« Howard Rheingold at SDForum   |   Main   |   CSS con/destruction today »

Bloghercon - report from inside the petticoat

Bloghercon needs communication, spin control and expectations-setting.

Here are the current facts: Lisa Stone, Elisa Camahort (wrong link intially) and I are co-organizing this event. We’re thinking July in the Bay Area. We have work to do, primarily in selecting the specific focus of the conference and then in communicating it. We are sharing leadership of the conference, which has already left some confused. We’re not planning on bringing in a CEO-type to run the thing for us, but we do have a hell of a board - women I respect for their contributions to blogging and journalism, some of whom are voices out there stirring controversy. They’re not announced or official yet, so I’ll not mention them by name here, but want to thank them for their encouragement, forebearance and efforts at bringing us into the loop of their offline discussions. If there’s a case for doing this otherwise, then make it to us.

To gain clarity on this, we’ve spent the week in thought and discussion internally, in addition to the personal discussions I’ve had (yes with men). We’re close on having a focus. We recognize that there are (too) many directions we can take, as we’ve found an astounding array of constituencies and voices seeking representation. Our thing, whatever forms it takes, however big or small, will never be the final, definitive word gender in blogging, nor do we seek it to be. Our challenge - remarkably - is not creating enthusisasm and finding interest, but rather finding the highest possible common denominator around which to coalesce. Both the volume of discussion and the diversity of voices make it clear there are issues to be explored here, as much as some might like to believe blogging is wholly incorporeal. This discussion has been both propelled in valuable directions and seized upon as proof of immaturity and unreasonableness (presumably ours, but it’s brought out the unflattering in others as well).

A look at our blogs tells you we’ve been busy this week doing what we do, in addition to pushing this conference along. And that’s why the larger world knows nothing; what of real detail have we shared? It’s all speculation, statements pro and con by others, as to what this conference will be. But that’s ok - we’re listening, even if it’s sometimes with irritation.

Of course, the sensational bits flow fastest. I certainly did argue for a women-only conference, and for what I still feel are very good reasons, given the particular focus at that time. (I then recanted, saying boys were ok if we moderated to prevent both whining and defensiveness). I daresay much of Elisa and Lisa’s original idea (as first outed by Sylvia Paull) came from their frustration with female representation and the way their particular voices were heard. That was never my view personally, but I can see how for those struggling to make it with their blog, gaining traction would be a frustrating experience, which is true for every fledgling blogger.

However, to question that this could be different because of sex is being challenged as treasonous and divisive - even by people I respect. Folks are outraged because we’re fundamentally challenging deep-seated beliefs (anyone who has deep-seated beliefs about such a new media is, in my view, a fool) on the equality and meritocracy of the blogosphere. It has merit-based mechanisms, but we are approaching a plane of development when audiences are settled and some of these structures begin to rigidify. That is precisely why we are interested in the apparent lack of prominent chick bloggers.

And as a consumer of blogs, I can see some reasons why chick blogs might not make it in the loop. They are cluster around different characteristics. Longer, and more rambling. More of the personal. Less linking outward. Less commenting. Fear of putting one’s self forward to open debate and criticism. Disinterest in competition. Less timely and scoop-driven. More of a “what do all these patterns mean in the aggregate?” Fewer soundbites, more stories. Lack of involvement (there sure as hell aren’t many other chicks at the tech events I go to), due to perhaps lack of interest, or lack of time given other committments.

What generalizations would you make? Don’t be put off - generalizations are the first, necessary step in building theories to understand the world. We just need to remember to reality-check them, swap them around and remix them. We see the world through our own experiences and act toward our own ends. Personally, I blog for “me” more than “you”, but at least I don’t run ads or peddle influence. I don’t approach blogging as a galactic performance review or to curry favor with an elite. As a strategist, I identify market failures/opportunities, question them and then work out how to do better. Take it or leave it.

I remain very skeptical about the lack of female bloggers — documented sensationally in news articles and endlessly debated — as being the result of evil men. The sad truth is I find most women bloggers uninteresting as a source of insight into technology and market development (feel free to pummel me with links). Women were almost entirely absent from my world until I started collecting them in a quest for understanding. And it’s empirically true that others think so too; few women appear in that statistically-sound popularity indicator we so longed for in high school, Technorati’s Top 100.

I see a market failure. The question I ask is: why? Is it a failure of demand? A failure of supply? What is equilibrium and what market structure will facilitate this cheerful interchange of ideas?

It’s not a wail, a whine or a whimper. They’re just questions. People say it shouldn’t matter, that blogging is ethereal and supremely democratic. I say sure, but we’ve got this interesting phenomenon here. Why? Where did it originate from? Is it ok? Would we want to change things if we could? Can we? Should we? Is there something important missing from a new media that seems to miss out on the voices of women, even though we all know they’re out there?

Curiousity about this phenomenon, wanting to begin discussion on this, is what brought me in and what keeps me here.

bloghercon