Yesterday’s thought-provoking Twitter question of the day was this: Why, Karoli, are you moaning about being placed in the Style section of the NY Times when the ad running on the side of your blog is for JC Penney’s home store?

My response: No matter what subject I blog about, furniture is relevant. It’s pretty universal, that idea of having things to sit on or at, sleep on, work on, or put your stuff on.

His response: But if your ad was an Intel ad, you’d be featured in the tech section.

Mine: Which begs the question: Why aren’t tech companies rushing to do ad buys on women’s blogs?

It’s really a chicken/egg question, isn’t it? Do we blog to the ads or do the ads stem from the blog? Or do they have to be linked up at all? If you start from a premise that ads and bloggers are somehow inextricably entwined, the answer seems obvious, which is what rocks Google’s world. Context-sensitive advertising is what it’s all about. Blog about Intel; Intel advertises. Blog about politics; campaigns buy ads, because of course, the readers of those blogs would be most likely to click through those ads to discover the product, candidate or service.

I disagree. This is partly because I live in a world of intersecting circles, diverse interests and passions, as do most of you reading this blog. You may be a photography nut but that doesn’t mean you don’t buy shoes. You may write about health or ADHD or parenting or your kids, but that doesn’t mean you don’t give a damn about politics (especially this year!).

If I followed the model of context-sensitive advertising on this blog, Entertainment Tonight and alarm companies would be rushing to buy ads here, because the top searches for content on this blog relate to the posts I did on Britney Spears and Firstline Security. Those posts are less than 1% of what I care about. I’d guess that’s true for just about every one of you folks who visit this blog or spend any time there.

Another word for this idea of context-sensitive advertising might be this: stereotyping. Perhaps Intel isn’t doing ad buys on BlogHer blogs because they assume that readers of blogs written by women would not be interested in their latest enterprise technology, or fastest chip, or graphics accelerator, etc.

They’re dead wrong. I love new hardware like I love fast cars and great pens. It’s one of the joys of being a geek. But I don’t always blog about it; I just use it. And if I like it, yes, I write about it, just like I wrote about the Prius, the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid and the BlackBerry (which is truly God’s gift to mobile technology…hear me, RIM?). I love my Nikon cameras and blog with and about them often, but Nikon doesn’t advertise here either. If they did, would that mean the New York Times would place an article about women bloggers in the Travel Section?

The fallacy in the argument that ads define the blogger is this: Most women don’t write to the ad revenue. (That’s also true of many men who blog, though blogs with a ‘business model’ seem to be built for that context-sensitivity thing) It’s nice, but it’s not why we write. I run BlogHer ads on this blog because BlogHer is responsible about who they accept ads from, and they’re fair about sharing the revenue. But the day I start deciding what to write or how to write it based upon what ads might pop up on this site will be the day I tell you all good bye. I don’t make enough money from the ads on this site — my site, under my control — to let anyone define what I will and won’t write about and where my focus will or will not be.

The editorial decision to run an article about the BlogHer Conference in the Style section because the ads on our blogs are for furniture companies is a sign of dangerous and stereotypical thinking. While I appreciate the NY Times reporting on BlogHerCon at all, I also think they would have done well to focus less on the obvious — marketing opportunities to women — and more on the important — women empowered to raise their collective voices in support of issues, people, children, fathers, mothers, and society as a whole.

The point here is to be heard, not sold. The takeaway from BlogHer for me had very little to do with making money and everything to do with making noise and making connections. Isn’t there something newsworthy about over 1,000 women plus many more in virtual attendance via Second Life leveraging technology to make a difference?

I think there is. Do you?