I'm just a girl

I strongly disliked a post I read today (it's an older one, published in June) on ForbesWomen.  I disagree and look at this miracle of modern technology.  I have a forum from which to spout my own opinion on the subject and I don't even write for ForbesWomen. Hell, I don't write for CafeMom. Little ole me, a stay at home mother of four in Spoe-KANE Washington. How pink magical bubblesque is that?

The author disparages "blogs for women," which she defines at first as large media outlets directed at women such as BlogHer and CafeMom (ForbesWomen?), but goes on to include "mommyblogs" and "recipe sharing sites" in the wide swath of her disdain.  In fact, by the end of the confusing diatribe she strays rather far off point and reaches the conclusion that all blogs written by any women on any subject other than the ones she deems worthy (they remain undefined) are "morally indefensible."

She bases her argument against blogs for women on three key points, as any good argument, we all learned in basic essay writing, should stand upon a three-pronged support.

1) They are limiting in their viewpoint in that they universally focus on appeasement and fantasy.  All targeted writing is limited in its viewpoint from tech writing to pet writing to food writing to parenting writing.  Reading the subtext, (oh yes, I can do that, actually) I believe what the author intends to say is that those that consume writing directed at women or focusing on traditional women's issues are 'way too totally dumb y'all' to seek out other opinions or think critically about the shit often shoveled in opinion and culture sites of any kind.

2) They are hypocritical.  I'm not sure I am understanding the hypocrisy beyond the very first sentence.  I'm certain it's because I'm too mired in appeasement and fantasy to comprehend a good point when I see one.  Or maybe it's the author who fails to understand hypocrisy because this reads more like a list of things she finds annoying in online women's culture.  Certainly, there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of annoying blogs written by and for women, but that doesn't make them hypocritical. One example of a hypocrite might be a woman who makes a living posting on the internet about how boring and banal it is for women to discuss women's issues on the internet.

3)  They do not exist in reality because they withdraw from the real world where men exist.  This only works because the author defines her own world as the real world. I adore the websites for women and by women that I read precisely because they discuss and analyze in an honest way the real world that I navigate every day.  There are plenty of men involved and complexities of all sorts, but the issues at the center of my current reality revolve around raising children and finding time to challenge my mind in a busy, home-centered life.  The fact that this is not interesting to her does not make it unreal.

I do find fault, at times, with the pervasive cultural idea that disagreement or argument between women is "unpleasant" and that we must all get along and support each other.  I'll defend critique and the unpopular opinion. I'll defend both your right to state it and its merits, where I find them.

I find none here. All I find is intellectual elitism at its worst.  Declaring one's own interests and prejudices less "morally indefensible" than another person's - or woman's - interests is the intellectual equivalent of mocking sports fans on their way to a game with their faces painted as you glare at them down your nose though your opera glasses.  Attending an opera on a given night over a baseball game doesn't make you better in some grand life plan. No more than reading and enjoying sites aimed at cooking or mothering or scrap booking  makes one less than those that enjoy music sites or news sites or political commentary.  Nor do any of these individual interests define us a people.

I'm disappointed in this lowest common denominator style of commentary.

Let's identify and celebrate brilliance by women in writing, in media and in culture where ever we find it.  Let's be our own worse critics at all times, but when we do let's be specific.  Don't tell me that an entire genre of women's writing is worthless. Don't identify a subculture as worth less than the subculture with which you identify most closely.  You lose all credibility the minute you do it.  Tell me that a specific trend, a specific argument in popular use, a specific piece of writing is wrong or trivializing for xyz reasons.

For example, I abhor the Forbes article for the following reasons:

1)  It fails to acknowledge the wide spectrum of interest, debate and creative accomplishment taking place across social media platforms aimed at women.

2) It crosses, in my opinion, the line of constructive analysis or critique and instead mocks a stereotype of a subculture.

3) It misses the inherent value to be found in connecting with people with similar interests without regard to physical distance or gender for that matter.

When will all of these women's sites - ForbesWomen included - stop trying to make me mad and focus on making me think. I don't find that sites targeted at women are diminishing the presence or contribution of women on the internet, but SEO is certainly dumbing down the conversation so far that it's hard to see it from here.

Painting "blogging women" with one color for page views or for your own amusement is just laziness. Yes, even at ForbesWomen.