After the high of Saturday night's fun and frolics I'm afraid I've found the blogging juices running rather dry this week (apart from a stint over at Cruiskeen Eile). While I hardly ever, as a rule, blog about blogging itself, I feel it's probably appropriate, given the grand 'outing' that was the awards ceremony, to indulge in a little bit of reflection and taking stock (with normal service resuming thereafter).

Meeting like-minded people, and chatting about matters of common interest, is always invigorating and refreshing, with the events in the Alexandra Hotel proving no exception. Now that the dust has settled, however, and the 'buzz' has given way to the more familiar and quotidian rhythms of the everyday, I'm left with a slight sinking feeling…unsure of how to proceed.

Part of the problem might be that the very act of engaging with the blogging 'community', and exposing myself (as it were) to public attention (fun as it was), might have led to a feeling of self-consciousness about the whole exercise that wasn't there before. I guess that practically any activity one engages in with enthusiasm can be seen as odd, or even futile, when exposed to a certain 'cold light of day'…but that (of course) doesn’t mean that such things are not worth doing.

Still, this feeling of being at a crossroads remains…with the choice of path seeming important and completely meaningless at the same time. Should I be looking to make the blog bigger, better, bolder, brighter? Should I care how popular it is? Do I have an agenda, almost unbeknownst to myself, nestled somewhere near the back of my conscious mind? Should I just, as the fella said, "Shut up and blog"?

I'm certain, of course, that I'm not alone in suffering the occasional dilemma in this regard, and if even Twenty Major is revaluating his status, as an award winner, then we're all entitled to a little reflection. Across the Irish 'blogosphere'¹ it seems, various voices are currently considering issues of identity, anonymity, participation, mainstreaming etc., and I think the Awards themselves have definitely pushed such considerations to the fore.

An example…

Over at Sigla Blog and Mental Meanderings, Sinéad and Fiona raise, once again, the question of female participation (or lack thereof) in the 'blogosphere'². I've often moaned to my nearest and dearest that I don't get as many comments from women as I'd like (at least as far as I'm aware…there's always an ambiguity with usernames), but I guess that could be put down to the boyish nerdiness of some of the posts. Having said that, I've tried to ensure that the blog remains a fairly hospitable and non-judgemental space where people could hang their hats for a spell, partly because of my dislike of the testosterone-fuelled bullying that one (occasionally) gets in some online forums.

While we're on that subject I might as well pitch my tuppence ha’penny into the debate with an observation or two. Speaking very much off the cuff, and anecdotally, I'd say that the current (apparent) underrepresentation of women in blogging circles owes something to a certain argumentative dynamic that men seem (and I stress seem) to be more comfortable with. What I mean by that is that a lot of male blogging is political, and a lot of the debates/arguments that spin off from such posts are of the "My opinion is better than yours" variety. In other words, male argumentation often relies on sets of 'facts' that are stored up and filed away until such time as they can be whipped out (ooer…) and used to batter an opponent into submission. There's a certain competitive, game-like, streak to some (male-centred) online debates that is often deeply tedious, and rather embarrassing…

As the vast majority of women I know are not anal retainers of facts (in quite the same way) there may be a tendency to feel 'unqualified' to participate in such debates. I have personally observed situations, during group conversations in the pub etc., where perfectly intelligent, witty, and interesting women take a back seat to the aggressive posturing of 'we' men. This is understandable up to a point – the point being that (contrary to outward appearance) many men are full to the brim of shit…and simply use their catalogue of 'facts' to give a (fraudulent) impression of authority.

To try and sum it all up snappily (if a tad glibly) – Women (based entirely on my own experience) seem interested in having conversations, while men (not all of us of course) seem keener on being the conversation victor! I don't know if any of that helps to explain a reticence on the part of some women to get involved in the maelstrom of online debate/argument, but it's a real shame if that's the case. Equally, I don't think certain women bloggers should feel remotely apologetic about 'soft' blogging³ (as Sinéad has referred to it)⁴ if that's what they feel most comfortable with. Nothing wrong with that kind of expression at all…and anyway, it's far more entertaining/stimulating than macho rants and raves…

Now where was I? Ah yes, my own situation.

Self-conscious…Check. Trying to decide whether to engage in more 'fancy' blogging activities like podcasting…Check. Writing ingulgent, lengthy, and rambling posts about his own 'woes'…Check.

Hmm…on top of everything else my train of thought has become badly derailed. I need your help, dear readers, or possibly a hug (or a kick in the arse).

1. Can anyone please come up with a more pleasant name? [back]
2. It still sounds bad. [back]
3. Blogging about "the domestic and personal" [back]
4. See comments. [back]