22 October 2003
Babes in blogland
For about a week, James Joyner has been responding to a perceived demand by offering a supply of links to pictures of Women Who Blog.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. On the other hand, I do tend to worry about things like, well, whether the quality of the news as I perceive it is at all dependent upon the appearance of the person delivering it. In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps it would not matter, but I've never been within screaming distance of the best of all possible worlds, and I have what I consider to be too short an attention span anyway.
And I do strive for some semblance of sanity: there are only so many supermodels, after all, and their position at the top of the desirability pyramid is mostly undeserved, and does anyone really care what Laetitia Casta has to say about the North Korean nuclear situation? And I've certainly never dropped a blog off my roll for reasons of appearance, unless it was the appearance of the blog itself. But I'm no less susceptible to human frailty than the next guy, and I have to ask myself occasionally, "Would I pay less attention to [fill in name of blog] if [fill in name of blogger] weren't so damn cute?"
Ultimately, perhaps, this boils down to the old joke slogan: "Don't be a sexist. Chicks hate that." If I'm going to be hated, I'd rather it was for my dubious politics or my lack of common sense, not for my tendency to stare.
Posted at 9:22 PM to Blogorrhea
The irony here is, as one of those "babes," I've gotten a lot of traffic to my "About Me" page (where the picture is housed) and not a lot of folks who've wandered over to read what I've written today.
Still, new traffic is good in case even one returns.
I was quite embarrassed when my husband submitted my photo, although I know he did it because he loves me (even though I hate that $%#*@ picture). However, I did notice that these women are just normal looking persons -- not supermodels and not "dogs" -- just women who love to write and have confidence in themselves. I wouldn't mind someone posting the same sort of thing for men. "Looks" aren't important, it's just being able to place a face to an already familiar name, to someone you may already consider a friend ...
"Don't be a sexist. Chicks hate that."
Never call broads chicks. Anyway, Chucky, if you hadn't heard, I got drafted by the wampster to help you move into the new ChazCave.
(side note: I know that area, used to deliver pizzas there, never worried about getting shot there. Not too bad, but the closest supermarket has inflated prices, best closest is Buy for Le$$ NW on the expressway, probably, not a far drive)
If I had the resources, I would be so tempted to set up an experiment with two websites and then post pictures of the "author" (one "ugly" and one "beautiful") to see if the hits go down or up.
Now that's downright ingenious. Would they have the same (or very similar) content?
Ideally there would be the same content but there would be the problem of people googling and finding out the existence of the other website. Maybe each website should be set in some sort of fixed intra-network of two similar populations, say, two similar universities.