We live in a social media obsessed world. There’s Facebook, Myspace, (although I wonder if anyone actually still uses it), Twitter, and many blogging platforms such as Tumblr, WordPress, and Blogger. Although we upload our pictures to Flickr and Facebook all the time or write about our weekend experiences in personal blogs, there could be a possible downside to all of this internet exposure: According to the Wall Street Journal, 85% of hiring managers Google a candidate before or after an interview. This fact, which is becoming more and more well-known, brings up the question: To blog or not to blog?

While I’m not saying that anyone who publicly posts pictures of themselves puking into a fraternity bathroom shouldn’t be a cause for concern, I am posing the question of boundaries and what and when a company should base their decision on hiring someone because of what comes up when they use Google. For example, take all the CollegeCandy contributors. Should our future bosses decline an interview with us, even though our resumes may be well qualified, simply because we once wrote an article that mentions sex or highlights the importance of birth control?

Personally, I think keeping a blog of any kind is a worthwhile venture. As a writer, I like to post things I’m interested in, things that drive me crazy, and of course, continuously write about things that matter to me (this includes everything from literary theory criticisms to the correct usage of the Real Housewives of New Jersey’s infamous phrase “prostitution whore”). However, I often worry that if I post liberal-sided articles or a picture of me enjoying a glass of wine that someone may use those things against me and blow them out of proportion one day. Despite more and more social media outlets being introduced to society on a regular basis, it seems like the idea of censorship or hiding oneself (at least the internet brand of oneself) is becoming a constant battle. Read More »

Typically, a strong woman with intellect and the ability to articulate that which is on her mind is a positive thing. Regardless of beliefs or heavy opinions, the ability to reasonably debate should be held in high regard in a world where feminism seems taboo to much of society and many men are still uncomfortable dating a better-read or better-versed woman.

A smart woman in the public eye should be revered. A smart, BEAUTIFUL woman in the public eye should draw even more attention to herself if the data I’ve collected on the correlation between beauty and attention is correct.

And hence we have the problem with Ann Coulter.

She happens to be remotely intellectual, well-read, able to debate, and beautiful. She should, theoretically, be a feminist icon for all strong-willed and curiously-minded women. She should, regardless of party or religion, be a demonstration to society that women can think in a calculative manner and speak freely, as well as intelligently. She should be these things because she is gifted and qualified to be these things.

Yet instead, she exploits her talent and intellect. Instead, she sabotages her own ability to speak on behalf of women. For those of you who don’t know, Ann Coulter is a best-selling author about as relevant to literature as Marilyn Manson is to music. Like Marilyn Manson, the woman sells her books because of shock-value and shock-value alone. Without hesitation, Ann Coulter sums up liberalism as “the opposition party to god.” She has claimed that societal problems are based on single motherhood, that liberalism is a religion, and that democrats are incapable of fighting a war on terrorism. Ann Coulter refers to President Elect Obama as B. Hussein Obama and writes off her blatant attempt to brainwash her listeners into associating him with Saddam Hussein as humor. Read More »