This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is a stand-alone list that meets list notability criteria. Please only add items that meet the selection criteria established in the lead. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 April 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of family-and-homemaking blogs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Per a quote from the essay WP:NOTOR#Compiling facts and information: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented." -- I think it might be OK for us to group the terms "parenting blog"/"mom blog"/"dad blog" in the lede. The fact that especially the second and third expressions are short, neologistic nicknames that rely somewhat on idiomatic currency for their comprehension instead of being a bit longer and more nuanced descriptions in straightforward English (see the word "journalese" as looked up in Wikipedia: "Journalese is the artificial or hyperbolic, and sometimes over-abbreviated, language regarded as characteristic of the popular media.") can be implied or said by the phrase "appellations found in media reports." ↜Just M E here , now 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And, per WP:NEO#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms: "[...T]here will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." -- perhaps "parenting blog" should be used in the article's title, as perhaps the most straightforward of the three (and is shorter than "mothering blog or fathering blog"!) ↜Just M E here , now 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
↜Just M E here , now 03:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Women and young people are key actors in the history and present use of weblogs, yet that reality is masked by public discourses about blogging that privilege the activities of a subset of adult male bloggers. In engaging in the practices described in this essay, participants in such discourses do not appear to be seeking consciously to marginalize females and youth. Rather, journalists are following “newsworthy” events, scholars are orienting to the practices of the communities under investigation, bloggers are linking to popular sites, and blog historians are recounting what they know from first-hand experience. At the same time, by privileging filter blogs, public discourses about blogs implicitly evaluate the activities of adult males as more interesting, important and/or newsworthy than those of other blog authors.
Many of these participants (including most of the journalists) are themselves female. Nonetheless, it is hardly a coincidence that all of these practices reinscribe a public valuing of behaviors associated with educated adult (white) males, and render less visible behaviors associated with members of other demographic groups. This outcome is consistent with cultural associations between men and technology, on the one hand (Wajcman, 1991), and between what men do and what is valued by society (the “Androcentric Rule”; Coates, 1993). As Wajcman (p.11) notes, “qualities associated with manliness are almost everywhere more highly regarded than those thought of as womanly.” In this case, discourse practices that construct weblogs as externally-focused, substantive, intellectual, authoritative, and potent (in the sense of both “influential” and “socially transformative”) map readily on to Western cultural notions of white collar masculinity (Connell, 1995), in contrast to the personal, trivial, emotional, and ultimately less important communicative activities associated with women (cf. “gossip”). Such practices work to relegate the participation of women and other groups to a lower status in the technologically-mediated communication environment that is the blogosphere, and more generally, to reinforce the societal status quo.
Per WP:NEO and WP:NOTOR, I moved this page from being delineated by "parenting" to its being delineated by "family and homemaking" -- ie to a title that better encapsulates what blogs of the home-and-family type are about: stay-at-home/working newlywed brides/grooms, expectant mothers/fathers, actual mothers/fathers, other family member caregivers (or those blogging about receiving care from family members), and any other type of homemakers or often feature content that is especially about homemaking. ↜Just M E here , now 09:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a customized version of {{too few opinions}} on the mainspace page, stating in part that the list "may fail to include sufficient representation from the viewpoint of stay-at-home mothers (or other family members serving as caregivers)". I poked around in history, and it appears the page has been tagged that way since it was created. It's hard to tell, as there have been several moves and merges (history links: List of blogs about caregiving and homemaking, List of parenting blogs, Home and family blog, List of family-and-homemaking blogs). I've replaced the cutomomized template with the standard one, since the custom version was loosing functionlity. I have no opinion on the issue myself; this is just housekeeping. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)