New PR Social Network :: PROpenMic.org
PRGirlz.ca :: A Welcome New Blog with One Caveat
Robert on Jun 27 2006 at 12:01 am | Filed under: Blog Talk, PR Education, Public Relations, Public Relations Higher Education
PRGirlz is a new blog from the women of Thornley Fallis in Canada. I learned of the blog while listening to the Inside PR podcast from Terry Fallis and David Jones.
PRGirlz.ca is a welcome new group of “eight Public Relations professionals working at Thornley Fallis Communications in Toronto, Canada.” The women will “bring a variety of PR experience from different areas: technology, entertainment, travel, corporate, financial, government and health.” More importantly, at least to me, is the idea of several women PR professionals writing publicly - and with comments on - about PR. My classes are frequently 80 to 90 percent female and they need, I believe, more professional PR women examples to learn from, too.
I am glad that Jennifer, Mary Ellen and Sandra have joined the “fracas” - as Mary Ellen called it. You’ll note that I can tell you the first names of three of the bloggers, but not anything about them. I hope the ladies will put up an About page with bios of all eight participants.
Here is where my one caveat comes in to play. I hope the women of this new blog will forgive me for bringing up this issue, but it concerns me. The issue? I’m unsure about how to take the chosen name of the blog - PRGirlz.ca.
Cultural differences, I am sure, exist between Canada and Alabama. In Alabama, it is not uncommon to hear a group of grandmothers, let alone young ladies, refer to themselves as girls. I imagine the same can be said for other geographic cultural practices. But, the term “girls” has, at times, brought down the rath of some men and women as derogatory - when used to refer to grown women. I guess it just depends upon the audience. Well, isn’t that always the case?
Even moreso, it reminds me of the MTV series, PowerGirls. That show was a travesty and did more to perpetuate the ditzy PR girl persona than any other - except, Sex and the City. Thank goodness the MTV show didn’t have a large audience and didn’t survive.
The term “girls” may serve to perpetuate the stereotype of “PR Bunny” that is too often applied to young women in PR. That term brings up images of vacuous little pretty girls as office dressing and shuffled off to perform clerical duties deemed to be beneath PR management, which is most often male.
So, I hope the writing and discussions at PRGirlz.ca will live down the possible unfortunate mental image the name may bring about for some readers. I hope the authors at PRGirlz.ca will publish an About page with bios and photos. Please let the photos be professional and not some fashion horse glamour shots.
To my students, I beg you, please do not ever refer to yourself as a “PR girl” at any time and in any way. You are, or will be, PR practitioners or PR professionals. Unfortunately, there are too many individuals out there that will react to the term “PR girl” as one of derision. There are too many contemptuous perceptions of PR and those that practice it. Why play into the stereotype?
I don’t know what to think about a blog named PRBoyz? Could Patrick, Jonathan, Edward, Matt and Jake, start one under that name? (Sorry, had to throw that in there.) They are my five, out of 25, PR students this semester.
I wish the eight women of PRGirlz.ca all the best and look forward to reading their posts - as well as sending my students over to read and comment.
11 Responses to “PRGirlz.ca :: A Welcome New Blog with One Caveat”
I just despise the use of a ‘z’ instead of an ’s’ at the end of a word… it makes my toes curl.
Paul, Thanks for your note…please uncurl your toes, we do not want to be responsible for any foot cramps! PRGirlz is spelled with a “Z” because PRgirls brought up a website of available women and their tricks! We hope you can get past the “Z” as we move into the blogging world we will have more to say and would love to keep talking with you.
Jennifer
[...] Thanks to Robert French for plugging PRGirlz on infOpinions. Though he’s enthusiastic about the prospect of some PR professionals of the female persuasion joining the testosterone-laden blogosphere (ugh, that word again), he’s not so happy we’ve called ourselves “girlz” or even girls. In fact, he implores his female students to refrain from ever calling themselves girls. [...]
This sounds like such an exciting and interesting site and I’m looking forward to hearing more that the eight girls have to say. I do agree with you, Robert, that it is risky to label oneself a “PR girl.” It most definitely conjurs up images of a ditzy, fluffy girl running around like an idiot. However, I wonder how much of it is the “girl’s” fault. Society continues to say that they want out of the “stereotypical” mindset but how many of us continue to buy into the ones that are out there? Will we ever live in a world were a woman can refer to herself as a “girl” without having everyone consider her a ditz? Maybe - maybe not - but hopefully the women of PRGirlz can continue on their quest for a better understanding of the PR world.
Jennifer - that makes some sense. However, http://www.prgirls.ca didn’t bring up a page for me?
Anyhow, I’ll be subscribing to the blog - I look forward to a new POV.
My theory on the name choice is that it’s a case of innoculating the group from potential insult by using it first, a common tactic for all kinds of groups. The upside is that it communicates a cerain smart, experienced and youthful world view; the downside is that one suspects issues will be skewed based on gender rather than on PR in general, but ultimately the content itself will determine the tone. Couldn’t come up with a link myself yet.
What I just read sounded something like this:
“How nice, more women PR bloggers. I hope the girlz put up some pretty pictures and have some fun, but leave the serious stuff to the boys. And to my female students, never call yourself a PR girl - it’s terribly unprofessional!”
The only way these eight fantastic women are perpetuating any stereotype is because of you bringing a stereotype you hold to light. I’ve never heard of “PR bunnies” until now. I’m sure others have, but I don’t think it’s fair for you to bring it up. It probably just makes things worse.
I can’t believe you would actually call for bios and pictures of the “girlz”. I don’t see your bio OR picture anywhere. Why do you need to see their pictures? Ridiculous.
And what if the girls all fit your fantastic stereotype of the “PR bunny”? Would their opinions count any less? It sure sounds like it. I’m calling for bios featuring pictures of each girl in rabbit ears!
And what’s wrong with a blog called PRboyz? I think that’s almost as good a name as PRgirlz.
Lighten up, Robert. Excuse me while I run out to find some episodes of “PowerGirls”.
Hey, Chris. Good to see you back. Where to start? Maybe I should just go one at a time.
As far as:
Well, no that’s not what I meant, but you can read anything into it you want, I imagine.
As for:
I think it ‘could’ be taken as unprofessional by some people. That’s kinda what I wrote, yes.
Now, as for:
I’m sorry you feel that way, Chris. Words are important. The stereotype exists. Search Google for the phrase “PR bunnies” and you’ll see what I mean. My search turned up 1,400 references. The phrase “PR bunny” turns up 1,200 references. I imagine some of those that have written about it are PR bloggers that you may respect.
Admittedly, some of the other links in those searches are referring to “page rank” and not “public relations.” The term may have origins in the UK, but it is out there and known by many in the industry.
Now, about your statements:
You are correct on one point. My apologies. I have been tinkering with my sidebar and those links are not there now. I’ve placed them back into the header. The About page contains a photo. Danger, Will Robinson. I’m told it frightens small children and puppies.
Kidding aside, Chris, if you look around and read what is suggested for a professional blog, the idea of a photo of the author and a bio is frequently listed as being important. Hence, I suggested that the bios and photos might be a good idea. I was being tongue-in-cheek when I asked that they not be glamour shots. I honestly did not believe that they would post such photos. It was a bit of sarcasm. I’m sorry it was not clear to you.
You also wrote:
Well, I truly doubt they are going to take your cue on those kinds of photos, Chris. Further, this wasn’t about my opinion of the women at PRGirlz.ca. It was about how some people might react to the term/phrase - PR girls - and what sort of unfortunate persona it may be reflecting. Perception, Chris. It is about perception. The women writing in PRgirlz.ca are, I believe, going to be doing a good thing by writing about their profession and experiences. I said so in the post. But, I - and they - cannot stop others from drawing unfortunate conclusions based upon a name.
This goes back to one of our previous discussions, Chris. The blog - this blog - is written for my students. The stereotype exists, even if you are not aware of it. My thought is, “Why play into the stereotype?” I don’t want my students to play into something that may harm them. There are enough obstacles to women in the overall workforce already. Why tag one more on yourself from the starting block? That’s all I was suggesting.
Googling “pr bunny” returned a number of results, but out of the first 10, you’re related to 4 of them:
One from the Marcom blog - http://www.marcomblog.com/2005/03/17/how-not-to-be-a-pr-bunny/ and
Two from your blog - http://www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress/2006/03/27/bad-character-blog-falls-flat
and
http://www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress/2006/06/27/prgirlz-a-new-pr-blog-by-women/
and, one from a prblogs.org page -
http://katie.prblogs.org/2005/10/25/pr-bunnies/
I can say with confidence that you’re doing more to keep the stereotype alive than anyone else.
Well, Chris, I guess you can read anything you wish into anything you see.
What I see is a contributor - a woman, mind you - to Marcomblog (and a respected woman, at that - knows a lot about PR and marketing) writing about why women in PR want to avoid the label. The PRblogs one is a student writing a response to the Marcomblog post. Neither were me and both are doing more to diffuse the notion - not promote or further it, mind you.
Then, there are the articles/references by The Register (which relates to my point to you before that the term has roots in the UK), Tom Murphy, Drew B, Alternet.org (a progressive group blog) and others.
And, some of those posts refer to the “Spin Bunny” (a take-off on the PR Bunny idea) blog that was much beloved for its satire by many PR professionals. It may have gone silent before you got into PR, so I can understand that you may not be familiar with it, either.
Nonetheless, the term is out there and well-known by a lot of people. Sorry it was a new discovery for you.
Hello, Gentlemen! I didn’t realize you were still debating this or I would have weighed in sooner. Thanks for taking up our cause, Chris.
Robert, I think you’re right about “PR bunnies” being a UK term - I worked in London last year and it was really the first time I’d heard it. (That was my first agency job, mind. I’m a career-switcher.) I also bemoan the loss of Spin Bunny, I found it hilarious.
So far it seems people have taken our name in the spirit it was intended - i.e. a cheeky ploy to get attention. I must say, I have found that PR folk have a bit of a thin skin, given the job specs - either that, or an insecurity that causes them to bristle at the slightest. I don’t think women have it any harder or easier in PR than in any other profession. As everywhere, if you make your boss some money you’ll be alright - doesn’t matter what’s down your pants, really.