BlogHer - Grappling with semantics, grabbing the power - Comments

Social networking has

james429 — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:39:37 -0500

Social networking has created powerful new ways to communicate and share information. Social networking websites are being used regularly by millions of people, and it now seems that social networking will be an enduring part of everyday life.

=========================

peterson

widecircles

Rudeness and authenticity

Elisa Camahort — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:13:37 -0500

So glad you wrote this. I see this all the time...people who think that if you try to stay polite or professional or *non-personal*, then you must be "slick" or "fake." As Freud would say, sometimes a banana is just a banana, and sometimes rude is just rude!

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Many Usses and Thems

Elisa Camahort — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:08:31 -0500

Oh, I agree Ayse. We are all some kind of Us and some kind of Them.

I really don't know yet what I would envision an Us vs. Them or a Learning From Others track would look like.

Yesterday while zoning out a bit in a meeting I wrote down the word "infiltrators." Imagine if on one day or during one session we had all of these interest groups set up to meet, but we had volunteer "infiltrators." Folks from other interest areas who attend something totally alien to them on the surface. (Everyone would know the "infiltrators" were there. They would be allowed t participate just like anyone else.)

And then imagine if we had a day or a session or whatever where the "infiltrators" expressed what they learned from the supposedly "alien" interest group and vice versa.

Again, just thoughts popping in my head.

But I do think it would be eye-opening.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Facilitating Meet & Greet /Rudeness v. Authenticity.

lizditz — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:32:54 -0500

I was at BlogHer05 and BlogHer06. I was a lot less invested in 06, since I wasn't sure until two days before if I'd be able to attend.

So I wasn't as good a social facilitator at O6 as I was at 05. I like Lisa's gong-show/speed-dating idea, that would help. I also have talked about the layout of 06 being less casual-meeting-friendly than 05. Finding a way to make BOAFs ongoing would be a good idea.

Am I a mommyblogger? Not really. I used to write more about my kids than I have for the last year, for personal reasons. But I've been told that my blog is less interesting, since it became less personal. So I am looking for ways to be more revealing...without compromising my kids' privacy.

Do I have reservations about some mommyblogs? Yes, especially those that use small children's real names and real photographs. It seems to me that blogging about your small child's behavior, using real names and actual photographs, is a boundary violation. You are making decisions about your child's privacy before the kid is of an age to make those decisions for him/herself. So my solution. I don't read them and I don't link to them. But you know, that's my blogging life. I wouldn't "cut them dead" (in the Victorian phrase) in real life.

And as several people have pointed out, failing to respond to a person who has spoken to you, turning away -- it is all just bad manners. The woman who posted that anti-mommyblogging rant had bad manners. Bad manners aren't a sex-linked trait.

At 05, there was something more than a breakdown in manners: one attendee disputed the right of another to be the person she is, and then refused to respond to requests for conversation. (Read the story at Grace Davis's blog).

I don't think the 06 article (more foul-mouthed though it was) about not wanting to read / talk to mommybloggers was as big a break in civility as what happened at 05.

I wonder. I think there are three strong contributing factors to the breakdown of manners: the intrinsic anonymity of the internet, this idea that rudeness=authenticity, and a lack of knowledge or skill in how to be forceful without being rude.

So (in a session I did not attend) one man dominated the conversation -- and for whatever reason, no one took control back. No one said, "Thanks for your contributions, Mr. X, we want to hear from others now". I don't know why -- I wasn't there.

Alex Wainer wrote this (sorry, no link, linkrot has happened):

Good manners have gotten a bad rap in the culture over the last few years; they are dismissed as a officious mask, or obstacle to â€œauthenticityâ€? for those who want to express themselves. But they are actually a means to expressing a disinterested benevolence to all people, most of whom are strangers we may meet only once but whose way may be made a bit easier by a sincerely expressed â€œplease,â€? â€œthank-you,â€? or â€œpleased to meet you.â€? This is not a virtue one grows overnight, to be sure. As Aristotle pointed out, we become virtuous by practicing virtue. And a well-drawn character who is put to the test and passes it can provide food for my undernourished moral imagination.

I don't have any great answers here, just a determination on my part to increase the civility level around me personally.

Liz Ditz
I Speak of Dreams
lizditz@gmail.com

We Should Be At Our Best When We Gather Together

Joanne Viskup — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:26:33 -0500

I did not attend BlogHer. I really wish I was there eventhough I still feel I am quite a newbie, not in with the "cool kids," still a freshman who can't find the cafeteria. But you know, that's not anyone's fault, I'll find my way. I want to be a part of this community because it's creative and powerful and energizing. Maybe someday I'll be captain of the cheerleaders.

I was at a conference that same weekend for a direct sales company. There were 4,700 of us. Yes, some of the same stuff went on, but not to the same degree it seems. To quote our female CEO, "We are at our best when we gather together." That's the way it should be for women. We should be lifting each other up instead of tearing each other down for life choices we have made or what we decide to call ourselves. I guess this is why my profile says this:

"Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, I moved to Dayton, Ohio 12 years ago. After a career in radio in both New York and Ohio, I am now the stay-at-home mother of two. I enjoy writing about my experiences in my many roles as mother, wife, daughter, sister, and friend and sharing stories about my family both here and in New York."

Labels are tough. Is a personal blog someone's diary or to-do list? If I say I'm a humor blog maybe you don't think I'm funny. Or maybe I don't always feel like being funny. A Mommyblog is not all googoo-gaa-gaa all the time either. We are women - how can one word define us?

As for the snobbery or the snubbery or whatever - seems to me you get that everywhere. It's not because they are moms that they behaved that way, it's poor manners and worse. I'd hate to think anyone lumps me into that group because I have children. I don't care who someone is in the blog-world - you don't treat people like that.

I'm a woman. I'm a writer. Hey - you are too? Pull up a chair sister, let's talk.

Jules...LOL

Elisa Camahort — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:45:24 -0500

And it's so awesome to see your picture, I suddenly have a face to go with all those beautiful signs you made for BlogHer!!!

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Two of my three favorite

jules.maas — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:36:14 -0500

Two of my three favorite blogs are 'mommyblogs'. But I didn't find or leave them because of that fact. I love these blogs because even though I am in no way able to identify with their roles as mothers, their well-spoken ability to relate the human experience still includes me.

However, as a relatively new blogger and member of BlogHer, it does seem like MommyBlogging is the center of the blogosphere right now. Everywhere I turn it's about babies and pregnancy and poop. So what I'm feeling is a certain amount of over-representation. It's not that I 'hate' the mommy-bloggers, I just wonder where the rest of us are. I know I'm not the only one. Surely there are better ones.

So why don't I see them? Are we here? Are there are WAY more mommy-bloggers than non-mommy bloggers - just as mothers outnumber non-mothers in everyday life? I don't know. Maybe I'm not just not looking. Or maybe I'm spending too much time looking at the mommys, and not enough on helping create what I'm looking for.

Raising up the value of our role as mothers is important - but so is raising up the value of ALL our roles, as PEOPLE. I worry about reinforcing the idea that motherhood is the only valuable thing about us. Just as women do not want to be defined solely as mothers, they do not want to be devalued for not being one.

I agree with Elisa - the answer is not to contribute to separation by catering to distinct 'parties'. The answer is for all of us to respect each other, mother or not, and to speak and write and interact based upon our experiences as women.

Wow. Is that enough kumbaya to make you puke? I wasn't even THERE...

right on, mir!

Mom101 — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:46:52 -0500

Great post Mir! I loved that passage from Her Bad Mother as well and it's really stayed with me.

I find it interesting, in all this post-conference banter that people are speaking almost more about the personalities and the politics than of the friends they made or the learning they gained. I suppose I'm guilty of it too to a degree. I hope it isn't being too confrontational to say that in a way, it's the worst stereotype about women; that you get 700 of us in a room together and out come 700 pairs of claws. We should know better. We should do better.

http://mom-101.blogspot.com

http://coolmompicks.com
We find it, you flaunt it.

Debra, whoever treated you

Mom101 — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:38:59 -0500

Debra, whoever treated you that way sucks my big, flabby postpartum ass. Don't blame it on mommy-dom. Blame it on poor breeding by their own parents.

http://mom-101.blogspot.com

http://coolmompicks.com
We find it, you flaunt it.

Love this idea

arse poetica — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:28:51 -0500

Lisa, I love this idea. No pressure for us introverts. Besides, how awesome would it be to have a BlogHer gong? Ha.

Help. What's the controversy?

arse poetica — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:20:18 -0500

Can someone define the controversy for me, please? Is this a "cliquishness" controversy? I wonder if the seeming overrepresentation (or whatever) of mommybloggers is due to the fact that, of a vast, disparate group of women, they are an enthusiastic and largely coherent group.

***Please take the following w/ a grain of salt, as I am not entirely clear on the terms of the controversy.***

What I hope is not happening is an implicit (or explicit) critique of mommybloggers themselves rather than a critique of the advertising focus on their demographic and the attendant heteronormative baggage that carries. [I'm putting my prayers out there for a benevolent billionaire to underwrite next year's conference -- anonymously, of course. Who's got George Soros' number?]

I would be sad to see perceived mommyblogger cliquishness (or whatever, sorry) translate into a response of librarian or lesbian or thespian or seminarian cliquishness. That said, those who wish to find community w/ like-minded persons should, and likewise those who want to meet everyone in the room. That both of these options are available is, to me, the great asset of BlogHer.

Elisa, can you explain a little more what you mean by an "Us vs. Them" session? Who is 'us', who is 'them', aren't we all both 'us' and 'them'?

Help. What's the controversy?

arse poetica — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:18:33 -0500

***Please take the following w/ a grain of salt, as I am not entirely clear on the terms of the controversy.***

Elisa, can you explain a little more what you mean by an "Us vs. Them" session? Who is 'us', who is 'them', aren't we all both 'us' and 'them'?

An icebreaker for 700+...The BlogHer Gong Show?

Lisa Stone — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:49:14 -0500

Okay, here's one we could try -- I've done this at smaller meetings and it's always worked: Speed dating.

Here's how: All the people in the room create two huge circles, one inside the other. The people in the inside circle face out, toward the people in the outside circle. The folks in the outside circle face in. So everyone has a "partner".

Here's how the dance works:

1. You talk to your "partner" for one minute, introducing yourself and saying why you've come to the meeting.

2. At the end of one minute, someone hits a gong or a cymbal or a car horn, and your time is up. Then one of the circles rotates one place.

3. Repeat as desired.

In 30 minutes, you can meet 30 people. I find that since it's scripted (name, blog name, why you're here), it's an easier and less awkward exercise than walking up and trying to join a conversation cold...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Stefania

julesschroom — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:25:14 -0500

I believe I sat next to the two buffoons of whom you speak at dinner last Saturday night. Too funny!

"I am the anti-mommyblogger"

julesschroom — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:04:39 -0500

Or that's how I introduced myself when I was picked randomly to lead/be a part of a Birds-of-a-feather group, "Humor and Story-telling". I was trying to be humorous and brought up the fact that at 44, I have never been married or had any kids, (I do have "fur-kids" though!) that I was the opposite of a "mommyblogger". The funny thing is, when I came down to the lobby for day 1 of the conference, I had no idea what to do with myself, where to go, etc, etc- and the first people who I met and invited me to sit with them at breakfast, were two mommies, Amanda and Elisa. In fact, the first blog I ever read belongs to a "mom with attitude"- who knew? Although there were times when I felt alienated and unsure of myself, ("feelings...nothing more than feelings...") for the most part, there was someone there, whether it was a mommy or a happily single person such as myself, who was in the same boat as I was and somehow, we were able to find common ground.

Grappling with semantics, grabbing the power

Mir Kamin — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:48:45 -0500

For me, one of the recurrent themes at BlogHer this year was the continued debate about the use of the term mommyblogger. And I continued to be dumbfounded---perhaps because I'm naive---because I guess that before this weekend, I just didn't think it mattered all that much.

Well, I guess it matters. It matters to a lot of the women I met this past weekend, and matters to a lot of women who were reading about this past weekend, and the debates are raging; and I find myself inspired to say only two things. Because I'm deep like that.

1) Unless you were grown in a petri dish in a sterile room, chances are you had a mom, even if you aren't one yourself. What's with all the hate?

2) Can't we all just get along?

Clearly I am on my way to being a world-renowned diplomat.

Okay, maybe not.

But my inclination, in the face of something like this, is to just step out of the fray. I have no trouble engaging in a debate or even a battle when I feel personally affronted or like there's a difference to be made. But this? Meh. I'm not offended. I know what I think and I'm not bothered. I'm a little saddened, maybe, to see tempers flaring. But as for the debate itself---inherent worth of mommyblogging---I'm a big believer in the channel-surfer philosophy of blogs. Don't like it? Switch.

I just loved Liz's eloquent take on the debate, though, given her perspective:

Having spent the better part of my life as the twenty/thirty-something single gal, I used to write a lot about the alienation I felt from friends who had spawned, and about the toils of being a non-breeder in a breedercentric world. Singledom is a hard habit to break and as such, I still have a knee-jerk response to allign myself with the one gal in the circle not able to contribute an opinion about the Wiggles or a light little anecdote about mucus plugs.

After some musings on the undercurrent of divisiveness she'd sensed this weekend, Liz gets to the meat of it:

There isn't mommyblogging, there is mommybloggings.

There are two groups as far as I can see. There are writers who came to blogs as another medium in which to hone their craft. The community of kindred spirits found through blogging is a wonderful and rewarding but altogether unexpected side benefit. These are the women - me included - for whom the term is inherently limiting. It tells men, older parents, the childless, this writing is not for you. And there is no writer who wants to alienate a potential reader before he or she has even read word one.

The second group of mommybloggers are women who came to blogs as a way to find a community of like-minded people and develop more meaningful relationships than those found in a chat room or an online message board. The writing itself was perhaps secondary to the friendships--or maybe it became more important as time went on. For these women, mommyblogging is entirely the opposite of limiting. It's downright freeing. It's a portal to wonderful things, opening far more doors than it closes.

Thanks, Liz, for putting your finger directly where mine had only been able to hover, prior to reading your post.

Catherine of Her Bad Mother blogged, instead, about her own very personal experience of this weekend, and reminded me of why no amount of grumbling or finger-pointing can take away what some of us gained:

But I left behind something else that I think that I am going to miss almost as hard - the me who was happy and fulfilled in the absence of the loves of my life. The me who could assimilate the quiet ache that is that absence, the pressing ache of those missing limbs, into another kind of energy and move, happily, despite that ache. The me who felt both quieted and stimulated alone (sans child, sans spouse) in the company of other women, other writers, other mothers who, for a moment, put the activity of motherhood or whateverhood aside and said, now, what about me? What about us?

She recalls the sense of utterly right community she felt (and which I felt, as well, until I came to find out that not everyone was sharing my kumbaya experience and I was maybe supposed to be feeling persecuted or something):

Women who walk with babes in arms or babes in tummies or aches for distant babes in hearts (and some, even, without babes, happily without babes), who are fierce and indepedent and determined to carpe the diem despite their fears. Women who work a room like red-hot real estate agents in pink lace pasties. Women who stake their claims. Women who speak their claims. I love these women. I loved being one of these women.

Amen. Amen, amen, and amen. (And I will forevermore picture you in pasties, Catherine.)

I love these women. And I love being one of these women. And that goes for the mommybloggers and the non-mommybloggers, provided you're willing to leave the hate behind. The empowerment is a lot more fun for everyone, anyway.

Mir

[image source: Blogging Baby]

BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs at Woulda Coulda Shoulda and Want Not.