The New York Times ran a great piece over the weekend about female bloggers and the hurdles they face in a very male-dominated universe. Short story: online hurdles for women are basically the same as real world hurdles. Less pay, less notoriety and acceptance—less, less, less.
Though the article’s content contained serious analysis and discussion of the plight of female bloggers, it appeared in the sometimes controversial, often ridiculous, but always entertaining, Style section, a fact, not lost on Erin Kotecki Vest, a female blogger, who noted in her Huffingpost screed, “But WOMEN bloggers? Oh, they belong next to “It’s Botox for You, Dear Bridesmaids” and “The BreakUps That Got Under My Skin.”
She continues: “Apparently I can push political agendas, but I’ll always be seen as an Oprah-watching, bon-bon eating, Katie Couric-esque, shoe-shopping, GIRL.”
We sent a query to the Style section editor, Trip Gabriel, asking how they handle stories such as this one that could go in other sections. We also wondered: “Do you feel, as Vest did, that a story about glass ceilings in the blogging universe is undermined by appearing in a section that frequently covers Botox and beauty routines?”
Gabriel wrote back:
“I’m happy to respond to this one — it comes up regularly.
To answer the nuts-and-bolts questions: the story was pitched by the author, a frequent freelance contributor, to the Sunday Styles section (or Fashion & Style on the Web). There was never any question about publishing it elsewhere in the print paper or on nytimes.com. In certain cases where Style Department stories have obvious appeal to other sections of the Web site, we will cross-publish (such as a fitness piece that will also appear in the Health section), but in this case we didn’t. Kara Jesella’s article is smack-dab in the bull’s eye of stories Sunday Styles has run for years. When people ask if a “serious” piece about glass ceilings is undermined by appearing in a section that covers fashion, beauty and other “superficial” topics, I’m pretty sure they haven’t been reading The Times’s style sections deeply or for long. We do cover these topics, of course, along with all kinds of social trends and attempts to decode the zeitgeist, but we try very hard not to write about beauty or fashion in a promotional or superficial way. Consider today’s front-page story about dermatology becoming a specialty with first- and coach-class service for medical and cosmetic patients. It appeared in three places on our Web site: U.S. news, Health, and Fashion & Style. The author, Natasha Singer, a member of the Style department, has written scores of pieces about the beauty and plastic surgery businesses that posed equally tough questions—articles that appeared in the Thursday Styles section. The Styles sections wrote early, deeply and with appropriate skepticism about the blogging revolution, whether that meant being among the first to cover Wonkettte, Stephanie Klein and Jezebel, or writing about the rise of blog commenters.
So no, I don’t think the placement of a story about blogging’s glass ceiling undermined its credibility. I think that’s a problem in the eye of the beholder.”
He might have a point. Getting angry about the story being placed in the Style section instead of the Business section is almost like being sexist against yourself. By saying it’s not worthy, Vest is also inferring that the Style section, which heavily features women’s issues, is somehow less important or weighty.
One thing the article by Kara Jesella, one of the co-authors of the awesome book, How Sassy Changed My Life, doesn’t really touch upon is the fact that a lot of the topics that women blog about—motherhood, female health, kids, fashion, and cooking—aren’t taken seriously by male bloggers and editors who might link to them at more powerful, larger sites. It’s the age-old sexist delineation of what constitutes “real” or “serious” content, as if gadget-watching is somehow more important or deep than mommy-blogging.
We asked her for comment about being featured in the Style section versus another, more “serious,” section.
I don’t know any of the editors in the Business or Technology sections of the paper (though I was pleased to see the story is cross-posted with Technology on the New York Times website). I’d been wanting to write about BlogHer for at least a year or two and pitched this story to Styles because I frequently work with them and had a feeling my editor there would be interested. He’s always been really receptive to my story ideas about gender. Last year, for example, he ran a pieces I wrote about Mom’s Rising and the motherhood movement in America. “Style” at the Times is conceived of pretty broadly—it’s not just fashion, but about people and their behavior, trends, what everyone is talking about.
Oh, incidentally, the title of the piece? “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling.”
Tags: female bloggers, glass ceiling, new york times style section
Great piece, great actual research! Appreciate it very much. I don’t get the Times but of course picked up Sunday’s. I think “Styles” is perhaps an unfortunate moniker. I agree with the editor that it seems to cover trends. I tend to reject the use of the word “zeigeist” (blame a pretentious ex who over-used both that and “gestalt”) but I would agree that’s what they’re going for there.
Thanks again.
We started thenextwomen.com, female business magazine, we would love to include your post in the business section!!
write us at tricia.romano @ popandpolitics.com; would you like to cross post or link?
“Getting angry about the story being placed in the Style section instead of the Business section is almost like being sexist against yourself. By saying it’s not worthy, Vest is also inferring that the Style section, which heavily features women’s issues, is somehow less important or weighty.”
This is only valid if you assume that the topics in the style section aren’t fluff and condescending in the first place. Seriously? Trip wants to assert that a style story called “It’s Botox for You, Dear Bridesmaids” isn’t superficial at all? Sorry, no sale. That’s the context in which the Blogher piece was placed.
Yes, the Style section isn’t as important NOT because of the issues – some of which are, though I question their editorial choices – but because of the ridiculous way in which those issues are presented. To ignore the disparity in tone between the tech and style section is to be purposefully obtuse.
Bottom line: the NYT’s ad revenue is falling for a reason, their circulation is plummeting. This didn’t happen overnight. It’s a culmination of Blogher story after Blogher story which has picked away at the publications credibility over time.
For the record: I think this story was well-written, well-researched and gave a strong sense of the breadth of the conference, which ranged from hard-core politics to parenting to not-parenting to the art of getting published as a writer online. I appreciate Kara Jesella taking the time to actually experience the conference and work to capture its nuances.
Interesting foot-note: Trip Gabriel published a piece of mine in the Style section in 2005 that was actually about MEN, specifically how men say they feel when women ask them to hold their purses.
He can protest all he wants that the Style section is something better and deeper than Botox articles. But if people are looking for business and tech news they aren’t going to go read the Style section ‘just in case that day the editor decided to run a deeper piece’, no matter how good a job the Times has done to broaden the kinds of articles that go into that section.
And that’s the thing that is being ignored. The Times, by putting the article in Style, targeted a reader. Fine, maybe it’s true that the readers who would find an article on BlogHer most valuable are those who read the Style section: but the readers who would benefit the most from, or be changed the most, by reading a piece on BlogHer are those who are reading the business and tech sections of the paper.
It isn’t just that that Times pigeon-holed BlogHer; it’s that they ignored an excellent oppportunity to change the world in the way that BlogHer itself is attempting to change it.
That comment there is why Backpacking Dad is universally adored by the BlogHer community. Well said.
Backpacking Dad, I think I just fell in love with you.
I just loved the irony of it–writer did do a great job and obviously took the time to understand what the conference was all about, only to place it in the most ironic part of the paper considering the subject matter. Didn’t make me upset–I love irony–sometimes it’s the best way to make a point.
Playing devil’s advocate here, but is anyone willing to entertain the idea that the NY Times Style section is actually a few steps above Cosmo and Elle? Much of the judgment is being passed based on the connotations of the word “Style” as a section header.
I don’t disagree for a second that the story should have been in the Technology section, but if Style was renamed “Society & Gender” – or something more in line with Mr. Gabriel’s view of his section – would there have been nearly the same uproar over the placement of the story?
Chris, I think I addressed that in my comment.
Bottom line: they put it where the editors felt that it would be best received. And the writer of the article can bitch all she wants about 70s feminist issues but she’s the one who focuses on eyeshadow and uses Katie Couric as a verb.
@Dana:
So you’re saying it’s all in the packaging, regardless of how many serious issues they actually cover? I’m intrigued because I’m not a female, not a New Yorker or an avid reader of the Style section, but I am a blogger and my knee-jerk was definitely pretty skewed toward the “this is bullshit” end of the spectrum.
Maybe this is another facet of the problem, but it sounds like the writer already had a relationship with Mr. Gabriel. As a writer, you’ll get your pieces published where you can, so if it was the choice between Style section or zero visibility in the NY Times at all for the piece, it would be tough for the writer to suddenly find morals there.
I get your point, though. Someone went wrong at the Times. Just tough to pin the blame on any one person, imo.
I got to talk w/ Kara and can attest that she did a LOT of research for the piece. But whether or not she pitched it for the Style section, it’s still up to the editors where it goes. Was coverage of Netroots Nation in the Style section? While it is great that the BlogHer conference was covered, many of us blog about politics, as they bloggers who attended Netroots Nation did and would love to see our political commentary taken as seriously as that of others.
[...] A somewhat shallow NYT article is what gave him his opening. (Response from teh NYT to criticism here.) Diagnosis: Small Penis disease. Prognosis: equally shrunken brain, with ever-enlarging asshole. [...]
As a recovering mainstream journalist, I empathize somewhat with the writer. I fully realize that the editorial overlords are responsible for the majority of heinous atrocities that appear daily in major media. But yeah – something went terribly wrong at the NYT. There is a disconnect between new and old media and it’s never more apparent than with incidents like this.
As a freelancer, I know you pitch where you think you will get traction. The writer did attend the conference and listen. I don’t love her choice of title. But then again, it’s possible she didn’t choose it.
I don’t like the placement of this article. I feel it makes an assumption about female bloggers, and many of us take on culture, current events, politics, race and gender along with shoes, lipstick and diapers. However, placement at all in a major newspaper is a win, and an opening for an article on the front page if things follow their current trajectory. This writing is changing how we relate to one another. This writing matters.
online hurdles for women are basically the same as real world hurdles. Less pay, less notoriety and acceptance—less, less, less.
That is garbage. There is an incredibly low barrier to entry to blogging. All you need is a computer and an internet connection. There are a hundred different free blogging platforms.
None of that involves gender. Great content that engages and attracts readers is not contingent upon gender. When people find a blog they start by reading the posts. They rarely begin by trying to determine the sex of the author.
[...] Pop and Politics talks to the New York Times about the issue. [...]
Yes and no, Jack.
People start by reading the posts but all too often certain niches are completely discounted, regardless of the quality of writing, simply because of subject. If you’re a woman, you write and have kids, then you’re pejoratively tagged as a “mommyblogger.” If you’re a single woman sans kids you’re tagged as a SATC knockoff. The stereotypes and feeble attempts at classifying women’s writing are so numerous and ridiculous I can’t keep track of them all anymore.
[...] of the event were furious that an article in the New York times on the conference was in the Style section. This was felt to be demeaning to the women who attended the [...]
Patricia, thanks so much for sending me a note about this post. I’m sorry I missed it earlier. I just posted a followup item to Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits highlighting your reporting, and adding some observations of what news orgs could learn from this.
http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=147887
- Amy Gahran
thanks amy that’s awesome!
The example of the dermatology article given by the NY Times response is still about beauty and cosmetic surgery. And he mentions that it was crossposted to Health and News. The article on BlogHer was not crossposted to Business nor News, was it?
On the other hand, most of the women bloggers I read do blog about the subjects of personal life, fashion, weight-loss, etc. If we’re talking about the professional business world, neither men nor women generally consider personal life topics in the same arena as things such as medicine and politics.
As a feminist, I came to the conclusion that part of the problem is that feminists are asking for women to be judged as highly as the men with the same criteria as the men’s world but they want to do women things. No, if women want to write about personal life, we need our own scale that is for valuating personal life topics.
Now if most women bloggers sites were more like SimplyRecipes at elise.com, a blog on cooking and not personal chat, that would fit in the standards of the business world. If women prefer the personal life topics over that, then what is wrong with being in a different category?
If you read the Business section, yes, most of the articles are about big corporations and global economics. I dunno but asking to be in the business section might even make it seem like women don’t have a clue what business is about. I have not seen an article on individual male blogging in the Business section.
This isn’t about worthy or unworthy implication (imply is what I might include in my words, infer is what you might take from my words). This is about niching topics correctly. The BlogHer conference wasn’t about fashion, design or style. I get that the writer is a frequent Style freelancer and she pitched it to those editors. However, the conference was about business, technology and writing. At the least, it ought to have been cross-posted to business or technology.
Sexism is so universally internationalized that it prompted you to write, “Getting angry about the story being placed in the Style section instead of the Business section is almost like being sexist against yourself.”
Oy!
Ponder that for a second…you’re saying (implying, and I am inferring) that women belong on style and fashion, regardless, because it’s the women’s section.
At least five levels of wrong occur to me in the first three seconds of thought.
I also have to echo Backpacking Dad 100%.
Anonymous (above) sort of makes the point that Lara David did: it’s not so much abotu WQUALITY as it is about EQUITY.
But more than that, it’s about niching properly.
A conference about cosmetics can go on Fashion. A conference about interior design can go on Style. A conference about the psychological implications of properly arranged and designed interior space for people recovering from PTSD can go in about three places, including Style.
But BlogHer, a conference that contained panels about the business of blogging, the technology we use, politics, and writing…belongs on Technology.
It ran on Fashion & Style because the writer is used to that niche–and so, unfortunately, an otherwise well-written piece launched with a negative caricature and stereotype of something that was really a drop in the bucket at the conference (massages, makeup and made over bathrooms)—and it was about women, which, sadly, to too many minds, meant it went in the section formerly known as the Ladies’ Section: Fashion and Style.