Now that I've gotten your attention

Shelley Powers has clarified her initial reaction to my observation on the differences between male and female bloggers. She is now convinced that I was being a "dork." She's right, and my Chick Blogs post proved it. So if I knew I was running the risk of offending some people why would I do it? Because I'm writing this blog to learn how the Web has changed in the four years I dropped out of the computer industry to go back to school. One of the most important changes has been the emergence of the blogosphere. I am learning how the blogosphere works by immersing myself in it.

That still doesn't explain the condescending "You go girl," or the even more risky "Chick Blogs." What I have learned so far in blogging is that asking direct questions gets absolutely zero response. I tried that at first and nothing happened. Now I'm learning the shape of the blogosphere by prodding it around the edges. When I saw the difference (yes, I do think there is a difference and I'll get back to it later) between the reactions of male and female bloggers to the use of RSS by Top10Sources, I thought this was an interesting boundary to explore. What was really interesting is that I got links back within hours according to Technorati. So I commented on that with the chick blogs post that finally pushed Shelley into slapping me back down. It is worth mentioning that I corrected myself in that post when I realized that I should have used the term "person" instead of "guy" in an earlier post. I thanked Anne Zelenka for the correction too.

The use of the term "chick" was a calculated risk. Before I posted it I did some research, and I found plenty of female bloggers using the term. I was also making an allusion to "chick lit," which is one of my favorite genres. I knew I ran the risk of getting deeper into a hole (here I go again, I've learned that can be a dangerous word also because of the possible metaphorical uses), but I wanted to see what would happen. I still got positive links back, except for Shelley. But her post was clear enough to set me straight, so "chick" is out.

Now, what about my original premise that there actually are differences between male and female blogging styles? Since I've now got Shelley's attention, I'll use her latest update as an example. I find it revealing that she said I was "being a dork," not "was a dork." The distinction must be deliberate, since she seems to care a great deal about precision in language. I think a male blogger would not have made that subtle distinction between my specific actions and my permanent character. Shelley is giving me a chance to learn my lesson. She also manages to emphasive my gender by using "Mr. Green" four times in referring to me. That has a great clenched teeth tone, while still maintaining a facade of politeness. Well written, Shelly, and I'm not trying to be condescending, I mean it. Finally, she says that "diverse discussions" are more valuable. That sure seems like an acknowledgement that there are differences between male and female bloggers. Exactly what are those differences if it isn't about being "nurturing?" Well, I guess that is what I have to learn. I hope other women help me with this effort. As my kids would say in a Seinfeldian reference, "We're growing, and learning, and we may even hug."