Enough already!!

Look whose back. Sorry to do this to you all again. On reflection my last (and first ever) post was such a novel that I'm sure you'll be avoiding this one like the plague. However my unit outline says I must write about my presentation - and the school girl in me does not like breaking rules!

Melissa Greggs, I don't really think I like you.

Maybe that is a little bit harsh for a woman I have never met, but her thoughts on the "continuing unequal division of labour within the home" and its affect on women's abilities "to keep track of debates among bloggers," in my opinion is offensive not only to the modern woman, but to males as well. I understand that Greggs is fighting for a woman's right to blog, but honestly, the assumption that the lack of female presence amongst the blogging sphere is due to their involvement in dishes and dippers seems like a very old fashioned view to hold for an article written in 2006.

To conclude that woman are left to fend for the house, while males are free to roam the net and blog to their hearts content undermines the role males play in providing for their family. This article fails to address that many males are involved in running the household and caring for the children. I understand that Greggs is simply trying to find the answer for why woman are not as active in the practice of blogging, but I do not think we can generalise that the household is the reason for it. Perhaps I am misguided with my reading of this point. Feel free to let me know your own thoughts on the issue. Or maybe even some original answers on why you believe women are not as involved as men on the internet.

In terms of Wednesday's tute, I think it is important that we discuss the question of whether blogging is liberating or regressive in terms of identity. Are we simply creating an artificial world to escape the problems of reality? And if so, is this healthy?

Another thing I would love to discuss with you all is a video conference I found on the blog http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30056 . I was doing some extra reading on the sites mentioned in the article and suddenly found these two woman talking at me. The topic of conversation in the first 3 minutes is almost perfect for us to compare with Greggs' work.

The women are discussing Michelle Obama and her trip to Spain. The entire 3 minutes are spent discussing whether or not her trip was justifiable during a recession. The conversation seems to be hot gossip, and treats politics in a celebrity manner. Is this really the only way woman can be involved in politics? To criticise the people rather than discuss the politics?

The use of the telephones is also something I think should be addressed. As an inexperienced blogger I have no idea if this the norm to be using video conferencing in the first place, but the use of it between two people seems quite unusual. However, what really struck me as strange was the use of phones which I would assume to be completely unnecessary. In today's technological society you would assume computers are equipped with microphones and speakers that make the use of the telephone obsolete. So if this is the case, what is the relevance of the phone?

If we look at what Greggs says about woman and machine, we can use her arguments to guide our understanding of this blog. Even if these women were discussing relevant issues in politics, they are immediately linked to the practice of talking on the phone - something that is stereotypical of woman gossiping for hours on end. As Gregg says, "when a technology is used mostly by women (the telephone or the washing machine, for instance) its value within society tends to lessen." Does anyone feel that the conversation we are witnessing is tainted by the use of these machines? Does it force these women back into the Domestic realm? and is the value of a machine something we really think about in today's society? The concept seems slightly foreign to me. Looking forward to hearing what you all think about it.