Feminist Media Making

And the other...

2008-05-01T23:44:10Z

This is a picture of my cousin (in-law) Jackie and her little girl, Brailyn. The picture of my aunties, coupled with this picture of Jackie and Brailyn (along with the movie Love, Actually) were the inspiration for the opening paragraph of my project.

]]> This picture, like the one of Sandy and Jude, shows me just how strong our family bond is. For a long time, I felt like I wasn't a part of my own family. A lot of that had to do with my own particularly sour attitude at most family functions, but as I grow up, I realize how important my family really is to me. That, more than anything, I suppose, is the reason behind this project. A part from being our final, this project is one way of kind of coming to terms with my previous views on family. I always loved them, but I never really felt like I was a part of them. Jackie married into our family (to my cousin Derek) and even when they were dating, I felt like SHE was liked more than I was. I clearly had issues. But as we grow up, as I get older and the age difference between my cousins and I becomes inconsequential (I am the baby of the family), I realize that it was never about age (though it helps that I can legally get into bars now); it was all about attitude. With no siblings, my cousins are the closest I will ever get to having brothers and sisters. It's never to late to improve bonds with family, and I am trying to do the best I can.

The Start of it...

2008-05-01T23:32:54Z

This is my auntie Sandy and auntie Judy, caught in a random moment. It is also, consequently the basis of the beginning of my final project.

]]> This picture is what started the beginning of my project. As I was looking through all of the stills that my mom and auntie Mary sent me, I found this one and just stopped. We talk a lot about how pictures are reframings of what is going on in any given situation, that they can be manipulated so as to convey something completely different from what is actually going on. This picture is the complete opposite of this theory. I know the love that my family feels toward one another. Granted we are just like any other family and have our fights and disagreements, this picture is what family, what MY family really is-Love. Perhaps it is just me, and perhaps it is because I know them and the context of the picture, but I can see the love in the picture. I can see what makes my family so wonderful. I begin my final project by saying "Love is in the small things" and this picture is the start of it all. It is this small action that I truly can see the love in my family.

Final Project

2008-05-01T23:18:26Z

I'm fairly disappointed that the Amazon piece fell through. I think that the project had potential to do some greater good than to "just be a homework assignment." That said, I really like my family back up plan.

]]> The more I think about feminist issues, the more the concept of the family seems to appear. Each wave of feminism that I have (kind of) studied, has taken up some issue with the family, either the right to not have one, the right to work outside of one, the right to an alternative family or (more recently) the right to "go back" (so to speak) to the family.

I've never really considered my mother as a feminist, but as I get older and go through the same sorts of things she tells me she's gone through, I have come to realize just how feminist she really is. My mother is an incredibly strong woman. The one thing she has always told me (mostly to console me after particularly mean break-ups) is that before she met my dad, she was ready to do it all herself. She was saving money to buy her own house. She paid her own rent. She fixed her own cars, shoveled her own drive way, bought her own groceries and new enough that she would never, NEVER let any man tell her what to do. The more I think about this project and how I want to tell the story of my relationship to my family, I realize how quietly feminist my mother is, and how she instilled that same quite feminism in me. It is something I suppose I should tell her more often how much I appreciate it but it is also something that I don't know will ever be said directly.

Technology vs. the Tangible

2008-05-01T23:08:01Z

The more I think about how technology affects my world (the world at large as well), the more I become personally divided on the subject.

]]> In some ways, I feel as though physical forms of art (the tangible originals) are comparable to live music shows or plays. I say this because these forms of art have become privileged. A performance at the theatre or area/music club/street corner/etc are one of a kind in experience. They can be recorded and digitized and replayed, but the physical conditions under which the original exists are not to be duplicated. Access is limited and therefore the "social wealth" of the performance rises. Is it right, who knows? Digitizing the originals would amount to television in that both are pervasive in our culture. Access (though still slightly limited) opens up to a wider range of people, allowing a more diverse population to experience whatever the piece may be. I don't believe that experiencing art in this "lesser form" (so to speak) is a bad thing. Providing access to art (so called "high culture") is an extremely powerful, useful tool. I just feel that the digital versions of things aren't viewed to hold the same "social wealth" that live performances do. It is elitist? Yes. Do I agree with the privileging of certain forms of art, not necessarily. I believe providing access is definitely technology's greatest strength. I just prefer the tangible.

In class discussion

2008-04-08T13:58:22Z

This blog is to be based upon a quote from our reading that we found provokative. In class, I (as well as one of the other girls) thought that the Foucault quote on page 169 was particularly noteworthy.

]]> The quote talks about how sexuality (particularly homosexuality or queer sexuality) should be used as part of one's identity. While I agree that intrinsically, sexuality is used as a definition to part of who we are, I don't believe it should be used as one of the primary ways to define a person. In general, I don't believe in the need to justify or explain who one is to one's peers. I believe that we are who we are, comprised of many complicated and interwoven characteristics, developed through life experiences. To say "I am this" or "I am that" is fine, but I don't believe that these singular characteristics can be used to adequately explain who we are.
In class I brought up how one of my professors (a homosexual man) talked about the antiquated metaphor of the closet. I believe I was misunderstood when I approached this subect. First, I have studied Foucault in various manners (in various classes) and I am well aquainted with his conceptions of power, power dynamics and his involved history of sexuality. I am also well aquainted with the metaphor of the closet, its function and its historical background/application. The point I was trying to (not so eloquently) make was that it struck me as interesting that the author used that paricular quote from Foucault in relation to queer bodies to "define who they are." The metaphor of the closet enters because queer bodies (as per my instructor, with whom I generally agree) are seen as "known" secrets. When a queer body comes out of the closet it is both too soon (as there is no "appropriate" time to do so) and too late ("we already knew you were, before you even did"-so the assumption often goes). The closet (and divergent sexuality) becomes THE defining facet of said person's life. If one does not come out of the closet, he or she is denying the "reality" that "everyone already knows" but if she or she does come out of the closet, the sigular act is used as a definition (he or she is now labled). The closet functions as a double bind situation. I would like to note, however, that this is just a theory I learned in a class (Gay Men and Homophobia in America) and not to be taken as an end all, be all abslute. It was just one idea that the quote inspired me to think about.

In Class Film

2008-03-31T18:34:21Z

The film we viewed in class made an interesting impression on me, a larger one than I had though it would.

]]> In class we discussed how the film worked or did not work as an effective way to approach a documentary form from a feminist perspective. While I found some of the stories particularly compelling (the women in Afganistan showing the world their truthes was particularly effective for me. I knew about the atrocious conditions under which Afgan women lived, though to see it visually conveyed is a particularly stronger method for which to demonstrate these crimes), the film became overly long (six or seven different themes/subheadings were FAR too many) and as one of my fellow classmates said, the documentary boardered on cliche. I understand that women are still extremely marginalized and that we are often ignored, silenced and stereotyped, but the methods through which the film maker approached common women's struggles (marginalization, work place harrassment, work place intimidation, preconcieved notions, etc) trivialized the struggles that these women d.p. faced. It is not that these struggles are any less real or any less pertinent to women universally, it is rather that the length and the (aesthetic) mode through which the message(s) are conveyed looses it's affectiveness (at least for me). These stories are stories that need to be told; the global scale of the female d.p. problem that the documentary demonstrates is shocking and compelling. The filmmaker picked a fascinating topic; I just feel that the way the documentary was composed (aesthetically) removed some of the power of the message(s). And through our discussion, it appears that others felt the same way. Perhaps if the filmmaker would have focused more specifically on a few women throughout the world (a more in depth look at the Afgan women would have particularly peaked my interest) would have been a more effective way to develop the story(ies).

The Day the World Stopped

2008-03-25T00:51:01Z

Nothing makes a person quite so acutely aware of the cultural pervasiveness of hetero-normativity than a break up does

]]> Initially, I’m pretty sure the world stopped turning, the sun fell out of the sky and time ceased to exist for a few days but soon enough I stopped hurting (as much) and began the long (not so long, I’ve come to discover) path to recovery. After the tears dried, I noticed that our culture places an extreme importance on heterosexual relationships. In almost all of the television shows (sit-coms, dramas, even news shows) on air currently place high priority on heterosexual relationships. Those not in relationships are encouraged to find one; those in relationships are meant to do everything possible to stay in said relationships. These relationships, however, must be heterosexual. I know of one show on television currently producing new episodes (The L Word) that involves homosexual relationships. The message sent to women of all ages is that you must be in a couple; you must find that one person and do everything possible to maintain that love. As a feminist media maker, I would like to see one show, just one, that extols the positive virtues of being single. There is the show Sex and the City but those women are “masculine�? characters, they “act like men, think like men, etc.�? I find it discouraging that there is no offered alternative to our relationship-focused culture. There is not a show, movie, book, etc in which a woman is content being self-sufficient, independent and single. She always needs that man, that heterosexual relationship. Due to my break-up, I am sure I am hypersensitive to this particular cultural phenomenon but as a woman who was (is and will be) content to be with just herself, I believe that is a message that media ESPECIALLY feminist media, needs to send to the next generation of women. It is alright to be single. One must be comfortable with oneself. One of the strongest messages feminist media can send is that one must live forever with oneself. If a woman is constantly searching for a man to spend her life with, she will loose herself. Paul was good company but the world did not really end; my tears dried up and I realized that I am strong and I will be fine.

Where Have All the Women Gone?

2008-03-04T01:56:54Z

Last weekend (Saturday night), my boyfriend and I went to No Country For Old Men, this year's Best Picture Oscar winner and one of the better movies I've seen lately. There were two very interesting absences about this picture that I found extremely interesting.

]]>
The first and perhaps most notable absence in No Country For Old Men is auditory. Throughout the entire movie there is no soundtrack to speak of. The only point where any sort of music is heard is when one of the main character, Llewelyn Moss, is awoken by a Mariachi band in Mexico. This instance is, however, the only instance of music in the entire two hours and two minutes of the movie. Considering that this movie is a horror/suspense and this particular genre draws heavily upon the emotion that music evokes to produce suspense in viewers, to have a movie such as No Country For Old Men that has no discernible soundtrack elicits attention. As a retroactive critical viewer, the lack of soundtrack actually works in favor of the movie. The silence of the film was perhaps MORE creepy than if music would have been present. In this class, we constantly talk about what stories we are trying to tell, the methods through which we express ourselves and what aesthetics we use to enhance our messages. What the Coen Brothers did with a lack of music throughout the film changed the way their message was received. The "creep factor" they were trying to achieve was amplified through the aesthetic methods they implemented.

The other notable absence is actually one that links last year's Best Picture Oscar winner with this year's winner (No Country For Old Men). Neither movie prominently features a female (let alone multiple females) as major characters. In both movies, there are a total of two (one per film) women with minor supporting roles. The court psychiatrist in The Departed (2007's Best Picture winner) and Carla Jean Moss (Llewelyn's wife) participate only peripherally in both films. Both are fetishized and places into "female" roles. (Kaja Silverman defines a "female" role as one that is only aesthetic. A female role is one were the actor/actress is passive, is only looked at (does not look) or objectified, and does not further the narrative.) Both women in the films fulfill these requirements (though one may argue that the psychiatrist does further the narrative slightly) and both pictures went on to win Best Picture Oscars. I find it interesting that even now, in 2008, women are still placed in passive roles in films that are touted as "amazing." This perhaps indicates that Western society still has a long way to go in terms of moving toward gender equality. I will say, however, that both of these movies really were well done. The acting in both was phenomenal and the actual aesthetics of each movie were thoughtful and effective. I just find it a little disheartening that women did not (perhaps could not) more fully participate in both films.

Rock of Love

2008-02-25T23:49:11Z

So as I'm watching Rock of Love with Brett Michael's, I'm struck by how rediculous the whole reality t.v./dating show craze has gotten (particularly on V.h 1).

]]> It all started with the Real World. It was a novel concept and some how, type-casts were created; shows were replicated. And now, the Real World has given birth to Rock of Love, I Love New York, and Flavor of Love. As a form of media and of popular culture, I find myself asking, "What is the message that our culture is sending to the masses?"
It's interesting because there are certain themes that cut across all types of these shows. There are the women that are there to create drama. There are the "emotional" ones (usually pictured at point in time or another gazing out over a large body of water) and those that are there for fifteen minutes (though in our hyper-mobile culture its closer to 15 seconds) of fame. These shows are trashy; the paint women in a very negative (hyper-sexualized) light. It is for this reason (the objectification and stereotyping of women) that I can't stand these shows but at the same time, I am oddly drawn to them.
I think it is the idea that there are people out there with more dysfunctional lives then I've got. There is a sense of comfort in knowing that in the world, there are people that are more crazy, that have more issues and are considerably less stable than I am. It is part of human nature, I feel, to look for things external to one's experience to validate the person one is. Whether it is trash television, discussion with friends, or whatever, there is solace in watching the train-wrecks that are these peoples' lives-the same goes for trashy talk shows (Maury, Jenny Jones, Rikki Lake, Sally Jesse, etc).
The other question that seems to grow out of this “trash television�? culture is whether the culture influences us or whether we influence the culture. Is television trashy because we, ourselves display similar character traits thus what we see on television is a mirror of our culture (this argument is particularly strengthened with use of teen comedies such as American Pie as supporting evidence) or rather is television trashy in and of itself and we just emulate/translate it into our lives? The question becomes the chicken or the egg argument. It is perhaps extremely difficult if not impossible to decide which effects which. Regardless if I am a product of these shows or they are a product of my deep seeded, inner attraction to all that is trashy television, these shows provide a much needed escape to a ridiculous life

2008-02-19T20:28:34Z

This is a picture of the type of dog my family loves. He is a Flat Coated Retriever and a cutie.

That Crazy Britney

2008-02-18T23:57:02Z

Our in-class discussion on the differences between white and black sexualities and Britney Spears really set me to thinking. One of my favorite Essayists, Chuck Klosterman, has a collection (Chuck Klosterman IV) that opens with an essay about his encounter with a pre-K-Fed, head shaving, psychotic break Britney Spears) Klosterman, in his usually snarky manner, says one thing about Spears that has always stuck with me, “She is everything to everyone.�?

]]> Spears, in her early career, never spoke about getting down with then boyfriend Justin Timberlake. She never denied it, either. Klosterman says she was the chaste role model for tweens (again, pre-I’m a Slave 4 U, Baby mama drama) because she appeared that way; she was a naught Catholic schoolgirl nymphomaniac for pubescent (perhaps even all) boys/men because she appeared that way. She was the girl-next-door, the one that boys brought home to mother and the one that would sneak him into her house after mom and dad were asleep to fool around with. By developing a sort of non-persona, she was able to be all things to all people; the hypersexualized white female and the chaste, pure virgin: the epitome of the Madonna-whore complex without the name (Madge).
This teeter-totter of persona then leads to the inevitable question: which is right? Is white female sexuality truly hypersexualized—as Linda Williams suggests—needing men (the white male) to protect her from herself or is the chaste virgin in need of protection form the big, bad world a more appropriate picture?
In the final chapter of Reframings, Solomon-Godeau posits that women are more than just one undifferentiated group. They deal with divisions of class, culture and sexuality as definitions as well. What then, of the group that is unable to decide amongst itself if they are Madonnas or whores? The issues of self-representations becomes even more complicated in that either one seems to be a falsification. Britney can’t be a virgin, she dresses to sexy; she can’t be a whore, she doesn’t have/discuss her sex life. No matter which persona she (or any woman, for that matter) chooses to self-represent is wrong. She is one; she is the other. She is both but she is neither.

Reframings Responce/Reflection

2008-02-18T23:27:48Z

In the introduction to Reframings, Diane Neumaier states that she is attempting to put together a feminist work, a book of art (photography) that deals with the female experience. All fo the chapters in the piece depict issues that women must constantly deal with, sex and anxiety, meditations on baring, identity creation, etc. Overarching themes that connect these chapters include creating a sense of personal identity, the exercising of agency and the realization of self through art.

]]> One topic that is constantly discussed in class and in discussions of art in general, especially in photography, is its constructed nature. The pictures in the book fo the native artist (Marilyn Monroe with a fan, her in a pink dress and also in slacks) highlight this point. There is also the series in which the “object�? of the photos turns herself into a subject by directing/controlling the sets/costumes/etc. of her reproductions suggesting a creation of identity (or perceived identity). This becomes an explicitly feminist/female issue because femininity is seen as constructed in and of itself. There is a degree of artifice or construction to “appear�? feminine. Women don make-up to create “looks,�? to match “moods,�? to reflect how they feel or see themselves to the world. This particular aspect of creation of identity is demonstrated in the “Elle Girl�? photo (partially obscured face) and the “Buns of Steel�? shot because both focus on the constructed (socially conditioned) ideas of femininity. Both the Elle magazine and Buns of Steel are traditional signs of “female.�? It is because of this that creation of identity is one major theme of Reframings.
The next theme that permeates Reframings is the exercising (or not) of agency by female subjects. Because women are traditionally the object of photos (that is, they are looked at and fetishized) not subjects, the issue of agency arises. That is to say, can these women in the photographs affect their own conditions? The entire project itself, Reframings, challenges the belief that women have abbreviated agency. There are a multitude of photographs in the book in which the women “look back�? at those that are objectifying them. Also, because the book was meant to demonstrate art coming from “within a woman’s vision,�? the art deals specifically with women. The art form itself allows women to exercise agency because they, as photographers, et up conditions that allow their subjects to look back. These women “use the system�? of oppression to utilize their agencies.
The last theme of the book is the realization of self through art. All fo the chapter themes deal with representation and creation as well as agency of both the photographers and models. But more than anything, the chapters and book as a whole, deal with the realization of self of the photographers. The photographs are each artist’s search to express who she is. Through the process of creation, as we are learning in class, there is always a certain amount of self-discovery. The artists explore their opinions on subjects like “queer politics�? and family life through their lenses and the result of that exploration—the photos—reveals what they have discovered. Artistic methods such as obscured faces, framings and text layers give hints as to what the artists believe (e.g. consumer culture obscuring the woman) thus providing the final theme of Reframings.
The next portion of this paper is a reaction to the final chapter of the book. The perhaps most apparent feature of this article is its explicit use of theory. That is to say, this writing is extremely dense. She engages theorist such as Foucault and Kafka which would, I feel, focus this work more toward an intellectual (read: scholarly) audience. In my reading of Foucault in particular, I found his ideas to be multideminsional and a bit inaccessible. Because Solomon-Godeau discusses and/or utilizes some of his theories, I am made to assume that Reframings was meant for a specific audience, not just for the art enthusiasts.
One idea that she discusses, the function of an actual artifact/work of art in the politics of representation, really struck me. She says, “…politics of representation, therefore, virtually by definition precludes any notion of autonomous, much less transcendent meanings in works of art focuses attention instead on the generation of meanings as they operate to either affirm, contest or subvert dominant ideological formations.�? I connected to this idea for one particular reason. It is because it made me question whether or not it was possible to produce some work that could possibly develop “autonomous or transcendent meaning.�? Is there any sort of work that could cross all cultural boundaries and produce the very same meaning in all people that view it? I came to the conclusion that no, there was no one piece of art that will develop the same meaning in everyone for the simple fact that for me, good art will be translatable (and therefore personal) to everyone that sees it. That is to say art always produces a multitude of meanings, which it should. To produce the same meaning in everyone is, for lack of a better term, boring. Art is discussion.
The other idea I particularly like, was the interplay between the “artists [as] an unmarked term…�? and the idea that women, as a subaltern group, are “…an undifferentiated category�? essentially “silencing he occlusion of women of color, of lesbians, of postcolonial subjects.�? Solomon-Godeau discusses who women, as one functioning group, “represent the truth of woman or female subjectivity.�? Because she is woman, she must only speak from a woman’s (usually white) point of view. Sexuality, ethnicity and personal life experience(s) seem not to enter the picture (pun intended). By reducing all woman to one characteristic (her gender) any other words she has to say relating to issues of sexuality, ethnicity and the like are, in effect, erased. This is, I believe, one of Solomon-Godeau’s strongest (and most clearly stated) points.

Framing Points of View

2008-02-11T22:02:11Z

I have taken a few film classes here and there; one thing these classes alway talk about or draw attention to is the framing of actors and actresses in films.

]]> Granted in these film classes we disregard and/or ignore the possible gendered nature of these framings, the idea(s) behind analyzing framing techniques in film and (in this case) photography is similar: what is the person behind the apparatus trying to explain/explore in his or her work? I find these framings ideas/perceptions and their interpretations by different individuals a rather fascinating topic because it demonstrates the radically different personalities/points of view/mindsets of the individuals interpreting the photograph. Case in point: in class on Tuesday, the picture of the anorexic/bulimic girl in front of the evergreen tree was perceived by one peer as defiant and/or strong willed. I found this particularly interesting in that I personally would not have (and did not) interpret the girl and photograph in that manner. With her placement in the center of the frame and, I feel, as prominent a figure as the evergreen tree behind her, it would make sense that someone could interpret the photograph as such. Personally, I got a sense of sadness in her as a whole image (her eye contact, body placement and frown were indicators I used to draw that conclusion) but that, again, is just my reading of the picture.
The same goes for the Drew Barrymore picture (the fallen "waitress"). While I can most definitely find the gendered, borderline pornographic reading of the picture, I do think in one (perhaps best labeled "perverse") reading of the picture, Barrymore and her pose could be considered kitschy. There is a certain tastelessness to the picture but at the same time the colors, concept (grapefruit and cherries?), and almost manly presentation of Barrymore push the picture toward kitschy. A woman as famous as Drew Barrymore needn't really "sell" her body in this particular manner to earn money. In that was, I feel that this photography becomes ostentatious. It becomes an exercise in wealth because she does not need money. She is (presumably) posing in this picture to shock those that view it.
Yet another reading of this same photograph (Barrymore) could be her declaration of the rejection of feminine stereotypes. Because the image is so excessive (such overtly sexual connotations, the pink-ness of her uniform and of the grapefruits, the fact that she is dressed as a waitress, etc) and she is directly addressing the camera with her gaze, it appears that she is rejecting the "gaze" as per Mulvy's explanation. She has some sort of agency because she is looking back. This is just another reading but I find it "cool" (for lack of a better term) that such diametrically opposed reading can come from the same photograph (and in this case, from even the same person). As a general note, I don't know that I feel particularly strongly one way or another to the photograph. At first I was a little offended, but the more I analyzed and thought about the image, the more I felt my perception of the photograph changed.

Fringe Art?

2008-02-05T03:24:44Z

In one of my other classes, we discussed the function and social role of "fringe art"-art that is anti-establishment. I found the idea of fringe art interesting and very relevant particularly to this class.

]]> One of the points that was brought up about anti-establishment art is that once it is annexed by the establishment it looses its effectiveness as anti-establishment (i.e. political). That is to say, taking political art (for example the Guerilla Girls posters and other art objects) and placing it into a politicized space (for example an art gallery such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art) removes the biting edge that the political art once possessed.
The reason why I bring up this discussion is because as we watched the Guerilla Girls Youtube video, I could only think that the critical edge that their art possesses in its position in marginalized and "guerilla" presentation, is diminished and/or completely destroyed by placing it into a highly politicized space. I say MoMA is a highly politicized space (or any art gallery/museum for that matter) because there is a certain stigma attached to the museum system as a whole. It is often seen as a place of high culture and those that frequent the museum(s) are a part of the higher, privileged, educated class that patronizes said space. That said, the message the Guerilla Girls send is about feminist ideals-that women are not acknowledged as they should be either in the art culture or culture at large by parodying current media (commercial) campaigns and common objects (such as the coasters in pubs-also a form of advertisement) and in essence end up advertising themselves. The question I then must pose to myself is whether or not this use of the system is an effective way to change the system. The Guerilla Girls art is meant (at least to my knowledge) to be fringe art, outsider art, political art. But by using the system (i.e. MoMA), does their message become lost in translation, so to speak? I feel to a certain extent it does because it no longer defies the unjust system, it only enhances/reinforces it.

First Blog Assignment

2008-01-29T14:09:02Z

To start out this first blog, there are about fifty different places i could begin. I never quite understood the whole "blogger" idea. I understand that it is a modern diary or journal, that it could be thought of as therapeutic for the blogger and that it is a way to carve out one's own space in the virtual world, but the idea of strangers reading my thoughts always kind of creeped me out.

]]> Going through the whole process in class of setting up the blog just reconfirmed a few different things for me. First and foremost, I really do and pretty sure always will HATE computers. They frustrate me; constantly display errors of one type or another to me and generally hate me as much as I hate them (this is pure speculation but I'm fairly certain this is an accurate assertion based on all of those stupid errors it keeps spitting at me). Second, the process just reconfirmed my distaste for all that is blogging; however, I do recognize the usefulness of blogging as a feminist media making tool. Blogs are far reaching and can be accessible to a wide range of people (both feminist and not) to disseminate ideas and philosophies. they can cross international boarders and connect feminists that create the blogs to either those that agree with the ideas or to those that are seeking information. Blogs give personal testaments to struggles and triumphs of the modern feminist and give a voice to those not previously heard.
However, as is often seen with this type of media, one almost must specifically go in search of it in order to find it. That is to say, blogs can be "preaching to the choir," addressing women that already all to well understand what it is to be a woman in a male dominated society. Blogs can be useful tools to describe personal experiences, as stated before, but those most keenly interested in those experiences are most likely those that already experience the same things. While the medium has great potential to be a learning tool, those that most need to hear what the blogger has to say is more than likely either not going to go in search of such opinions or not care that such opinions (and places to express those opinions) exist.
I personally still hate them (and computers pretty much in general) but it's worth the attempt to explore and attempt to use the medium.