Oxblog asks "Why Don't Hot Chicks Blog?"

[randomness]

(Actually, Crooked Timber poses the question and Oxblog offers some hypotheses, but Oxblog's title was catchier.)

My immediate thoughts were a) there are plenty of them on LJ, but of course b) LJ doesn't count. Why LJ doesn't count when bloggers discuss blogs, and why there are plenty of women here strike me as interesting questions.
There are a lot of people who don't really consider LJ a blog. Certainly LJ has the reputation for being an insular place where people talk mainly to and about their friends on subjects that are only of interest to themselves.
Personally, I don't actually mind the reputation, because by and large--aside from the food and lodging listings--that's why I blog.
LJ's focus on people you actually know may be more attractive to people who care more about social interaction. My gut feeling is that this tends--for cultural reasons, perhaps--to attract more women.

To be fair, Crooked Timber was originally talking about academic blogs. Oxblog theorizes that women may not be so eager to join the cut and thrust of online argument. It might be, though, that we social people have other things to talk about.

Comments

[redbird]

As I recall, the last time this topic came around the answer was "Women do blog. Why do male bloggers ignore us?"

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yah, I wonder: do bloggers ignore LJ because women blog there? because LJ users talk about things bloggers consider unimportant?

I mean, I really don't mind having this space as a quiet corner--I actually quite like it, as I aspire to rich and obscure--but I wonder which characteristics have helped LJ get sidelined as "not part of the blogosphere" this way.

[tyellas.livejournal.com]

? I read several blogs by women - specifically, blogs by Hot Chicks, chicks talking mostly about sex, or sex and politics. I've toyed with the idea of starting up such a blog myself, not least because such blogs lately seem to be the short road to a book deal. But I've decided not to, for various reasons (privacy being the greatest). I too am on LJ for the connections; I'm not a ranter by nature. (A friend of mine told her partner to go start a political blog so that he could rant away online and not bore her to tears.)

I've known several women who left LJ when their interests turned to hardcore politics, to go join the greater blogosphere. So they're out there; it just might be that their monikers, not being traditional feminine names, don't hit many male readers as female. I tend to be in more fannish circles online, and men I get in touch with online regularly assume I'm male.

I really enjoy all your food posts, BTW.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I really enjoy all your food posts, BTW.

Thanks! There's a huge backlog, so there are definitely more to come.

[bryant]

I kinda think of LJ as journalling, which is distinct (to me) from weblogging. The line is blurry, of course, and it's a mug's game trying to draw it. But it's undeniable that LiveJournal was originally aimed at the Web journalling trend, which predated the blogging trend.

I tend to think that if you are mostly commenting on other web pages/things, you're weblogging, and if you're mostly talking about your everyday life, you're journalling. I don't think either are superior.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that if you are mostly commenting on other web pages/things, you're weblogging, and if you're mostly talking about your everyday life, you're journalling.

Hmmm. Sure. I'm not sure what this makes my food and lodging listings, except maybe "an inappropriate use of the medium". :)

I don't think either are superior.

I don't either, but your point would perhaps explain why bloggers ignore Web journals.

[bryant]

Second: as tyellas points out there are a billion blogs out there by women. The polibloggers just don't notice. Most of the cinema/film blogs I read are written by females.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Most of the cinema/film blogs I read are written by females.

Can you recommend any? I'm on the lookout for a wider variety of film reviews. Yours have been fun and informative, btw...thanks for posting them!

[bryant]

Some not entirely random URLs...

http://cinecultist.com/
http://www.erratamag.com/commentary/
http://filmjourney.weblogger.com/
http://daily.greencine.com/
http://milkplus.blogspot.com/
http://pullquote.typepad.com/
http://www.twitchfilm.net/

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the URLs!

[noire.livejournal.com]

To be fair, Crooked Timber was originally talking about academic blogs. Oxblog theorizes that women may not be so eager to join the cut and thrust of online argument. It might be, though, that we social people have other things to talk about.

Actually, I find this remark somewhat insulting, as if women like me and the women I know cannot (and, more to the point, will not) hold their own in the cut and thrust of online argument. Especially academic argument.

I don't qualify as a hot chick, so perhaps this is rather not to the point. But as a female academic who has competed fairly successfully head-to-head with men all her life in male dominated fields, I will say there is nothing about participating on line that is particularly different. Only--it's usually rather boring IMO.

Most bloggers rant. Whether or not they agree with me, I find very little considered inspection of topics and lots of hot air, often blowing noise about subjects on which the bloggers are not particularly more conversant than I am. I really don't care to spew myself, and have little interest in reading such. Ranting I find to be a fairly testosterone-intense activity, and I generally find being ranted at just plain boring.

If I want a thoughtful exchange of considered ideas I am far more likely to turn to people who I trust to think about a subject and discuss it in some depth rather than go off on an ungrounded position. I find that I have, in fact, had a number of such conversations here on LJ, though that is not why I'm here.

I like LJ not because I cannot hold my own in intellectual exchange, but because it is one of the ties of the tribe to which I belong. I don't really see it or experience it as blogging at all.

And, btw, I love reading your food and travel reports.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Actually, I find this remark somewhat insulting, as if women like me and the women I know cannot (and, more to the point, will not) hold their own in the cut and thrust of online argument.

I want to be clear here--particularly if I've given offense--that I don't agree with either Crooked Timber or Oxblog on that point.

it's usually rather boring IMO.

As I said, I feel like I have other things to discuss. :)

And, btw, I love reading your food and travel reports.

Thanks! :)

[noire.livejournal.com]

I want to be clear here--particularly if I've given offense--that I don't agree with either Crooked Timber or Oxblog on that point.

Oh, it never even occurred to me that you'd agree with such a point! Always more than clear that this was NOT you.

You know, though, this brings up yet another reason why I, at least, prefer most of my intellectual stimulation in person. It's way too easy to mistake things and give or take offense in this medium. Frankly, I think that a lot of the bloggers (at least a number of those I've read) seem to think that's an advantage, not a drawback...

[mentalapse.livejournal.com]

Very true. While I'd generally rather engage in true discussion, posting online seems to have two occassionally useful features. First, no one can cut you off and tell you to shut up. You get a chance to start and complete your thought. Then there's the second feature which you've touched on--sometimes there's a value to inflammatory speech (vague or otherwise).

[coraline]

I don't qualify as a hot chick

would it be terribly insulting if i wanted to disagree on this point?
(and i'm not the only one...)

(not sure if you were objecting to the "chick" part, which is a piece of nomenclature i'm not attached to, or the "hot" part, which might also be objectionable, but which i personally think is true :)

[noire.livejournal.com]

*smile* Thank you--for what you mean. I am quite flattered.

Though my image of what people generally mean when they say "hot chick" is rather as unflattering as my thoughts about the kind of men who use this term on the net. To my mind, the kind of men who are looking for/complaining about the absense of/ "hot chicks" on the net are generally unkempt with no social skills who think that supermodels should fall at their feet and worship silently at the overwhelming fount of their brilliance. And the definition of "hot chicks" are the kind of women who look like swimsuit models and show their superior intelligence by agreeing (mostly silently, though raptly) with the male in question.

I am not that. Never have been, not even when I was twenty and did have a swimsuit model body.

[amelia-g.livejournal.com]

I think that people also tend to feel that LJ doesn't count because it is a more limited environment. Much of the beauty of blogging online is the freedom of it. A single insignificant person can say whatever he or she wants and there is the possibility that millions will see it and his or her view can have an impact. LJ, however, strongly limits what topics can be spoken about and anyone who becomes at all high profile in their system tends to end up hearing from the abuse department about things that are clearly normal to do within LJ. I feel like LJ is sort of a self-limiting system where no individual diary within it is allowed to become too big. There are limits on how large a friends list can get etc. So it seems to count less. You are probably right that the social aspect of LJ makes it more hot chick friendly, but it is also just a more common use of LJ to post photos in it than it is in other sorts of blogs. So perhaps there are some very hot chicks with blogs, but their breasts don't show behind their punditry.

[gingicat]

There are plenty of people who think riba_rambles is a hot chick.

[contrariety.livejournal.com]

I really think my only possible response to the question as phrased (which gets my hackles up--don't worry, not at you) is:

"Well, I don't know. Why don't hot guys blog?"

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's good. You should post that as a comment in their blog! :)

[contrariety.livejournal.com]

And, you know, having now read both articles, I'm not sure what I think of Crooked Timber, but the Oxblog one really cements some skepticism toward Oxblog that I've had for a long time. For instance:

"So is there any validity to what I'm saying? Heck if I know. I don't study this kind of stuff. All I have is experience to go on. In high school, in college, and in graduate school, I have always found men to be far more outspoken in the classroom. Even on a one-to-one level, I have found many more women who shy away from political debate. In almost every organization I have been part of, men have been more assertive about taking a leadership role."

Uh. Apparently you didn't go to the same college I did. Oh, wait, except you DID. So damn, you've got some selective perception there, buddy.

[mentalapse.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Quite a hack at work at Oxblog. A lot of BS and anecdotal evidence, coupled with a misguided "Doesn't it just mirror the gender gap in the academic population?" Oh, and the writing ain't exactly the height of parsimony. I'm still trying to figure out whether he's saying conservative bloggers will be overrepresented in academic blogging circles compared to their representation among all blogs (decidedly unlikely, given the great underrepresentation of conservatives in academia) or if he's only talking about conservatives being overrepresented among all blogs compared to the greater population.

Of course, Crooked Timber ignores the possibility that men and women might have different perceptions about the efficacy of blogging in conveying information or opinion. That, and they're content to latch on to academic-speak, making their argument seem more important by resorting to smart-sounding buzzwords such as "homophily" or "efficacy" (man, don't miss that about academia). I know they gots to maintain their academic street cred, but come on...

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Uh. Apparently you didn't go to the same college I did. Oh, wait, except you DID.

*snicker*

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Given that I still have the image that people who spend too much time online are wankers of one sort or another, the answer that comes immediately to mind is "They have something better to do on Saturday nights."

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

at people who spend too much time online are wankers of one sort or another

While I tend to agree with you, I think I can sum up my feelings on this thusly:
"My house may not be glass, but it's certainly got a lot of windows." :)

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Here's mine: http://www.crystalcathedral.org

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Scary. :)