Well Fisked.

>>To be fair, Wilson herself says elsewhere that "this media, by nature, begs to be written with exaggeration and embellishment," so maybe I'm exaggerating her state of pique. Then again, she also says elsewhere that, "if you're conservative, faint of heart, anti-feminist, homophobic, racist, use bad grammar, and/or detest typos, you will not like what i have to say. feel free to leave." So maybe I'm not exaggerating.

Actually, those are my words. I'm the owner of the blog and the website. Wilson and others are blogging for me while I take a break, so, to be fair, read the rest of the bio and see it's not Wilson you're quoting at all.

So it isn't Ms. Wilson who is against racists, faint hearts and bad grammar (but for typos!), it's Lauren. OK.

It is Ms. Wilson who is moaning about women being ignored. She is a victim. Women are victims. Victims, Victims, Victims!

Lots of guys would not date a woman who went on like that; why would they want to read her blog? I wouldn't. There are two female bloggers I read regularly, Virginia Postrel and Lynne Kiesling, both of whom should be more widely read but who are not for readily understandable reasons (Postrel because she devotes more time to her paid writing than to her blog, Kiesling because she does mostly specialized writing on economic subjects). They are not victims, at least you don't get that impression from reading their blogs, so maybe that makes them part of the conspiracy to ignore women. Or something.

Look, if you want to reach as many people as Instapundit or Sullivan, do what they do. I'll grant this is a lot harder to do now, after the people who read blogs have settled into habits. Inertia is a powerful force. The fact remains that they started investing vast amounts of time and effort into a novel form of communication at an opportune time, and now are reaping the benefits -- such as they are. So, on a smaller scale, is Dan Drezner. They deserve credit for what they've accomplished. Maybe they deserve blame for the lack of prominent women bloggers, too; I mean, it's possible, and you could have a discussion about it. But I'm not interested. Sorry.

That's right. Top ten - no women.

Untrue, NRO's The Corner, is a group blog run by a woman – Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Z: Ah, yes - feminism and "victim" psychology. Always a good one to pull out of your hat.

Dan: I don't think anyone deserves any blame, per se, on the lack of recognition that female bloggers get, but don't innocently wonder where we are (as Yglesias did) when you aren't paying attention in the first place. I have many bloggers on my blogroll that do a fine job at looking at news and political stories and dissecting their memes and nuances, but as it is with low readership don't get the recognition of those like Glenn Reynolds who point to stories and write comparatively little commentary. It's unfortunate, yes, but whatever.

Personally, I'm uninterested in high rates of readership - it brings blog spammers, flame wars, and tends to cut down on real discussion, leading to petty infighting and generally useless commentary that often relates little to the original post.

But as mentioned somewhere in this discussion before, the numbers tend to be unfair to female bloggers, not so much as A-listers, but our existence in the first place. That's always discouraging.

Further, I don't think this is a case of blaming the messenger as far as A-list status goes, it's more a frustration with the normative values of male opinion over female. Other research (which I'll have to dig up - although I'm sure you know of it) suggests that women tend to write more subjectively, which leads to the "women journal, men blog" statement. Contrary to that opinion, I still obviously believe that the personal is political in many ways, and that our personal experiences as both men and women should be treated as such without greater weight given to either sort of subjective experience.

Further, this is frustrating because blogging is a subjective act in the first place. I hardly think that the researchers that I mentioned could really categorize blog entries into subjective/objective categories unless one is simply cataloging news stories, which is arguably subjective anyway. But I digress.

And Z, again, I suppose I could explain the circumstances under which I wrote what I did on my bio and about page, but as you said, you're already disinterested.

And this? It is Ms. Wilson who is moaning about women being ignored. She is a victim. Women are victims. Victims, Victims, Victims!

Lots of guys would not date a woman who went on like that; why would they want to read her blog? I wouldn't.

Don't worry. We're not looking for dates.

Lauren, I hope you spend many nights alone.

I wouldn't date you if your boyfriend paid.

Ever thought of getting a decent disposition? You might want to try learning something from Asian women.

I agree with the research here - for whatever reason, perhaps the "politics as battleground", the same way "sports as battleground", women aren't as interested in politics, the same way there is less interest in watching sports. Maybe it is simply that those activities that resemple "bloodsports" don't interest women as much.

Western women are over-indulged, spoiled brats, as the moron comments that these women have made on this site makes self-evident.

No wonder western women are losing the battle to Asian women. Western women really don't stand a chance. Asian women know how to be a helpmate to a man, and they are also smarter, more savvy about technology, and wiser at holding family and marriage together.

Western women are over-indulged, spoiled poodles who have absolutely nothing to offer, except bitching for more.

I dumped them long ago in favor of an Asian woman. Glad I did, too.

Men, don't put up with these women in your personal life, and put up with them as little as possible in your professional life.

I ignore completely just about everything that western women have to say. I intend to continue to do so. They have nothing to say that is worth listening to.

The critical intellectual and spiritual problem for the west to resolve is the degradation and ridicule of men that is the common day to day idiocy.

The critical problem for most western women is to learn how to stop bitching and complaining, and to learn from Asian women. Western women are so stupid that they think that Asian women need to learn from them.

My advice to Mr. Drezner. Ignore and ridicule these worthless women. Feminism is a lie. Feminist women are liars.

Oh, the venom. Most popular, most schmopular.

Life, opinions, and blog traffic are multidimensional, messy, and driven by subjectivity. The "Top Ten" list will tell you the intersections of popular thought, not the most popular thoughts.

Survey people about their favorite flavors and the most common responses will be sugar, salt, and butter. Not beacuse anyone loves them above all others, but because most people like them at least a little. Best flavors? Or just most common? Most interesting? Or just most known? Are people only eating sugar and salt? No. Are people ignoring and marginalizing mushrooms and cabbage and hamburger? Are fruits victims of pretzels? In some senses yes, and in some senses no.

Stop thinking small. Stop beating each other up. Save your venom for specific people who are doing actual damage.

As Lauren states:

"if you're conservative... feel free to leave."

Let's me understand this: A blog deliberately tries to exclude a large portion of its potential readership - and then wonders why its viewership is down.

Lauren if you haven't noticed many of the leading blogs lean to the right. Even among women your blog falls flat. It is not the messenger - its the message.

Wow -- I've never seen a bunch of commentors so totally destroy their argument by embodying that which they're denying. Well done guys, you get the counterproductive chauvinist award.

As a writer for one of these 'major" blogs spoken of (Pandagon.net), I've had similar rows at my site. Part of the problem is the definition of blog versus journal. When thinking of political blogs, I immediately sort all blogs (Live Journals, Dead Journals, Defamer, etc) and leave only those that focus primarily on public politics. A recent survey from Campaign Desk found that only 4% of these blogs are run by women. That doesn't mean women aren't writing a fair number of important and articulate blogs (to mention the big ones, Talk Left, Postrel, Wonkette, Sisyphus Shrugged, Political Aims, etc) and it isn't to detract from the importance or worth of journals, but there's a fair imbalance in a certain category that isn't bridged by noting that there are "a lot" of female run blogs. Dan's right in one sense -- the top blogs measured in terms of influence and readership include very few women. Blasting him for that is an attack on the messenger because the message is unsettling.

Seismic,

Actually what I found funny was her “use bad grammar, and/or detest typos” which begs the question – is she okay with typos so long as you use proper grammar while committing them?

;)

But you’re quite right, it’s pretty silly of her to complain about supposedly being “ignored” (particularly after she herself ignored two female bloggers on the top ten list that Daniel reported) when you deliberately make a sizeable portion of the blogosphere unwelcome because they might disagree with you. In her case I would say it is both the message and the messenger that people find unappealing.

If a hag feminist writes it, you can be sure I won't be reading it.

Ignore these women. They are liars and spoiled brats pleading for another bon-bon.

Feminism is Nazism is feminism. There is no difference.

These women should be ignored.

There's Michele Catalano of "A Small Victory" and "The Command Post".

Two points, though someone already beat me to one of them.

1. The Corner is run by Kathryn Jean Lopez. She doesn't get enough attention for that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. In fact, she not only runs The Corner, but she's the editor for NRO as a whole. As such, she's one of the more powerful people in the online journalism world. How many women does TNR have in such positions? Just asking...

2. Matthew Yglesias is an idiot, or has become one since taking the corporate jet. He has become a shrill partisan who often ignores facts to state his case, a case he as often as not states badly. Perhaps he doesn't see many women in the blogosphere because, well, he's an idiot.

I would agree with the argument being advocated if I knew of examples of blogs written by women good enough to merit a wider readership. Any suggestions?

I read a lot of blogs on a variety of subjects. When I have the time, I'll cruise sites like blogrolling and N.Z. Bear, looking for new ones.

So what do you see when you check the list on my site? Virginia Postrel, Michelle, Wonkette and Cathy Seipp.

Oddly enough, when it comes to book reviewing and literature, women outnumber the men on my list: Old Hag, Eurotrash, Bookslut, Moorish Girl, and Sarah Weinman.

This is not to say that my list is the be-all and end-all, but at least from my point of view, men tend to outnumber the women when it comes to political blogging, hence no surprise that the survey tends to be skewed in that direction.

Bryan wrote:

The Corner is run by Kathryn Jean Lopez. She doesn't get enough attention for that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. In fact, she not only runs The Corner, but she's the editor for NRO as a whole. As such, she's one of the more powerful people in the online journalism world. How many women does TNR have in such positions? Just asking...

Probably since Lauren by her own admission does not want conservatives to read her blog, she does not go out of her way to read anything that might challenge her own preconceived notions. Or maybe she’s just devalues the opinions of women when they don’t agree with her own.

Matthew Yglesias is an idiot, or has become one since taking the corporate jet. He has become a shrill partisan who often ignores facts to state his case, a case he as often as not states badly. Perhaps he doesn't see many women in the blogosphere because, well, he's an idiot.

(kidding)

I hate to rain in their parade but feminists would be shocked to see how limited in influence they are to the average woman of today. As a group feminism hasn't had a relevant idea in 20 years. No wonder NOW is withering away to insignificance.

Wow! Sure is a whole lot of 'tempest in a teapot' going on here. When is the last time any of you reading this actually checked the gender of a blog author before reading the site? I read the sites I find interesting. Is it safe to say that most people do the same? Perhaps if you don't have the readership levels you want it's because you aren't interesting, not because you're (fill in random trait here). I post to my blog because it's something I want to do, not because I need tangible proof of how popular/unpopular I am. Then again I do tend to take responsibility for my own actions on a fairly regular basis, perhaps I'm not an average person.

Bill Peschel wrote:

I would agree with the argument being advocated if I knew of examples of blogs written by women good enough to merit a wider readership. Any suggestions?

Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information usually provides some first rate economic analysis but lately her political postings seem to have deteriorated in quality. When she’s on her game though, she can be one of the best.

Isn’t Libertarian Samizdat a group blog run by a woman (much like the Corner) and they seem to have quite a few women as regular contributors.

Umm . . . Steven, your mother _is_ a Western woman, isn't she? And you have sisters, right? If so, they fall in this group as well. And should you have been fortunate to be blessed with uncles and aunts (surely your aunts fall into this group, don't they?) who had children, then your female cousins by all means must also fall into this group.

Sorry, Steven, but you're kinda close to making yourself look like a fool. And no, I'm not a feminist.

Jenno (or should I say “Brian” ;) ),

Well put, Lauren does seem rather quick to play the “victim” card and it does not help her cause IMNHO. I too go for content but am always on the lookout for an interesting POV or subject that I had not considered.

Perhaps if Lauren wanted to have her ideas taken more seriously it might help if she showed more respect for people who hold contrary views rather than deliberately telling them to leave.

Just a thought.

TW (Stewie)

Good to see bloggers so selfabsorbed to spend all this time talking about themselves and not about ME!!! On a serious note. blogger ARE becoming too full of themselves, just like the talking heads on TV and star journalists. I thought we were supposed to be Anti-that behaviour. We were about the message, not the messenger. Guess the Blogosphere is ripe for a counter culture. I think Instapundit and the like on the A-list are Disco in the late 70-ies. Ripe for the real blogosphere revolution.

Hey I got a book to sell. So Cover ME!!!

I'm having fun, Lola, and I intend to continue to do so.

You're right. My mother and daughters are western women and I don't put up with the feminist lying from them either.

They have the privilege of learning what it is to be a women from my Asian wife. They are fortunate to have that opportunity.

And, I'd suggest the same educational experience for you. Get to know traditional Asian women. They are far smarter, more advanced and more pragmatic than western women, including you. You might learn something, although you will have to chuck decades of brainwashing to do so.

Stephen, please... can I assume that you want to date Mr. Drezner, because you read his blog? "Dateability", or even "likeability", aren't great indicators of readability. Harlan Ellison often writes vicious pieces (notably, the massive 'why I hate Gene Roddenberry' rant in the published edition of his 'City on the Edge of Forever screenplay') and he's often hypocritical besides, but he's still entertaining.

Seismic.... actually, most of the leading blogs tend to group within the center, except for NRO on the right, which (being linked to a longstanding magazine, and with multiple contributors that get face time on CNN) is arguably a special case; along with Kos & Atrios on the left. Connections with CNN or other media outlets and/or professorships seem to have a larger role than ideology in getting to the top.

Stephen, every intelligent down to earth guy I know in philly has come to the same conclusion, we still look but we accept ZERO shit from the ladies,

I'm not as anti feminism, though I do view it as a failure, feminism was successful in gaining the right of equity which is great, but it failed to address the culture of women which had evolved for a very different role, throw in a lot of rheturic about an innate female supperiority with the grin and bear it culture of men and you get what we got

don't get the view that women disagree with you or are unable to see the problem themselves;
do a survey, ask women if they would rather have a man backing them up or a woman backing them up when they are in a serious situation. My survey was not exactly scientific as it revolved around people I interact with, but not a single woman said they wanted a female to back them up, (a few did say they wished they could say female but couldn't.)

I correct the females in their behavior, but it's only a thing that can be successful if we all do it, it won't help us, but maybe our children can find decent mates

I end with a quote from a girl I knew back in student goverment in college
"Yeah I was raised to believe that as a female I am supperior to men, it's all crap, but for me it's true."

she had slightly above average intelligence that mostly came from hard work (not dissing that, just want to put her words into perspective)

I didn't suggest that dateability was a reason to read a blog. I said that feminism is Nazism, and that there is no reason to read the work of Nazis. Over the past century, their words have been predictable and their lies are manifest.

The complaint here is the stupid feminist complaint... that western women are somehow oppressed. What a crock! I am suggesting that this blog give this argument about what it deserves... a fart in its general direction.

Craig, you might want to try airing out your brain for a while in the hopes of overcoming a lifetime of brainwashing in feminist lies. The kind of women who are leveling these charges are actually relying on male chivalry. Long ago, liberal men decided that their version of chivalry was to mount their white horses and ride off to save the little feminist ladies, no matter how egregiously they lied.

These women need to be ignored, ridiculed and spat at precisely because they are feminists spewing out the usual feminist lies.

if you're conservative, faint of heart, anti-feminist, homophobic, racist, use bad grammar, and/or detest typos, you will not like what i have to say. feel free to leave.

Doesn't capitalization count as part of grammar?

I think Jenno has hit the nail on the head. It's been said before, but "content is king" (or "queen" if you prefer). The fact that NRO was overlooked as a female-run blog is most probably due to its lack of focus on "women's issues". For general reading, I rely on blogs that I trust will deliver comments on a broad range of topics and provide links to those whose attention is more focused and relevent. While politics from a "______ perspective" (fill in with feminist, black, asian, one-eyed organ grinder or any other self-defined group) are interesting to some (especially those in or opposed to the group), and may, on some topics, provide unique and meaningful commentary, I believe most survey respondants are like me in that they prefer to drink bountifully from a wider perspective and consult subject matter experts as needed. In this regard, I concur with Jenno that it is an issue of content and not group affiliation that is being reflected.

I like Baldilocks!

Stephen,

I'm embarassed to report that I have something in common with you - I too am married to an Asian woman.

Fortunately I didn't have to order mine from a catalogue. I don't know why you seem to be reacting so negatively to some pretty average comments but I can guess.

Oh and BTW my favourite blogger though I admit it has very little to do with politics - http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/

Share & Enjoy

As I stated before:
"I'm uninterested in high rates of readership - it brings blog spammers, flame wars, and tends to cut down on real discussion, leading to petty infighting and generally useless commentary that often relates little to the original post."

Contrary opinions are appreciated if they remain respectful of others, quite unlike this. Dan's original post in response to Trish's entry is more along the model that I wish to follow, not this name-calling stuff.

And as for this:
>>Actually what I found funny was her “use bad grammar, and/or detest typos” which begs the question – is she okay with typos so long as you use proper grammar while committing them?

Sure, anything goes. It's my bad grammar and typos to look out for. We might be "feminist nazis," but we aren't grammar nazis. ;)

DirtyDingus, you are a moron. I've heard the stupid "mail order bride" comment endlessly, particularly in liberal communities which would be ashamed to talk about any other ethnic group in this fashion.

My wife grew up in Portland, Oregon, has more than one degree from an American university and is in charge of training for a very large U.S. corporation with branches in every major city.

How would you like your crow served? Or would you just like to publicly admit to your idiocy?

Being a conservative who hangs out at AIR, I've noticed the ones demonstrating a total lack of understanding when it comes to grammer, puncuation, and spelling....

... are the liberals who come by regularly to troll.

Oh, and Stephen... stop selling Hispanic women short, ok? I like Asians too, but these ladies have many of the same benefits.

Finally, somebody I can agree with!

ubu, you are absolutely right.

Lauren, Wilson: There was a poll, and there were (depending on who you ask) very few or no women's blogs on the top ten. You, and probably others, immediately jumped to the conclusion that this is because women are being ignored. Frankly, I think that you're too smart for that. There's no 'male blog' conspiracy. Dan didn't get together with his cronies and figure out how to skew the results to marginalize women. The reason that the top ten didn't include women's blogs is because women's blogs aren't read as much - and don't for a second believe that it's because those blogs are run by women. With the notable exception of Stephen I've not met a single man in my life who didn't think of women as anything less than equals. If you want to change the trend you're going to have to actually look at the reason women aren't being read. Much as it might feel better and be easier to blame someone else for this issue, you're going to have to accept that we live in an age of general equality. If we automatically assume that men are to blame for our problems, then not only are we destroying the world we've worked for, we're also being ridiculously unfair to all the men who do see us as equals.

Brent, Ezra: Kudos.

Stephen: I pity you. You're a small-minded jerk, but I still pity you, because you'll probably never get it through that thick skull of yours how wrong you are, and so you'll never have the chance to make amends. Mind you, I hope you do manage to change, but I'm betting you'll live to a ripe old age and then die the same small-minded jerk you are now. That will be a true shame, too, because by the time you're gone the vitriol that you've posted here for the world to see will have lost it's potency, becoming something for people to merely chuckle over - the small opinions of a small man. And that will be your legacy. An anchronism, in a time when everyone else knew better.

OK, I'm getting a head-ache - so apologies if someone else already caught this - and Shame on the old crowd here if you didn't.

Look at this passage again...

"...than that handful of topics most frequently discussed on blogs (Bush, Kerry, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Israel, etc.) Women's political voices are being ignored again."

Abu Ghraib? ABU GHRAIB? A-BU F'n GAH-RAIB???!!!

You're kidding - right, Wilson? That just came-up, off the cuff like...fell off your fingers as you typed your stream of consciousness, huh?

Unreal. I believe the journalists call it "Asked and Answered" you disingenious pile of estrogen.

Andrea, I will outlive you, prosper and enjoy a great sex life. I am now.

And the wretched, stupid lying Nazi ideology you embrace will lose.

You'd better find something else while there's still time.

>>Much as it might feel better and be easier to blame someone else for this issue, you're going to have to accept that we live in an age of general equality. If we automatically assume that men are to blame for our problems, then not only are we destroying the world we've worked for, we're also being ridiculously unfair to all the men who do see us as equals.

Andrea, I agree. This is why I stated in the comments here that blame is not the issue. Analysis and research methods were called into question, not the oppression of one group or another.

I'm curious whether anyone read the rest of the posts linked, like Rivka's post, or the old post linked at Trish's own blog. This discussion is several years old and rather tiresome, as I'm sure some of you would agree.

Kim du Toit Kim du Toit Kim du Toit!!!

Heh. Sorry.

Stephen: your comments are almost as amusing as your website.

Lauren, everything you believe is a lie.

The feminist story of the past you've been indoctrinated in is a lie. Your notion that you believe in equality is a lie. Your entire life is a lie.

Men and women have never been unequal. That men and women were unequal in the past is the worst, most horrendous lie you've been told.

You've been indoctrinated as thoroughly as a member of the Hitler Youth. You are just as brain dead and devoid of any realistic picture of the past.

You are not on the side of good, you are on the side of evil. The ideology in which you've been indoctrinated is Marxism, which is Nazism, which is feminism. I'd suggest several years at a monastery to try to clear your brain of the web of indoctrination.

Interesting that, for all his ranting about how western women should be more like Asians, Stephen apparently hasn't bothered to learn anything positive from his male Asian in-laws. Things like being less confrontational and less controlling, valuing social harmony, speaking softly and politely... :-)

Craig:

I am not sure that these blogs could be considered anything but right of center (not on all issues obviously):

1. Andrew Sullivan (Daily Dish) -- 59
2. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) -- 43
4. National Review Online (The Corner) -- 20
10. Lileks (The Bleat)

Stephen: Learn to read. I did not say that I would outlive you, I said that you would die. And you will, because that is a fact of life. I did not say that would not prosper, and I certainly made no comment on either of our sex lives.

As for my Nazi ideology, my comment contained absolutely no references to anti-semitism, monism, culling of unworthies, homophobia, fascism, or any other of the tenets of Nazism. You might believe that feminism equals Nazism, but you've given absolutely no evidence for that aside from them both being a bunch of lies. By that logic, I can equate feminism to the Easter Bunny.

You want to argue with me? Fine. Do so intelligently.

Stephen, try again. I come from a long line of African-American women who didn't take any crap. Especially when they've had to go through so much just to survive. I think you really need to look deep down inside and examine what it is that you're really reacting to.

My brother-in-law is very much into Asian women. So much that he willingly called his ex-girlfriend at 7pm on the dot every day they were not in the same physical location. God forbid that he should miss a phone call. One has to wonder who is really in control behind the doors.

You don't exactly know my in-laws. They're Filipino. And, yes, I have learned, most pointedly from my father-in-law.

And, here I'm taking his advice. I am undoubtedly the eldest and wisest here, and I'm "controlling" because I know better, and I have no apologies to make for that.

Refusal to accept the rule of the eldest and wisest is punished in my wife's family with devastating promptness and finality, as it should be.

You're in for a surprise in the immediate future. Asians are pretty fed up with people like you. I just went to a large Asian festival in New York City. The talk all day long was anger at being ignored, passed over, and patronized. My wife is in the vanguard. She's ready for all the confrontation you could ever hope for.

It always amuses me that people become annoyed when they feel they are ignored. It also amuses me to see the ignored person yelling discrimination. I read many of the blogs listed because I like the writing - period. I don't go looking for blogs written by a certain gender, although I read several blogs written by women.

I have a small group of people who read my blog, I am assuming because they either like the way I write, like me and want to be nice, or possibly want to see if I crash and burn that day. It's nice that I have friends who want to stop by and leave the occassional comment, but I refuse to feel discriminated against because Instapundit gets lots of traffic and I don't.

Then again, it may simply be that I am not ambitious enough to become a "big" blogger.

hmmm...if what Stephen says about his wife's credentials and job is true (which I'm beginning to doubt, because what on earth is she doing with someone like him?) she hasn't exactly been passed over. Not even by Western standards, much less by Filipino standards.

To be more apropos of this thread's original focus, it's occurred to me over the past year or so, as I read more and more blogs, that the comment sections entice a lot of people, who seem to be mostly men, that must not get listened to enough in their regular lives. That may be why fewer women post to comment sections, read blogs, or host blogs. Most women are more into relationships and are just busier. We're more verbal in other areas of our lives (this the first time I've posted to a comment section in months.)

It's heartening to me to think that probably most men are, too, and that consequently we see a disproportionate amount of egotists, narcissists, crackpots, etc., in trackbacks; they certainly aren't representative of the male population in general :-) It also makes me sincerely admiring and appreciative when thoughtful, intelligent, un-narcissistic and un-egotistical (i.e, secure) men take the time to post, as some have done here.

Lola, I'm going to try to make some sense to you.

Go you my website and take a look at my wife. She is a stunningly beautiful Filipino woman. We live in metro NYC. She attracts bi black woman by the dozens. I'm not bragging when I tell you that I could be taking home another beautiful bi black woman every night.

The reasons for this are not very pretty. For black women over the age of 35, loneliness and despair at ever having a man have become almost the expected. Democratic welfare policy played a large role in this... black women were paid to have babies and evict the man.

Feminism is also playing an ugly role here. The black community used to have an entirely different face. Before the civil rights era, blacks were more likely to grow up in a two-parent family than whites. Feminism has created an ugly and negative alliance between white and black women that mostly harms black women.

I see it constantly. The black women are out there alone in countless numbers because the educational system and the media and the civil rights establishment has endlessly indoctrinated them in being "sassy, uppity", etc. This has disastrous consequences in their personal relationships.

Feminism is racist in its very origins. The Seneca Falls group advocated abortion primarily as a means of limiting the black population.

A return to the traditional black church would help a lot here. Turning your back on white feminist women, who have nothing but evil in mind in regard to black women, would also help.

Men, this Suellen is an egregious liar.

What she means by "secure" man is one who will kiss her behind and swallow her lies.

She's a spoiled brat who should probably have been spanked on a daily basis by her dad to cure her of lying.

And, she will get exactly the type of man she deserves. Believe me, I've lived in liberal communities all my adult life. The ultimate joke is the type of sorry loser, wimp and sexual failure that Suellen will be saddles with.

I know how to stick out my tongue, too, girl. I am happy to loathe you with all my energy.

LOL!

I'm a bit confused. Mainstream media people tend to read male-written blogs, and somehow it's the fault of the blogosphere?

Seems to me that, if there's a fault, it lies with the mavens of the MSM. And I do think these people often have a narrow view of politics, best captured in the phrase "inside baseball.'

I think those respondents were all just too embarassed to admit they read Wonkette.

I can imagine liberal and conservative differences in viewpoint on, for example, our policy towards North Korea. What might "the woman's point of view" be on this subject, and why might there be a special market for it?

For folks with long memories who have been staggering about the blogosphere for a while now - substitute "conservative" for "male", "liberal" for "female", move back in time about two years, and almost exactly the debate ocurring in these comments was raging - no lefty bloggers were highly ranked in the Bear's Ecosystem, where were the lefty bloggers, oh dear!

Not too many years later, the playing field seems to have leveled. But my Bold Prediction is that the analogy stops there.

Trish Wilson is a notorious Internet loon on gender issues, and has been for a long time - she's one of the so-called feminists who claim that men walk all over women in the divorce courts. It's a weird little world she lives in.

A genuine crusader for equality would be heartened that so many of the top blogs are written by gays like Sullivan Cory Doctorow (Boing-Boing) and by gay-friendlies like Reynolds and Volokh. But if you've got a gender ax to grind, this isn't important stuff.

"That doesn't mean women aren't writing a fair number of important and articulate blogs (to mention the big ones, Talk Left, Postrel, Wonkette, ..."

Wonkette? You're including Wonkette as a valid source of intelligence on politics?

Please. Wonkette is a toilet.

I am rather surprised that http://www.greatestjeneration.com never took off in terms of readership. Jen (not me) has one of my favorite blogs. It is so pro-American and on the spot. I love it.

Wow. I thought this was a serious website with insightful comments, but instead this section is overflowing with feminists throwing temper tantrums and nut cases whose only arguement is "You're lying. You're a liar. She's a liar. They're all liars."

I can't believe I had to read through so many worthless rants to get to the comments of a few posters who actually know how to act like adults.

The original post was interesting, Dan, but with childish drivel like this, I guess I'll have to skip the comments from now on. Shame. =(

Where in hell is this divorce court where men walk all over women? I missed that one.

Stephen must approve of male-dom attitudes in Arab and Muslim culture.

Countering bankrupt NOW feminism with macho swagger and visions of spanking is kinda like dueling banjos- fun to hear on a quick visit to Appalachia and both equally colorful- only Stephen's is bigger, I suppose. Or not.

But, good Lord, is this the website for it?

It exists in Trish Wilson's imagination, along with the Vast Conspiracy between men, the media, and politics to keep women down, Buster. Trish was at one time the National Organization for Women's expert on Fathers' Rights groups, until even they realized she was a little too loosey-goosey with the truth for them to deal with.

A technical question:

Is it bad science to study oneself or any activity one is so close to? Isn't there a danger of polluting the results with your own biases? Internal studies conducted by CNN, Fox News, or the NYT don't carry much clout and for good reason.

I've posted this elsewhere, but will add it here too: When Roper, ABC, Nielsen, Scarborough, etc. start researching blogs, their reach and frequency, as well as the demographic/ psychographic make-up of their audiences, I'll pay a lot more attention to the findings.

As the feminist posts on this site and the ones on "Feministe" demonstrate despite themselves, feminism is entirely male-dominated. They insist on males paying attention to them (i.e., their blogs, etc.)? That means that that they depend on that attention for their sense of importance. The group that you depend on for your sense of importance dominates you psychologically. Therefore males dominate the women who are doing the complaining here psychologically. Therefore feminism, i.e., women who declare themselves feminists and complain about males ignoring them are wholly male-dominated. QED.

If I depended wholly on someone else to define myself and my value, I'd be dominated by that person and hate the person also. I'd also complain a lot. Let the snippy sniping begin.

While you're right, Dan, that the survey methodology is probably flawed, I don't see how the flaws would cause blogs by women to be underrepresented. Are we to believe that there are journalists out there who read only blogs by women, but not Drum or Reynolds or Romenesko or Sullivan, and that your survey is missing out on these journalists? Maybe blogs by women don't show up in the survey because journalists don't read them.

First, just to clear up any confusion, I am not Feministe. Lauren is. I'm posting on her blog as a guest. My blog is Trish Wilson's Blog.

Dan, I know a survey is just a survey, but when you don't even acknowledge the large numbers of women bloggers out there surveys such as yours give the impression that there are no or very few women who blog. The ones who make the surveys tend to be ones favored by the more conservative male bloggers who get more traffic, if you go by NZ Bear's ecosystem. It's a problem, and it comes up every three months or so. I just happen to be the messenger this time. It will be someone else the next time it comes up, and that woman will be called a whiner and a victim just as I'm being called now. I've seen it happen before in the past when this subject has been brought up before, and those women were also called whiners and victims.

You can't just not pay attention to women bloggers in a survey (except to name one or two as if that gets you off the hook), and then play innocent when many of them complain (again) that they are being ignored. Matt Yglesias posted the ridiculous notion that women are not interested in politics. They are. When they believe that their opinions are valued they are more likely to participate in the political sphere. Acknowledging the existence of women political bloggers is a good start. I would hope to see that happen, but I have a feeling three months down the road another female blogger is going to complain about another example of sexism in the blogosphere and she is going to be treated to a shooting-down.

"It is Ms. Wilson who is moaning about women being ignored. She is a victim. Women are victims. Victims, Victims, Victims! Lots of guys would not date a woman who went on like that; why would they want to read her blog? "

I'm not asking for a date, Zathras. I'm not here to date anyone.

All the people here who are calling me a whiner, a victim, hoping Lauren spends many nights alone, someone who says he wouldn't date Lauren if her boyfriend paid (what it is with you guys and the sex terminology? Maybe if we put up boobage photos of ourselves that would make you happy?) ... y'all are doing a bang-up job supporting everything I've written about sexism in the blogosphere.

Trish Wilson's comments are vintage bizarro. She accuses Drezner of making a biased survey in order to marginalize women: "You can't just not pay attention to women bloggers in a survey (except to name one or two as if that gets you off the hook), and then play innocent when many of them complain (again) that they are being ignored."

But Drezner didn't "name" any bloggers in his survey, he asked this question: "2) Please name the three blogs you read most frequently. [What if they read less than three?--ed. Then just name the ones you do read.]"

Now how do you connect Trish's charge with the actual survey itself? Well, you can't, which brings me to my favorite question for Trish, one that I've had to ask her often: "Are you taking your Lithium?"

The survey rated three groups blogs with female contriubutors in the Top 10 - NRO's Corner, Volokh, and BoingBoing, so not only was there any attempt to ignore female bloggers, there was no finding that they're being ignored.

Now if the subject were *feminist* bloggers, you'd get a different answer.

I was surprised by the survey a couple of weeks ago of who reads the blogs. I find myself in a very small, possibly only one, category, female, 67, reads or check the aggregator for new items on over 50 blogs per day. And I do have a life. But a lot of it is going online nowadays. Thank goodness I don't have a blog of my own! That might take another two hours or more per day.

Hi, Ezra:

"As a writer for one of these 'major" blogs spoken of (Pandagon.net), I've had similar rows at my site. Part of the problem is the definition of blog versus journal. When thinking of political blogs, I immediately sort all blogs (Live Journals, Dead Journals, Defamer, etc) and leave only those that focus primarily on public politics."

Kevin Drum gets blasted by his own Washington Monthly readers whenever he writes anything that even remotely drifts away from "politics as usual." He even gave up Friday Cat Blogging, which was one of my favorite things about Calpundit. I have a feeling if Kevin wrote more about the housing bubble, threw in a movie review every one in a while, and wrote about subjects off the "All Bush All The Time" meter, he might be thought of as a journaler and lose readership. That's sad, because real political discourse can be very broad and interesting.

Poor Richard Bennett... he's obsessed with me again. ;) Remember to wash your hands when you finish, dear.

That's an odd comment from somebody whose entire journalistic output is a biographical sketch of me and my alleged buddies, Trish.

See Trish's article about me and my alleged buddies for additional humor.

Dan, perhaps your survey would have turned up more influential women bloggers if you had asked for more than just three favorite blogs.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News just did his own poll of elite conservative journalists about their favorite blogs, but didn't limit them to three. http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/blogreach.php

A lot more women bloggers showed up on his list. And remember he interviewed only conservatives. Included on his list was Shiela A-Stray, Sky Watching My World, Joanne Jacobs, Wonkette, Natalie Solent, and even Apt. 11D.

Kevin Drum still does quite a bit of blogging on non-political subjects. Recent examples that stand out are Lakers-stuff (accepted male discourse I know) and thesauri. I do quite a bit of blogging about the non-political, including school-related stuff and cultural subjects. On balance, though, both Kevin and I focus on politics-- that's what makes us political bloggers. Were Kevin to deviate enough that his primary focus could no longer be pinned down, his readers would be right to stop considering him a political blogger and begin calling him a cultural, or whatever, blogger.

For the record, I (and most others I know) define journals as blogs focused on the personal lives of the writers. Those who focus on the media are media-bloggers (LA Observed isn't a journal), those who focus on film are movie bloggers, same with book blogs and so forth. Journals are called something different because there's already an acceptable frame of reference for them (journal/diary), but calling them personal blogs is just fine. Calling them political blogs, however, is not. That is where we appear to diverge. Lamenting Kevin's lack of personal blogging makes me believe you're looking for something different than traditional political blogs and are upset that we're not looking at the same thing.

"Kevin Drum gets blasted by his own Washington Monthly readers whenever he writes anything that even remotely drifts away from "politics as usual." "

That's actually very interesting, and may say a lot about the narrowness of many of those who focus on "politics." How can a person have anything very insightful to say about politics if he isn't also interested in history, business, technology, culture, and the broad universe of human endeavour?

Umm... Trish... Dan didn't conduct the survey. He merely linked to it.

The question of whether female-written blogs didn't do well in the survey is a result of the survey methodology or of a general lack of readership of female blogs should be pretty easy to answer. Just look at the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem, and categorize the entries by author gender.

I have no clue what the results would be, because unless the blog is named something like danieldrezner.com, I have no idea what gender a blog author is. If I'm indicative of the average blog reader, that probably suggests that content is to blame for low readership of a blog, not the author's demographics. For now I'll assume that most everyone who has posted comments is correct in believing that female-authored blogs have low readership.

If that's true, what explains it, if people aren't even aware of a blog author's gender? (Assuming quality is equal for male and female blogs)

The first thing I can think of would be path dependency. The hypothesis of the commentor above who said that the male/female blog split will go the way of the conservative/liberal blog split would support this.

What other explanations could there be? The other main one that jumps out at me would be the following.

If the following are true:
1. The majority of blog readers are male
2. There is a difference in "male style" and "female style" in how people analyze problems and propose solutions, and/or the types of things that interest them
3. People tend to prefer to read blogs that attack problems in a way that they like and agree with

Then it is logical to conclude that male blogs would have higher readership than female blogs, even if one assuming "quality" to be constant

Are those assumptions correct?
1. This is the one I'm most iffy on. The survey certainly suggests this, and it's intuitively very believable to me. But it could well be incorrect
2. This is what we've been told since we were young, by both feminists and "anti-feminists". I believe it has also been borne out in empirical research, showing things like women caring/being more cognizant of emotional aspects of problems than men, etc
3. While many people seek out ideological diversity, I believe that people's "most favorite" blogs are likely to be ones that have similar style/ideology as their own. (My favorite is MarginalRevolution.com ... suprised at all? :P)

Just thought I'd mention Megan McArdle over at Jane Galt as another really great female blogger. Also, all the ad hominems up thread are quite obnoxious, full of vitriol, and pointless, especially the bits about Asian women. Like children, that sort of thing. Criminy.

Ignore Stephen. He doesn't know what jazz is, either. Listen to the mus-hack on his website.

I have a feeling if Kevin wrote more about the housing bubble, threw in a movie review every one in a while, and wrote about subjects off the "All Bush All The Time" meter, he might be thought of as a journaler and lose readership.

Hypothetical blogger decides to shift focus and write about things his current readership isn't (as) interested in - said readership goes away. There are plenty of other blogs to read after all, so that's just the market forces at work. Ditto for bloggers who start out writing about things that don't have "mass market" appeal, of course...they just don't attract a sizable audience in the first place.

If the same happens to a feminist blogger though, it's all due to the vast conspiracy of men keeping women out of the spotlight. Hmm.

It roughly reminds me of the argument that free speech means other people should be required to listen to one's message. After all, how else to give that message the importancy it so obviously deserves?

What I wonder, is how Stephen's wife - who "has more than one degree from an American university and is in charge of training for a very large U.S. corporation with branches in every major city" - still has time to make bookings for their jazz outfit.

Go to his webpage and check out that video -- real jazz musicians the world over spin in their graves as it lumbers along.

Stephen appears to be trolling, but Trish is insane. "We do not deserve to be ignored"? She wants to write about something people aren't interested in, and she thinks she deserves readers? My puny little blog is mostly ignored (even when I update it more frequently than I have been recently), and I am annoyed at that, but I don't think I "deserve" readers.

Here are some excellent female bloggers:

http://asmallvictory.net/

http://www.rachellucas.com/

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/

http://www.electricvenom.com/

http://www.redsugar.com/muse/

http://www.thepatriette.com/

http://www.greatestjeneration.com/

http://www.suburbanblight.net/

http://www.dawnolsen.com/

http://www.site-essential.com/

http://allisonkaplansommer.blogmosis.com/

http://www.moxie.nu/blog.php

There are many more.

I am an editor of Samizdata.net but I blog under a male pseudonym. Why? It's simple, I am not interested in being seen as this or that, I just want to voice my opinions and the gender can be an extra 'noise' that sometimes affects feedback from commenters. I did blog under my own name first and although my style has not changed with a new a male 'identity' there is a difference in treatment by bloggers and commenters. An interesting phenomenon...

Whew! I had a somewhat similar experience on the issue of race. I observed that especially in the A-list, white and male seems to be overrepresented. Some interpret that as you don't think there are women or minority bloggers. Of course there are, but not enough - the observation is not an endorsement.

Anyway, I'm producing a documentary about blogs, and my girlfriend Lori figures prominently.

Lori Starts a Blog Revolution (Quicktime). She blogs at Secret Farm.

I'm female. I don't want to hear this feminist BS. Honestly, what does it bloody matter for anyway?

Oh, and I'm in a male-dominated profession. How 'bout that?

The survey was closed by the time I logged in, or I would have participated. No female-run blogs would have appeared on my top list either because others "speak" to & for me, regardless of their gender. It is about ideas and good writing. I tried Wonkette after noting all the hype, looking to add some estrogen to the discussions- HA! What a disappoitment! It was a total waste of time and not even fun. Please run the survey again and I will enter The Corner as my top choice! Claudia

Stephen -

I read your comments with interest. I’ve actually had the opposite experience. My husband, who is Asian, says he prefers my more direct behavior over the well-intentioned manipulation of Asian women (including those in his family). We’ve been happily married almost 10 years, so I think my track record as a wife (or at least his wife) is pretty well established.

I’m curious about your wife’s perspective. Has she read your posts here, and would she be willing to share her own views? Why did she end up with a Western man, and how does she rate Asian vs. Western behaviors?

Elisabeth

For Pete's sake.

The "feminist critique" here is pretty obviously a publicity stunt. Lauren knows and likes a bunch of female blogs, doesn't think they're well known or have enough readership, so uses the opportunity of the survey to make an "anti-feminist" charge.

It's a win-win situation for her. Some will agree, and dig up various blogs by women they like. Some will disagree and come on all Bluto-ish like, proving her point by contrast. ("See? These are the type of losers who read Instapundit!") At the very least the issue is discussed and publicized, which is all that was ever hoped for, anyway. Notice how fast Lauren got in on the response section -- she obviously was waiting for something.

I don't blame Lauren for it -- that's good old-fashioned all-American hooey, nothing wrong with that. I do wince we I see otherwise intelligent people on the right fall for it hook, line, and sinker. It reinforces my general notion that the right's biggest weakness is their absolute cultural innocence, their inability to play these sorts of games with the big boys and girls. The right rises to this kind of flame-bait all the time.

Look, the proper response to this kind of junk is just to ignore it. You win these kind of games by not playing.

By the way (and this might have been mentioned above, I didn't plow through the thread), women may not be the most popular political bloggers, but they more certainly are among the most popular lit-bloggers/cultural bloggers (my main interest). Maud Newton, Sarah Weinman, Old Hag, Cinetrix, etc.

doug

Again, Doug, I didn't write it - not my stunt. Read Dresner's whole post and not just the comments. Have a good one.

Trish Wilson,

You wrote, "Dan, I know a survey is just a survey, but when you don't even acknowledge the large numbers of women bloggers out there surveys such as yours give the impression that there are no or very few women who blog."

But Dan and Henry didn't acknowledge ANY blogs in the survey. They simply asked people to report what they read (actually, only the top three; the five questions can be found here:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000756.html )

What do you wish Dan had done instead? I can think of two and a half possibilities. One, in the survey itself, he could have given a list to choose from and made sure the list included a lot of blogs run by women. One A, he could have asked the original open-ended question, but added, "Think hard, are any of these blogs part of the three you read most frequently ....?" and included a list of blogs by women.

Two, in reporting the results, he could have added, "Though my respondents didn't report reading them, there are also these fine blogs by women ..."

Women on my A-list: Natalie Solent, Claire Wolfe, Diana Mertz Hsieh, Karen De Coster, Wendy McElroy, Virginia Postrel, Joanne Jacobs.

Who the hell is this "Lauren" dink?

This is an ugly and absurd discussion. I still like Yglesias' point that political debate is more akin to rooting for the knicks than to social participation.

Here's an aside.

You make the point that weblog links follow a power-law distribution, thus the top tier get most of the links (or views). This could be true of a normally distributed population depending on the standard deviation (most of the links could be squeezed into a narrow band). What is distinct about a power law distribution is the FAT TAILS. Thus small blogs have a much higher incidence of linking than if attention was distributed normally.

This may suggest that the web is more congenial to small communities of related interest than earlier media.

In a nutshell. A lot of women are full of shit. A lot of men are full of shit. The trick is A: Making sure through thorough introspection and outside neutral evaluation that you are not full of shit.B: Find a woman who is not full of shit.C: Get your shit together. D: Be happy. E:Quit complaining and get on with your life. Sorry if it sounds parochial and repressive and all that horrible stuff, BUT you are not going to change mens' perception and treatment of women until you stop screeching and actually do something right.Women can do just about anything men can do. They just have to learn to do it without bitching. Otherwise, when the bitching starts, we leave.Kapiche?

Another strong political blog written by a woman is Melanie Phillips Diary. Don't be put off by the word diary in the title. It's worth regular reading.

Not all inequalities can be explained by discrimination, albeit a subtle one. And many, including those from officially-sanctioned "victim" groups reject this over-the-counter explanation as lazy and counterproductive not as another subtle manifestation of their oppressive tendencies, but because they find the explanation dogmatic and patronizing.

If Lauren's analysis of Dan's survey is an example of the perspective that she offers on her blog, people may not be tuning her out because she is female, but because they find her tone militant and intolerant. I don't know about other female blogs, but indeed, if Wilson, deliberately pushes away half of the potential blog readers out there, she has no moral credibilty to complain that at least half the potential blog readers are ignoring her.

But the simplest and truest argument against Wilson, is the most basic behavior of any regular blogger. I can't imagine any reader, except the most gender-conscious type searching for an oppression, would actually check the gender's author before reading a blog. It just seems so unnatural. Or maybe, I have just internalized my maleness so much that I don't even bother to check for the sex of the writers I read because I assume they are all men.

>>Doug: "Look, the proper response to this kind of junk is just to ignore it. You win these kind of games by not playing."

Bingo. Hence a lot of the "trolls not welcome" disclaimers on many women's blogs (like Feministe's). We deal with enough woman-haters like Stephen & his ilk in real life (and in a lot of the A list blogs, as these comments prove), who wants to deal with them in your own blog??

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this whole shitstorm start with certain A-listers wondering why their surveys were skewed because *they're* not getting female readership? Trish and Lauren and other female bloggers aren't the ones constantly screaming "VALIDATE ME!!!!" All they're saying is "we're here if you bother to pull your head out of your ass and give us a chance". Don't project your own egomaniacal agenda on others. Some of us could care less if we're read by 10,000 "Stephens". We're just trying to reach 100 open-minded people who we might actually have an impact on. That's the kind of additional exposure we want, and if the A-listers are genuinely interested in presenting a truly representative picture of the blogosphere, we'd appreciate their adding some of us to their blogrolls.

We're not trying to play the game of "he who gets the most dittoheads linking to him wins!!!" Most politically-minded female bloggers I know are more interested in adding something new to a discussion.

Damn, it's like the stereotypical loud, arrogant Englishman who goes to a foreign country and thinks if he just talks LOUDER and SLOWER the natives will understand him perfectly. But the whole time he's trying to dictate the terms & style of the conversation. If you're genuinely curious about learning the culture of the "natives" of the other half of the blogosphere, be respectful. Learn our language. You just might learn something.

Why bother asking the question if you already think you know the answer, or might not like the one you get? "Don't shoot the messenger" goes both ways.

Reading these comments it's clear that women-hating bigots are as prevalent as ever. Good old Stephen is clearly the kind of man whose ego is too frail for an independent woman so prefers to deal with women who are economically dependent thanks to their country's poverty - a buy-a-wife eunuch. The other's are equally penetrating and developed.

If you want to argue that women have nothing to complain about and that they have equal opportunity, etc., you might be more persuasive if you didn't spew sexist, abusive invective about how you never listen to women, they are worthless, they are whiners, etc., etc. Kind of proves their point, don't you know.

"Trish and Lauren and other female bloggers aren't the ones constantly screaming "VALIDATE ME!!!!" All they're saying is "we're here if you bother to pull your head out of your ass and give us a chance". "

You're making it sound as if Trish and Lauren were making a civil appeal instead of hurling some conspiracty theory against Dan. Their appeal would sound so much like an appeal if it didn't sound so much like a battle cry in a conspiracy-factory college campus.

Talented but unpopular female bloggers have less in common with female bloggers in general than they do with talented but unpopular male bloggers, as far as popularity and talent are concerned. If Trish and Lauren are not crying out for validation, they're certainly insisting quite loudly that they are talented. That would be almost not so presumptuous and vain if they didn't follow that with "those who don't think we are talented are part of a widespread male conspiracy to ignore talented women like us."

If that's not a cry for validation, I'd be bored to death the day Trish and Lauren actually demands for validation.

Stephen, I don't know if I feel sorrier for you or for your Asian wife. I like Asian women too. My mom and dad are even Asian. And yet, I am as flattered by your infatuation with Asians as I am by William Hung's singing career.

MustangSally, why is the "stereotypical loud, arrogant Englishman" a he? And doesn't Englishman ignore Englishwomen? And why use an stereotypical Englishman anyway instead of a stereotypical Englishwoman. Or are loud and arrogant English necessarily have to be men? Also, "[Most] politically-minded female bloggers I know are more interested in adding something new to a discussion." Don't most politically-minded male bloggers you know do this too?

Here's a fitting essay from a fitting source. Speaking about being ignored, here's Cathy Seipp - woman, conservative, female blogger. I guess that's a triple liability. She's be ignored by Dan and other men becuase she's a woman, and she's not welcome in Lauren's site because she's a conservative, and a woman who strays the official womyn mantra.
Bloggers Unregulated

A guilt trip as a publicity stunt?
Hmmm.
I guess it works for Jesse Jackson, huh?

Thumbs up for Cathy Seipp.

Females aren't the victims in this situation, they're the perpetrators.

I'm a conservative female blogger who is ostracized most by the leftist womyn bloggers.

At least the liberal men feel like they have to be sensitive to me and give me credit, haha. The lib womyn feel like they have something to prove and don't want wingnuts tramping on their turf, thus eliminating any cohesiveness.

Not that there should be a cohesive women's blogging group...

Great stuff.
I can't wait for the next ludicrous post.

--Women are whores.
Men are pigs.--

There. Have at that for awhile.

(Claps hands)

Entertain us!!

Nice blog, Athena - you're fighting the good fight.

This is like a soap opera. Commenters like Stephen need to realize that Asian women can have you white men that feel inferior to strong, independent, self-sufficient, Western women who are not obligated to be subservient to you simply because you have a penis. Sorry for your loss. LOL :D

It always amuses me when Alimony Queens brag about how strong and independent they are.

Ahem, Richard, just WHO is an alimony queen around here? You speaking of your ex wife? Must be... Not an entire group of women's fault or problem she got half. LOL.

When you toss a rock into a pack of dogs, you can tell which one you hit by the yelping.

The saddest thing about Stephen is that he sounds exactly like a feminist at NOW. But unlike Lauren, for instance, he cannot hide his distrust for the opposite sex under the veneer of respectability that feminism provides. Taking the direction of Stephen's anger aside, his paranoia, shrillness and unreasonableness equals that of the most bitter feminist. In short, Stephen is what a radical feminist would sound like if she were a man.

Well, I was going to post this on Wilson's blog, but it won't let me.

How could the survey both:

A) Underestimate the importance of women's blogs

while at the same time

B) Contribute to the patriarchal suppression of these same blogs?

I mean, I know rigorous logic isn't in much evidence in gender studies, but PLEASE!

"Stephen" is most likely a character created by a feminist trying to make points about male sexism.

Blue, they banned me over there, too. And they wonder why nobody wants to read a bunch of Stepford ex-wives, all thinking in lock-step, and all bitter all the time.

Pok - I was referring to the western history of exploring native cultures in the "wilderness" and declaring them "savage" (i.e. uninterested in the finer points of western culture, uneducated & uninformed) because the natives didn't speak the invader's language and didn't share their religious beliefs. In all fairness to the English - they certainly weren't the only ones who did this. And I'm not saying women can't be excessively rude when travelling abroad. My own grandmother probably did more to perpetuate the "Ugly American Tourist" stereotype than anyone else alive during her travels.

My point is, every culture has their own bias. The Japanese and Chinese found Europeans and Americans barbarians at the same time we said the same thing about their cultures. The Romans found everyone else barbaric. Though typically, women sure as hell weren't part of the "exploration team" (One reason I chose to use a male in my analogy). In any event, in the movies & books I've watched/read this (*insert culture here*-centrism) is typically embodied by an English man. I am by no means a lit or film expert, though so if you haven't noticed the same then chalk it up to "Your Mileage May Vary" and feel free to insert whatever loud, arrogant person be they male, female or transgendered and of whatever nationality you find embodying this dynamic. Or none at all.

My point is, the blogosphere is by no means culturally hemogenous. Assuming other bloggers share your priorities and assumptions (i.e. how to define "interested in politics") is naive at best and arrogant at worst. As to your second question - well, the male bloggers *I like* generally add something to the discussion. But it seems like most indicators of popularity (such as the TLB Ecosystem) are based on the quantity of external links a blog gets or the # of hits they get and not at all on the quality of the context of that link.

And No, I don't see Trish & Lauren screaming (or shrieking or bitching as they've been typecast) for validation, and certainly don't see tham coming off like wild-eyed bra burning conspiracy theorists. What I see is them civilly answering the question that Matt (& others) have asked, for like the "nth" time since apparently, he didn't listen the first time the question was raised.

And where in the hell did they ever say anything like "those who don't think we are talented are part of a widespread male conspiracy to ignore talented women like us?" I'd like a citation, please.

*nevermind that blogging, by definition IS the supreme exercise in self aggrandizement. Don't we ALL think we're talented? Otherwise, why would you advertise your blog to the public, anyway? So why is that "pretentious and vain" in their case and not in any one else's????

MustangSally, I understood you the first time, which is why I find it rather bizarre that you would use a sexist male stereotype in a thread about gender equity. So, your point is that you chose a loud, arrogant Englishman instead of loud, arrogant Englishwoman because the numbers simply didn't justify using Englishwomen. And yet somehow Dan's numbers are sexist because, like you, it reflects the current state that blog readers are disproportionately male. Sorry, I'm not convinced. And no, that's not because I am a man. (Truth is, as a gay man, I have more in common with you than I have with Dan)

And oh, by the way, I am not the pronoun police. I couldn't care less if you used "he" in your sentences instead of the annoying "he/she". But complaining about female visibility sure sounds hollow when you conveniently hide women yourself.

Finally, I don't know how you can say Trish and Lauren were simply civilly asking questions (even though they ascribed sexism in Dan's motives) and say that Stephen is sexist for calling Western women liars in the same breath. For consistency's sake, should you say Stephen is simply civilly expressing his animosity toward Western women?

Well, Sally, here's your citation, a direct quote from Wilson in the comments section of the Feministe blog: Women bloggers, especially women political bloggers, continue to be ignored by the high rankers of the blogosphere and by the media, and when we don't make a survey, we are blamed for not linking to it. The problem isn't with the women bloggers. The problem isn't with alternative points of view. The problem lies with the survey..

Now your task is to explain it away.

MustangSally, I just went back to Dan's survey, and I found even your most salient and strongest point utterly irrelevant to Dan's survey.
You brought up a good point that "[A]ssuming other bloggers share your priorities and assumptions (i.e. how to define "interested in politics") is naive at best and arrogant at worst." While this is true, it neither supports Lauren's misandrist assertion that Dan's survey was a male-thing. In fact, not only does Dan define the parameters of a political blog, he lets the readers define them for themselves, men and women alike. In other words, both genders were given equal freedom to define their own favorite blogs. Lauren's assertion is undercut even further by the fact that women's responses were almost identical to the men's.

Incidentally, when there is not a week that the King of all bloggers does not link to either Erin O'Connor, Michele Catalano, Meryl Yourish, Megan McCardle, Joanne Jacobs, Cathy Seipp, Virginia Postrel, The Corner, or Rachel Lucas among many others, it probably doesn't matter much if some unknown male blogger ignores talented female bloggers.

P.S. You are right about blogs being intrinsically vain. Before they were called blogs, they were called mezines, vanity web sites, etc. And indeed nothing personifies this more than Lauren and Trish. When obscure talented male bloggers start demanding that men like them be in the top ten as well, then maybe, just maybe, I'll start taking Lauren et al seriously.

I'm a regular reader of maybe a dozen blogs. Let's see:

Instapundit
NRO's Corner
Roger Simon
The Volokh Conspiracy
Tim Blair
Baldilocks
A Small Victory
Protein Wisdom
Joanne Jacobs
Daniel Drezner
Jane Galt
Vodkapundit
Oxblog
Virginia Postrel

Well, that's fourteen. Five are primarily or exclusively female, one is run by a woman but the postings are primarily from men (NRO's Corner), and the other eight are primarily or exclusively male. Am I aware of the sex of each of the bloggers? Yes. Is it foremost in my mind when I'm reading each blog? No, unless the subject has to do with relationships between men and women, or with an exclusively male or female issue.

On reflection, I guess I see a difference of some significance between the "male" blogs listed above and the "female" blogs. The "female" blogs seem not to have as many links to news stories, other blogs, or any other sites. Perhaps my perception on this is wrong, but if it's right, it might well be a reason that, say, Instapundit, where Glenn links to LOTS of other sites, is consistently mentioned among favorites blogs, while, say, Jane Galt isn't.

Dan - What is going on with your blog? First, that rather perplexing parallel/comparison of the Kerry non-mistress and the Senate aide blogger, and now this:

"I correct the females in their behavior, but it's only a thing that can be successful if we all do it, it won't help us, but maybe our children can find decent mates."

If you keep this up where's a girl to go for reasonable posts on comparative advantage, outsourcing, and other globalization issues? sheesh

To those who have mention my blog as a good one to read: thank you.

To the commenters who are reasonable: way to go!

To the rest: HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Love,

A black chick conservative blogger who doesn't always blog about politics and is no victim.

There's a typo in Juliette's URL - folks who want to read Baldilocks can go here. There's a nice screed on out-of-wedlock births today that hits all the right notes.

Just a reminder: My dictionary defines feminism as
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men
2. an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women

It must be that this to me thoroughly reasonable definition is not in general use in this comments-thread. Or an astonishingly large number of both women and men don't believe in the desirability of equality of the sexes. Why otherwise all the vitriol directed towards the mere idea of someone holding such ideals? The definition says nothing about being a victim, and I'm at a loss to find where that has been written into the feminism-definition. Perhaps we should try to use common terms in their most neutral sense and avoid emotionally-loaded interpretations when we are talking to perfect strangers? It would make the conversation more fruitful, I believe.

Unfortunately, feminism, for many, has become another "ism" or "ia" right along racism, imperialism, homophobia etc. A significant part of this has to do with real misogyny on the part of opponents of feminism, but an even more significant part of this can be attributed to feminist the feminist establishment itself. When you have feminist icons as radical and as neurotic as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon promoting the elimination of malekind or arguing that all heterosexual sex is rape, then indeed, feminism is simply another prejudice with cultural support and government funding.

In today's radicalism within the feminist movement, even the original feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Alice Paul, to name a few, would be branded as traitors and right-wing wackos for having the gall to compare abortion to slavery, in general, and to the oppression of women, in particular.

Echidne, don't inject a rational opinion into an irrational hatred.

The definition you quote is all I ever mean by feminism, and I'm vilified for it regardless.

And yes, Dan, this is a regular occurrence in the blogosphere, and a month or two from now, someone else will raise the topic, and the same people will be there, saying the same things, flinging the same insults, and calling the victimization label on any woman who dares to point out that yes, there is sexism in the blogosphere.

Go look. That phrase has been around for a while.

Of course there is sexism in the blogosphere, as long as there's sexism in the world. But that doesn't mean that Dan's survey is sexist. Even if it is, it can't be more sexist than the anti-male comments of the survey's critics calling it a male-thing, or than the invalidation of the female respondents who answered identically to the male respondents.

For the criticism to work, the critics have to demonstrate that:
1. The questions were objectively biased by limiting the choices of political blogs down to male-only blogs.
2. That there was in the questions some subliminal message for the men to vote in a similar way.
3. That that subliminal message only worked on men.
4. That men will naturally respond to those messages.
5. That women won't respond to the same message.
6. That those women who did respond, like men, were part of the conspiracy against women.

I'm sure there're more. Look, there could be sexism in Dan's survey. I just don't think Lauren and Trish succeeded in showing them. If ever, I think they've succeeded in proving that the blogosphere is sexist, by displaying the gender-consciousness and gender-centrism of the common sexist.

"When you have feminist icons as radical and as neurotic as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon promoting the elimination of malekind or arguing that all heterosexual sex is rape, then indeed, feminism is simply another prejudice with cultural support and government funding."

You know, I'm a man. I've actually read some of MacKinnon's work and Andrea Dworkin's "Intercourse" THEY SAY NO SUCH THING. Perhaps, if you actually read them, with a clear understanding of class analysis and what it means, you might find that your assumptions based on hearsay are totally flawed.

As a studend of political economy who has read a number of political economists that write from a neo-Marxist and neo-Gramscian perspectives rooted in class analysis, I found it rather easy to understand that the work of MacKinnon and Dworkin, and other radical feminists for that matter, says *nothing* about all men because discussing groups as all individuals of that group, rather than political classes is *antithetical* to class analysis.

Furthermore, the conflation of individual bias with wider normative and cultural bias in this comments thread has been stupifying. To say that a survey of the most popular blogs is biased because it ignores women bloggers in a number of ways is not to say that this is a result of individual actions on the part of Daniel Drezner or anyone else. It is to say that cultural biases that lead to blogs written by men being considered the most authoritative or serious or political, or the exclusion of civil rights(!!!!) blogging as not being political(!!!!) that has been evidenced by a number of readers here, are what lead to the marginalization of women bloggers. It is incredibly disengenous of someone like Yglesias to ask where the women bloggers are, withour having made the slightest effort to find any or link to them. Obviously. This, as far as I understand, was Trish Wilson's point.

Lorenzo the Gramsci-bot says: To say that a survey of the most popular blogs is biased because it ignores women bloggers in a number of ways is not to say that this is a result of individual actions on the part of Daniel Drezner or anyone else.

But Wilson actually did say this: Women bloggers, especially women political bloggers, continue to be ignored by the high rankers of the blogosphere and by the media, and when we don't make a survey, we are blamed for not linking to it. The problem isn't with the women bloggers. The problem isn't with alternative points of view. The problem lies with the survey..

You see, Drezner constructed the survey, and Wilson (and you) say the survey was biased.

In fact, the survey simply asked respondents to list their three favorite blogs - it ignored nobody and it enumerated nobody, it simply swung open the door and counted the responses. Anybody who see bias in this method is clearly living in a fantasy.

Gramsci-bot? ROFL. That's a new one. I'm not quite sure how one acomplishes that when most neo-Gramscians can't agree with each other!

Wilson's point was a seperate one noting that women blogers are generally ignored by the so called "heavy hitters."

The results of getting little to no recognition from the largest blogs and the aformentioned cultural biases will inevitably skew the results of such a survey. Do a survey about the greatest authors, greatest thinkers you'll see the same thing. The bias is in SOCIETY in my opinion, not the survery question itself.

Nevetheless, Wilson claimed the survey itself was biased.

Whether there is wide-spread social bias against women as a group is a different question, and not one especially worth considering in a society in which women and girls outnumber men and boys at every level of education by a margin of 55/45. Now that's bias, my friend, solid and empirical, as is the fact that single women have twice as much wealth as single men.

And you call yourself a Marxist.

Hmmm...

It's interesting that in comparison to a lot of the vitriol she's been getting in these comments, for someone who's been cast as "shrill and humourless", Lauren seems to be one of the few posters approaching this discussion with a sense of humour. ;]

That said, Lauren, Trish, I think you're aiming at the wrong target in this: since the poll was directed at what blogs the media professionals read [something of dubious information value to me at best], it's the media professionals you should be blasting on not reading female/feminist blogs rather than the blogosphere. Either that, or you should be examining why your content isn't attracting those readers.

I'm going to suggest that it's possible that media people have different reasons for browsing the blogosphere, and different things they're looking for than non-media readers. 140 respondents is an extraordinarily limited sampling base.

I'm also going to note that as a student of statistical analysis, I'm disinclined to take polling data as representative beyond the polled group. The poll data suggests that 140 journalists/media-professionals read the named blogs - nothing more. Definately not that a broader poll might not reveal different trends. In all fairness, Drezner did note the poll was flawed in the post.

Just two cents from a male political/media/humour blogger who's reading list splits about 50/50 between male and female bloggers. And who co-blogs with a female political blogger.
Take it for what it's worth, and I can make change if you feel overcharged. ;)

Oh, and Steven? *makes IDIC sign* Stagnate and die young. Prefferably without reproducing.

To Lauren or Trish: are either of you available for a date?

Stephen: go stuff it man.