October 04, 2005

Warning: Sexy Female “Webloggers” As

Warning: Sexy Female “Webloggers”

As darn near everyone hip to Al Gore’s World-Wide Web undoubtedly recognizes, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been toiling on our humble “weblog” for well over a year. Thanks to our diligent work, we’ve become extremely dependable. You can assume that we shall provide you with five sub-par attempts at humor every week. Can you say that about your philandering, good-for-nothing husband? We collectively think not.

Throughout our long tenure on Al Gore’s Internet, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have learned a thing or two. Possibly three. For instance, did you know that a goodly number of “websites” are actually devoted to pornography? We know: It sounds strange, but it’s true.

In today’s humble “post,” dear reader, we plan on offering you yet another fun fact, which we collectively happened upon as the result of our abundant e-strolling. It’s a curious datum, but it’s a datum all the same.

A tour of numerous of numerous “weblogs” has left us with the distinct impression that there are striking differences in the manner of self-presentation among the male and female communities of “webloggers.” As far as we can determine, female “webloggers” seem much more taken with the idea of offering sexy, coquettish pictures on their “weblogs,” ostensibly of themselves—or, perchance, cartoon versions of themselves.

Take, for instance, a representative sample of some of our favorite female “webloggers”: Cathy the Cakeeater, Sadie the Fist, Ms. Feisty Repartee, the Common Sense Lady, et al. Overall, male “webloggers” tend to eschew self-portraits. When they offer them, they are often charmingly matter-of-fact: E.g., the Rabbi-Philosopher who is neither a rabbi nor a philosopher, the Point-to-Point Man, et al. Or they favor the over-the-top countenance: Enoch Soames, Esq., Stephen Baldwin, et al.

There are, we hasten to add, exceptions to this rule. Savor, for example, the striking visage of the Maximum Leader. But, quite frankly, when you look that good, you ought to show off. In addition, the Llamas are certainly on the exhibitionist side of the coin.

All the same, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” find this all a bit weird. What does it mean? We would love to offer portraits of the female members of the crack young staff, but, unfortunately, they are all graduate students, and therefore ugly. Q.E.D.

So maybe we’re just jealous. And, as noted above, there are plenty of exceptions to our general rule. For instance, we’ve always wanted to get a peek at Lynn Sislo, but we’ve never been suitably fortunate. Still, we think we have discovered something that our Women’s Studies friends would call a “gendered response.” Or whatever.

We’re not entirely sure, but we believe there’s some kind of a doctoral dissertation in this somewhere.

Posted at October 4, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack