Women and Blogging

A discussion about the dearth of women to be found among the prominent pages of political opinion, including prominent political blogs, has been taking place across the Internet in places such as Slate, Political Animal, and the Los Angles Times. This is something that has always bothered me, and so I would like to offer my thoughts as to why there are comparatively so few women within the world of high-trafficked, political blogs.
  • Language. Blogs, including the large ones, not only tolerate, but prominently maintain some very real trappings of sexist, boys-only, machismo language. This includes, but is not limited to: regular questioning of the manhood of political opponents / those who disagree with us in explicitly sexist terms; the use of explicitly gender-related abusive language to describe put-downs, including the surprisingly ubiquitous "bitchslap"; the endless use of sports related metaphors, especially football related metaphors, in our writing; the use of explicitly sexist language to describe someone, male or female, who becomes emotional about a given situation. That language of this nature is not only tolerated, but regularly practiced, on many of the major bloggers must of a contributing factor to the relative lack of women among the political blogosphere.

  • Hillary Clinton Hatred. I have repeatedly tried to challenge the existing hatred of Hillary Clinton among many in the netroots, to little or no avail. Despite my efforts, and those of Kos, Clinton is still hated among many in the lefty netroots along almost exactly the same, overtly sexist lines regularly found in the bowels of the Republican Noise Machine. To not believe that hatred of the Democratic Party's most prominent standard-bearer does not contribute to the general feeling of hostility toward women among the blogosphere would be an extreme exercise in denial.

  • Political Culture. The gender imbalance in traditional avenues of political punditry have been dominated by men, as the recent discussion on the topic shows: In the first nine weeks of this year, women penned 20.5% of the paper's op-ed columns, not including staff editorials, which do not carry bylines. That compared to the New York Times, with 17% women writers on its op-ed pages and the Washington Post with 10%. Anytime that a field or profession is so utterly dominated by one demographic or another, members of that demographic will feel more comfortable attempting to enter that field while those who do not fit into that demographic will not feel as comfortable entering into that field. Because men dominate the field of political punditry, as they also dominate many political fields, men will gravitate toward those fields while women, feeling less welcome, will not.

  • Computer Culture. While more women use the Internet than men, those who are the custodians of the Internet have traditionally been male. Techies, programmers, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, computer science departments and science departments are all dominated by men. Thus, much like the way men gravitate toward political fields, they will also gravitate toward computer fields, feeling comfortable and welcome.
I am sure other people have other ideas, especially our female readers, and I would like to hear them. In my experience, conservations about this topic have never gone well online. However, we desperately need to have them.

Tags: Blogosphere (all tags)

Comments

85 Comments

NONETHELESS...
While all the above is true, the very best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women. And it's not unrelated to the fact that they don't indulge in the above infantile behavior.

I'd like to add one more factor: Women are far more often responsible for a wider range of real-world obligations. Hence monomaniacle blogging 24/7 is much rarer for them.
In the long run, however, all this may change. It won't just happen--significant change never does. But consider: Women are, on average, better with language, better with listening, and better with communicating.  So the underling factors supporting a significant shift are there.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: NONETHELESS...
"While all the above is true, the very best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women."

That is true now, but we are living in the first era when that was the case. The history of dkos psoters and idarist who went on to become regular guest posters were also great diarists. Historically, they were men (Billmon, Steve Soto, Steve Gillard, DHinMI, DemfromCT, theoria, Meteor Blades, myself, even four of the current five). Maybe things are chanign though. That would be a good sing.

by Chris Bowers 2005-03-18 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: NONETHELESS...
I don't think the guest posters as a whole are the best DKos has to offer. I'm not ragging on anyone in particular. I'm just saying that the names I look for  most are a different mix, more heavily female.
by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 04:15PM | 0 recs
More frustrating is that woman who do blog...
have to conform to the male blog culture. See Wonkette and MaryScott O'Connor. Now I know there are profane women, but I tink it turns off a lot of women. My mother and sisters wouldn't even read posts that used some of the profanity I see on blogs because it can get pretty vulgar. While I am not suggesting people censor it too much, is it really necessary to use so much profanity?

Moreover, I think women (feel free to correct me) tend to be more likely to have nuanced posts. When you look at blogs like Kos and what diaries tend to get promoted and comments well-rated, commenting that some one is a moron or a declarative statement is much more likely to be read then a more measured comment.

The blogs on abortion and other women's issues tend to be written  by men and women's comments are solicited. My mother always says women just understand things differently then men so we don't get those prospectives because women.

by tiberius 2005-03-18 08:06AM | 0 recs
related issue
Why did Brookings invite mostly men and mostly old line and reactionary personalities to their blogging event?  These are probably related.
by Matt Stoller 2005-03-18 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
Excellent point Matt. On the other hand, the only two women I am aware of trying to promote themselves here are annatopia and blassie. Even if dkos and mydd both had more women links on their blogroll I wouldn't check them out because I already have a multitude of regular sites.

Why don't more women bloggers interject themselves here? dkos has plenty of women diarists, but I am not aware of whether any of them have gone on to start their own blog. Why not?

From Kevin Drum's discussion I get the impression that the women bloggers have their own little blogiverse that I was completely unaware of. Is the problem located on Venus or Mars? Or both?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
I get the impression that the women bloggers have their own little blogiverse that I was completely unaware of.

I actually hate web rings, but I did join one recently just to try to support the visibility of women political bloggers. It's the Progressive Women's Blog Ring. There are some fantastic blogs on it.

by dogged 2005-03-18 09:36AM | 0 recs
Thanks
I've picked up more interesting links today and yesterday over at Drum's site than I could ever have found unassisted.

Frankly, it had never occured to me as a problem or even crossed my consciousness. Even if it had, how do you google for a woman's political blogsite?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks
how do you google for a woman's political blogsite?

I googled "women's political blogs" and the first return was the Progressive Women's Blogring. That was a good start. I also got a lot of good hits in the first few pages, including to some good posts about women bloggers that contained a lot of links. However, most of the results were crap.

Also, unless a blogsite spells out in its description that it's a woman's site - I can see blogs falling through the cracks. Mine, for instance, does not say anything about my being a woman in the description. I have a first name, Christie, that is pretty easily picked up as female, but I'm commenting here on MyDD as "dogged," which is the name of my blog - not so clear. And I do not, in fact, come up in that google search, except here and there as a link or a member of a blogroll for some of the blogs that DO come up.

Right now, the best way to seek out blogs of a different nature than you normally do is follow links and check out blogrolls on other sites LIKE the one you're trying to find more of.

There are some nascent technologies trying to cross-reference blogs, but there is nothing I'm wowed by. Yet.

by dogged 2005-03-18 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
I wanted to thank you for linking that. I just joined.

Viva las femmes! (or Viva las mujeres! or You Go Grrlzzzzzzzz! Pick your cheer.)

by boadicea 2005-03-18 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
You're welcome - glad you joined!

One nice thing, everytime someone, somewhere starts talking about women bloggers, I find at least one more blog to read.

Of course, unless that starts coming with an extra hour in each day, eventually this strategy is going to fail.

by dogged 2005-03-18 12:09PM | 0 recs
Women's "blogiverse" not just political
When I was featured on the ABC's Nightline last week on their segment on blogging, I told the the story about how one blog post by me led to a major "blogstorm", especially in the infertility-related blogosphere, which led a Virginia delegate to withdraw a really odious bill.

The key to this political success was that the "women's" blogosphere - not just the progressive political blogosphere - mobilized to oppose this bill.

Many brilliant women bloggers don't blog exclusively about political issues.  The most widely read blogs that impacted this particular bill are focused on family and reproduction, but the women who write them are all progressive and politics comes up quite often, just not exclusively.

by Maura in CT 2005-03-18 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
How about a little blogwhoring Matt? Didn't I run across a site of yours a few weeks ago? I didn't bookmark it and it got lost in the shuffle.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: related issue
www.bopnews.com
by Matt Stoller 2005-03-18 01:57PM | 0 recs
Hillary Hatred
One thing that annoys me about the "netroots" is the easy dismissal of positions that one does not disagree with as based on some sinister motive that is so often found.  This is especially the reaction of "Deaniacs," but the phenomena is certainly not limited to them.

So, Chris writes that "Hillary hatred" among the liberal netroots is based on "sexism."  Believe me when I say that at least for me, personally, that is not the case.

I dislike Hillary because she is, for me, the primary example of a politician who will say anything to get elected.

I dislike Hillary because of the pride that she has in her husband's ending the right to government subsistence in the form of welfare payments, a positioni that even Ronald Reagan never took.

I dislike Hillary because I think if elected president she would continue her husband's corporate influenced, "moderate Republican," economic and trade policies.

I dislike Hillary over her continued hawkishness over Iraq.

None of this has to do with her sex.  In fact, if she gets the Presidential nomination in 2008, something I obviously hope does not happen, the only reason I am likely to vote for her is because she is a woman.  This country is long overdue to have a woman president.  I just wish it would be someone I had some respect for like Maria Cantwell or Barbara Boxer.

At any rate, to dismiss very legitimate criticism of Clinton from the left as based on sexism is a feeble way to avoid truly arguing this issue based on its merits.

by Andy Katz 2005-03-18 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Hatred
I think a lot of the animosity to Hillary can be attributed to her DLC connections rather than her gender.

To these reasons for my opposition to Hillary I would add an "electability" argument, as much as I tend to question them.

The American people have not demonstrated they are even willing to accept a female news anchor. Regardless of how they answer polls, I think that many men and women are not ready to accept a woman as President of the United States.

Even if this only accounted for 2% of the total vote, it could easily lose an election. I think the actual number could be as high as 10-15% who have this unfortunate attitude.

That said, I oppose Hillary for many of the same reasons I oppose Biden and Kerry. I disagree with her politics. I think she could have a long historic career in the Senate and would be a disaster as a Presidential candidate.

The other issues you raise Chris are far more difficult. This one is easy.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Hatred
I'm with Andy and JB on this one.

I dislike Joementum worse, is that because he's Jewish? (And since I'm Jewsish, is it because I'm a "self-hating" Jew?)

by Alex Urevick 2005-03-18 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Hatred
Hillary is a selfish opportunist.  Never forget this about her:   She KNOWS that John McCain told this joke at a televised Republican fundraiser in 1999 or 2000:

"Why is Chelsea so ugly?  Because Janet Reno is her father."

What kind of a person would stand next to McCain smiling and treating him like a friend after that?  Hillary's kind of person, a person of no character whatsoever.  I wouldn't trust her as far as I could pick her up and throw her.  She's been nothing but stink for the Democratic Party.  

by Rowena 2005-03-18 11:21AM | 0 recs
Same kind of person that would...
...stand next to Bush after spreading the rumors that Rove did during the 2000 primaries.  That is, McCain and HRC are both political animals, and think much alike.
by Geotpf 2005-03-18 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Hatred
Certainly a lot of Hillary hatred here.  Frankley I've always liked her.  She's not perfect, but who is?

It's true that many democrats don't like her, my father does, but he's never been able to explain this to me in a satisfactory manner.  I think that to a great extent we've allowed the right - people like Rush - to convince us that she's a horrible person.  Based on this perhaps she wouldn't be the best choice for 2008.

by Ryan 2005-03-18 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Hatred
Ryan writes:
>>>>>>
Re: Hillary Hatred  

Certainly a lot of Hillary hatred here.  Frankley I've always liked her.  She's not perfect, but who is?
It's true that many democrats don't like her, my father does, but he's never been able to explain this to me in a satisfactory manner.  I think that to a great extent we've allowed the right - people like Rush - to convince us that she's a horrible person.  Based on this perhaps she wouldn't be the best choice for 2008.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I didn't need Rush Limbaugh to convince me that Hillary Clinton is a rank opportunist (pretty much like her husband) who never met a principle she wouldn't run away from.  No doubt she's bright (like Slick Willy); but if it's character you're lookng for, or a commitment to progressive principles, forget it!  Maybe she thinks she used to commune with Eleanor Roosevelt; but I'd be damned surprised if Eleanor "communed" back with her.

by Joe Hill 2005-03-20 08:52AM | 0 recs
As for opportunists
If you object to opportunists in politics who the hell do you think will the field be left to?

Politics is opportunistic at its core. Creating opportunities for your message and taking advantage opportunities where they arise.

It seems to me what you are really talking about is ambition. Which is not a dirty word, though the distrust of those who openly admit they seek power runs deep in the American psyche.

And an ambitious woman is considered worst of all.

by boadicea 2005-03-20 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: As for opportunists
boadicea writes:

>>>>
If you object to opportunists in politics who the hell do you think will the field be left to?
Politics is opportunistic at its core. Creating opportunities for your message and taking advantage opportunities where they arise.

It seems to me what you are really talking about is ambition. Which is not a dirty word, though the distrust of those who openly admit they seek power runs deep in the American psyche.

And an ambitious woman is considered worst of all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When I used the term "opportunism", I
thought it was clear that I was using it
in its most pejorative sense--a sense that
fits the Clintons to a tee.  You can play
all you want with the semantics, but if you
are ascribing selfless/altruistic motives to Hillary and Bill, I think you are barking
up the wrong tree.  There is a HUGE difference
between their brand of opportunism and the
"opportunism" (if you will) of a Gandhi or
an Eleanor Roosevelt (both of whom proved to
be not too shabby as political movers and
shakers).

What I'm trying to say is that both the
Clintons (you see, I don't distinguish them
by gender, as you persist in doing in order
to "prove" a rather narrow point) strike me
as people whose main--or even "only"--concern
is their own political power, rather than any
amelioration of the general human condition.
I suggest there is plenty of chilling evidence
to support my charge (to wit: Bill's taking
time out from the '92 primaries in order to
endorse the execution of Ricky Rector, and
Hillary's new-found hawkishness in order to
establish her bona fides with the reactionary
masses).

Both Clintons are only too willing to eschew
whatever principles they from time to time
espouse in order to further their personal
ambitions.  I reject the notion that politics
belongs exclusively to the ruthless or to
whoever has "the most balls" (as so many--
even on the left--are wont to say these days).
As I've pointed out countless times in
postings to this and other forums, the pos-
session of "balls" is neither a necessary
nor sufficient condition for acting with
courage and decency.

by Joe Hill 2005-03-22 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: As for opportunists
It was certainly clear you were using it in a perjorative sense.

Thanks for clearing up the specifics. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

by boadicea 2005-03-22 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: As for opportunists
boadicea writes:

>>>>
Thanks for clearing up the specifics. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
>>>>

...and thank you for understanding the
point I was trying to make.  Upon re-reading
it, I was afraid my tone was a bit on
the harsh side...thanks for seeing beyond
that.

by Joe Hill 2005-03-23 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: As for opportunists
No worries.

I try not to fight my allies. There's too much of a target rich environment out there to waste ammunition on the circular firing squad.

Arms present. Pointing out.

by boadicea 2005-03-23 09:28AM | 0 recs
because women get turned off...
I have to disagree with Paul that somehow women's diverse responsibilties (think cleanng the house/raising the children) keep them from blogging. Other than being a pretty sexist at least I think so. There are a lot of women in college, for example, who have the time to blog, but they are not on the blogs in large numbers. So I think has more to do with the blog format?
by tiberius 2005-03-18 08:16AM | 0 recs
It's Not Sexist!
If you think that women's responsibilities are limited to housecleaning and raising children, that's understandable, but quite wrong. Women routinely do a great deal of emotional work that men are utterly oblivious to. And this happens from early childhood right up through college, into motherhood and careers on into old age.  (Even in college, women spend a lot more time making their rooms liveable than men do, a lot more time conversing with friends and family, etc. How much of this is nature and how much nurture is irrelevant to the point I'm making--it's true, whatever the mix of reasons may be.)

I do more of this in my family than most men do (not a very hard standard to beat), but I know that women routinely do far more than I do. And I know it takes its toll in terms of demanding time and attention that not only compete with blogging, but also tend to put you in a very different place than the generally macho world of blogging.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 10:11AM | 0 recs
Blogging is not against women's nature
Your argument is basically that women have a lot to do so that is why they don't post on blogs. Women may have a lot to do, but in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of women bloggers on the net and there are more women online than men. These blogs often don't get linked to and they aren't written in the same style popular with male blog readers.

It is ridiculous to say that it is not in women's nature to blog because they have other obligations; I am sorry but only a man could come up with such clearly wrong-headed explanation. Women in college spend their time making their rooms livable so they don't have time to blog? Give me a break. Cleaning and decorating does not take that long. Everyone regardless of gender finds time to do the activity they enjoy and a lot fo women enjoy writing. I think the macho culture has a lot more to do with the problem than women's focus on more important things.

Maureen Dowd complained about the hostile comments she received and how hard that was for her to deal with as a women. She doesn't receive those comments in realtime like blogs and have to deal with the vulgarity. I mean on the poll thread the second comment (well-tensioned) is about "girly-men"-- the macho attitude is prevasive in blogsphere and it is a problem because we need to here women's voices on social issues.

How will all our wonderful plans to reinvigorate the democratic party work if we have no idea how they will play for a female audience? What good is our framing when we don't appeal to women directly? Luntz and the Republicans understand you need to think of women when constructing our frames and how can we do that when we don't have any serious female voices?

That said, sorry about the grammar in the last post (I was distracted by my other responbilities)

 

by tiberius 2005-03-18 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogging is not against women's nature
I think we need to get over the cultural double standard towards loud, aggressive women vs. bold assertive men.

Faux News and conservatives seem to be doing a better job of developing these individuals than progressives. Witness all of the Faux News blondes who are being given air time. Consider Coulter and Malkin.

We have Gloria Alred and perhaps Susan Estrich? And an older generation that included Gloria Steinham. I may be having a brain fart, but Claudia Flavin is the only "liberal" woman I have seen on any cable or media shows lately that is assertive and bold.

I don't think you can count Cecey Connolley? (sp)

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogging is not against women's nature
I believe the reason is that conservatives, including Coulter and Malkin, spew vitriol at liberal women who are assertive and loud (note the term femininazis). What woman in her right mind wants to expose herself to that kind of hatred?
by tiberius 2005-03-18 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogging is not against women's nature
"Your argument is basically that women have a lot to do so that is why they don't post on blogs."

Needless to say, I never said anything with 13 parsecs of this.  (After all, I said that the best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women.) Your inability to comprehend my argument is so monumental, I see no point at all in trying to set you straight.

At least Craig Farmer is fun to lampoon. This is just sad.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-18 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Blogging is not against women's nature
" the very best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women"

This is your opinion (fine - I am not sure there are that many diaries front-pages or recommended on Kos that are written by women) and the point is that women are not seen that frequently in the blogsphere and the idea Chris articulated is what to do about that. I am glad you think women write better diaries, but they aren't really that many women writing diaries. Frequently recommended Kos diarists of late: Welshman, Pastor Dan, Jerome a Paris, Bob Johnson, Carnacki, (then list goes on and on) and occasionally Mary Scott O'Connor, Susan Hu, and. Regular front pagers: Armando, Hunter, DavidNYC, kidoakland, etc. But, there aren't that many women front-page and being front-paged matters in terms of exposure b/c your average person doesn't read every diary.

It matters for women's voices to be front-paged in blogosphere otherwise we may risk alienating a potential constituency. If some women write great diaries and people ignore them with the exception of you, what good is that?

Now lets get to my monumental misunderstanding, you explain women don't blog b/c:
"Women are far more often responsible for a wider range of real-world obligations. Hence monomaniacle blogging 24/7 is much rarer for them."

and later you add:

"Women routinely do a great deal of emotional work that men are utterly oblivious to."

My particular favorite= "Even in college, women spend a lot more time making their rooms liveable than men do" in response to my comment that a lot of women in college have time to blog.

These suggestions are an offensive and ridiculous.

To be fair, you point out things may change because women write a lot. Based on this reasoning, I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that somehow things will change b/c I can't imagine you believe women will be giving up their "emotional work" soon. But, maybe you belong to the Richard Perle school of logical thought.

The point is that women get the back benches in the political blogosphere because of the series of reasons Chris articulated. Sorry you see no point in setting me straight about your argument, but maybe this is case and point for the kind of argument that turns women off.

by tiberius 2005-03-18 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Blogging is not against women's nature
Now lets get to my monumental misunderstanding, you explain women don't blog b/c:
"Women are far more often responsible for a wider range of real-world obligations. Hence monomaniacle blogging 24/7 is much rarer for them."

and later you add:

"Women routinely do a great deal of emotional work that men are utterly oblivious to."

My particular favorite= "Even in college, women spend a lot more time making their rooms liveable than men do" in response to my comment that a lot of women in college have time to blog.

These suggestions are an offensive and ridiculous.

There is nothing offensive or ridiculous about any of them.  Anthropologists, sociologists and others in the reality-based community write about these sorts of things all the time.  (Typically, it's female anthropoligists such as Michaela di Leonardo, in case you want to bash them, too.  There's a worldwide political movement addressing such issues, too, called "Wages for Housework."  The problem is, such scholars and activists highlight issues that are much more impactful for poor, working-class or middle-class women--particular those of color. Privileged women who have maids are almost like men in this regard, so they don't think it's important.)

The point is that women get the back benches in the political blogosphere because of the series of reasons Chris articulated. Sorry you see no point in setting me straight about your argument, but maybe this is case and point for the kind of argument that turns women off.

Obviously you have missed my point. I didn't offer my argument to refute Chris's points. I offered it in addition to Chris's points.  

This means that you have misconstrued my argument in at least three significant ways:

(1) You have taken comments about why women don't blog more to be comments that they don't blog at all. (You really have said this about me, unbelievable as that may seem.) You have thus turned a sympathetic observation about the burdens women bear into a just-so story that justifies their relatively invisibility.  But that's YOUR GOP-style spin on my argument.  It has nothing to do with what I actually said.

(2) You have taken an argument based on broad gender role conditions intended to supplement arguments specific to blogging, and misrepresented it as an argument opposed to those specific arguments. Again, spin worthy of the GOP.

(3) You have either ignored or misrepresented my praise of women bloggers--which both reinforces Chris's arguments, and demonstrates that I value their distinctive contributions.  Your latest turn has been to list recommended diarists, and front-pagers and say, "If some women write great diaries and people ignore them with the exception of you, what good is that?"

Here is what I said. The very FIRST thing I said in response to Chri's story:

While all the above is true, the very best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women. And it's not unrelated to the fact that they don't indulge in the above infantile behavior.

I'd like to add one more factor: Women are far more often responsible for a wider range of real-world obligations. Hence monomaniacle blogging 24/7 is much rarer for them.

News flash: Popularity and quality are not synonymous!  I was not tooting my horn for being so broadminded. I was simply observing that the quality is already there.  (DKos has some severe problems with burying valuable stuff--women's voices included, but also most discussions of a more reflective nature.  I have written about this on DKos before.)

The point of making such an observation is to note that women are already doing it, despite the barriers that exist.  I don't know how else you can read a sentence which says, "While all the above is true, the very best diarists on DKos are disproportionately women."

How you can manage to turn such a statement into an example of male supremacism is beyond me. You really do belong on Faux News.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-03-19 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: because women get turned off...
I agree strongly with most of Chris' points.  For months on Kos I tried to get people to stop using terms like "bitch slap" and others that denigtated women.  I have come to like this blog better because there are more thoughtful posts and not so many puerile putdowns.  Nor is it as personal and self-referential.  Maybe that is because it is smaller, but I really appreciate the content of the main posts here on what is going on.  Decisions are being made on the tax bills that will seriously circumscribe what can be accomplished politically this year and next, as the cut taxes, borrow and spend Republicans give more and more advantages to wealth over work.  

Mostly I go to blogs for information about politics and, lately, economics, because I believe that is where our future is being decided.  Men vie for dominance with other men.  By and large they pay more attention to what other men say and often get drawn into pissing matches with other men.  Women just don't go in for that sort of thing as much.

That said, I have seen more good women commenters and diarists emerge over the two years than men, but it seems for every one we gain, we lose one to other responsibilites.  I really do enjoy the diverse voices and the exchanges of information.  We need lots of different voices to put the picture together.

by Mimikatz 2005-03-18 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: because women get turned off...
On the other hand, a poster here referred to some CNN gaffe regarding the blogosphere as "rape".

Which as I noted at the time, is pretty much as offensive to me and other rape survivors as you can get on a keyboard.

It was crossposted on Dkos as well, so it may be a chicken and egg thing.

But I think it's a difference of volume more than anything else.

by boadicea 2005-03-18 12:33PM | 0 recs
Ummm... could it be...
... as simple as the fact that we live in a male dominated culture altogether?

That perhaps women are represented in far smaller percentages in most fields then they represent in the population?

That these small percentages get even smaller the power and money is involved?

That this describes blacks, hispanics, and virtually ever other minority except for the minority known as white northwestern european males?

Could it that while great progress in diversity and more proportionate representation has been made since the 60's in many areas that it has also stagnated to a great degree and that this country remains institutionaly discriminatory?

Could it be that the blogosphere simply reflects the greater reality around us?

by Andrew C White 2005-03-18 08:24AM | 0 recs
Not true of Blog for America: Ask Maura in VA!
In all the endless comments about "where are the Blog women?," the fact that on Blog for America women make up a large percentage of DFA's 'netroots, is always overlooked...

Now I know that BFA may not have the same high profile as it used to, or as other prominent political blogs, but Maura Keaney (Maura in VA on BFA) was recently featured on Nightline about her great grassroots success...

There are many women in the blogosphere -- and one place to find the heart of the real story is at Blog for America.

by Vermonter 2005-03-18 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Not true of Blog for America: Ask Maura in VA!
Thanks for the shout-out.  The success featured in the Nightline piece orginated both on DailyKos and at the Democracy for Virginia blog, and then spread through blogs written by progressive women - though not primarily political blogs.  I actually think it was the "nonpartisan" nature of the blogs that spread the story most actively that made the grassroots mobilization against the bill most successful.

As Paul Rosenberg noted above, I also find the women diarists at DailyKos to be disproportionately more interesting and readable than the male diarists.  (Of course, sometimes there's no way to tell from a user's handle!)  But I find that women diarists are very rarely front-paged, even when they do make the recommended list often.

When it comes to more DailyKos women starting their own blogs, it's a fair question.  For a while, I was the only person regularly posting on the Democracy for Virginia blog, so it became "my" blog by default.  I'm glad that there are more people contributing now.  My own blog would be far more diverse than just a political blog, and I find that most of the brilliant progressive women bloggers I know don't have just "political blogs" - they are blogging about their families, their careers, and politics, not just politics.  So they often get overlooked as political women bloggers.

by Maura in CT 2005-03-18 07:30PM | 0 recs
We'd Blog Even More If.........
The infantile and hostile vulgarity and "hate/trash talk on the part of many male bloggers not only muddies the issues, but creates an atmosphere of aggressiveness and revulsion that has nothing to do with either passionate or informed opinion.

All bloggers become more effective, more informed in shaping and expressing opinion when they refrain from hostile, sex baiting language. We need to express ourselves without excessive vulgarity .....all the better to make for more effective rants, comments, diaries, and impresssive opinion. As a woman, I have never ceased to post, blog, etc., but I am often turned off and discouraged from replying to hostile male bloggers  who are so caught up in their furious rage/talk because, I sense nothing can penetrate this kind of anger. And....sometimes it evens frightens me.  I just avoid replying to them, and seek out other opinion to comment on.

by morris1030 2005-03-21 05:24AM | 0 recs
Standing. Right. Here.
Okay, I realize I'm not prominent enough to really make this cut. And, I'm actually sitting not standing, in the interest of full disclosure.

But I'm annoyed at the idea anyway. It's assuming the limit of your experience is the limit of all experience. Granted, a typical media critic pitfall-not to mention the assumption that everyone behind a keyboard is white and male until otherwise specified.

I roll my eyes forever.

FWIW, I agree with your analysis that it's a symptom of other problems both in the party and society. I actually think the blogosphere will be a place where women make up a lot of ground in relatively short order.

by boadicea 2005-03-18 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
I hope you are correct.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
I think I made the paramters of my discussion quite clear: highly trafficked, political blogs. and I don't think that my experience, that such blogs are dominated by men, is all that inaccurate.

Of course there are literally hundreds of thousands of female bloggers, but they did not fit the paramters of what I discussed. I find that the highest trafficked political blogs are domianted by men is distrubing.

by Chris Bowers 2005-03-18 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
You did make your parameters clear, Chris, and my argument is less with you than it seems. My apologies if you felt slighted.

One difference, in my experience, between how men and women look at the blogosphere is the importance  of the choir vs the soloist.  

The measurement used by most of the people talking about how little influence women have is traffic, because that's an easy metric. How many people are listening to your solo, to extend the metaphor.

I think the more interesting number is how many voices are blending into the music.

I only recently started focusing on adding entries to my blog every day. I'd been pulled into live journal by some friends, and found the DailyKos rss feed during the election.  It was a jolt of adrenaline and I found myself wanting to get more active. So I started a blog of my own, but didn't have a real sense of what I wanted it to do. After a couple of false starts, it's become what it is now-a way to report on underreported issues that I care about. Mostly political, at the moment, but that may very well change.

I have to get back to work, so I'll have to pick up this conversation later.

Unless y'all solve the problem in my absence, in which case, THANKS!

by boadicea 2005-03-18 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
Now see? I had never noticed your blog signature before boadicea. Perhaps women could be more aggressive about blogwhoring? Although I am lodging the same complaint against Matt. I ran across his blog the other day and didn't bookmark it so it got lost in the shuffle.

I've never quite understood the objection myself. It's always struck me more as productive cross-pollination. I appreciate that Jerome and Chris have never been opposed to it.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
As I wasn't sure what I was going to end up doing with my blog, I wasn't promoting it until very recently.

I think I only revised my sig here in the last week or two, so you didn't miss it. It wasn't there.

I actually read some advice from Atrios about how to grow a blog audience recently, and it coincided with a decision on my part to spend more time on my blog. Did a redesign and the whole nine yards.

That's when I decided to start doing entries every day and making sure I left comments and used trackbacks when I was interested in a subject on another blog. Actually, I think that started when I got my first trackback (from Off the Kuff). Oh, what a heady feeling...  

All this has made a big jump in my hits. Already in March I'm well over double my Feb stats.  Hell, March is higher than the entire history of my blog to date. Though still miniscule in comparison to this community, or many others.

I've got a couple of longer pieces I'm working on. They should help in developing a kind of "signature" for my blog, but time is  at a premium for me, so they're coming slower than I'd like.

by boadicea 2005-03-18 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing. Right. Here.
Of course there are literally hundreds of thousands of female bloggers, but they did not fit the paramters of what I discussed.

Exactly.  Which is why I found it odd that you suggested "computer culture" is one of the problems.  As I pointed out in a comment below, other than some specific spheres (like the narrow one you brought up - highly trafficked political blogs), blogging as a whole is overwhelmingly female, not male.  So the problems we need to discuss here aren't computer culture problems, or even blogging problems, but very specifically political blogging problems.

by cos 2005-03-19 01:50PM | 0 recs
Probably a number of reasons
And probably factors similar to the fact that women are less likely to participate in talk radio (of any ideological stripe), and "open mike" discussions in political conferences.

It might be all the factors you mentioned, or it might simply be that women (I won't bite into the nature vs. nurture debate) tend to be more reserved about what they say - or put in a more negative light for men, less likely to fly off with the mouth about topics they know little or nothing about.

Either way, I wouldn't make sweeping changes in format or content unless you receive specific complaints from women.

by Drummond 2005-03-18 09:23AM | 0 recs
Note the gender of commenters here
Clearly a majority of males.

Why?  What do they know that we women don't know about our own blogging behavior?

Or perhaps the women take their time to respond?

Or perhaps we've seen this question pop up every single quarter for the last three years and we women know all we need to know about the issue and we don't feel compelled to discuss it ad nauseum?

As for me, I've got more comments on this topic, but they're the same ones I've posted in response to this same question for the last several years.  Are men going to digest them this time, or ask the same question again in another quarter?

by RayneToday 2005-03-18 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Note the gender of commenters here
Actually I just did. There are at least several that I had assumed were just "one of the guys" and it had never even pierced by consciousness how biased that assumption is.

Wow! Women are like almost real people! Today has truely been an epiphany for me. Now all I have to do is carve out some time to actually visit and maybe even post some comments at all of the sites I've been given here.

I'm not sure I'm ready for an actual political dialogue with women, but I'm willing to give it the old college try. All I ask is that everyone keep in mind how sensitive I am when I show up.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 12:04PM | 0 recs
I'm a Girl Blogger...
I'm glad Chris posted this now. Though he doesn't mention it, it's actually Estrogen Month in the blogosphere, and at least one woman blogger has challenged the "big" male bloggers to read and add women to their blogrolls this month. I've added new blogs to mine in response to this challenge, as have a lot of other bloggers including the incandescent Roxanne at Rox Populi.

I read blogs because I like them, period. I don't read the ones by women preferentially and I don't have a problem with male bloggers. I DO think this is something we need to drag up into our consciousness now and then, to make sure we're not missing important commentary or insights due to unexamined assumptions, habit, whatever.

by dogged 2005-03-18 09:31AM | 0 recs
Bitch PhD's comments on this subject from February
From Bitch PhD (purely for the sake of discussion and for a female blogger's perspective):

          Oh look.  We have another well-meaning non-sexist liberal non-discriminatory fuckwit around being all concerned about how women just don't choose to talk about politics.  Or maybe it's that they're innately less comfortable with the "food fight" nature of political discourse.

Hey Drum, you moron, try doing some goddamn research before you shoot your mouth off, ok?  

How the fuck do men ever manage to succeed in any kind of intellectual endeavor without bothering to find out what the fuck they're talking about before shooting their mouths off?  Oh yeah, right, it's the magic power of the cock.  Jesus.

Thanks, I guess, to Unfogged for the tipoff.  My blood pressure was getting dangerously low.

       

by blueflorida 2005-03-18 09:32AM | 0 recs
women
Women are busier than men.
     
by nascardem 2005-03-18 09:33AM | 0 recs
Speaking for my own experience
I read political blogs more than I should. I comment when appropriate.  As a mom with a full-time job outside the home as well, I have neither the time nor the energy to run my own blog.  In my recent political experience outside the blogworld, women are energized and involved on a par with men (looking at DFA activities in Illinois, for example).  

One thing about looking at comments on blogs, you don't always know whether the poster is male or female . . . so its sometimes hard to tell exactly how dominating the men are in the blogsphere.

by Maven 2005-03-18 09:41AM | 0 recs
BTW
Check on this post on the topic:

http://www.utopianhell.com/index.php?p=207

I'm sure most of the men here missed it.

(Stoller, you're familiar with Utopian Hell, aren't you?  She's mentioned you in a previous post...)

Anyhow, what she said.  When does it STOP being about what women are doing, and when does it start being about what men are or aren't doing?

Ask yourself how many blogs by women you've linked to, for starters.  There are more blogs by women than by men.  It should be easy to find one.

by RayneToday 2005-03-18 09:44AM | 0 recs
If not Hillary
Then who?  

Its all very well to disagree with Hillary on many many issues . . . hell, I don't agree with her on much these days it seems like . . . but the virulence of the attacks is in fact -- offputting.  Why?  Well, because there are so few women out there as leading politicians.  In terms of leading presidential candidates, we've got Hillary.  

And frankly, reading some of the spite put out there about Hillary, it comes off as if some are joining the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in their bombast.  Keep it civil, and we might agree with you.

There are so many fronts on which to fight sexism these days .  . . . it does get wearying.

by Maven 2005-03-18 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: If not Hillary
How about Boxer? I'm still not sure about Pelosi's political stripes, but they have both proven that strong women can also be strong leaders.

Frankly, I'm astonished at how many female political bloggers have been linked to here today. I also don't have the slightest clue how I could have either stumbled across them or intentionally discovered them.

Kevin Drum has done something good by starting this conversation. It is hardly time to hang the Mission Accomplished banner, but just bringing all of these sites to public attention has gotten the ball rolling.

As Paul likes to say, liberalism is a continuing conversation. Let's keep the dialogue going.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: If not Hillary
excellent comparison. the blogsphere raves over Boxer. Playing the sexism card against the critism of Hillary bypasses the whole issue of Hillary's politics and just her general appeal to the portion of voters we need to get electoral votes to win.

I'll add one more point: the republicans are completely sexist (Ann Coulter, etc.) It is a part of what will drive them to turn up the Noise Machine against Hillary. Yes, it's unfair in a completely idealistic world, but I'll hate to make an already hard battle harder for us.

I feel the main reason the blogsphere likes Boxer, Dean, Feingold and Reid (mostly) is that they stand up for us when our voices don't appear to be heard. I'll take this one step further - given the current republican attacks on government programs,  SS, deficits, I think the middle 20% of voters (regardless of party lines) will jump to a candidate that can express outrage and anger (think of Perot). If we have two candidates running as if they're running for class president, it's not going to create a following.  Hillary and DLC in general gives me the feeling that they're default class presidents - they're trying to please everyone and in turn won't get a strong movement. It's not what we need to win.

by zigzig 2005-03-18 03:26PM | 0 recs
I Love Hillary!
And I am ecstatic about her potential candidacy and  many other non-blog democrats love her too.  Face it many of us hated GWB with utter hatred, and guess what he got re-elected. May Goopers hate her too, but she has strong support from democrats accross the board despite being despised by most of you here. It's like you all have been drinking the Gooper Kool-Aid. Sad.
by NJDEM1 2005-03-18 10:12AM | 0 recs
I don't hate Hillary
but I am not interested in her being President.  She is too conservative for me. Sorry.

I am a women.

by noalternative 2005-03-18 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't hate Hillary
BTW, as a progressive who supported her and her husband through out impeachment, I do feel betrayed by her present conservative coarse.  The DLC are the people who sold both Bill and Hillary down the river.
by noalternative 2005-03-18 10:32AM | 0 recs
Yeah
While it was the black caucus (particularly Conyers and Waters) constantly showing their faces on television and going to bat for him while all the DLC types were running from it like it was the plague.
by Drummond 2005-03-18 11:31AM | 0 recs
Affirmative Action, Anyone?
I think the blogosphere has blogged this issue enough; isn't it time for the blogosphere to do something about it?

You want more prominent women bloggers, you link women bloggers.  It's as simple as that.  There's plenty of worthy content written by women in the blogosphere; link it, already.

by Drew 2005-03-18 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Women, Yes; Hillary -- !@?
Sen. Feingold is her natural opponent. Hillary is about as politically extreme as I would be comfortable holding my nose and supporting at this point. Bayh is preferable to Biden or Kerry, but from what little I know, he is too conservative for my tastes.

If Biden, Kerry or Bayh are the nominee, I will probably go Green or whatever alternative Move On has to offer. I'm done supporting Faux Republicans. Kerry was the final straw for me. To be honest, even Hillary would be stretching the envelope on my willingness to support another centrist.

If Hillary wants to triangulate to the right, and is the nominee, then I'll probably triangulate out of the party.  

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 11:15AM | 0 recs
I think it will be Hillary vs. Feingold too
Feingold will be Dean and Hillary will be Kerry.  However, having said that, I think Feingold will win, because the "centrist/establishment" vote will be split about 17 different ways, and the "reformer/liberal" vote will all go to Feingold (for example, I don't see Kucinich or Sharpton or Boxer running-they will all get out of the way and support Feingold, IMHO).  Clark might split the liberal vote a bit, I suppose.  I'm hoping for a Feingold/Clark primary peace treaty and eventual ticket myself (of course, Feingold was against the Kosovo war which complicates this).  The only chance for Hillary is if all the establishment characters (Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, Biden, Richardson, and the rest) gett out of the way for her, which I don't see happening (too many huge egos there).  Also, I think, after going for the "electable" canidate, we will go with the liberal this time.  The irony is that Feingold is probably actually more electable in the real world than Hillary or the rest.
by Geotpf 2005-03-18 04:47PM | 0 recs
Posted my theory above, however...
My secretaries suggested another theory in that maybe women don't have as much time to dick around on the Internet.
by Drummond 2005-03-18 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Posted my theory above, however...
As long as no one tells my boss he's paying me to blog, that shouldn't really be an issue.
by dogged 2005-03-18 12:10PM | 0 recs
How is Hillary a factor?
Many of the other comments have a basis in reality- but Hillary hating?  I can't dislike Hillary as a Presidential candidate for fear of being labels anti-feminist?  This is like the worst parody of a liberal by Rush Limbaugh.

I'm sorry- but I call bullshit.

I hold Hillary to no standard I don't hold every other Democratic politician- male or female- to.   for reasons that have nothing to do with gender.

by bhurtaw 2005-03-18 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: How is Hillary a factor?
I made a similar remark about Rep. Ford the other day. I would have the same opinion of him regardless of his complexion. It's the politics I find objectionable, not the gender or race.

Three cheers for the Black and Brown and Honkey Peckerwood Coalition!  ... oops ... er ...

Three cheers for the Black and Brown and Honkey Peckerwood and Women Coaltion! ...

Oh hell. Why can't we all just get along? What about the Rainbow Coalition? What happened to that idea?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-18 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Hillary a factor?
Because the fact is a lot of the rhetoric (this is not a critique of your comment, ftr) skirts sexism and mysogyny.  

Rather than argue based on her position or political acumen or whatever- a lot of the criticism- veiled in supposed jokes or not- seems to boil down to "I can't stand that bitch. Who let her in to the party?"  

It's a sentiment most powerful women have had to face at some point in their careers, so it tends to poison the dialog pretty thoroughly.  

Please note I am not suggesting that Sen Clinton shouldn't be criticised, or even cordially loathed like I loathe Sen Lieberman.

But if I began, for example, calling Joementum Israel's Sr. Senator, that would flirt with anti-semitism.

Criticism of Hillary that implies that she owes her position to being Bill Clinton's wife-which I've seen not infrequently-is mysogynistic and sexist in much the same way my example is anti-semitic.

by boadicea 2005-03-18 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Hillary a factor?
I call partial bullshit. I've a long list of complicated reasons for being extremely wary of Hillary mostly because I see her as someone who would sell out the economic and social policy interests of low income folks (who are mostly women) in an instant and with no trace of chagrin for political gain. I think her cut off point for representation is at around 70K. I do not trust her and I want the first woman President to be a good one.

OTOH, I do clearly see that a great deal of the negative response to her is rooted in sexism. Far more, I think, than Lieberman's negatives being rooted in anti-semitism. I'm not saying this underlies your response but it's surely true of many people.
How's that for 'nuance'? heh

by colleen 2005-03-19 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: How is Hillary a factor?
/ I can't dislike Hillary as a Presidential candidate for fear of being labels anti-feminist?  This is like the worst parody of a liberal by Rush Limbaugh.

Not what I said, and not what I saw in either Chris' or Kos' linked posts. Where are you getting that from?

/I'm sorry- but I call bullshit.

It's the political blogosphere. You're soaking in it.

by boadicea 2005-03-19 06:07AM | 0 recs
I'm against HRC being prez
I voted against Clinton in '96 and Gore in 2000.

Was that sexist of me too?

I've drawn a line in the sand. If you haven't come around on the Iraq War at this point, you ain't getting my vote for President of the United States.

The pro-war Dems got one of theirs as the nominee in 2004, now it's time for an anti-war Dem to get the nomination.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-18 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm against HRC being prez
If we're still in Iraq in 2008, I guarantee that won't be a problem.
by wayward 2005-03-18 05:16PM | 0 recs
out of Iraq by 2008?
You think the Bush administration wants out of Iraq?

Do you think they can get out and achieve the Neo Con objectives?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-19 04:47AM | 0 recs
I'm going to respond to each comment
I use salty langauage here on occasion.  However, I avoid using things like "cunt" or "fag".  Using sports related metaphor is a weak complaint here, IMHO.

Hatred of Hillary Clinton mainly is because of her pro-war and other "centrist" views, plus the feeling that her running for president is an ego-trip that will make us lose the white house yet again.  Now, the second point here is based on the fact that a certain percentage of the public is sexist, and therefore won't vote for her, but that's not our fault.  Sexist people vote too.  I doubt much of this has to do with her sex-Boxer is beloved here, for example.  Same comment could be made about anti-semitism-we like Feingold (and Boxer again, for that matter) and hate Lieberman.

The next two have to do with more men than women liking to and wanting to do certain things.  Should we punish men for liking certain things more often than women?

by Geotpf 2005-03-18 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm going to respond to each comment
Now, the second point here is based on the fact that a certain percentage of the public is sexist, and therefore won't vote for her, but that's not our fault.

Substitute race for the question of sex and see if that's still an acceptable statement. I hope it would not be, and that's the crux of the issue.  You don't gain ground in a sexist society by accommodating sexism. You get it by confronting it in ways both large and small.

Hatred of Hillary Clinton started when Bill was still President and it's left its rancourous mark on almost any conversation concerning her in the party.  It's so fuckin' meta it practically has fan fiction.

I do have a problem with Hilary running for President in 2008.  It has to do with my distrust of dynasties. The Bushes being the most recent example, but almost every state has them, and Clintonism has it stamped all over itself. It may be that 4 more years of distance will remedy that, but I'm skeptical in the current political atmosphere.

I want to have a 2008 general election with no Bush or Clinton running for President. The specter of Greek politics, where two or three families fight it out for ascendancy in every election should scare the piss out of every small "d" democrat in the United States.

by boadicea 2005-03-18 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm going to respond to each comment
Dynasty is the only thing I object to with regard to Hillary.  That, and the DLCers thinking that it's a sign that only their agenda is capable of winning the presidency.

Otherwise, I have nothing against Hillary.  She's smart, articulate, and veers right far less often than many other Senate Democrats.  She is also based in New York, so if she won, that would be a blow to the obnoxious sentiment that only a Southern Democrat has any hope of capturing the presidency.  

Plus, it would absolutely kill the Clintonphobes, who had desperately hoped that Bush's presidency would make Clinton's seem sullied by comparison.

by wilder 2005-03-18 09:21PM | 0 recs
The DLCers are going to have to stop dictating
what the progressives do and do not.

The Fromlings won't stop pronouncing, mind you, because hell, what else have they got to do?  However, even aside from the members they claim without asking, like Barack Obama, there are a lot of folks affiliated with the DNC who want just what we want.

An ascendant Democratic Party.  There will be places where DLC strategies are the wisest. And we should use them in those  districts.

Don't let them claim a single unearned victory, and  smack 'em up side the head for every disloyalty to the Democratic Party tentmates.

But knee jerk reactions serve only the corrupt Republicans who count on continued Democratic infighting to make us ineffective.

 

by boadicea 2005-03-18 10:16PM | 0 recs
I was going to start a blog
but unfortunately, it hinged upon Kerry winning the election.  I was going to call it the "Bush-o-meter" and examine Kerry's actions in comparison to Bush's, as a way of fighting back against the inevitable right wing charges that Kerry was a worse president.  

Once that option dried up, I decided to just lay low for a while.  I have no problem being straight forward and taking strong positions, but so many people with more connections and greater knowledge of news sources are already doing it.  When I start my own political blog, I want it to stand out from the crowd.

by wilder 2005-03-18 06:06PM | 0 recs
All I want to say is....
GO HILLARY!! Bring Bubba back to the big house in 2008!!
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-03-19 02:29AM | 0 recs
Language
I certainly agree that the constant reference to sports language, locker-room style is off-putting to many women readers and bloggers.  But it is so thoroughly mixed with the whole culture, you really just aren't particularly conscious of it, and don't object.  

It hit home to me once when I was guiding some Danish friends through the Capitol -- the floor debate in the Senate that day centered on a budget issue -- but as I tried to translate I was stuck -- I did not know how to translate American Football into Danish and make it into a Tax Policy matter.  And my Danish is pretty good, particularly in Political Economy.  

I dislike the Language Police efforts -- language should reflect how you comprehend and construct your culture, but perhaps Women Bloggers could make an impict in this area by putting into the mix more language that reflects Women's world views.  

I've often thought for example that it would be good to re-name Chris Mathews show.  Instead of "Hardball" perhaps we could call it the "Heavy, well aged, thick with fruit, Fruitcake show."  (I do know how to make one of those)

by Sara 2005-03-19 03:43AM | 0 recs
Hillary
I think your comment about Hillary Clinton is misplaced.  As several people have pointed out in earlier comments, some of the most prominent women in American politics are blogosphere heroes and regularly praised, particularly Barbara Boxer (who has a blog on dailykos).

Out in the face-to-face world, I observe the same reaction to Hillary as here on the blogosphere.  Some people, mostly loyal Democrats, love her.  Many more people can't stand her.  This sentiment seems evenly distributed among men or women in the more liberal leaning social groups I know, and it doesn't feel sexist at all.

One of the biggest issues people have with her is that they see her as a "party hack", someone who has connections in the inner political clique and seeks to take her "turn" at the top job.  Much like Kerry, in fact, except that Kerry wasn't nearly so prominent until he ran for president.  And given that example, I think that if Hillary does become the Democratic nominee for president, many people on the Democratic-partisan blogs will make their peace with her or even start liking her, much as happened with Kerry.

Also note that the levels of Hillary-hatred on these blogs don't even come close to bloggers' sentiments about Joe Lieberman.

I think it's very clear that people's feelings about prominent pols like Hillary and Joe are inspired by those two individuals, and not sexism.  And people's feelings about other prominent pols like Boxer and Dean, are again about those individuals, and not their gender.  And I see these feelings shared equally by men and women.

by cos 2005-03-19 06:26AM | 0 recs
Computer Culture
Although political blogs are overwhelmingly male, nonpolitical blogs tend to be overwhelmingly female.  That's most evident in the personal blogs: For example, LiveJournal and diaryland (representing several million active blogs, and probably over 10 million if you count the much larger number of not very active blogs), both I think have 2-to-1 female to male ratios.  Actually, LJ publishes their stats, and they say 67% female.  the Internet's other independent online magazine, the one that's not about politics, Nerve, has featured more female bloggers than male, starting with Lisa Carver, their first major blogger.

So, I don't think computer culture is inherently a barrier to women blogging.  It's something about political blogging, specifically, that involves a gender barrier, not blogging as a whole.

by cos 2005-03-19 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Computer Culture
So, I don't think computer culture is inherently a barrier to women blogging.  It's something about political blogging, specifically, that involves a gender barrier, not blogging as a whole.

I totally agree.  And I'd also suggest, as I've said in many similar discussions before, that there are MANY progressive political women bloggers who don't get "counted" as political bloggers because their blogs are not primarily political.  

As far as I'm concerned, the bigger problem is not that more women aren't starting exclusively political blogs, but it's the insular nature of the political blogosphere.  Few political blogs link and trackback to any blogs that aren't also completely political in nature.  It's a great missed opportunity to connect with and recognize the power of women bloggers who are part of the larger blogosphere as a whole.  

Our political efforts at blog-based activism and outreach would be much more successful if we worked harder at connecting with allies in the non-political blogosphere.  

by Maura in CT 2005-03-19 11:40AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------