Gender is a light board not a switch

reading response to "The Gendercator"

When I walk into a dark room the first thing I look for is a light switch. On means light. Off means it's dark. There is no nuance to the lighting. In theatre we can have up to hundreds of lights with different colors and intensities. They can have moving designs. They can move where they are pointing on the stage. All of this information is stored on a massive board that looks like something you would see in a recording studio or Star Trek.

As a lighting tech I appreciate how a lighting design in and of itself is art. The changes in brightness and color and the speed with which the lights shift, the addition of movement, subtle shifts, all of these add up to a symphony of light. It sounds lame but it's so beautiful. Lighting is so amazing and beautiful and makes so many things what they are and no two lighting designers will design a show or a cue the exact same way. In theatre the lights vary for each person. Gender is the same way. There are more than two options in gender and people so often miss that fact. We are not all Barbies and GI Joes.

In reading about how the blogosphere responded to "The Gendercator" I noticed a split into two camps. One group was furious that the LGBT community would turn on its own members and the other group agreed with the concepts and felt that trans individuals were bringing unwanted masculinity or male-ness into strictly female spaces and that lesbians were succumbing to what males wanted when they chose to bend their genders.

This is what I was ranting about in the beginning: the accusation that people of alternative genders are sometimes not welcomed in "feminist" spaces because they are neither feminine nor masculine. There is almost always an accusation of bringing male-ness into female space when feminists argue against acceptance of transgender individuals. This pisses me off because feminists are arguing for the equal rights and protection of women but arguing that transgender indivudals do not deserve the same rights. WTF?
I think that's against the rules of logic.

I am constantly stunned by the amount of bias in a community of "outsiders" who want "equal rights". There is both a hatred of Trans people and of Bisexuals in the LGBT community. Which, I suppose, would make it the LG community. It's outright prejudice and discrimination and stuns me everytime I see it. I'm infuriated that my own "community," that "my family" would turn against me like this. I would like to not be pigeonholed plzthx.

I think the blogosphere has the ability and the obligation to expose this ugly discrimination in the LGBT community and help push for more acceptance and tolerance the way people did in reaction to "The Gendercator".



If a tool can be used for good then it should be used for good.

E-PWND: the new york times gets schooled.

(I've completely lost count of my reading responses. It's the one about the NYTimes and the Dating a Banker Anonymous group.)

When I first read about the NYTimes getting punk'd I nearly did a spittake. I found it hilarious that with things like blogs coming into prominence, even a company as vast as NYT was failing to watch their sources closely and double and triple check their authenticity. With media sources jumping at the first story they get they tend to skip the whole vetting process that used to go on.

This is the double edged media sword of blogging.

As much as I love and advocate for the blogosphere I also understand that it's very difficult to keep readership when the newscycle is going 24 hours a day 8 days a week (when you use that much caffeine a mystical 8th day appears in the haze of all that sleeplessness). This causes three things to happen.

1. sourcing get's dodgy- with less time people tend to vet their sources less and their reliability can be shattered horribly if their source turns out to be a complete liar. It's a gamble: if you win you break a huge story and everyone cites you, if you lose your credibility is gone and your readership is gone with it.
2. people go for the sensational- it's something that happens in all of life. In the game of blogging and reporting people are presented with a choice between the safe and consistent which can keep them going at a relatively low level for a long period of time or they can shoot for sensational and hope they make it big. It's like the difference between lighting a long burning fire or a short fused firecracker. With the long burning fire you get a little light for a long time but with a firecracker you can either get a spectacularly bright display that will get a lot of attention all at once or it can backfire and end rather horribly.

I thought it was interesting that while the NYT had the first problem the women of "DABA" had the second. The women were willing to go for broke and misrepresent their purpose in order to get a media boost. It seems to have paid off but with more negative backlash than they were expecting, I reckon. As for the poor NYT, they were expecting to be able to do this article with genuine interest and excitement but have come out of it looking like fools. I think it's probably worse that people pity them rather than just being mad at them.

If a blog want's to make it as a big blog it needs to maintain its credibility by ensuring legitimate sourcing. In the world of information the stakes are getting continually higher. Rule one of serious blogging or journalism or even argument says always make sure your sources are strong enough to back you up.

When "Sorry" isn't nearly enough: a reading response

(reading response to Baghdad Burning readings)

I feel like a horrible person for wanting to say that I viewed the lives of most Iraqis as less advanced than the average American. I wanted to believe that the tiniest bit of good had come out of the US presence. In reading

I think that's why blogs like Riverbend's are so crucial. So many people assume so many things. We let the Mainstream Media (known as the MSM in some blog circles) tell us what to think and give us hand picked facts. As much as I <3 href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/">Rachel Maddow I know that she has editorial control over the facts and quotes being used.

That's the magic of the internet. suddenly people are able to go to the original sources, to see the tables and studies, to read the documents, and to draw their own conclusions from them. We are able to read accounts from people on the ground so we can gain new perspectives. We can see what it's like for a regular Iraqi woman but they're not the only people trying to survive. I think the flipside of this blog is something like "My War: Killing Time in Iraq" which is the war from an Army grunt's point of view.


I have a friend on the ground in Iraq right now. Some thirty miles outside of Baghdad he works his ass off every day and I'm proud of him for having the balls to willingly sign up to try to make things better in Iraq, his honest intent in joining. I'm not conservative but I have a problem with people who blame the guys on the ground just trying to stay alive.

I'm sorry that things are the way they are. I'm genuinely sorry to all parties who are suffering for it, the people of Iraq, the soldiers who have been wounded, the soldiers who are serving multiple tours, the people who have died on both sides of the conflict. I'm sorry that war has gone the way it has. I'm sorry that we invaded for empty lies. I'm sorry that we've started to build a wall to divide the city. I'm genuinely sorry for all of this but I can't help feeling that someone, somewhere in Iraq is better for Saddam not being in power.

That's why blogs like this are important: we are forced to view the war as not just two nebulous entities fighting in a way only visible on paper but as a person to person conflict. These are real people who are fighting for their lives. The world needs to realize that. The army isn't just GI Joes in straight lines firing their guns with no emotion or remorse at generic stereotypical Iraqi citizens dressed in traditional arab garb, toting rocket launchers. We need to stop missing the human element.



Stay safe Eric. I owe you a beer when you get home and you'd damn well better make it back to drink it with me.

Violence and activism...

Reading response for week...5?

When reading "Threatened into Silence" I was particularly shocked by the graphic nature of the violence threatened. I always forget how astoundingly violent the world of activism can be especially in the age of Web 2.0 which allows for almost complete anonymity.

I commend Kim for her absolute bravery in the face of what can honestly be called terrorism. I appreciate that the web allows for people who are scared to take a vocal stand. It provides a place for people who are still processing to continue that process in a more vocal way without direct confrontation. Sadly it also allows cowards and seriously disturbed people to entertain violent fantasies.

I know what it's like to have anonymous individuals threaten sexual assault on you. I've worked in two different customer service call centers and there was one particular experience that emotionally scarred me. It involved a customer using my own name in a sexual manner and my not being allowed to hang up on him so I had to listen to him. It felt like I was sexually assaulted, verbally. My superiors did nothing. That was the last call I took.

In so many cases this verbal or written semi-anonymous abuse is tolerated because it "isn't real." As a survivor of verbal and psychological abuse by a teacher I will vouch that words are as real as actions if repeated enough. My teacher never touched me but I still have scars from the things that were said.

I'm so angry that a tool, a resource as wonderful as the web can be used as a place of hatred and violence. I think there is so much work that can be done to improve the emotional safety of the web and the security of personal information.

Until these things are fixed I think that bloggers like Kim who persist despite the threats and hatred are to be recognized as women of great strength.

I'll happily admit that I'm a huge weenie and would have bailed long ago were I in her place.

Teh Intarwebz, they are awesome: a reading response

If I'm numbering correctly this should be week 4 in reading responses.

I will not lie; I had to google the word "foment" to find out exactly what it meant because the image in my mind had more to do with coffee than activism.

In thinking about spaces used to generate and promote activism and participation the first thing that comes to my mind is the internet. The techniques and finer points may vary but the basis of so much social organizing and debate is based on the internet.

I could bore people with the specifics but if you look back at my post Infinity and beyond from March you will see an image which is a graphic representation of the internet as of sometime in 2005. The entire world is connected instantly and with the meteoric rise of Google the information is no longer difficult to access.

Blogs like Feministing, Racialicious, Jack and Jill Politics, and others are able to use the internet to stay on top of information and keep up with their communities. They also have the ability to use seach engines like Google and Yahoo! to draw more readers to them. The way the blog system is built with reciprocal linking, blogrolls, and instant sourcing via hyperlinks is inherently designed to grow.

I don't at all doubt the ability of bloggers and vloggers like Sarah Haskins and Smart Girls at the Party to use the frameworks of Web 2.0 to their advantage.

I will say that many of these people have the Howard Dean campaign to thank for this framework as they were the first to prove that it could be done on a national level. Despite the fact that Dean did not win the primary, his campaign manager Joe Trippi's book The Revolution Will Not be Televised explains how Dean's campaign which was based heavily on web support and participation succeeded in proving that political challenges could be brought directly to the people. Suddenly political organizing and activism was no longer people in high places talking at people it was webmasters and bloggers talking to and with people.

The same is true of activism. For so long activism was something that lobbyists did: someone set the agenda and a limited group of people were sent out to do something about it. Feedback was complicated, difficult, and extremely limited. When web 2.0 concepts were introduced the model was changed so that people are now often given direct links to contact people in places of power and let their opinions be known.

Getting something done is generally a question of knowing how to properly disseminate your information. Should you use Twitter or Facebook or a more complex tagging system for your blog?

In working on the obama campaign I watch some of the most amazing things happen using Web and communication resources. Canvassing and phonebanking organized over the internet. Peopler could print their own lists without ever having to come in to our office. Sometimes organizing can be spontaneous and other times Webmasters and bloggers such as those at Feministing can encourage their audiences to get involved thus spreading a cause far quicker and further than word of mouth or other conventional methods such as chalking a campus or flyering a neighborhood could.

I think that the claims made in the articles are valid. Everyone has a voice and deserves to have that voice heard. Attention needs to be drawn to certain issues. A huge benefit of using the web for organizing is that people are not limited in the content they choose to work with. They are not sending out a topical newsletter that will require all 15 articles to be based around the same things. Each post can be hugely different, organizing efforts can be very specific and targeted. This can, in some ways, streamline the processes surrounding organizing.

Reading Response II: why I love "teh intarwebz" and Rachel Maddow

A few weeks ago I was trolling technorati for information on how PCOS influences the likelihood of self-identification as some form of transgender when I stumbled upon the S&F Online. I was excited to discover it but only book marked it as I was working on a project for my sociology class and was trying to stay focused. When I clicked on the link for our reading and saw what came up I literally laughed out loud. Never think you're the first person to discover something on the internet.

One specific article I enjoyed reading was "Blogging Was Just the Beginning: Women's Voices are Louder Online" which I found fascinating. One of the most interesting things I noticed when reading this article was how very specifically dated it was. Without knowing when this was published I can tell you it had to have been written sometime after Feburary of 2007 and sometime before August of 2008. How do I know? Feburary of 2007 is when the Edward's campaign bloggers were fired and August of 2008 is when Rachel Maddow became the first openly gay, female, primetime cable news host.

I'm a dorktastic Maddow fan and would like to believe she has had a huge impact on the media just by being out there. There's a primetime cable news host who is openly gay and plainly butch. That's slightly huge for the average babydyke watching at home. I am aware that one cable news host does not a paradigm shift make and despite being a butch lesbian Rachel has many attributes that more than qualify her for the job.

Rachel is not just a woman with a journalism degree; she is a Rhodes Scholar who recieved her Doctorate of Philosophy in political science from Oxford. She is literally Dr. Maddow. She also has a long history of working in politics, HIV/AIDS activism, and prison reform. That's an impressive if not excessive resume for someone hosting a cable news show.

One interesting thing I did notice is that Nolan never mentioned Katie Couric who took over as the anchor of CBS Evening News in 2006. I would think that the inclusion of Couric in this article would be something of a big deal. Not only is she the first solo female anchor of the weekday news but she is also the highest paid news anchor and faced tough criticism when she was awarded the position. It just seemed odd that Couric wasn't included.


Looking at women in journalism and the blending of journalism and the blogosphere was interesting for me as I'm intensely passionate about the blogosphere. I feel many bloggers like Mayhill Fowler, whom I mentioned in an earlier post, are legitimate journalists breaking big stories. I still think there's a lot of room for improvement and women like Arianna Huffington and Rachel Maddow and Katie Couric are starting to change the game bit by bit. I'm really excited to see what happens next with women in the blogosphere.

Fun Fact: Rachel Maddow beat juggernaut Larry King in the ratings and has topped Countdown with Keith Olbermann as the highest rated show on MSNBC on several occasions.

Reading Response 1: It's a long one. Get some popcorn.

Because I can't come up with a better title than that...

Reading "Blog This! An Introduction to Blogs, Blogging, and the Feminist Blogosphere" "Women in the Blogosphere" and "Blogging Busts Out" was interesting because I often only read a few lines before some random thought or response was evoked.

I'll be honest about how difficult it is for me to organize my thoughts and responses especially to "Women in the Blogosphere". It's hard for me to read the article while also thinking in terms of history. The article was written around April of 2005, almost four years ago. In web terms that's a millennium! Those four years were enough time for the Republicans to peak in power and then begin to crumble like a biscochito. Myspace followed suit and has given way to Facebook which has in turn begun fighting it out with Twitter all of this overshadowed by the rise of Campaign 2.0 and now White House/Government 2.0.

The world changed so much and I believe the blogosphere has changed in many ways as well. I understand that the majority of the top blogs aren't run or written mainly by women but every blog in the Top 5 of Technorati's Top 100 Blogs list has at least one regular contributor who is a woman. Even this is ignoring the number one spot: The Huffington Post.

I suppose my biggest argument that women have the ability to weild just as much power -if not more- than men in the blogosphere is simply Arianna Huffington. Arianna is a blogging Goddess in so many ways the first of which being that she founded The Huffington Post which may not seem like much until you look closer.

Not only is The Huffington Post a blog for Arianna, it also hosts blogs for hundreds of other people including big names like Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Barney Frank, and (before she moved to MSNBC) Rachel Maddow. During the campaign season The Huffington Post became a huge go-to resource for political news and information as it had real time front page updates the instant something new happened. Even after the election The Huffington Post has remained a big name in news, big enough that Sam Stein of The Huffington Post was called on to ask a question at President Obama's first press conference.


Another personal blogger-of-note is Ana Marie Cox, founding editor of Wonkette. When most people think of snark and satire they think of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert but in the blogosphere political snark and satire are very much the territory of Ana Marie Cox. During her time as Editor, Wonkette was THE blog for DC news and gossip. When Cox left many people continued to follow her and still follow her after she has moved from Wonkette to Swampland to Radar and is currently at Air America.

My point about Arianna and HuffPost as it's informally known is that a blog founded by a woman is one of the most powerful blogs in the world. If there is ever doubt cast on Arianna or her abilities it is almost always based on political ideology rather than any sort of chops. Similarly, Wonkette's having been headed up by a woman had little effect on its credibility.

It's not just the prominent figures either. Having worked behind the scenes on the computer end of the Obama campaign I can vouch that many of the "new media" people I encountered were women.

So much has changed about the internet and the blogosphere since 2005 that it's kind of hard to compare the web as it exists now to the web as it existed before. In 2005 cyber-activism was in its infancy. In 2008 cyber-activism helped win the presidency. Now it's 2009 and we have proven that effective organizing and support systems can be created over the web. My biggest question is what will we do with them?

Fun Fact: The person who broke the "bittergate" story was a citizen blogger (someone who is not a memeber of the traditional press corps) and woman named Mayhill Fowler. She was blogging on HuffPost and her story rocked the traditional media elite to the core, not because of what it said about Obama but because it was broken by a woman in the crowd with a tape recorder, not a press badge.