I would read the articles at the link, except that my computer reacts very badly to PDFs.
You're right that the compilers of WFA are two self-proclaimed feminists. They are also human. There's just two of them, they can't read the entire internet every day. ;) If you haven't been submitting your own links, then I don't think it's fair to say that "the WFA experience" might be biased because your voice is missing. And if the majority of WFA skews feminist, that might very well be because the majority of the blogosphere skews feminist.
You're kind of trying to refute my point but also making it at the same time...
WFA can't read the entire internet every day. And if they aren't made aware of an article or post, they can't link to it. But even if they omit things through no fault of their own, that does not somehow make it less of an omission. If I run a poll on some subject, but I only have enough gas money to take me through the one town where I live, it may not be my fault that I can't do a wider poll throughout the country, but that doesn't change the fact that my poll only shows the opinions of my own town, not the entire USA or the rest of the world.
Look, simple acid test: None of the posts in WFA that I have seen reference God in any way that indicates strong belief (there may be some - I haven't seen it). But I know, from other sources, that the US skews towards Christianity, and that there is a very large devout population of Christians out there, even on the Internet. (I'm not, myself, for the record.)
So one would think that if WFA was a true representation of a cross-section of America, you'd see more musings on how feminism relates to Jesus, whether superheroines are living good Christian lives, or however else these subjects might interact - but if it's there, it isn't prominent. If an aspect of US life is so conspicuously absent, how can you seriously call WFA an unbiased site, or "the best damn gauge"? Again, I'm not ascribing malice or deliberate neglect to it, but I seriously don't fathom how things jump from "this is how a particular group of blogs we link to thinks" to "therefore, this is an accurate measure of how the USA in general thinks". If that were the case, then feminism would already dominate the US, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because there'd be far fewer things for feminists to object to.
If somebody has written something about the cover, it gets linked on WFA. That's how we guage public opinion. Other than that, what can we look to? Mind-reading?
Perhaps by exploring other communities, ones that may be less comfortable or friendly? And again, writing about it does not in and of itself guarantee a link on WFA, as my own case shows. Unless we search outside of WFA, we can't know how many others have written about the subject that have just been missed for one reason or another. That lack of information, however, does not logically justify classifying WFA as "public opinion".
Amara on a lab table, huh? If it wasn't buried under stacks of other stuff, I'd drag out the box with my older comics - because I don't remember anything like what you're describing at all. Wouldn't have figured Claremont or Simonson for it, either. Hm.
no subject
You're right that the compilers of WFA are two self-proclaimed feminists. They are also human. There's just two of them, they can't read the entire internet every day. ;) If you haven't been submitting your own links, then I don't think it's fair to say that "the WFA experience" might be biased because your voice is missing. And if the majority of WFA skews feminist, that might very well be because the majority of the blogosphere skews feminist.
You're kind of trying to refute my point but also making it at the same time...
WFA can't read the entire internet every day. And if they aren't made aware of an article or post, they can't link to it. But even if they omit things through no fault of their own, that does not somehow make it less of an omission. If I run a poll on some subject, but I only have enough gas money to take me through the one town where I live, it may not be my fault that I can't do a wider poll throughout the country, but that doesn't change the fact that my poll only shows the opinions of my own town, not the entire USA or the rest of the world.
Look, simple acid test: None of the posts in WFA that I have seen reference God in any way that indicates strong belief (there may be some - I haven't seen it). But I know, from other sources, that the US skews towards Christianity, and that there is a very large devout population of Christians out there, even on the Internet. (I'm not, myself, for the record.)
So one would think that if WFA was a true representation of a cross-section of America, you'd see more musings on how feminism relates to Jesus, whether superheroines are living good Christian lives, or however else these subjects might interact - but if it's there, it isn't prominent. If an aspect of US life is so conspicuously absent, how can you seriously call WFA an unbiased site, or "the best damn gauge"? Again, I'm not ascribing malice or deliberate neglect to it, but I seriously don't fathom how things jump from "this is how a particular group of blogs we link to thinks" to "therefore, this is an accurate measure of how the USA in general thinks". If that were the case, then feminism would already dominate the US, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because there'd be far fewer things for feminists to object to.
If somebody has written something about the cover, it gets linked on WFA.
That's how we guage public opinion. Other than that, what can we look to? Mind-reading?
Perhaps by exploring other communities, ones that may be less comfortable or friendly? And again, writing about it does not in and of itself guarantee a link on WFA, as my own case shows. Unless we search outside of WFA, we can't know how many others have written about the subject that have just been missed for one reason or another. That lack of information, however, does not logically justify classifying WFA as "public opinion".
Amara on a lab table, huh? If it wasn't buried under stacks of other stuff, I'd drag out the box with my older comics - because I don't remember anything like what you're describing at all. Wouldn't have figured Claremont or Simonson for it, either. Hm.