No Boys Allowed?

I don't know what to make of Slate.com's new women-writing-on-politics blog, The XX Factor ("Slate's no-boys-allowed political blog!").

It's not as if the ladies are being herded up and ghettoized in some Slate Lite section to seethe progesterone away from the men: presumably Slate's marquee name writers -- Dalia Lithwick, Meghan O'Rourke, Emily Bazelon, etc. -- want to participate in a women-only blog. But it feels gimmicky. And I don't know that I, a Slate reader and someone who cares a lot about getting women's voices heard in politics, want them to be doing this.

Too often in our culture, when women have something that's branded towards them, its denigrated for being fluffy: the Oxygen and Lifetime networks, a few of the women's magazines, so-called "chick flicks" and "chick lit," etc. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large, the lighter, breezier, lady-fied version of something gets less respect. And it shouldn't be that way with political thought, too. (Though nobody would accuse the women of Slate of being fluffy -- well, except Gawker.)

Separating the gender implies there is, or should be, a separation of both interests and opinions. I don't like thinking that my opinions are a different take, or that my political interests, like reproductive rights, equal pay, and representations of women in the media, are separate from the main part of anything. Or the implication that what men write about and do is what's normative, and when women do the same thing, it's somehow special.

The XX Factor will probably have great content and may even contribute to raising the profile of political and cultural problems that women face. And to be fair, I read and love politics blogs written by feminists, like Salon.com's Broadsheet and Feministing.com (in fact, I've done some blogging for Feministing myself). But I still wish for the day when women-on-politics blogs don't exist anymore, when its just a given for the media -- both the mainstream media, and the skewed-to-the-left media -- to be healthily bountiful with smart women blogging about politics. And if Slate.com's regular content is already a step in the right direction, what's the point of this gimmick?

Comments

[whomung]

I think it could be interesting

but I see no way to make it work, on the internet, no one knows your a NeoCon male posting in drag

[thesimulacra]

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the type of their naughty bits but by the content of their blogs... I have a dream today.

[enocko]

I don't think this is making something that's "for women" as more different from the norm than something that's "for men." I think we have Spike TV, GQ, and plenty of other men's media which are special and different from the norm.

[jeskiley]

I don't think you should curse it before it gets its feet off the ground. A blog isn't just a voice, it's a meeting room as well. The XX factor will be what the women who participate make it. I think you are selling short the creativity of women.

[shutupnub]

i don't think a special section devoted specifically to one gender is necessary, and i do think it is a gimmick.

oh well, it's a try, i guess.

[steamboat]

And to deny one gender (men) is DISCRIMINATION.

[thesimulacra]

Oh no! Hypocrisy! *gasp*

Get over it, it's the internet, if you don't like it then go make your own blog.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Racism, sexism, ageism...whateverism...what
are some of the common issues that can be
discussed freely and openly in mixed open forum?
Those issues that are important to ALL the People, not just niche-group-boutique-americans?
Yes, women have some issues that are unique,
and men have issues that are also unique, but
the COMMON issues of the day, such as: war, budget, ethics in high office, economy, health'scare', these and others are prime fodder
for public discussion and debate...

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think that gravity, interest, and inflation
and ATM fees are pretty equal-opportunity, and
that trying to split things up between men and women is just one more subfactionalization that
we already see a lot of in the wonderful world
of politics, I don't know if it's quite pandering, but the Big Picture issues such as
the war, such as the runaway national debt,
global trends such as immigration and climate
change/pollution, energy, these are things
of sufficient import as to warrant input from
everyone. That having been said, there'll
always been men's magazines, women's magazines,
and their mirrors on the world wide wasteland.
Some things ARE gender-specific, guys probably
aren't too worried about getting their maternity leave reduced, for example, and
gals don't REALLY care that much about the
playoffs. But, as far as common political issues are concerned, money, healthscam, and
so forth, there's plenty of things that could
bear unified attention...