Been doing a bit more surfing this a.m. on women in the blogosphere....and found some interesting stuff:
...I discovered that there are several women bloggers who are weighing in on the merits of other women bloggers. To name two: our own Halley Suitt (whose observation on the impact of "white men" on the blogosphere I agree with--and whose tech knowledge I respect) has weighed in on this, as well as conservative pundit Michelle Malkin (whose opinion on Maureen Dowd I agree with, but little else).
It seems, to me anyway, that if women bloggers want to be taken seriously, even by other women bloggers, we must, at some point or another, blog on politics. I'm not sure if it matters whether or not our blogs are well-written or if the overall content is engaging and insightful, just as long as we stick in the occasional political or technological or business commentary. Even if that comment is something to the effect of "Alan Greenspan's a big old meanie--and he sucks too," it might get us a perusal from some dude (or chick) and up our blog's respectability quotient in the malestrom of the blogosphere.
This recent blog debate further highlights the problematic nature of blogs--as well as the need for various groups to identify what exactly a blog is and which of all the blogs are worthy of various ideological group's consideration. As we women engage in this debate and pass judgement on each other's blogs, perhaps we need to look at our own cliqueish nature/sorority mentality, how it, in its own strange way, mimicks the judgement values of the good-old-geek-boy network, and could end up being the cudgle that beats us back into voiceless obscurity.