The author, looking at the world through nose-colored glasses, gets her femininity shaved
From Deanna Zandt at Alternet comes the radical notion that we all just knock it off already with the cozy "women bloggers" cognomen. Because we’re all just fucking bloggers.
Linking to a post regrettably titled "Broads on Blogs" at SadieMag (featuring interviews with, well, women bloggers) Deanna alludes to a spot—nay, a festering wound—that has always been pretty sore with me, which is the notion that "male" is always the default condition, whereas "female" is a modifier indicating a sort of divergent, auxiliary, less important variant of normal.
Of course this applies not just to bloggers, but to all of human enterprise. For instance, why have a separate category for Best Female Vocalist? Or why offer a woman cancer patient "psychological counseling" to help her cope with the debilitating loss of the sum total of her worth as a human—her boobs and her hair?
Because men are normal humans, and women are the sexbots.
It’s a glittering paragon in the patriarchy’s crown jewels, this vast, insurmountable, culturally-enforced "difference" between men and women. Once you group people according to bullshit superficial irrelevancies, and then manufacture a bunch of bullshit ways in which these irrelevancies appear to make the group differ from the dominant culture, you pretty much end up with carte blanche to make up bogus rules like "dudes shouldn’t link to chick blogs" or "abortion is a fringe issue" or "lapdancing is empowering."
It is this assumption—that blogging (political blogging, apparently, in particular) is a natural consequence of having a dick—that fans the icy purgatorial fires of the so-called authoritative male voice.
God, am I ever sick of that fucking authoritative male voice.
Even so, I vigorously disagree with the idea, quoted in the SadieMag piece, that "women view politics through the same prism that they view life–one that is colored by emotion." This idea is patently whack. What does it even mean? That everyone with a pussy has the same affected, sensitive worldview, refreshingly unfettered by logical analysis? That they are liable to write about menstruation not that there’s anything wrong with that? That male writers don’t draw on ardor or mania or vehemence when they deliver their gold-plated "facts" in their super-objective blogs? Why do so many women themselves seem to think that their pussy trumps their convictions and makes them "women bloggers"?
I’ll tell you something. If I view life through a prism—although to be accurate, if I view life through anything it’s a pair of nose-glasses—that prism isn’t colored with "emotion." It’s colored with shit. That hypothetical prism is focusing with pinpoint accuracy the relentlessly harsh white light of day onto every little shit-covered woman-hating, racist, fucktarded act of tyranny that crosses my path, and believe me, there are a million of’em every fucking day, and I’m writing’em all down in my little book, you fuckers.
Anyone can speak the truth. Anyone can do it in a blog. Anyone who does it is a blogger.
It helps to be a radical lesbian feminist spinster aunt living in Austin, though.