Ask Emily Dickinson
On The Conglomerate, there was a brief, desultory discussion of why fewer women than men blog. Having said previously that having a blog is rather like herding a child, I’d be inclined to agree with whomever said, “why would women (who have had children) want to blog, anyway. It’d be a case of been-there-ain’t-going-back.
But no one brought up my similarity between blog and child. They talked about socialization, about men being more inclined to think whatever issues from their own mouth is inherently more interesting, etc.
One commenter did say something a bit off the beaten horse:
…I think we have to agree on what "success" is for a blog. For a commercial enterprise to be successful, it has to bring in more money than it costs to keep the doors open. But most blogs are not a commercial enterprise. So, you seem to be saying that you would not consider your blog a success if no one linked to you and no one read to you, but I'm not sure that your definition forecloses others. Nothing would force someone to close a blog just because no one read it. Although to you, running such a blog would be pointless, I'm not sure others agree. Many college students, high school students, etc. have blogs that about 3 people read, for example.Yeah. Who cares if people read it? The process of writing is the point. Just ask Emily Dickinson.
Maybe having two blogs — one to develop and one to neglect — makes this a non-issue for me. So what if more men blog than women? Who on God’s green earth cares??? Aside from some ghettoized feminist who seeks parity in everything — one of those people responsible for the awful effects of Title IX on men’s intramural college sports — who gives a fig leaf?
It's not fair. Yawn....