The Lolita Effect is a more serious matter. Because we allow that in our society, the ages are getting younger and the effect lasts long beyond those years. It was a female correspondent who mentioned it to me on my blog because the episode frustrated her as she as others have interpreted it as a shameless play for attention on the parts of all involved. This one requires a lot more research and discussion than we can have here.

Then as I researched this, I ran across an article by the same author discussing the increasing focus on snark as a means to make money in the NY press. She even discusses the need to go mean as a corporate directive. It’s not sad; it sucks.

So if one looks around, it seems this really was a bushwhacking of the subjects and even if they naively walked into it (I think that the case for at least Day, probably others), I’m more of the point of view than I was when I first saw this that, yeah, there’s reason to object. It takes a bigger frame than feminism or sexism or glamour.

That they assume and take charge of their own glamour had never been in doubt and it is part of their success. And no, there is nothing wrong about that. If you go to my YouTube channel (yeah, everyone has one), you’ll see I put a light video up expressing my view of that part of the story. They may be geeks, they may be divas, but a lot of us are geeks and they are our divas. Free the VF6!

I’m not making light of the glamour as much as saying, use it and the gestalt to set up a much more attractive response. These women ARE attractive, ARE smart, ARE gifted and it won’t take much to show that. That will work better than shrill protest because as I’ve said elsewhere, you’ll get about as much sympathy for that as Bono gets for bitching about file sharing: not a lot outside the inner circle.

Have a great year and thanks for answering me with that tone!

Thanks for giving us your opinion!

The point of this post was double: mention successful digital women, and
illustrate an interesting snowball effect on the web including Twitter.
I don’t think the women referred to in the initial article and in this post
are acting like divas or seeking more attention than any other public
figure/entrepreneur/individual participating on social networking sites.
They have been featured in an article, which has logically generated
feedback – including Twitter as part of the media sphere.

Regarding the Lolita effect you mentioned: we are talking about grown-up
ladies who totally assume their glamorous image. The sexism I refer to comes
from the fact that our society still has difficulties to accept that women
are into technology.

Nobody’s whining really, we’re just expressing a personal opinion in a
digital world where people are free to follow (or not to follow) everybody.

Bad move? I really doubt it. These gals don’t have that kind of power and the more they use it the more they look like they need to get over themselves as some have suggested. Make a movement out of it? Why? It makes them look even more like attentivores in industries that exist for that sole purpose.

The best thing to do is let this one die. The only beneficiaries will be the new league of social media experts clambering on for the clicks. The talents such as Day will look more diva and less geek. It’s a loser for her.

Sexist? The article was written by a woman for a woman’s magazine that is essentially a gigglefest mag. No one expects a serious look at the work she’s done.

If there is a truly serious issue here, it’s found by reading the “Lolita Effect” by M. Gigi Durham and trying to understand why a piece like that not only thrives outside the rather narrow group you allude to in the ‘digital sphere’. We have really serious issues in the industry and all one can say from the piece is these ladies promote themselves by the same means by which they were demeaned, so No Contest. Context? Yes. Sexualization as a means to market is creating very real problems for women and men given how young it starts and how easily accepted it has become.

Digital Royalty? Get over yourselves. Get to the real work at hand. You were changing the world before the article. Now? You’re whining about the world not taking you seriously or Twitter when you flood the networks with trivia. Until you understand the baby in the bathwater that this article has pinned to you, you’ll be a part of the problem. The public gets it. You don’t.