Boys will be boys will be...bloggers?

If you have yet to hear about Margaret Wente's column (and subsequent interview and publicity stunt *ahem* online discussion) about the alleged predominance of men in the blogosphere, you might want to check it out before reading this post. As I sit down to write this, the Wente vs. ladybloggers online discussion is no doubt wrapping up. All immediate reactions would indicate that it has thus far been relatively devoid of value, which is why I am here blogging instead of participating.


I must admit that I hesitated to write anything response to Wente's column. This is not because (as Wente would have us believe) my tendency to think before I post is a function of my gender. I hesitated, rather, because simply reacting seemed too easy. For anyone even passingly familiar with the blogosphere or the research regarding it, the inaccuracies in Wente's writing are self-evident. The firestorm of blog and Twitter reactions -- from men and women alike -- have done a marvelous job of expressing the affront I shared, and pointing out the errors in Wente's position.

Following her interview with CTV this morning -- in which Wente settled the question of satire by demonstrating that she was not joking or only baiting bloggers -- I determined that the most troubling aspect of Wente's position is not that it is quite simply ignorant and incorrect. What really troubles me is what I imagine is bothering most of us: Wente's position is based on two false dichotomies, namely the opposition of the masculine versus the feminine, and the blogger versus the journalist.

These two dichotomies represent ongoing social transformations, battles in which some fight to dismantle them while others (such as Wente) seem invested in maintaining them to be a simple fact of reality. They are false dichotomies, in my opinion, in that they are socially constructed, imposed or artificial, habitual as opposed to natural: essentially, they are not inherent. Wente's column and subsequent interview demonstrate a belief in both dichotomies. I am writing to illustrate why this is seriously problematic.

Masculine versus Feminine

Wente's position is like a crash course in socially proscribed gender roles. In her interview, she seemed surprised that her column offended both men and women. She shouldn't have been. Restrictive gender roles, which serve to generalize one's personality and behaviour as a function of one's gender, are harmful to men and women alike.

In Wente's world, we have the men: brash, fearless, outspoken, impulsive, desirous of attention; and we have the women: careful, passive, reasonable, mild, modest. These views constitute socially constructed rules. These rules are the same ones that make an aggressive woman a bitch and a passive man a pussy. These are the same rules that expect -- even encourage -- boys to be violent and reckless, but are horrified if girls do the same. The same rules that portray male abstinence as funny or sad or abnormal, and female abstinence as ordinary or admirable or attractive. The implication is that if you are a man who happens to be quiet or who wants to blog about his kids or fashion (which Wente identifies as strictly feminine interests), there is something fundamentally un-masculine, something feminine, something wrong about who you are. And the sword slices both ways.

The fact that this dichotomy is just plain wrong is beside the point. I don't like that it disregards the experiences of anyone who does not fit the archetype, which is to say most of us. I don't like that it roils insidiously beneath all kinds of social problems; it says that you are either like me or you are an other. And this is the root of all forms of discrimination, from ableism to heteronormativity to racism and beyond.

Blogger versus Journalist

As David Eaves did a great job of summarizing, Wente's column leads one to ask whether or not she actually knows what a blog is. I have no reason to believe her ignorance (or what amounts to the same thing) to be anything but willful. But again, the real trouble is the false dichotomy. In this case, we have bloggers who post error-riddled opinions every twenty minutes and comment on the news; and we have journalists who generate carefully edited original content and report the news.

This is written by an employee of the Globe & Mail who evidently has a vested interest in maintaining the distinction between journalism and blogging. But this us versus them mentality is just as artificial and problematic as in the gender case. Both in law and in practice, this distinction is rapidly proving itself false. The idea that journalists report the news and bloggers comment on it, the idea that journalists are seasoned writers while bloggers are enthusiastic amateurs... this is nothing except the panic of a profession faced with redefinition. This dichotomy is a construction by an institution that would rather convince us of its necessity than adapt itself to new circumstances. This makes for shoddy journalism, as in the case of Wente's column, and shoddy journalism does no one any favours. I've argued again and again and again that traditional media has nothing to fear if it will only stop putting up walls and start adapting.

The lesson Wente needs to learn is not that women are blogging about everything from tech to cars to food. What she needs to learn that putting people into arbitrary categories leads to trouble.