Hi -

I read the "Eliminate the XX factor" thread, then I read the thread proposing an "XY factor" and I think both are off.

First, the concept of an all-female blog is fundamentally discriminatory. To argue this point is to argue against the dictionary.

But in a sense, that doesn't matter. The important point here is that the XX Factor usually sucks. The articles are never particularly insightful; it usually is self-absorbed vapid fluff; and now it's apparently become a dumping ground where young 20-something art-history majors can get by-lines to aid their burgeoning journalistic ambitions. Well, so long as they have vaginas, anyway.

However, the discussions in the Fray are great! Even if the blog sucks, we have proof aplenty that many people are highly interested and personally invested in the subject matter. Therefore, the XX factor serves a worthwhile purpose by inciting interesting, informative, passionate discussions on issues related to gender and society.

Could we have this benefit without having to suffer through the writers' pointless musings and ramblings? Without having every gender issue filtered through a "woman's perspective" first?

Yes. Even without a one-sided bias there to stir up the hornet's nest, people will always want to chime in on issues they find interesting or feel passionate about.

So how about a co-ed blog on gender and society? It would even create a forum for the trans-gendered viewpoint, which is also currently excluded. The females would still get to espouse their opinions. They'd just have some XYs around to keep their biases in check (remember the Ed Whelan fiasco?). It might also force them to write with more substance and less speculative musing.

And frankly I'd like to hear an informed, Slate-sanctioned male viewpoint on a lot of this stuff. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Malarkey

If people want to debate something, they shouldn't qualify their argument with their group identity. Any post that starts with the phrase, "As an <ethnicity><gender>,­ I think...." is bound to be stupid. As a white male, I'm personally offended by this sort of thing.

Then you must also be offended by the premise of the XX Factor blog. If the author's identity cannot inform the reader's interpretation of his or her opinion, then the whole XX Factor concept was doomed from the start because presumably every author is writing "as a _____ woman."

In a topic specific to identities like gender, everyone's assumed to be biased. I think it's important that people (at least bloggers for a major publication like Slate) identify themselves and just get it out in the open air. Plus, the only way to get around disclosing the author's gender would be to have all the bloggers post anonymously, because readers will always look to the byline to see if the author is male or female.

Gender and Society? It is a good topic for a regular column, as perpetually valid as the Human Nature one. And the writing would not suffer from clubby insularity, as it does now. Definitely a good substitute for the XX Factor. And then Slate wouldn't have to delete it, but by becoming more inclusive gains relevance at the same time.

When I read your title I thought you were going to propose a blog for people who have Klinefelter's syndrome.

Ha, actually I thought XXY referred to hermaphrodites and it was supposed to be a bit of a joke. But I see I was a little off...

So tired of angry boys. So. Tired.

My point was that prefacing an argument with your identity as a qualifier is simply bad arguing. I don't feel like looking up the proper term, but it's the appeal to "because I'm special" logical fallacy. Usually applied to discredit whites in a debate on racism "you don't understand the pain of racism", to discredit males in a debate over sexism "you don't understand the challenges women face", or to discredit atheists in a debate over religion "you don't have faith".

Bortimus I agree with you 100%. That said, in a forum that discusses gender and society, I really do think males should be included just for the sake of balancing out viewpoints. Respectful bloggers would presumably avoid the fallacy you mentioned.

What's funny about that fallacy is that lorikay4 has just used it. Apparently since I'm a male I can't say anything valid on this topic. She doesn't even feel the need to engage my point. She just labels me an angry male and move on. Whatever.

For the record, I'm not particularly angry. Just stating my opinion. I think I have that right.

Marlarkey said:

The articles are never particularly insightful; it usually is self-absorbed vapid fluff; and now it's apparently become a dumping ground where young 20-something art-history majors can get by-lines to aid their burgeoning journalistic ambitions. Well, so long as they have vaginas, anyway.

This *honestly* doesn't angry or condescending to you?

What if you read something like the following in a post:

The deals by these young companies are never particularly stable; it usually is just something that looks big on paper; and the companies have apparently become a dumping ground where young 20-something Harvard MBA's can get a reputation to aid their burgeoning business ambitions. Well, so long as they have dicks, anyway.

How well-disposed would you feel toward the author of that post, and how worthwhile would you feel it would be to engage in a discussion with them?

Sincerely

Carolle

PS: and you told someone else to fuck off (on the XY Column Petition thread) after he wrote what (at least to me) was a fairly polite post...makes me wonder about that anger thing, personally...

I agree with you 100%. However, I notice that you invented a situation with an inverse sexism. That technique seems common among feminists exposing sexism, and something about it doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure why. Maybe I'd rather see you expose his anger and condescension absolutely, without relating it to gender. Maybe that's not possible given the subject. My thoughts on this are a bit half-baked, so I'd like to have some perspective on them. Thoughts?

frame,

I wasnt trying so much to relate it to gender as to just switching the situation to something that he might react to personally if someone said it to him, since he seems to be pissed off about gender stuff that knocks guys.

If he was attacking, say lesbian romance writers, saying that all their stuff was hack writing, and they were lonely ugly women who wished somebody would sleep with them, and i knew he was, say, a radio personality, I might have said something like that all radio personalities do all day is spout useless, boring drivel and run worn-out bits, and are all narcissists who just like to hear the sound of their own voice.

That is all I was trying to do, not necessarily keep in in context of sexism. Mostly I was trying to say that if you start off being mean and condescending to a particular group of ppl, they are not so likely to listen to you or engage you in a polite conversation.

Hope this help!

Carolle :)

I'm not interested in a gripe session for men. Ask the women. Men have no problems, so what would we have to discuss?

Besides, the misogynist sites are really boring and have lots of poor spelling and grammar, to boot.

What I would like to see is a real feminist site, written and edited by men. Women still have many problems, but the professional feminists really don't want them solved. They'd be out of work!

Slawrence5:

What I would like to see is a real feminist site, written and edited by men. Women still have many problems, but the professional feminists really don't want them solved. They'd be out of work!

Ahh! You mean like this: <link> ("Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement")

*with apologies to real male feminists.

but the NAME needs work. How about 'Gender Mosh Pit'? Livelier and likely more apt, ha ha!

Seriously, I like your concept. But 'Gender and Society' ? - yeeks, everyone will be afraid to go there for fear there will be an exam!