crazybrave

This post is prompted by two things. The first is a tweet by journalism lecturer and social media researcher Julie Posetti (@julie_posetti) asking where the women bloggers about Australian politics were hiding (hint:on the internet). Of course this brought back memories of the most spectacular recent version of this long lasting phenomenon, featuring Crikey’s Possum Commitatus, who blogs here.

The second thing is my great joy at the recent feministisation of my tweetstream. Because a lot of my tweetstream is food-related, I went off the whole “follow friday” thing because of its nauseating circularity. I’m over that because #feminstfriday has introduced me to some fantastic new writers, and some great conversations with writers whose blogs I already loved.

Here they are; please be aware quite a few of these accounts are locked, and you need to send a request to be able to see that person’s tweets. There are lots of good reasons why people might do that. Someone is more likely to let you see their tweets if you are known to them (online or otherwise) if you have a webpage linked from your twitter profile and if they can see you have nice manners – but then again they might not. Some people (like me) use TrueTwit to avoid spammers, which means you get a verification email before that person sees that you follow them.

@alegrya
@amandahawley
@angestyles
@antipodeankate
@ashinynewcoin
@badhostess
@BeeFaerie
@BiscuitCIB
@bitchphd
@boganetteNZ
@bluemilk
@castironbalcony
@catherinedeveny
@cathstyles
@ChallyZATB
@clarebowditch
@clembastow
@crazybrave
@cristyclark
@daiskmeliadorn
@definatalie
@dogpossum
@drkknits
@drnaomi
@elegsufficiency
@femswfsd
@FPoliteness
@fanny_fair
@fatnutritionist
@FEMINISTHULK
@fluffyasacat
@frala_fontaine
@frogpondsrock
@fugitive_sound
@gabfran
@georgh
@GrumpyYetAmusin
@heathred
@hellonhairylegs
@herbalgill
@hottest100women
@hoydenabouttown
@IAmDrTiller
@iasshole
@janecaro
@jessmcguire
@jezebel
@juliefairey
@julie_posetti
@kateharding
@katejclifford
@keepingmumsane
@kellyblainey
@kirsty_l
@kissability
@kittykittymraow
@kj401
@krasnostein
@LeslieCannold
@lissyblog
@lucytartan
@lscave
@margaretatwood
@mariekehardy
@Mary_Shelley
@miafreedman
@mischa76
@msmapes
@muliercula
@mymilkspilt
@naomieve
@nerdfish
@newswithnipples
@nomesmessenger
@offbeatceremony
@overingtonc
@pandragon
@PharaohKatt
@ProfPStrumpet
@quietriot_girl
@qot_nz
@raisingboychick
@saidtrash
@sarah_haskins
@shakirahussein
@SleeplessNights
@sophiec
@steampunked
@stinginthetail
@summersanne
@sunlightandsnow
@swingdag
@tagalongtess
@tammois
@theamazingkim
@thehandmirror
@themegangirl
@theotund
@tigtog
@tudorgrrrl
@ungoddess
@vaguelyspecific
@virginia
@virginia_hauss
@vodkandlime
@whatladder
@wildlyp

This list is by no means exhaustive. Leave a comment about yourself or someone else who should be on the list, and I’ll update it.

Updated: and as hoped, the additions are coming in! Yay! If you’re on the list and you’d rather not to be, comment or email and I’ll remove you.

Remember that plea from Crikey a while ago, wondering where all the ladies were? This is an answer written by my friend K8y, who I’ve just had a week’s holiday with. She’s been writing blog drafts but is yet to hit the “publish” button. I think this is splendid, and far too good to languish into a drafts folder:

Thanks for asking, everything’s fine at this end with the subscription.

My only comment on editorial matters is about your recent sally into… equal opportunity journalism: “Are the girls alright… are they getting enough stuff on childcare, frocks, etc?”

I didn’t say anything at the time and am still a bit wary of this universalising theory of ‘women’s interests’. If I believed that anyone could comment for all women, I guess I’d be reading Women’s Day, not Crikey. But since you asked, I am going to offer a comment: my idea of interesting articles involves seeing everyday, mainstream issues of politics, society, culture and economics challenged by perspectives other than those of the traditionally privileged or powerful (i.e. old white guy syndrome). Your subjects don’t really need to change much (except lose everything on what female public figures wear: really not funny). To impress more women readers, at least ones like me, you could seek out more divergent viewpoints.

To give you an example, economic analysis offered in Crikey might swing from Friedman to Keynes to the frankly loopy, but that’s not the division I think is significant. Read Marilyn Waring (or ask her to write for you): if your economics doesn’t recognise the significance of women’s unpaid work to Australia’s productive capacity, it is fundamentally and bizarrely skewed, and not a very useful analytical tool. You could use Waring’s economics to look at the value of child care (measured and not) to the GDP and society as a whole – a matter of current interest but addressed in a more interesting way than just talking about Eddy Groves and his pants.

While you’re at it, why not challenge some of the assumptions left lying around by floundering theories of economics or rotting capitalist structures that still reify the ‘smartest guys in the room’ (or shouty young Hugo Boss types on the trading floor) – but fail to respect size-16 women dressed by Rockmans, with part-time jobs, an elderly dependent parent, three kids with packed lunches, a clean toilet and husbands with ironed shirts. What the hell does contemporary journalism say to these women about their lives, other than “despite your best efforts, you’re not doing it right”?

Why don’t you question the effects of pressure from green, slow-food, grow your own mizuna, shopping-at-markets-n-baking-it-from-scratch, read the ingredients label on everything and look-15-years-younger-than-you-really-are articles for women who were already going quietly nuts on 5 hours of broken sleep a night? Why can’t I trust that the food I buy in supermarkets or the water out of my taps is actually safe for my kids? Why do I have to do home study in body chemistry and physiology to figure it out for myself? Why isn’t my government protecting me from rapacious greed? Why don’t I have any choices between the grocery oligopoly and spending $23 on 100ml of olive oil in a tent every fourth Saturday? These aren’t just women’s issues, dammit, so why isn’t journalism supplying answers, or at least asking better questions? Journalism just runs with the dogs: Look out for pedophiles! Look out for preservatives! Have more sex with your husband! Spend time on yourself! Discipline your child! Use sun block! Don’t eat cheese! Satin blouse! Julie Bishop! Babies in microwaves! Buy this! Lose that!

Ahem. Crikey could stop indulging the endless infighting that belongs on homemade blogs. If I’m paying for it (and I am), then I am looking for critical and professional journalism that pushes past the media release to ask tough questions and provide independent and well-researched background about how decisions by governments and other institutions are made and how they really affect our lives. Stop focusing so much on how government decisions affect other politicians or people in club lounges — which Crikey is a bit prone to. Don’t waste space and use up my day on people who just like arguing and who don’t care whether it’s about Israel or climate change. I can have a poorly-argued debate with a partisan nut for free on the weekends, thanks.

I was really impressed with your items on the scandalous termination issue in Queensland. And I like Eva Cox. BUT if she’s the only one doing this kind of writing (or being published), then all Crikey is really doing is creating a context that makes Eva and her subjects appear more “fringe” than they really are. And that’s the crux of it: despite your subscription numbers, women aren’t actually a minority and our many and various interests aren’t something to be considered as a monolithic issue now and then, in your spare time. Don’t worry so much about the ‘woman’s perspective’ – instead, just go out and get a lot more women’s opinions a lot more often. How about interviewing a female expert in every single one of your articles – just for a month – to see if it makes a difference?

(I wonder how pissed off the rest of your readership would get?)

Again, thanks for asking.

K8y

In general I’m very glad that Janet Albrechtson is out there busily fighting the straw feminist orthodoxy of 1974 and letting the rest of us get on with our lives. It’s only every now and then I’m tempted by the teaser on the cover of The Australian, and find myself reading her column.

Today’s column is about how women have female brains. Actually, it looks as if the research she’s discussing might be considerably more sophisticated than that, but you can’t really tell by reading Janet. [However you can get a hint of what poorly constructed crap it might be, and an indication of how generous a soul I really am by reading this at Language Lab - thanks to Kate for the heads up.]

My favourite part of Janet’s story (well, my favourite bit from as much of it as I could bring myself to read) is the answer to the question of why teenage girls never shut up:

Talking activates what [author Louann] Brizendine describes as the “fluffy, purring kitty … feel-good brain chemicals” – oxytocin and dopamine – “which together deliver the biggest, fastest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm”. Maybe that explains why women like to talk during sex, perhaps looking for a double dose of delight.

Eww. Too much information, Janet.

Mr Albrechtson, my thoughts are with you.