She writes!
The now infamous Mary Dejevsky, that is. She of the "women are too busy pleasing their menfolk to blog" argument.
I haven't blogged about this, because of being (a) busy and (b) unsure whether you all really needed to read my stroppy letter, when I've already made my thoughts on the subject perfectly clear. (Well. Somewhat muddy, really, but that's my thinking for you.) Plus, Patroclus and others were doing a damn fine job of alerting the blogosphere. But since I have a reply, here goes.
I emailed her the following, under the subject line "Female bloggers. We exist":
I'm sure you must by now have received a deluge of mail about that column on the strange lack of female bloggers. Perhaps that makes my addition to said deluge redundant, but then, I've never been too bashful to voice my opinion. Sorry.
I realise that an opinion column doesn't labour under the same burden of proof as a news item, but I do think a *little* research would not have gone amiss. Just a little Googling would have quickly turned upthe interesting fact that as far as is recorded, the blogosphere actually seems to be dominated by women. And only a few of them are writing on "feminine" subjects such as childcare, or gynaecology.
I guess it's not entirely fair to blame you for adopting the widely held belief that bloggers are predominantly men. But I do blame you for disseminating it without even attempting to check. You might have gotten a far more interesting column out of the question of why this false belief has such a stranglehold. I have even blogged on this subject: see link. Although I may be too bashful for you.
And by the way. On the subject of women being too dutiful to find time for blogging, may I direct you to the wonderful sweatpantsmom, whose Bad Mommy confessions to Postsecret include the admission that "the Tooth Fairy didn't come because she was too busy blogging".
Seriously, if you're going to comment on blogging, it wouldn't hurt to actually read a few blogs first. You might enjoy them. You might even somehow find the time to write one yourself.
The reply:
yes, what seems like milliions and millions of them! (which is great) my point was more to answer the question posed by iain dale - why were there so few - than to reinforce the point, but it now seems the premise was, at least, questionable. my experience was, however, similar to his. maybe we were just looking in the wrong place. the blogosphere is obviously a lot bigger than i (and perhaps he) thought. all the best, mary
I have to say, at this point I feel quite sorry for her. I can only imagine what's happened to her inbox. No wonder the poor dear doesn't have time for capital letters. (Or actual reasoning.) I am pleased she's at least reconsidering her premise.
Moving on.
5 comments:
Ooh, that's a much better reply than mine. It almost makes sense!
^^^^ what spinny said
she has risen a little in my estimation now...
Go Scroob!
No wonder the poor dear doesn't have time for capital letters. (Or actual reasoning.)
Hee hee hee. Indeed. But there is always time for capital letters -- as long as it's not TOO MANY OF THEM. ;-)
good letter SS and now she's wriggling on the hook but, like Patroclus, you are obviously far too nice. Someone should not be letting her get away with these lame wriggling-out clauses.
You know, better than most, that the basis of good journalism is research. She did none! Ipso facto ....
No, Beep, actually I'm feeling not nice enough. She wrote a sloppy column and I'm guessing she is now suffering for it. She has acknowledged that she *may* have been in error. I shouldn't really be mean about her reasoning at this point, especially since her reply to me is much higher on the sense scale than Spinsterella's. (The reason, I reckon, is that she has now been bombarded with enough hate mail to realise that the "thereally are" point doesn't work.)
I would really like to see a follow-up column addressing where this error comes from, because that is what I find particularly interesting, but hey... far be it from me to dictate editorial policy. Except on this blog. Of course.
(Plus, not being an Indie reader, I wouldn't even notice if she did write such a column.)
Post a Comment