March 10, 2004
Women & political blogging: The continuing story.
Wow, are there some great posts being written on the subject of why women are woefully underrepresented in blogging in general, and in political blogging in particular. The impetus for all this discussion was a post at Campaign Desk that showed up on International Women's Day (March 8). (If you haven't read the post, you'll find it here.)
First, check out Boy Bloggers: Still on Top from Susan at Suburban Guerrilla.
* Let's go back to the start of the feminist movement in the 60s. Women embraced the notion of "the personal is political" and were ridiculed by the men of the leftist movement, who were focused on "important" issues, like the war and racism. Women bloggers still tend to put their politics in the context of the personal, and men react... not a whole lot differently than they did forty years ago.
* Men often prefer women to act a certain way - you know, sweet. Demure. Womanly. Discreet. (They don't expect them to advocate blowjobs in the Democratic Party platform, for instance.) They see women who don't conform to that standard as "ballbusters."
* No matter how far women have come, they're still "supposed" to defer to their "betters." Boy bloggers usually have an area of expertise: Legal, economic, military, etc. They expect to be treated like experts, even when they're speaking out of their subject area.
My area of expertise is journalism - which, as you can guess, covers a multitude of subjects. (Basically, it requires you to be a quick study on almost everything.) And I don't defer often; I acknowledge peers. Men tend to get annoyed by this.
And then go read Women in the Blogosphere (plus the comments) by veracious on her diary at Daily Kos. (We think veracious needs to get her own blog so that people can find her more easily.)
It seems to me that the strongest arguments as to why women don't do political blogs have to do with underlying societal sexism: Women get all sorts of messages, starting on day one, about being quiet, polite, selfless, agreeable, etc. Does this translate into lack of political voice? Damn right it does. However, I still don't accept the original premise, that there are very few women political bloggers. I say that mostly because of a comment thread over at Pandagon. Ezra asks why there aren't more young liberal female bloggers. The comments mostly point out all the young liberal female bloggers there are out there. But Susie says:
When I hear comments like this, it reminds me of corporate types who always insist, "But we can't find any qualified minorities!"
When what they really mean is, "I make my selections from the small, incestous world where I'm most comfortable - and I like it that way. If I can't do it with one phone call, I can't be bothered."
Now, I can understand that. Really. But I'm not exactly a shrinking violet. I was a Wampum finalist, my Truth Laid Bear traffic ranking's in the Top 200 and I'm linked from a lot of the higher-ranked blogs.
With all due respect, Ezra, what does it say about you if you've never even heard of me?
[Susie, by the way, is Susan over at Suburban Guerrilla.]
We have our own thoughts on the subject, too, based on the year we've been blogging. It goes back to a story that's told by almost every woman who's been in a meeting that was dominated by men. While the details of the story vary, the skeleton is this:
1) A problem is being discussed, and no one has a good solution.
2) One of the few women in the meeting makes a really good suggestion.
3) The woman's suggestion is dismissed quickly or ignored altogether.
4) After awhile, one of the men in the meeting makes a suggestion that's almost identical (if not actually identical) to the one made by the woman.
5) The other men in the meeting immediately seize on this suggestion, and the man who made it is viewed as brilliant.
6) None of the men think that anything weird happened.
We think something similar is going on in the blogosphere. If you're a woman doing political blogging (or any good blogging, for that matter), we're sure you can provide your own details.
Posted by Magpie at March 10, 2004 12:52 AM | TrackBackSometimes it's more subtle than the example shown above.
My employer was having a problem last year trying to "de-gender" pay raises. They _knew_ men were being offered better raises than women, on average, within the IT field within the company, regardless of quality of work performed, and the processes in place constantly had to correct for this skew. Even female executives fell prey to this.
What they concluded was that face time matters. A potentially semi-competent male working past the usual shift would be seen by the bosses and the connection made that that person was "working hard." A potentially more-than-compentent female wouldn't be seen thre (usually because she had family responsibilites she couldn't ignore) and the connection not made.
This reinforces the problem, mentioned above, of executives that won't go outside their immediate worldview, that are too "hermetically sealed".
Sometimes, they won't go past what people have to do after quitting time either.
Posted by: palamedes on March 10, 2004 02:53 PMYou know what just occurred to me after tracking through all the interesting links in this post (aside from the fact that it's been ages since I seriously updated the blogroll, and that my own blog reading is in a terrible 'top traffic' rut), is that Ampersand might be a classic example of disinterest in women's issues.
Alas, A Blog is insightful, very political, and very focused on feminism. Few bloggers put together as much good original writing and topical research into their posts. It's better quality in general than many top traffic getters, and just as good as many must-link authors. But Amp's posts just never seem to garner much attention among the 'serious politics' crowd, even though many of his posts have sizeable political implications.
Posted by: natasha on March 10, 2004 07:57 PM