Ann Althouse on Blogging Heads

Go watch it! She has very interesting views and confirms my suspicians about her view of the whole BlogHer conference,"I am not the type of woman who would seek that type of conference out." Turns out she was set up as the "conservative" (makes me wonder if these people read her blog). So the rest of the conference was a womyn support-fest. Oh, blech. I hate those things. I feel that this demeans rather than "empowers" (the word is so abused as to be meaningless) women. As if the only place a woman enjoys true legitamacy and support is among other women. Ann says, and this has been my experience, that men and women have linked to and supported her blog.

I guess there is a part of me that just resents any special treatment or favors. My sophomore year of high school, the universal (now men's) basketball was ousted in favor of the smaller (now women's) basketball. It irritated me. Why? Because when playing pick-up games with guys, I would be at a disadvantage--not size or speed so much since I wasn't playing against NBA-ers--but the handling and shot mechanics were off. It stunk. When in Chiropractic College, I got used to the guys ball again, because I played with the guys (one other girl played too).

Another thing: I took an aptitude evalutation that measured spacial ability (along with many other traits--I'm left eye dominant, for what it's worth)--a traditionally male advantage. When compared to women, I scored in something like the 90th percentile. When compared to men, I scored in the 60-70th percentile. That is, I might shine like a star among women, but be nearer to average among men. Well, hello! I would be competing as an engineer with mostly men. It matters that I am average, or barely above average, to men. Since there were other areas that I shined, among women and men, I worked toward those areas and use my above average spacial abilities to more easily read MRIs, for example.

So, while aware of gender discrimination and irritated by it when subjected to it, I don't believe a bunch of women holding hands makes any difference at all in the scheme of equality. In fact, the strident nature of some of these group situations make me wonder if they aren't counter-productive. Men look from the outside into this (I'm guessing) and roll their eyes, if they are paying attention at all. I mean, how would I feel about a BlogHim conference? I'd roll my eyes and dismiss it. Doubt that? That was precisely my reaction to the whole Augusta men's only golf club. Do I think they are stupid? I guess, so. In this day and age, I would think that it would start to be an economic problem to exclude some women. Maybe not. Not a golfer. Don't care.

But hey, I'm not the "joiner" type. Fraternaties, sororities, chamber of commerce, any clubby, chummy organization except for specific helpful purposes beyond affiliation (Red Cross, even Kiwanis) seem silly to me. I'm not a social butterfly intent on creating a huge-friendship circle of people who look, think and believe just like me. So there you go. Maybe I'm just not the conference, group type--not just BlogHer.

The blog world is not a group situation. It is an affiliation of thinkers that transcends race, gender, age, etc. in part because of anonymity and distance. Ideas and arguments are judged in the abstract because they aren't associated with a person--although this is changing. You may have your first experiene with Ann Althouse through this blog, for example, and judge her ideas by not just the written word, but her hairstyle, make-up, gender, eye-color, skin color, tone of voice, etc. This may help you enjoy her more or dismiss her ideas. Human I guess, but the utopian in me looks forward to a time when someone is not judged by sight, but by the value of their substance.