"People will vote with their mice-- btrader"

Well, I agree with you there. I no longer read NYTimes due to their sexism during the last primary.

Disagree with bloggers not making a difference, though. The less polarized the world becomes the better. The more voices out there to be heard, the more diverse the opinions will be and our comprehension of the issues will be that much better rounded. Individuals bring their experience and emotions to a topic, networks are just a company looking for the widest path to money. Most people don't get paid for blogging, they do it to have a voice. Once someone gets paid for it, their integrity is out the window :) but until then, you couldn't have a more pure voice of the people.

"wake society up to EVERYONE'S love and need for femininity.

-- lisecj"

Yeah!!!

What if the NYTimes had been even more biased in its coverage? What if the times had "marginalized" Netroots instead? Would this really change the situation on the ground?

What I ultimately believe keeps people coming back to a blog is not the number of sites linking to it, but rather the quality of its content. I've read stellar coverage of blogs in papers or online, only to visit the site and never return. Other sites, that i've stumbled upon accidentally, have become bookmarks.

People will vote with their mice, the NYTimes doesn't decide which bloggers are being taken seriously. How seriously do you think society takes blogging in general? Sure, there are the standouts, but for the most part? My guess is that opinions run the gamut the same way they do with respect to the mainstream media, but that on average people still take the mainstream media more seriously. To the extent that any blogger feels marginalized, I'd start by looking at the content of his site, not blaming society.

I liked seeing this piece in Broadsheet, hopefully it will lead to some interesting thoughts, discussions and introspection. Perhaps Broadsheet will take a new and exciting direction? I'd be lying if I didn't add that the unintended humor was great...like clockwork you have not only the "you're a broadsheet femininazi" chorus, but also feminists calling out broadsheet as a pink ghetto in the letters.

I've long called for more intellectual consistency on these pages. As another poster pointed out, it may be time to revision broadhseet's "mission." If it is to further discussion, why cut off the letters threads? Why have the broadsheet contributors weigh in so infrequently in the discussions? If it's too call attention to major women's issues, why are so many posts fluff, predicated on sensational headlines, or written by a contributor who's not versed in the subject matter? Are we trying to strengthen feminism? Then why do so many pieces dwell on the problems, using language that only alienates outsiders, while so rarely offering solutions or even a first step?

If the goals are page clicks (which is cool, we all got to feed the monkey), to cultivate a confused and tribal readership that loves to talk past each other, and provide us with the sporadic gems that got us here in the first place? Then by all means, carry on.

My name links to one of my favorite "blog" posts of all times and illustrates that it's possible for "bloggers" to take a few steps back, now and again, and see the big picture.

I'm still stunned that there are people who think that the definition of "patriarchy" is "misogyny". Though it certainly explains a lot about why there are so many miscommunications and misunderstandings regarding feminist theory.

Please note: "patriarchy" does *not* equal "misogyny". It does not equal "men". All citizens of a patriarchal society regardless of gender would be well advised to examine the ways in which they are complicit in perpetuating patriarchy if they care about equal treatment for all, and this includes any other system of thought or structures of power which perpetuate or advocate inequality, including feminism. Sheesh. Seems so simple and obvious to me.

P.S. @Asehpe: you keep misinterpreting my posts. Apparently you mistook frustrated bewilderment/despairing puzzlement and a genuine desire to understand where the haters are coming from as anger. I'm not even saying they are haters of women - but there are people who post here who behave in a hateful manner and I was genuinely perturbed by that and genuinely wanting to understand where the hell they are coming from. And I don't see why emotion has no place here so long as it is expressed in an appropriate, i.e. non-hateful or abusive, manner. It's all part of being our little crazy human selves and I would argue that our emotions are absolutely germane to discussions of feminist issues, so long as that emotion does not drown out reasoned civil debate but rather informs it and helps to elevate the discourse. But in general I find your posts to be thoughtful and even-handed.

Or, I can continue it using The Jim's post. He believes, for real, that most women don't read the first page of the newspaper, instead going to the Style section the way the kids go to the comics. I take exception to that, although I don't think The Jim is a woman hater. But whether he's aware of it or not, to believe women aren't interested in important matters of state and of the headlines of the day, places them in a category on par with small children. He implies something that is truly ridiculous about women, that is, that they aren't interested in world events but only in shoes and parties and such. I think that attitude needs to be firmly relegated to the era where it belongs, the 1950s and left out of this one.

That is not what I said, that is your own interpretation. What I actually did say is that of those that read the front page and the world section most are males as is overall readership of the papers. I have actually seen the internal demographic data of 3 of the big 4 newspaper chains and dozens of independent papers to back up this up also. Men make up about 65 percent of daily readership. Men make up about 70 percent of the front page and world readerships along with about 95 percent of sports readership and only about 20 percent of the lifestyle section. The number levels off to about 60 percent men for the Sunday editions. The average age of male and female readers are about 14 years apart with women being older. Also note that most men don't buy papers either.

So sorry that when I see numbers like this and similar numbers for the readership of the different political weeklies I don't buy that women as a whole care all that much about the issues. Just like I don't think most men give all of that much of a damn. But, of the people that give a damn, the data strongly suggests that it is men that are the primary consumers of Hard and world news. That does not mean no women cares and it does not mean that all men care. Sorry if it does not fit your preconceived political notions.