Flutterby™! : Madge Weinstein

Madge Weinstein

2005-01-18 17:40:56.351924+00 by Dan Lyke 6 comments

Warning: Meta-blogging follows.

Over the years I've somewhat pooh-poohed the claims of gender discrepancies that webloggers like Dori and Shelley have laid at the feet of some of the weblogging community. But recently the point was driven home to me. Hard.

Back in his January 4^th entry, Dave Winer said (and later edited out) that: "Madge Weinstein is the next up-and-coming podcast phenom." So I listened to some Yeast Radio, said "well, okay, if tired drag queen thing is your schtick, but I live near San Francisco so that's kind of old", and carried on.

Mark V has a good overview of the fallout that occurred when Dave and Adam Curry discovered that, gasp, "Madge" might not be biologically female. The Register takes on their outrage.

But what really struck me here was a sudden realization that there were people out there who'd mistake the act "Madge" was playing for attitudes of a real-live woman. Wow.

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-18 21:45:48.27299+00 by: mvandewettering

To be entirely accurate, I think that both of them thought that Madge was a transgendered person, rather than a comic character especially designed for satire. What's shocking to me (well, less shocking as time goes on) is that they tried to promote the idea that it was an "inappropriate podcast" because Madge didn't make this distinction clear. Like "she" is responsible for keeping them from looking stupid.

This is just the latest in a long series of attempts by Dave Winer to try to dictate the direction and scope of podcasting. Dave, you don't get to be the King Maker. You'll be lucky if you avoid total anonymity when it's all over. Why? Because really, ultimately the only thing you seem to be able to say about podcasting is "I invented it, and I'm not getting my due credit!". Nobody cares anymore. The things that you say are "important"? Not really important to anyone who isn't you, as far as I can tell.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-18 23:42:28.285747+00 by: John Anderson

Dan: Surely you've heard Medley tell the "you mean Medley is a woman?" Dave Winer story...

Mark: s/podcasting/any technological trend he's remotely involved with/. See, for example, weblogging itself, RSS, and, from what I understand, scripting languages on the Macintosh.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-19 01:03:05.87312+00 by: Dan Lyke

Quick, somebody clue Dave and Adam in that, for instance, Dodgeball: a TRUE underdog story, might have some made-up elements.

John: thanks, I'd forgotten about that.

Lyn: I should have included you in that list as well.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-01-19 16:11:20.28561+00 by: Shawn

Wow. Just... wow. Every time I read something about Winer, I reach a new pinnacle of gladness that I've never had any closer interactions with him. And Adam is... well... just continuing to be Adam.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-02-02 21:17:02.783478+00 by: Dan Lyke

Dave says:

My image of Madge, before I saw a picture, was of a short, stocky Jewish guy with a five-o'clock shadow, dressed in a mini-skirt and a blonde wig smoking a cigar. [snip]

What bummed me out was that Madge was an imitation of that, not an imitation of a woman.

It's not worth my time to go back and listen, and I think I really only heard Adam Curry's show after the blow-up on this topic, but that certainly wasn't the impression I got from what I heard.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-02-04 16:09:41.971077+00 by: Shawn

I've seen and heard Adam's stuff from time to time. My impression is he's got the same showmanship philosophy as Tom Leykis - twist and hype, whatever makes people listen and talk.