The subject of women and participation on political blogs has come up again, this time in an NYT column penned by Katharine Q. Seelye. 

Most of the column is spent presenting the opinions of readers and experts on why women don't participate on political blogs.  The problem is that Seelye never attempts to define what a political blog is.    Are Feministing and Pandagon political blogs?  What about a site where the author writes both about politics and family life such as  Half Changed World?  I would argue that they are, but I have a feeling that the NYT would not.  Reading the column I was left with the impression that a political blog is any site where women commenters are in the minority regardless of content.

Seelye correctly points out that women bloggers don't get the same attention in the media that our male counterparts do, referring to the coverage of (and attention from Presidential candidates) of the BlogHer convention vs YearlyKos.  But she never analyzes that lack of media attention or acknowledges her own role in it.

I have more questions than answers about this:  What is a political blog?  Is the MSM using a narrow definition that purposely leaves women out?  Is this a manufactured controversy or a real problem?  And if it is a genuine problem, why does the discussion feel so sexist?

There's more...

Much of the press coverage of YearlyKos has focused women political bloggers, namely the lack of them attending the convention.  What's interesting is that the same media gave almost no coverage to the BlogHer convention held only one week before. But I guess it's easier to accuse other institutions of being sexist rather than reflecting on your own.

Jane Hamsher tackles this same subject at FDL today.  I liked this passage in particular about the lack of women at an Obama sit-down with top bloggers.

Now I don't think for a minute that the Obama people sat down and said "let's not invite any women." What they were obviously going for, based on Garance's information, were wonky, "serious" bloggers like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein. Which is fine, they can invite whoever they want, but the fact that this group was almost exclusively men is more reflective of the fact that those "serious" institutions are comprised mostly of men. And those people do get support in a way that we women in the blogosphere absolutely do not. Much like advertisers who think we're not "serious," the organizations that support, promote and sustain men -- which are completely external to the blogosphere -- are a much bigger problem than Duncan or Markos's linking habits.

There's more...