Friday
Sep102010
Babble's Whitelist of Twitter Moms: Where's the Diversity?
Friday, September 10, 2010
I didn't plan for this week to be a series of anti-Babble rants, but it is turning out that way. First Babble tried to deceive nursing moms experiencing difficulties by telling them to call Similac's feeding hotline. Then I found out that they have been violating the trademark of Ann Douglas, one of my favourite parenting authors, which reminded me of the time Babble stole photos off of flickr from Sweet Juniper blogger (which is apparently not the only time that happened). I also learned from Danielle Friedland (@that_danielle) that they helped themselves to content from the Celebrity Baby Blog that they did not have the rights to.
And then...
My name appeared on a list. Babble's list of the Top 50 moms of twitter. Initially I was honoured to be recognized and included (and also a bit surprised given my anti-Babble rant last week). There are a lot of fabulous women on the list and there were also a lot of fabulous women missing. That is always the case. Not everyone can be included on a list. But this wasn't just an issue of Babble having forgotten to list some of my best friends. Instead, Babble left out major segments of the population in favour of an almost exclusively white list. As Renee from Womanist Musings said in her post on the issue, this is not uncommon behaviour:
There are two black women on Babble's list and, while I don't have a copy of each person on the Babble list's Census form in my hands, I would venture a guess that a maximum of five of them (or 10% of the list) would identify as women of colour. In the United States, around 75% of the population identifies as white alone, meaning that 25% of the population is made up of other ethnicities.
Maybe it is because I'm Canadian, maybe it is because I live in a government town, but whatever the reason I have learned over the years to consider diversity and to ensure that I make choices that are inclusive - not just because it is good politics, but also because being inclusive is the right thing to do. No one wants to be left out, everyone deserves to see people like them reflected in society, and a diverse society is richer than a homogeneous one. I am not perfect all of the time, but if someone does call me out on a lack of diversity in something I've worked on, I would at least acknowledge the mistake (instead of being defensive and trying to deny it by pointing some token diversity) and I would either fix it, or if it was too late to fix, I would apologize and ensure it didn't happen again.
So, while I can't fix Babble's mistake for them or apologize on their behalf, and since they certainly aren't doing that, I thought I would use the space on this blog to celebrate some of the great moms of colour on twitter.
I decided to focus on moms with more than 2,000 followers, since that seemed to be at least part of the criteria for the Babble list (#50 on their list has around 2,400 followers). This doesn't mean that they are "better" than other moms out there on twitter (there are lots of amazing people with small followings), but it does mean that they are ones Babble should have been looking at for this list. Most of the moms of this list I have been following for a while and a few of them I added yesterday as I started pulling together this list. I'm sure there are many many others out there, but I was focusing primarily on those that I'm already familiar with. It really isn't hard to find amazing moms of colour on twitter, unless you're keeping your eyes closed.
So, here they are...listed in order of number of followers:
And that is just a start. In addition to being more ethnically representative, the Babble list could also have sought to be more diverse in other ways including sexual orientation (e.g. lesbian moms such as @debontherocks, @lesbiandad) and moms with disabilities (e.g. @deafmom).
Even if Babble doesn't recognize these moms, I certainly do and I hope you will too. If there are other amazing moms of colour that you follow on twitter (or if you are one yourself), please list them in the comments. I'd love to follow them too.
And then...
Babble's 50 Best Twitter Moms
My name appeared on a list. Babble's list of the Top 50 moms of twitter. Initially I was honoured to be recognized and included (and also a bit surprised given my anti-Babble rant last week). There are a lot of fabulous women on the list and there were also a lot of fabulous women missing. That is always the case. Not everyone can be included on a list. But this wasn't just an issue of Babble having forgotten to list some of my best friends. Instead, Babble left out major segments of the population in favour of an almost exclusively white list. As Renee from Womanist Musings said in her post on the issue, this is not uncommon behaviour:
When these lists come out, they usually have one thing in common, they privielge dominant bodies. In this case, this list of great twitter moms amounts to a White woman's convention. There is a decided lack of mothers of colour. Of course, they probably didn't mean to be racist, but then White women never do when they are busy promoting themselves. I find it interesting that whenever men put together a list of the fifty best ___ White women are immediately on the bull horn to yell about their exclusion but somehow, when they are in the seat of power they have no problem using racism to uplift themselves.
There are two black women on Babble's list and, while I don't have a copy of each person on the Babble list's Census form in my hands, I would venture a guess that a maximum of five of them (or 10% of the list) would identify as women of colour. In the United States, around 75% of the population identifies as white alone, meaning that 25% of the population is made up of other ethnicities.
Maybe it is because I'm Canadian, maybe it is because I live in a government town, but whatever the reason I have learned over the years to consider diversity and to ensure that I make choices that are inclusive - not just because it is good politics, but also because being inclusive is the right thing to do. No one wants to be left out, everyone deserves to see people like them reflected in society, and a diverse society is richer than a homogeneous one. I am not perfect all of the time, but if someone does call me out on a lack of diversity in something I've worked on, I would at least acknowledge the mistake (instead of being defensive and trying to deny it by pointing some token diversity) and I would either fix it, or if it was too late to fix, I would apologize and ensure it didn't happen again.
My List of Amazing Moms of Colour
So, while I can't fix Babble's mistake for them or apologize on their behalf, and since they certainly aren't doing that, I thought I would use the space on this blog to celebrate some of the great moms of colour on twitter.
I decided to focus on moms with more than 2,000 followers, since that seemed to be at least part of the criteria for the Babble list (#50 on their list has around 2,400 followers). This doesn't mean that they are "better" than other moms out there on twitter (there are lots of amazing people with small followings), but it does mean that they are ones Babble should have been looking at for this list. Most of the moms of this list I have been following for a while and a few of them I added yesterday as I started pulling together this list. I'm sure there are many many others out there, but I was focusing primarily on those that I'm already familiar with. It really isn't hard to find amazing moms of colour on twitter, unless you're keeping your eyes closed.
So, here they are...listed in order of number of followers:
- @mombloggersclub - 17,923
- @blogdiva - 10,670
- @bizziemommy - 10,462
- @ReneeJRoss - 9,620
- @nycitymama - 7,328
- @BabyMakingMama - 6,952
- @mominthecity - 6,949
- @ModernMami - 6,841
- @sheenatatum - 6,311
- @momconfessional - 5,809
- @mommyniri - 5,632
- @MicheleDortch - 5,395
- @thinkmaya - 5,352
- @chookooloonks - 5,093
- @bostonmamas - 4,829
- @yayayarndiva - 4,279
- @DarleneMacAuley - 3,926
- @ADramaticMommy - 3,747
- @AskWifey - 3,438
- @womanistmusings - 3,300
- @lexirodrigo - 3,270
- @momnoir - 2,809
- @veronicaeye - 2,760
- @TheChattyMama - 2,636
- @MyBrownBaby - 2,601
- @PPDiva - 2,444
- @blacktating - 2,377
- @MommyReporter - 2,349
- @cyn3matic - 2,221
- @playactivities - 2,168
- @mamasonbedrest - 2,118
- @cosmicgirlie - 2,093
- @mariestroughter - 2,033
And that is just a start. In addition to being more ethnically representative, the Babble list could also have sought to be more diverse in other ways including sexual orientation (e.g. lesbian moms such as @debontherocks, @lesbiandad) and moms with disabilities (e.g. @deafmom).
Even if Babble doesn't recognize these moms, I certainly do and I hope you will too. If there are other amazing moms of colour that you follow on twitter (or if you are one yourself), please list them in the comments. I'd love to follow them too.
Reader Comments (85)
Kimberly:
The responses from the Babble editor (both on Renee's post and to me directly on twitter) maddened me so much. She obviously had no clue and was doing a great job of putting her foot in her mouth. I hate it when people speak first instead of thinking first.
I have waves of white guilt in my life (including one right now) and at the moment I just don't know how to comment on race issues at the moment.
Mom101 -- What, exactly, is a "Black mom issue"? And how is it different from a "White mom issue" which, as a white woman with a kid, is I presume what I write about? And given that I write about the intersection of race and parenting, and am apparently "controversial" for doing so, how would what a Black mom writes be any more niche than what I write?
Or is it that when white women write about being a mom, they appeal to "everyone", but when a black woman does, then it's "niche", because us white folks can't be bothered to care about anyone who doesn't look like us even at the same time we expect everyone to care about what we say?
And if this comes across as particularly snarky, it's only because I've been reading a lot of Babble and racism apologism today and it's all starting to blend together and I'm getting short-tempered. So you might be catching some flack that rightly belongs to about a hundred other people, too.
(But hey, I am supposed to be controversial, right?)
It makes sense to consider race because the United States has such a conspicuous history of treating blacks differently from whites. Obviously, imbalances as in this list make us think about complex sociological issues of lingering racism. However, we also should ask ourselves how diverse a list such as this is in terms of class. Do we see a range of income groups represented? My guess is that we do not.
Arwyn, I'm not Mom101 but I can think of some "black mom" issues right off the top of my head, based on things my friends and I have discussed: lack of BFing support in the African American community, discrimination within the Af-A community towards the darker-skinned children/preferential treatment for lighter-skinned kids (this was an issue in my best friend's extended family), problems with teachers and school administrators placing a higher burden on children of color (my neighbor had this problem last year in AZ in our sons' Kindergarden class, and I had it for years with my oldest son who does look "ethnic").
And unfortunately, even in this "post-racial" society (which is BS), I'll paraphrase you and say that most white folks *can't* be bothered to care about anyone who doesn't look like them, even at the same time they expect everyone to care about what *they* say. Just look at all the white people in AZ saying that SB1070 is *not* racist! It'd be so much easier if most people would be honest and cop to what they really think & feel. Sometimes I think it's easier to deal with the blatant racists, because at least they're honest, whereby lots of supposedly non-racist people have all sorts of prejudices they act on and then try to disguise. But you're well aware of that, no? How many times do people say that they're sick of the race card being played?
Did you guys check that link to Amazon's cover contest I linked to on Twitter this morning? I was stunned that in the first 30 covers, only two had POC (one of them being Obama, so that was a gimme, really). Then go to the "Most Controversial" choices and all but one were POC. That's some skewed numbers! And I think worse than the Babble ish because we're talking MSM magazine *covers*, submitted by their editors for voting on *Amazon*. Waaaay more exposure than Babble, that very niche little blip on the web.
Sorry for any confusion, I did not mean that I would be following people on twitter with the same interests AND demographics. I enjoy interacting with people that have differing opinions, background, demographics, etc. What I meant was that the decision on who to follow/interact with is not based on ethnicity, but other factors that transcend race and/or ethnicity. I hope that makes sense, becuase it does in my head.
"Top 50 Moms That @Mamaista Likes on Twitter" - bwhaha, that's what I was meaning but you were more eloquent.
When I first saw the list I had two thoughts. How come so few women of color and what the heck is Babble?
Then I found out it's a parenting site for hipsters. When I hear the word hipster I think of white people that are not me.
I'm glad that Arwyn, some others and you have raised awareness of this issue. We don't talk about race enough. As a white mom raising an multiracial child, I recently decided to search out a more diverse set of moms because I found that I didn't relate to a lot of other moms out there that I was already following on Twitter. I feel like I fit in with everyone and no one.
Thanks for giving me some new moms to look into and thanks for starting a conversation about race and how we handle (or really ignore) these sorts of conversations. Let's stop pretending we don't need to talk more about these things.
Thanks Micaela -
and Arwyn, whoa lady, don't assume the worst of me, or what you think I can or can't be "bothered" to care about. Sorry you're having a bad day.
Let's start over from a non-accusatory place, okay? I'd hate this conversation to be emblematic of PHD's question as to why people are reluctant to publicly discuss race.
Many blogging mothers self-identify as say, Black mothers, Latina mothers, homeschooling mothers, urban mothers, evangelical mothers, Jewish mothers, attachment parenting mothers, single mothers, and their blogs focus on issues specific and relevant to those groups. If you read Kimchi Mamas for example, it's specific to the Korean-American parenting experience. I check in from time to time, and plenty of those women write personal blogs that are at the top of my list; but while that community site is interesting to me from a sociological perspective and I feel more in touch by reading it, I admit it doesn't engage me in the same way as a blog that covers topics I myself am experiencing first-hand. I doubt this statement would be offensive to them.
I don't read too many homeschooling mom blogs either, or mom blogs that quote psalms. It doesn't make those blogs any less relevant or wonderful or important in the scheme of the greater community. It just makes them less general.
Wow. I genuinely liked your blog, until I read this post. Why does it matter what color the skin is of the bloggers? The list was compiled based on the quality and popularity of the blogs, right? Aren't the ratings based on the number of followers? Not based on what the women look like. I somehow doubt Babble specifically avoided choosing certain blogs, because their owner was black, asian or hispanic. Sounds a little backwards to even imply so. I'm from a government town, and a mixed race family. Can't say I'll be returning to your blog, but it certainly isn't because of whatever color your skin may happen to be.
Arwyn, Micaela, Mom101:
I think perhaps where this discussion got off track was with the concept of a "general mom audience." Does such a thing exist?
I can understand Mom101 saying that there are some blogs she reads in order to understand the perspectives of people who are different from her in some way and others she reads because she can relate more closely to what is being said. I feel the same way. I read a lot of blogs specifically to broaden my horizons. I think it is important that I do so because I think that my writing on parenting issues is less valid and less representative if I do not have the perspectives of more than just the upper-middle class able-bodied male-partnered white mom.
But I don't ever assume that my articles are going to appeal to a "general mom audience." One of the things I like the most about the blogosphere and twitter is that there is room for so many different perspectives. However, I do still think that some voices get heard more loudly than others and get validated more so than others. I don't know that it necessarily makes them more relevant to the "general mom" audience though.
To take one example, it is "back to school" for a lot of families. Right off the bat, the content around back to school isn't relevant to homeschooling families. But within those that are going "back to school" a post on an issue like "school lunches" might sound like it is going to have "general mom" appeal. However, a post about how to come up with interesting, yet nutritious school lunches is only really going to appeal to the middle class audience. The lower income moms are more worried about being able to put any food in their kids lunches, period. The higher income moms have the nanny or the private school lunch program feeding their kids, so they aren't interested either.
I find that reading different perspectives on many issues like this is extremely important. To give another example, everyone was rallying around Lenore Skenazy's take your kids to the park and leave them there campaign. Great idea, right? Us helicopter parents need to learn to let go. She is leading the charge. Well, not everyone sees things quite the same way and I was interested to read @mamitamala's take on why Free Range isn't accessible to everyone: http://www.lamamitamala.com/blog/?p=720.
On any issue, even if it seems like a "general mom" issue, there are going to be different perspectives and I think it would be very rare to find a topic and perspective that is universal.
Lesley:
No, the ratings were not based on number of followers. It was a handpicked list. If it was based on number of followers it would have included some of the women I listed on this post and would have excluded some of the ones that were on the Babble list.
I'm not implying that Babble purposely left out bloggers of colour, but I do think it is possible that it is an unconscious thing. I think when developing a list that claims to be the Top 50 it is important to have clear criteria for selecting them.
Great discussion on diversity. A group that does a lot of important work on this issue -- and that is always looking for contributions from mothers for books, discussion panels, etc. -- is The Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement (formerly ARM): http://www.motherhoodinitiative.org/
i'm waiting for babbles list of best jewish bloggers. i'm hoping to make that one at least.
actually, i think lists are stupid. but sadly, par for the bloggy course unfortunately.
Any community worth calling itself a community is willing to look at this issue. The standard for inclusion is definitely higher if you are going to publish a Best Of list than with general projects, but even with projects we should be challenging our community to support and encourage diversity. It's absurb to say that diverse women aren't in the community, so we can't include representative numbers. If that's so, it's because they don't feel welcome or relevant. It's actually continually shocking to me to see such blatant bias as revealed on the Babble list perpetuated and defended. We have a long way to go. Thanks for speaking up--and for the shoutout.
Even though when I mentioned on Twitter these lists lack diversity, I didn't only mean from a white/black/latina point of view but I agree 100% with what you are saying Jerseygirl89. I just get a bit tired of seeing the same names thrown on these lists. I would love for Babble to possibly do a list of new moms to follow and shine some light on the unknowns. I am sure there are a ton out there with a decent amount of followers (how much of these numbers are spam anyway?) that engage with people and have lots to say. When I talk about diversifying the list, shake it up a bit-and adding 3 or 4 to the usual suspects is not diversity.
Hi!
1st of all, thank you for including me on your list :D
This was drawn to my attention a few days ago, and as you remember I was chuffed to bits! Having had time to step back and have a think, whilst I'm still chuffed, I'm also a bit sad by it all. I'm flattered to be on lists, but become wary of them because I always think there's someone else who deserves to be on their! I don't understand Babble - like a previous commenter said, I'd never heard of them before this, and it immediately became clear to me that whilst I don't mind some of those on the list, it still looked horribly elitist. Is the criteria for the babble list pretty much just how many followers they have? Because if that's the case then it's a load of cock.
There can be such stiff criteria for lists, and it's a fact that not everyone will be happy. Some can be glaringly wrong, some can be almost spot on. I believe there's a list for everyone, but get frustrated by the criteria that needs to be met.
On the flip side, I applaud you for recognizing diversity in colour also; I never forget going to BlogHer 10 and Cybermummy (UK version) and genuinely wondering if I was going to be a severe minority. I know you can't please everyone, but it's good to bring it to light. Much respect to you for raising this on your blog (which is clearly very popular!), subjecting yourself to some potential serious flaming!
The recognition is lovely. So thank you :) xx
Well, first thank you for the conversation starter and the mention. I was directed to your post by a friend. I honestly don't follow Babble, and never read them, and will confess that I looked at the list quickly because a few darling friends were listed, but have no idea what all else they have done or do or whatever.
Before I discuss the race thing, I want to say that I respect a lot of the people listed and I do respect and feel happy for their being recognized. I congratulated many of them as they announced their mention and meant it wholeheartedly. However, I feel that these lists do more damage to the community then they do good to the individual. What makes a mom a top twitterer, actually? Isn't the point of social media to be genuine and honest and real or at least isn't that what draws most of us to it? Not that these people aren't, but there is no doubt that it will leave some others feeling as if they aren't "doing it right". I realize that not everyone on twitter or FB is 100% themselves, that money needs to be made, professional identities need to be protected, however, for most/some it's about going on there and just talking and sharing and connecting, right? What makes my (general my) opinion or discussion less valuable or worthy of recognition than anyone else's? And why should my friends, people whom I love as people and as bloggers/writers have to lower themselves to begging their readers for votes to make it onto "the list" to prove that they too deserve top anything mention? If they are great, shouldn't they just be great and be done with it? I don't know.
But at the same time, I don't want to take away from how great those who are on there should feel. I am also thankful when listed on anything, I appreciate the mention and recognition, and flattered that someone noticed me. It's a cool thing to be read and liked enough to be mentioned in a positive manner, anywhere.
Based on followers is an insane way to measure the value of any twitterer or blogger. I don't follow a lot of hugely followed twitters simply because I don't particularly find them interesting, so being listed based on how many followers anyone may have doesn't affect me one way or another. I also have found some "popular bloggers" to be quite awful, as writers, as bloggers, and/or as human beings...so again, their continuous mention as "must reads" would not really apply to me.
Followed or mentioned based on race would be worse. I have been recognized by my community of Latinos as a Latina blogger, and even mentioned in some #WOC sites, however, my hope first and foremost would be that they like my content, and find some value in whatever it is they focus on, in me as a person. Being chosen as THE Latina or WOC of choice would eventually lead to disappointments because as a member of a biracial, multicultural family I wear a lot of hats on any given day and may seem less Latina, and less "of color" on some days then most people would like from someone "representing". Cause really, what does a Latina blogger, WOC say, what would people expect me to talk about, specifically?
I have long stopped paying attention to lists, too much to even notice the whole color thing. Unless it's a REAL list, like Forbes, or People Magazine : ) I would be pissed to be listed because a quota needed to be filled and hope I am never listed for that reason...I better be some freaking-incredible-amounts-of-awesome-in-a-whole-lot-of-other-things before the fact that I am Latina and of color is even mentioned.
Of two minds.
First, yes, these lists are always the "Top 50 people so-and-so likes" or possibly the "Top 50 people I want to like me"--several times I've thought of making my own such list and just being blunt about what it was--the top 50 people I think are interesting/influential/whatever.
Also love Liz @Mom101's (and I'm paraphrasing because I'm being lazy) "list of 50 people who responded on twitter when I asked if they wanted to be on a list". That's a fun list.
Now, I am not really into PC and quotas. And I do see the point that some are making that a list's diversity can ALWAYS be called into question--and not just based on visible or self-associated race. I also see the point that appearances can be deceiving, certainly.
HOWEVER, I think you have a very valid point here, Annie. When I saw the list, I immediately thought it looked rather white. And when you are putting together a list, with photos, the whiteness really might jump out at the person assembling it (in a way other factors might not).
And if it were just one list, just one campaign, just one whatever, it might not be a huge deal...but at this point, I think it is fair to say that anyone assembling a social media list should at the very least be seeking a balance of voices.
Your list is a great list and includes some of my favorite people on twitter.
Carol:
Thank you for reading my post and sharing your thoughts.
I absolutely agree that people should be recognized based on their merits and I don't like the idea of someone being recognized because they help to fill a quota or allow a box to be checked off. I would also be pissed to be included for that reason.
However, I also see the value in quotas in some circumstances. For example, in Canadian universities, the professors used to be virtually all white males. When a position became available, there was probably a white male human resources person doing a first pass through the resumes and then a committee of white male professors looking at the prospective applicants. It is no wonder that they kept hiring white males. They were further entrenching the status quo and their privileged place within it. But then some universities put quotas in place that required a certain percentage of new hires to be women (I think, but I'm not sure, that there may have been quotas for people of colour too). If I was among the first wave of women who were hired and if I was hired instead of perhaps a more qualified male candidate, then I would feel a bit silly. However, hiring that first wave of women, and the next, and the next until there was more balance, eventually led to a situation where all candidates could be evaluated based on their merits because both genders were equally represented in the group that was selecting the new candidates.
From that perspective, I see some value in quotas as an interim measure until equality is achieved. But, more so than quotas, I think it is common sense for anyone who is making a list to simply consider diversity and question whether they truly developed a representative list or whether they just developed a list that would further entrench existing power structures. I don't think a white mom should be bumped from the list and a black one added just to reach a quota. But I do think that if a list appears to be quite white, the list maker should question whether some people were missed who deserved to be there too.
jay:
I agree that there are many people who are amazing who aren't on the Babble list and aren't on my list either. I started out trying to list all of the amazing women of colour that I follow, but soon realized that (a) it would have taken me all weekend and (b) I would have missed someone who really deserved to be on it and that wouldn't have been right.
That's why I decided to simply list people I thought Babble should have been looking at given its assertion that number of followers was the big criteria. For me, quality of content and ability to connect is much more important than number of followers and there is plenty of that coming from people with much smaller followings than the people on any of these lists.
Just my silly 2c - Coming from South Africa I used to hate affirmative action - thinking that everything should be equal. It took me a long time to understand that to counterbalance the inequalities an interim plan to pick up the group that was disadvantaged at some point needs to balance all out.
The point whether token people of race should be included based on race or not is not the point for me. The fact that many women of color should have been on that list, not because of their color but because they are more influential and deserve to be.
There are many on that list that I simply adore but many that I have never heard of as well.
I loved your blog post!
I agree with your point in that the search for candidates should be expanded to go beyond "the norm" or people's standard source of reference, or even beyond people's comfort zone or what they are most familiar with. As far as universities reaching out to students of color, for example, most extend financial assistance in order to encourage minorities who in general lack the means to attend university (for all sorts of reasons and not saying that there are non-minorities who couldn't use the help). But even those students need to have met academic requirements and compete in the pool of applicants. Even when looking to diverse it is important to, after finding the pool of minority candidates or pool of candidates of color, put the focus back on quality and experience and so forth. The eagerness to have a Latina involved in something, just to show "diversity" has often led to my feeling embarrassed even though non-Latinos might feel proud.
It's important to expand one's horizons so that it is inclusive and goes beyond the expected, but no matter what the color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, who ever it is still has to be good if not great. It keeps us all trying our hardest and away from falling into that sense of entitlement that even many people of color suffer from.
Again thanks for starting the conversation...I think it's courageous and takes a lot of patience to keep the dialogue going : )
you just got yourself another follower... *LOVE* what you wrote here!
I hear you Carol. I still remember when I started my job as a software engineer how I hated being told that I was there simply as they had a quota to fill. The fact that I was already qualified and had an engineering degree to boot made no difference how some saw me.
The idea was the quality should never be over looked - when both are equal then race - when quotas needed to be filled, can be looked as a secondary measure.
Feeling like we are just the colored face they needed to fit is a tough one. I always try to work doubly hard so people never have a doubt that my quality is why I was chosen. Having said that I am sadly still faced with people throwing little barbs. Oh and Carol, I just want to say you rock and I love having you as my friend.
Excellent comment and one that should be a post in and of itself.
Though I do think, given these are really just lists of peoples' personal favorites, if there is little diversity in the list, might the not be a prompt for introspection.
And so many of the IMO glaring omissions are WOC. Elita is one of the most provocative moms on twitter, IMO. You are hysterical. Niri is so helpful.
Anyway, I especially appreciated what you said in terms of "white guilt"...you are there to do your thing, not represent a race or make someone else feel better.
At the same time, if all m favorite online people were white, I would wonder why.
You know what? As it's Yom Kippur and all, I must confess that I would love to make that list as well. Probably the only one I'll ever have a shot at making. ;)
Way to go with this post, Annie!
P.S. Can I be added to your list, too? I'm Greek... ;)
By insisting that 'women of color' be included on this list you are encouraging labels. Why do you feel the need to label people? By labeling them 'women of color' you are belittling who they are and focusing on race. When I fill out a job application I refuse to check a race box. I want to be chosen for my skills and talents and what I have to offer the company. I do NOT want to be chosen because a prospective employer has to fill a minority quota. If people want to be treated equally they need to stop demanding special preference for their differences. Stop insisting that you be called 'person of color' 'person with alternative sexual orientation' 'differently abled person'. How can we raise our children without racial barriers if we keep throwing the barriers up? Just because 'of color' is more PC than 'black' does not make it more appropriate. You're still labeling. You're still zeroing in on differences instead of similarities. Why do you feel the need to say 'that woman of color over there' when its just as easy to say 'the woman in the red shirt'. Just stop labeling! Period.
Nia's Mama, in defense of this post, I don't think that Annie is demanding we put labels on folks. I think she's simply pointing out that there is a lack of diversity of viewpoints in the list, with the most glaring omission being mothers who self-identify as women of color.
Plenty of blogs have names like "Lesbian Dad" or "Blacktating" or "Single Mom Seeking." Those bloggers seek to identify themselves as part of a more niche or focused group of parents who blog. I don't think we can fault them for writing about their own experiences through those particular lenses.
I just wanted to say that this was timely and I will link to this on the post I just wrote. Many thanks for basically doing my homework for me!
[...] more information on this? Annie at PhD in Parenting gets all the credit for doing her homework. Go here to read a list of Babble infractions with references to the information). Even though I vehemently [...]
[...] I was also named ninth “most inspirational” Twitter Mom, which had a much greater thrill than humor value. Because contarn it half the reason I bother to put fingers to keyboard, at least in my writing life, is to inspire. Both self and other. Either to greater compassion or greater awareness or even to laughter. Needless to say, right away I wanted to Tweet nine inspirational Tweets. But first I ran out of laptop battery, and then I ran out of time. Story of my life, of late. (For a bit of analysis and critique of last year’s such list, check out Annie’s post at PhD in Parenting last year.) [...]
[...] stayed mostly true to what I wrote above — a lot of white, middle class, married women (as with other lists before). A bit of variety in terms of the topics covered, but not enough variety from a socioeconomic [...]