Some time around the start of the new year, this blog will be remade as semi-pseudonymous. I had been planning on doing this for some time now, even before the discussion in the previous two entries.

There are just some cans of worms that need opening.

The first time I lose I drink whiskey.
The second time I lose I drink gin.
The third time I lose I’ll drink anything
‘Cause I think I’m gonna win
—Gram Parsons, “Ooh, Las Vegas”

Then again, maybe those cans have whupass in them. I can’t tell from the outside.

And there’s only one way to find out

In the comments section of Profgrrrrl’s entry on gender and blogging, Rana writes

I don’t blog on personal things that involve the personal lives of other people. One of my hard-and-fast rules is that none of my friends should have to learn something about our relationship from the blog — either we talk about it first, or I don’t blog it.

My thoughts, exactly. I’ve always thought of one of my rules as I don’t blog other people’s lives. This means that many of my most important interactions, past and present, do not get blogged, although I do talk about them with friends and family.

It’s tempting for many to apply essentialist stereotypes about gender to blogging, but I don’t think the stereotypes hold up. For example, if I’m talking through “intimate” issues (Profgrrrrl’s second definition of the term) in venues other than the blog, it would seem to follow that I’m less likely to talk about them through my blog: why would I need to? But the essentialist stereotype says that, as a man, I shouldn’t want to talk about them at all. Conversely, a woman writing about “intimate” issues on her pseudonymous blog could be doing so because she is not comfortable doing so with her friends and family. An observer might look at these blogs and say, “Aha, those stereotypes are true,” when the behaviors from the whole of a person’s life point to the exact oppposite conclusion.

Frankly, I don’t know why I’m reacting so strongly to the assertion that there are fundamental differences in the way men and women blog, and that men are less likely to be “intimate” in their blogs. I remain unpersuaded that such a difference exists:

1. Something other than our impressionistic sense of the blogs we like to read is needed.
2. How “intimate” can a blog written under a pseudonym really be?
3. How can we be certain that pseudonymous blogs written by people who claim to be women are written by people who are, in fact, women?

A new blog. Go read it.

Now.

Having recently read this entry by David, this entry by Geoffrey, this one by Chuck, and this by Jason, I was surprised to read this:

Does anybody else find it sort of odd that academic blogs (or at least the ones I am most interested in…. the pseudonymous variety) seem to be heavily dominated by female voices whereas more “serious” blogs that don’t really address personal stuff (political, or the academic blogs like Crooked Timber or non-pseudonymous ones) seem to be more male dominated?

Why do pseudonymous academic blogs seem to be mostly by women? The way to get at the answer is to ask academic bloggers why they blog pseudonymously or under their real name. I’ve addressed this question a little in the past.

Why do women tend to write about more personal stuff than men do? The evidence doesn’t bear out the premise of the question. Do I not write about personal stuff here? (Hint: what do you think you’ll get if you follow the link to the category of posts labelled “Story of My Life”?) Do the male writers I link to above (among others) not write about personal stuff, too? Wtf?