New York Times Meet The BlogHer
I have read many bloggers this weekend expressing anger and frustration over a certain article the New York Times decided to stick in Fashion & Style. The only rational seems to be that women = fashion, no matter what. That a large conference of female bloggers covering everything from gender to technology to marketing boils down to the sexy heels many were showing off. Because taking the time to dress nice automatically makes whatever a woman has to say pointless, right?
Erin Kotecki Vest wrote a great piece on the New York Times sexist move.
Apparently I can push political agendas, but I'll always be seen as an Oprah-watching, bon-bon eating, Katie Couric-esq, shoe-shopping, GIRL.
PhysioProf gets a little more flustered talking about the article placement issues with this story. Typically stories involving blogging are placed in technology since, you know, they involve computers and such. However there is a trend of tucking away any article involving the women folk straight to Fashion& Style, no matter where they belong.
First of all, does it surpries you one fucking bit that this article–about the business activites of women bloggers–is in the Fashion/Style section of the Times? Cause you know, anything women do is all about fashion and style, it’s not real manly-man shit like business and sports and technology
Aggravating? Yes. Infuriating? Yes? Unexpected? No, not at all. At lystics you can find a run down of several other articles which were placed in the Style section based on what seems to be nothing more than the gender of the people being written about.
Writers on “the women’s beat” (usually women themselves) place their work in the Style section of the New York Times. BlogHer attracts writers on “the women’s beat.” A good NYT Politics story could have come out of BlogHer. A good NYT Technology story could have come out of BlogHer. A good NYT Business story could have come out of BlogHer.
(Image source - rubyshoes)
Mike Pouraryan
Political Swat