When the New York Times placed its piece on the 1,000+ attendees at this year’s BlogHer conference in San Francisco, in the Style section, it got some attention. Amber Naslund, who writes the The Brand Box, thought that the Times’ “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling” article was misplaced. So did many others, as evidenced by the comments that followed Amber’s original post, New York Times Creates a Fashion Faux Pas about BlogHer, which included the letter to the editor sent to Times.
In most cases, a letter to the editor would either get published or not by a paper. Those that do are often edited for length, or content that would be hateful or demeaning to others or uses profanity. Amber’s letter, however received a different kind of response — a call from the Times. “Oh cool!” You’re thinking. “That’s big.” It would be if it weren’t for the fact that the call consisted of asking Amber to, in no other terms, revise and resubmit the letter to the editor. For those reading this who are freelance writers, you probably have received the old “revise and resubmit” from an editor or two. I’ve even handed them out myself, but only in the case when a writer is pitching a piece that has legs, but needs … something … more. Amber wasn’t pitching an article for consideration. She was sounding off as a reader in the traditional way that readers have been allowed to give their input on stories in printed media.
For an editor at the Times (or anywhere else for that matter) to request a revision to a letter to the editor (not an Op Ed, mind you), is overstepping. This is a cautionary tale for current and aspiring writers, because, there are many people, who, upon being contacted by a representative of the Ivory Tower, would have been so excited that they perhaps might have altered the letter to the editor to appease the great machine.
Sadly, the Times’ placement of the story and focusing on fashion, restrooms and lactation areas is yet another example of mainstream media not being willing to fully embrace the stronghold that women bloggers have. I’ve discussed this before here, in my condemnation of the Today Show’s commentary about mom bloggers. There too, placent was an issue, because the segment on the power of mom bloggers was during the “softer” segment with Hoda Kotbe and Kathy Lee Gifford. I am not alone in my thinking, as noted women bloggers Connie Reece, B.L. Ochman and others have asserted that this kind of mindset is an unfortunate (and misguided) trend that serves to undermine any real work that these women bloggers may be doing, whether it’s the creation of a strong and powerful network (as BlogHer has) or having something to say more relevant than about cute kiddie moments, poopy diapers and ersasatz husbands. (Not that blogging about those things can’t be therapeutic or don’t have power in their ability to offer a sense of “thank God I’m not alone” for others.)
What does this have to do with being a WAHM? First, let’s face it, many of us WAHMs are bloggers (whether professionally or for our own personal journaling satisfaction). Many of the women at Blogher ‘08 are WAHMs. Many of us (WAHMs) are also writers, and most of us, have at some point considered penning a letter to the editor. So the editor’s response to Amber’s letter is one that any of us could have received, and been duped by the power of the establishment to bend to their whim. Second, Mack Collier also makes an interesting point that while the Times may have reached out to Amber, they missed the point and showed how they (and other mainstream media outlets) are out of touch with bloggers. I offer that they are also out of touch with their female audience. Blogging women are still being considered stylish, fashionable, soft — almost a novelty, and one that like fashion, mainstream media seems to believe is a fleeting phenomenon. (Newsflash…it’s not.) Perhaps the Times figured that more women readers would see the article by placing it in the Style section. But if that’s the case, what does that say about how the Times views its female readership? Are we not reading the Technology or Business sections and only reading page six and the Style and Arts sections? This kind of thinking is inherently disrespectful of our intelligence and abilities as women to play equally in the tech/communications game or have interests beyond the mommy-war-du-jour and the latest handbags, shoes and what’s hot for fall.
I wonder what the women at Blogher and noted feminist publications such as Bitch Magazine, WOW-Women on Writing and Ms. magazine would think, espeically since both the editor and the author of the piece are also women.
Sorry, New York Times, you have a misconnection. Please check the number and redial.
What are your thoughts?

Erika-Marie S. Geiss
Editor-in-Chief
theWAHMmagazine

Sphere: Related Content