least one more.
My point is that we need to develop better methods of determining on which blogs we want to spend our time and energy. Objective or not, popularity contests are only one measure of what is 'best'.
Posted by: Jim Elve at Oct 26, 2003 8:34:22 AM
Did you see this one - mini survey on gender and blogging?http://www.livingroom.org.au/blog/archives/gender_blogging.php
Posted by: Lilia at Nov 3, 2003 9:08:24 AM
