James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Friday, December 09, 2005

Biblioblogging: individual and structural issues

HEre's a kind of cover all post for some recent issues and apologies if I've ignored people but I have limited time here. On the biblioblogging question the issue of bloggers not personally excluding people has come up a couple of times. I have no doubt that individuals are entirely well meaning but there is a degree of exclusion and inclusion going on rather than simply 'just saying what I think'. Now let's be quite clear here this includes me too and it is inevitable, a criticism put to me and one I have no problem accepting. And this isn't necessarily bad or good in itself but it does show a degree of identity formation as Paul Nikkel keeps stressing. Now this does not mean that the label 'biblioblogger' ought to be abandoned but again it does begin the process of identity and who's in or out. More significant is the lack of female bloggers which is another structural problem (to use a term for convenience). Once again, I stress it is not that we have a bunch of sexist bigotbloggers - every blogger I have met and thoise I haven't but whose comments I've read would never exclude people knowingly. But for some reason, to emphasise the point again, there is a lack of female bibliobloggers. There are plenty of female bloggers outside biblioblogging so why has it affected biblioblogging? If it is not an individual issue (and it is not) then there has to be some kind of structural problem. A relative lack of women in biblical studies only partially answers the question because even that discipline isn't as male dominated as biblioblogging. So,if it isn't an individual problem, what is it?


Blogger Jim said...

You're alive! ;-)
take some photos of the exhibit!

December 09, 2005

Anonymous steph said...

have fun in the snow, don't catch smog or a cold

and bring back lots of souvenirs

(just kidding)

December 09, 2005

Blogger Michael F. Bird said...

James, to build on the SBL discussion, I just don't get the math of how giving biblical studies bloggers the name "bibliobloggers" entails a conscious effort to exclude women. I get the vibe that no matter what we would have called it (mojo-bloggers-R-us), there would be someone who's gonna come up with alot of pomo-psycho babble and demand that this is a conspiracy to exclude women or minorities because all attempts at "naming" are really about trying to set rigid boundaries and marginalize others, blah, blah, blah! I'm all for female bibliobloggers and I'm consciously adding as many female bloggers to my sidebar as possible to balance the scales. But can we have an open discussion about gender in blogging that does not involve the imputation of guilt or accusations of sexism. At the end of the day I want to see more female bibliobloggers around, but it's nobodies fault if there is not that many out there, unless one can "prove", not conjecture, but prove facts that point to the contrary.

December 09, 2005

Blogger James Crossley said...

Jim, I resent that remark: I'm not remotely alive! And you may never forgive me for this but I forgot my camera.

Michael, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Presumably not me? I think (if my temporarily poor mind can recall) I said it had nothing to do with individuals being sexist at all or that the title 'biblioblogging' itself has anything to do with excluding women. I just make the point that there clearly is an issue of very few female bibliobloggers and there has to be SOME reason for that. In fact the open discussion of gender is exactly what I was doing and I accused no one of sexism. I see it as a structural problem but that obviously needs more explaining. But you may not have been firing at me and whoever it is then they are more than welcome to defend themselves (I've been too busy recently to properly check blogs at all so I may have missed something here.

December 13, 2005


Post a Comment

<< Home