I Call Bullshit

For the last 24 hours I've been feeling remorse for smacking Mr. Drum so badly last month when he had his semi-annual "Where are all the women bloggers?" meltdown. This almost-change-of-heart of mine was spawned by his much more carefully worded, much more thoughtful post from yesterday. I was even planning on publishing a mea culpa of sorts. That was my plan until I read these anonymous opinions Shakespeare's Sister culled from her off-blog "where are all the women blahdie blahdie blah ..." correspondence with "upper echelon" male bloggers:

Women don’t give me much linkable material.

Women write on subjects that don’t interest me.

Women don’t know how to compromise on abortion rights.

Why don’t women post about Social Security? It affects them, too.

Women don’t write commentary, don’t come up with new ideas.

Gender politics is all secondary issues.

Shakespeare's Sister also offered this not-so-new idea [sorry fellas, I'll make sure we come up with a "new idea" next time]:

...as long as there’s a collective reluctance to replace the faux suppositions with the real prejudices in the navel-gazing posts, there’s no one with whom to have that conversation. Except, of course, my fellow bloggrrls, none of whom ever actually believed it’s anything other than the same old tired biases, anyway. Being more creative at disguising them behind your wide-eyed mystification about where all the women are isn’t clever; it’s pathetic.

My fucking blood is boiling. My husband is going to have to spend the next four hours picking parts of my brain out of the carpet. And it isn't just because of the dismissive 'tude. Keep reading.

In fairness, I don't know which male bloggers wrote the statements above and I don't mean to imply that Kevin Drum was one of them. I have no idea if he believes these things or not. They're conveniently anonymous. But, clearly there's a disconnect between what some male folk convey on their blogs and what they truly believe. And, I strongly suspect the leadership of the Democratic Party works much the same way.

Now, which gender is it that doesn't have the cajones to enter the fray, engage in honest, open debate, filled with passionate rancor? Okay, just checking.

Now travel with me, if you will, back to last summer when we heard stories in the media and commentary on liberal blogs about how young women were disconnected from the political process and had no plans to vote in November. You know, those dastardly Sex in the City non-voters. "They don't care about politics!" "They don't read my big-ass influential blog!" "How could they not support John Kerry?"

Boy, something sure was wrong with those dumbasses! Or was it?

Maybe those young women are smarter than me and sensed the bullshit. Why should they listen to you, care about things like social security, the bankruptcy bill, medicare, etc. when you don't give two shits about them? I know. I know. The election was over months ago. We sure could have used some of those votes, though. Especially in close local and statewide races. Might have made a difference. Oh, well. Whatever.

I've spent the few days reading comments from Lefties haranguing moderate Republicans for having Bush buyer's remorse. "You've got blood on your hands!" "It's your all your fault. Deal with it."

Well, maybe they aren't the only ones responsible, the only ones with blood on their hands.

UPDATE: DRUM now admits he wrote some or all of the comments cited above.

RELATED: Check out this rant at Pam's House Blend.

Comments

[PZ Myers]

So what do we do?

I mean, you addressed the "fellas", and every time this stuff goes around I sit here on the sidelines watching the flak fly by, not knowing how I'm supposed to help. When the sides are defined by what gonads you have rather than your sympathies, I'm being put on the team I don't particularly care for...and with whom I don't share much in common, since I'm sure not one of those "upper echelon" webloggers.

I'm not alone, I'm certain. There's a lot of us who aren't women and aren't big gun chauvinist male bloggers, and we're in an awkward position right now. Does anyone have ideas about how to enlist us in the struggle?

[Roxanne]

I don't know anyone who thinks you're part of the problem, PZ.

[Lauren]

In my world, Dr. Myers would be one of the big guns.

[BenA]

One can aid and abet sexism -- like any structural form of descrimination -- without thinking you're doing so. Just goin' along with the way things are is often enough (no need to, say, tell a select group of academics that women are naturally incapable of being really top scientists).

I was appalled last spring when not a single woman was seriously considered by the Kerry campaign for the VP slot. And in certain ways even more appalling was the relative silence about this from Democrats, even progressive ones.

But from a practical perspective, each of us, especially us men, need to regularly check ourselves. It's always easy to see other people's failings in this regard than to see one's own. Many of my favorite bloggers are women, so all the "where are the female bloggers" nonsense seemed particularly idiotic to me. But there are no doubt habits of mind and behaviors that I engage in that could be improved. I know it seems dated and oh-so-seventies, but consciousness raising really did have a point.

[Thad]

Maybe those young women are smarter than me and sensed the bullshit. Why should they listen to you, care about things like social security, the bankruptcy bill, medicare, etc. when you don't give two shits about them?

Roxanne, you're saying naked self-interest isn't enough? I mean, these issues -- Social Security, the bankruptcy bill, Medicare -- affect everyone, don't they? In fact, now that you mention it, don't they disproportionally affect women?

I sympathize with what you're saying here, but I think you're letting people who didn't bother to vote off the hook way too easily. I think this is a bit like Ilyka claiming it's our fault she didn't vote for Kerry, because his supporters are a bunch of icky leftists.

That's not to say that we can't do a better job of reaching those non-voting single women you mention. We can and we must figure out how to engage them in politics and get them to the polls. But that doesn't mean they made the right call by not voting, not by a long shot. I don't care whether they "sensed the bullshit" or not, there's still no fucking excuse for sitting this one out.

[And okay, obviously, I don't mean the above to be a good example of how to engage with non-voting single women.]

[norbizness]

I wonder if even one of the people surveyed could have possibly contemplated, even in private and with anonymity conditions attached, typing "Latinos" instead of "women" in any of the italicized sentences. Maybe "homosexuals." Definitely not "Native Americans" or "African-Americans."

In any event, damn it feels good to be decidedly non-upper-echelon right about now. Although waiting for some upper-echelon person to fuck up and laughing at the subsequent shitstorm hardly makes me Elizabeth Norbizness Stanton.

[doghouse riley]

I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something, if so I'd appreciate some help. And I think you're being far too kind to Kevin--this post may have been more thoughtful than the last, but only because the last one was so abyssmal.

Employment/empowerment of women in the corporate publishing world is certainly worth talking about. But blogs? That's like worrying how many women go bowling, innit? Is there some point to evaluating what is essentially an amateur enterprise by traffic (other than the fact it was the standard of choice of a man who happens to have one of those high-traffic blogs)? It's just lost on me. Is it this uniquely American business of sticking numerical ratings on things that can't, or shouldn't, be quantified (say, beer or wine) because we're so besotted by advertising? Do I wait to get the weekend box office before deciding on a movie to go to? Do I buy every Billboard #1 album? You outta you frickin' mind?

Kevin seems perfectly guileless. He's a terrific slab writer, even if he sounds like a particularly bright middle manager, and he's done some excellent work. Got a good sense of issues from a center-left perspective. But the man barely knew of the existence of bloggers of the female persuasion before he started all this, and those he found from reading a list on which he features prominently. Tell me why, again, we're having this discussion with you?

One more thing: in all this blogging blather I can't help but catch the whiff of corporate journalism's wholly deserved desperation about itself or the cachet of all those smug, self-satisfied "I'm going to the convention" white boys who labored so mightily and produced creamed corn. Judging blogs by some ratings-driven notion of success, instead of by what they offer--big, small, funny, serious, and indifferent--as a collective alternative is the only way to turn blogs into something Time Warner can make money off of.

[Shakespeare's Sister]

Does anyone have ideas about how to enlist us in the struggle?

Guys who DO link regularly to women pointing out that the problem is certainly not due to a dearth of viable content is always appreciated. Rox or I or any other woman blogger can say, "I've got good shit here; what's the problem?" until we're blue in the face, but having more and more guys saying, "Yeah, there's lots of good shit here...and here...and here...and here...." places the responsibility for ignoring it squarely at the doorsteps of those who continue to claim they can't find it.

The Heretik has made that point very well (and then some) with his Uppity Women series. I challenge any blogger to read that and not find material worth linking to!

I mean, these issues -- Social Security, the bankruptcy bill, Medicare -- affect everyone, don't they?

So does the fact that women only make $.75 on the $1 compared to men's earnings, which affects the bottom line of every household containing a working woman. So why don't I see that getting addressed as aggressively as the other issues cited?

[Shelley]

doghouse riley, Roxanne is probably having the discussion because this is a frustrating issue, in more ways than one. But I agree, I think that Roxanne was kind with Kevin Drum, particularly after this:

"I suggested the reason was partly because high-traffic men don't link much to women and partly because fewer women than men write political blogs in the first place. But why do fewer women blog about politics than men?"

Notice how he framed the question into one that fits a zone he's comfortable being in? "So why do fewer women blog about politics than men?" Can someone actually provide proof of this? But it's easier to frame this issue as being the responsibility of the women, not them men.

I think what's disturbed me more, though, recently, is a devisiveness I am seeing in women. Too many too concerned about their own links, their own ranks. About the only time they take on this issue, is when it's 'hot'. More -- too many discounting the concerns. And way too many linking to the guys in these arguments, but not the women -- becoming part of the problem. This happened with a political female weblogger we all know and admire very recently.

If we women were to actually band together, as women have done for the vote, for abortion rights, for the right of equal pay (or, I forgot: we didn't get that one), this problem wouldn't exist.

All we can do is not get tired of the issue; not let it die, and not let the status quo continue, because we've had this in every aspect of our lives. Do we have to have it here, too?

Now, back to my own writing about women and technology. An even more hopeless battle, but it gives me a chance to try out some new pics.

Oh, and Dr. Myers, you provide hope not more frustration, so keep on doing what you're doing. Please. Same for you Roxanne, and Lauren, and Shakes Sis, and ...

[Sheelzebub]

Thad, I've been posting on the bankruptcy bill, social security, corporate corruption, and Iraq. PLENTY of women are riled about these things. I've also posted on abortion (being a naughty woman who won't compromise on that because it's been compromised enough, thankyouverymuch), violence against women (it's a real issue to 51% of the population), homophobia, racism, misogyny, and the spinlessness of many so-called liberals and progressives who'd like us to roll over and play dead for the GOP so we can vote for yet another white guy who's not a liberal but plays one on TV.

I am tired of this.

I don't care if these assmonkeys link to me or not. I only read Drum's blog when someone links to a specific post. I never read Kos, or Atrios, or the other A-listers. I'm not sure what kind of talent we're talking about here--Instapundit just links to articles and writes "Indeed." Good lord, if a penis can get you that kind of cred for so little work, then I want to hear nothing more about this supposed meritocracy. It's bullshit.

What I am tired of is this studied obtusenes. Where are all the female bloggers? Not you, I mean, or the five hundred others that you can list off the top of your head, but the good ones that I'd link to? The ones who'd write about social security ad nauseum and nothing else? The ones who don't make me feel uncomfortable by posting about issues that actually affect a population that I'm not a part of? I know those are issues that progressives like me should give a shit about, but I'm too busy rolling over and playing dead.

And when anyone points it out, we get the hysteria. Oh, these harridians are so mean, so uncivil. They are just awful, awful people calling us sexist! I'm going to throw a temper tantrum and suck my thumb in the corner. How dare they call me on this? I'm a progressive man. I'm a man and you should just be kissing my feet because I lower myself to ask where all of the women bloggers are.

Holy crap. Maybe some women ignore these progressives out of naked self-interest. Why on earth should we cast our lot with progressives who think our basic rights should be compromised because we're just women, who think that the wage gap is no big deal because it doesn't happen to men, or who think that anything that affects women--half the population, folks--is a side issue?

[doghouse riley]

doghouse riley, Roxanne is probably having the discussion because this is a frustrating issue, in more ways than one.

I think I was too cute there. I didn't mean "Why is Roxanne having the discussion", I meant why would anybody talk to Kevin about it?

...places the responsibility for ignoring it squarely at the doorsteps of those who continue to claim they can't find it.

Amen.

Why on earth should we cast our lot with progressives who think our basic rights should be compromised because we're just women, who think that the wage gap is no big deal because it doesn't happen to men, or who think that anything that affects women--half the population, folks--is a side issue?

And amen. But I hardly think the A-listers speak for progressives. They sure don't speak for me.

[Anon]

I've spent the few days reading comments from Lefties haranguing moderate Republicans for having Bush buyer's remorse. "You've got blood on your hands!" "It's your all your fault. Deal with it."

Well, maybe they aren't the only ones responsible, the only ones with blood on their hands.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Since the comments on the other threads were directed at people who voted for Bush in 2004, is this comment directed at male bloggers who you believe discouraged women from voting by not linking to female bloggers? Isn't that a bit... strained?

[Sheelzebub]

No, Anon, it's indicative of the attitudes towards women in general. So-called progressives and liberals echo the same sentiments Shakespeare's sister pointed out in her blog--issues affecting women are "side" issues and trivialities, what we say just isn't compelling or important, we're not willing to compromise on abortion rights (and really, SFW? What does that have to do with the worthiness of a blog?)

Of course women will pick up on this and figure that the party that claims to speak for them is full of shit. Especially when the men in the party do the exact same thing these A-listers do--pay lip service, but roll their eyes at our concerns. Profess solidarity but refuse to see us.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

Why on earth should we cast our lot with progressives who think our basic rights should be compromised because we're just women, who think that the wage gap is no big deal because it doesn't happen to men, or who think that anything that affects women--half the population, folks--is a side issue?

Thank you! So I guess to these so-called "progressive men" think if it affects women and supposedly doesn't affect men in any kind of way (or so they think), it MUST not be an important issue or a political issue.

Why are things that affect women "special interests" or "secondary issues"? They don't think that women earning less then men and yet having to support a family and helping their partner pay the bills doesn't affect men? Perhaps if she was paid the same wage for the same work as her male counterpart, supporting her family, helping her partner pay the bills, being able to afford healthcare for the children, wouldn't be so difficult.

And women compromising our reproductive rights?! I'll only "compromise" my reproductive rights if these men (and other anti-choice men) who are pushing this "compromise" on us, get vasectomies. Compromise, right? They have to do something too in return.

It amazes me that some of these so called progressive men fail to acknowledge whether unintentionally or intentionally that women are half of the population as Sheelzebub previously mentioned. How is that we and our views on politics and social issues barely--if that--matter and yet all of their stances and political rhetoric does matter?

Once again, how come, by the mere fact that we possess two X chromosomes, our voices and our opinions are devalued?

Compromise with that bullshit "logic"?! No fucking way! I'm sick of having to prove myself to latent sexist douchebags who refuse to acknowledge our existence, even respect us, or even give us a chance.

...so uncivil.

Oh. You mean lay down, let you walk all over me, interrupt me, down talk to me, and rub your smug sense of "superiority" all over me?! I'm really sick and tired of having to appease men and caress their frail egos. If they are that threaten by an independent, thinking, strong willed woman with a strong voice and is devoted to her opinions and refuses to compromises them (as men have done since forever without being labeled as "bitches" or uncivil) then too bad. These kinds of men need to get over their insecurity issues dealing with non-subordinate, assertive women. And I don't give a shit if this A-lister guys don't link to me.

[mrgrumpyhead]

Since almost no one goes to my site, male or female, I think I have more right than anyone else ever possibly could to stick my face right into this.

First off, we have to make something clear: male or female, we're all Children of God. Or, to put it in another way: male or female, most people are a bunch of dummies, jerks, and amazing total assholes. Does that include me?

Well, it sure as hell does.

So, where was I? Okay... I asked Rox Populi a little more about this Kevin Drum's criterion for top 100 Political Blogs, and then the answer comes back, right into the face that I've now stuck into this thing, that, actually, you have to register yourself in this list specifically as a Political Blogger.

But I'm not going to do that. I never, ever write about politics, anyway. If you don't believe me, then just go and see for yourself, whoever or whatever you are, Dear "Reader." And if you don't like what you see, you can just simply kiss it as if you were actually kissing my ass..

I don't care if my "blog" gets as many hits as that blonde American singer you all know at a cocaine party in mid-town Tokyo - I will never, ever register myself, anywhere, as a Political Blog, with any Political Blog registry... unless you pay me to do it. And handsomely. Motherfuckers.

Oh, and Happy St. Patrick's Day to one and all. Thas' right, tell yourse;f I'm drunk. If only it were that simple.

Yeah, yeah, I see all of you bloggers at the Coffee Houses and Opium Parlors, and I can hear you typing away in my sleep, as well, and I've noticed that a lot of you have some very nice god damned expensive looking god damned laptops. Well, men make more money than women, since we have to make these comparisons, but since we're all making these comparisons, let's just look at the economic factor, first, if you please, by your leave: You'd have to either carry around a laptop or be chained to a machine at home or "the office" to be able to make nine fucking blog posts a day. Not that it's bad, even though it truly is bad, See my point? Sure you do.

Also, you have to register yourself as a Political Blog in the list the Drum Machine is referring to. And I know I mentioned I would never, ever do such a thing. I know I've said these things, before, but they merit repeating.

"Seriously," though: To those of you who don't like the Drum Machine's posts about this "Subject": it isn't really the subject matter which makes you mad, which makes me mad, which makes the entire Cosmos reel in righteous anger at the postings in question, (for which he gets paid, too, shit, where's my chunk of that action, gimme gimme giimme), no, it isn't even the subject matter and the almost prepubescent fascination with the icky girl bloggers in the first place that's getting to you.

No, no! It's the arrogant tone coming from the posting that makes me want to pluck his very heart out and eat it on a roasting spit. Heart? He has no heart to... pluck out! There he is, coming on as a sympathetic voice for all the womens, there, while at the same time looking at "women bloggers" as if he were analyzing the dissected frog in biology class that he is then about to slip down the back of Becky Thatcher's dress.

To stick with literary allusions, what makes you gals so angry at him is what is supposed to make you angry about Henry Higgins. He's commentating on a criterion within a system with a list on a thing on a website thing, and which self-registered Political Blogs that register themselves as "Political Blogs" within that Major List Thing is written by which gender, and so forth. Get my point? Maybe he didn't capitalize "political blogs" as I have done , here, but there's no time to bother about that, anymore, today.

If you don't take my meaning, it has something to do with the whole thing being skewed before he even gets it into his head whilst urinating to do another piece that will again sort of imply that women haven't the proper "jiz" to "jiz" it all out with the other "true jizzers." So, it's irritating and annoying. And then he does it within the framework of supposedly helping you, while what he's actually doing is plucking out your very heart and eating it on a roasting spit.. "Say, kids, let's really worry about the top ten 'Political Blogs' ... what, you're not on the list? Not even on the top one-hundred? Well, hell, I am, ya know. And just look at it in all it's Holy Glory. Not a lot of tit, in there , at the top, though. Gotta say it's a liitle light in the bazzombas area. Well, I guess you female sorts don't like a good fight, like that Hillary Swank in that movie.. now there's a scrapper! Why can't more of you women take the blows to the cranium, as she did, or as I very obviously do, repeatedly, every day? In the head! You think this is EASY, or something??? Okay, well, , you lower blogging people aren't really my audience, today, anyway. ABC, and the world, are watching. Me, that is."

Now, I , in stark contrast, will come right up front and tell you that I'm an arrogant, hormonally driven big hunk of he-man. I'm irritating. But at least I'm admitting to it. See? Aren't you irritated? But at least I'm not throwing my wad of arrogant and disguised venom at... the ladies.... if you will. Would you mind if I called you that? Well, okay, I apologize, and I won't do that, again.. unlike certain other guys who make Rox Populi's head want to boil, or however she put it.

No, my annoying posts and my handsome websight has bile aimed at anyone and everyone, obviously, and I hope I've really hurt your feelings, too, tonight, in this, our most desperate hour.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

No, Anon, it's indicative of the attitudes towards women in general. So-called progressives and liberals echo the same sentiments Shakespeare's sister pointed out in her blog--issues affecting women are "side" issues and trivialities, what we say just isn't compelling or important, we're not willing to compromise on abortion rights (and really, SFW? What does that have to do with the worthiness of a blog?)

Sorry, that was me.

I'm at a bit of a loss in this argument. I'm in a country with a large number of women in politics, I come from a matriarchial farming family, and I work in a profession dominated by women (librarianship - I made a remark to someone today that as a straight white male here, I sometimes feel like Charlton Heston in "The Omega Man". Said friend laughed, being a transgendered queer).

I don't see the problem, but I'm not swimming in the same sea you other fish are. I think I better stay out of making any substantial comment, although it won't stop me sniping smartassedly from the sidelines.

[NTodd]

Well, maybe they aren't the only ones responsible, the only ones with blood on their hands.

What I've been sayin'.

[morgan]

Women's issues are human issues. I hate this seperation that always occurs on blogs like Drum's. Things that have to do with men and men's games and politics are seen as human, as impartial. Women's issues need to be addressed equally, not as side issues, because we make up half of the f-cking population. I think when men, like Drum, start viewing women as human beings this will change.

[The Heretik]

where are all the women blahdie blahdie blah? Oy. Make that a triple oy, with skim. One must wonder about The Weenied Ones. May Ashcroft's recently released Boobs of Justice swing low and smack some sense into these Dominant Link Dorks. And if the women's remarks cut them, let their balls drop where they may. Oy.

[Morgaine Swann]

Forgive me for cross-posting:

I went back and looked at the history of links on this subject. Invariably, the male who starts it gets all the links. The intent is to show people where to go comment, but the effect has been to reward their idiocy. I was looking to see if I had any posts to add to the portal someone created, but my first post on the subject on my own blog (I had commented on others) was the announcement for What She Said! I was naive enough to think that if we had a list we could pull out and say "here we are" that you guys would welcome the information. Boy, do I feel like an ass.
--snip--
The bottom line is that men only seem to link to other men they want to impress. Women are much more egalitarian with their links, and I think that works against us. For a woman to link to a man's blog in the blogosphere as it exists right now is equivalent to a blue collar worker voting Republican, or supporting a golf tournament at a restricted club. It is against our self-interest.

[Thad]

Thad, I've been posting on the bankruptcy bill, social security, corporate corruption, and Iraq.

I know you have, Sheelz, I've read them. You've been doing great work.

PLENTY of women are riled about these things.

Of course. I wasn't disputing any of that. I agree with almost everything Roxanne said -- except for this bit:

Now travel with me, if you will, back to last summer when we heard stories in the media and commentary on liberal blogs about how young women were disconnected from the political process and had no plans to vote in November. You know, those dastardly Sex in the City non-voters. "They don't care about politics!" "They don't read my big-ass influential blog!" "How could they not support John Kerry?"

Boy, something sure was wrong with those dumbasses! Or was it?

Maybe those young women are smarter than me and sensed the bullshit. Why should they listen to you, care about things like social security, the bankruptcy bill, medicare, etc. when you don't give two shits about them?

All I'm saying is that (A) cutting off your nose to spite your face ain't "smart" (let alone "smarter than Roxanne"), (B) I think the argument that the single, non-voting women in question here didn't vote because of the condescending attitude exhibited by some of the top liberal bloggers is kinda implausible, and (C) I think Roxanne lets these non-voting single women off the hook too easy.

[Also, I should say that I don't mean to obsess on this one category of non-voter -- I don't think any non-voters should get a pass -- but these were the people Roxanne singled out for consideration.]

But that's more of a rhetorical quibble, really. I do agree with Rox's larger point that some of the big liberal bloggers and -- far more importantly -- some of the big guns in the Democratic party have a tin ear and a bad attitude on this, and that does hurt the party, mainly by alienating some of our best and strongest supporters. I remember the (justified) howls of outrage at the post-election Democracy For America meetup at Harry Reid making Senate minority leader, and Hillary Clinton playing footsie with the anti-abortion crowd. Pretty much everyone was thinking, "We busted our asses for you in this election, and this is how you repay us???"

That shit just makes it that much harder to persuade people that the Democrats stand for something worth fighting for.

[Eli]

You are being too easy here on Drum. I also read garbage at Body and Sould yesterday. Want to bet a million that none of the women Drum recently linked to will bring this up.

[Thad]

Oh, wow. KD just grabbed himself a shovel:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005876.php

In fact, some of those points are ones I myself made to Shakes — but I'm not going to tell you how many of them or which ones. See if you can guess.

[Scott Drager]

Unfortunately loudmouth morons get all the attention. They have more entertainment value because...people get upset! Like this. Sometimes I wonder how many people sit on the sidelines, think 'Bullshit' then go off to whoever's blog they happen to like. Personally I like all sorts of blogs, I think a wide variety, well, maybe not too wide a variety. I have to admit... I don't like narrow-minded, our way is the only right way kinda things, but I feel like I am by no means in a minority in this regard. So some of these blogs get large numbers of hits? So what? Out of about 80 million people on the internet what do these 'big numbers' stack up to? 1/100 of 1%? 1/1000th? I could do the math I suppose but I don't really have to. It's obvious.
People are assholes so they can get attention in my opinion. People hate me so I'm important. People cheer me so I'm a big deal. 1000 e-mails support my opinion so I must be hot shit. 1000 e-mails or posts may seem like a lot, but is it really? Maybe to somebody who never gets any until they say something stupid. It's like Pavlov's dog, say something obnoxious, get a big response, feel important, say something else stupid.
Of course women write about women;s issues. DUH! My big question is why do these morons get taken so seriously? The answer is MSM is turning news into entertainment. People don't want to have to think, they never really have. So if someone says something that sounds like what these people are trained to think it must be right and they feel vindicated. It's OK to feel that way! Someone on TV said so! Thanks to government policy that is going to continue since the only answer is people who can think for themselves and that is getting taken away by 'No Child Left Behind'. Train people to take tests? Feed them answers so they can recite the 'correct response and get rewarded? What do you get? People who look outside their own thoughts for the right response to any situation. And there are plenty of volunteers to feed them the 'correct' response. Look at the history of religion for a splendid example of this theory in action.
Oops! Got pissed off I guess and started ranting. Sorry to waste your time!
Think for yourselves, teach other people to, that's the answer.

[Cynthia]

I get so freeking sick to death of this topic (ie, why doesn't a woman write they way I want her to and about topics I get off on). I write about art. I write about knitting. I write about Social Security. I write about hating Bush. I write about grassroots canvassing. (How many of the boy's club got hard butts climbing up and down stairs and knocking on doors for our Democratic candidates all last year? Most of the people I saw were women!)

There are different ways of living a political life than getting hysterical about topics such as (snore) Is a Blogger a Journalist? This is why I've stopped visiting a lot of blogs lately. They've become increasingly insular and repetitive. And if you didn't start your blog before 2003 it seems like you're not on any of the heavy hitters link lists. When was the last time some of these guys updated their lists?

And there's no way I'll compromise on a woman's reproductive rights to prevent, terminate, or continue a pregnancy.

Sorry to vent.

[SpinDentist]

Look, if Kevin Drum is semi-annually obsessive about women bloggers, or his lack of perception on the subject, let's judge the crime on how egregious it is, then decide to not read him again. Simple?

I like much of what is said in these comments, particularly doghouse riley's comments. But on occasion the comments here seem to veer off track. Sure, Drum is moving towards some broad and essentializing theory about women, and that should be nipped in the bud. I am tempted to borrow from Gilbert and Gubar and place him in the Hopkins role. The new title would be "The Blog is the Penis," or somesuch. Just as Gilbert and Gubar fought the exclusion of women in the canon of literature by noting that men had essentialized their work by defining it sexually, we can note, as several have subtley done here, that this is the aim of Drum's anxiety-driven semi-annual posts.

The problem is not for women to fit in some ideal about "quality blogging," nor is it to define some ideal about how they blog. Definitions delimit far too much. And in the comments above there are far too many delimiting definitions flying about in a discussion that is essentially complaining about similar delimiting ideas on the part of Drum. The irony gets its thickest, I think, when we get to Morgaine Swann's post:

"The bottom line is that men only seem to link to other men they want to impress. Women are much more egalitarian with their links, and I think that works against us. For a woman to link to a man's blog in the blogosphere as it exists right now is equivalent to a blue collar worker voting Republican, or supporting a golf tournament at a restricted club. It is against our self-interest."

I'm not sure I need to say more. If there's really someone out there who only links to those they wish to impress, then they'll be gone soon. The Blogzome does not work through ass-kissing. Indeed, the best work out there is done by discovery of ideas and words found well off the beaten path.

I am particularly struck that Morgaine seems to want to put men and women bloggers into boxes, with men being suck-ups and women being "egalitarian." Bullcrap. Morgaine, you may be very egalitarian, and you may be able to find thirty other women bloggers who are. Good. I'll find as many men bloggers who are egalitarian, as well. WHO THE FUCK CARES? All this kind of construct does is throw people back into little definable roles that we were supposed to have escaped due to feminism.

Darn it, I'd avoided these conversations for a year and a half! There goes my perfect record.

[upyernoz]

um, one question:

why does anyone give a shit what kevin drum says anymore? he lost it for me quite some time ago, so i stopped reading him and pulled the link to his site from my blogroll. since that time, i've mostly learned about his endless loop of "where are the women bloggers" posts from the outrage that follows on sites that i do read.

kevin's opinions only matter because lots of people read his site. if he's going to be willfully blind to the women of blogistan, what is the point in reading him? if enough people realize that, they'll stop reading his site and whatever he thinks about the quality of women bloggers won't matter anymore. if anything, this periodic stink, only increases his hits. if you really want to make a statement to kevin, just drop him

[SpinDentist]

Yes, there are very much more important and interesting things to talk about. For instance, who would have predicted that my comment on Rox's post would be followed by a comment from someone I've actually met? That's just freaky! I don't come here often, or anything.

[Moi ;)]

I just have to say, GO Sheelz!!! lol

You know, I could give a crap about whether a blogger is male or female. Or whether they are political or not. Some of us women who do have political leanings don't always have the time or the inclination to blog political 100%. It's not our main focus in life. (Thank goodness...please kill me now if I ever become so boring....) But having political leanings does influence what I say, as well as my activism. Does that make me political-lite? @@

I have an autistic kid. I am a musician. So why shouldn't I also blog about other things, too??? I am not a politician. Why would I only have to blog about politics in order to be interesting to male bloggers??? And why are only political bloggers considered to be good?

I really don't think it's all That philosophical. Either those people just hate that we're much more diverse and interesting, and not so obsessed, or they're just too obsessed with politics to notice anything else. They're all just POed wannabes. And do you really care if someone like that notices your blog? Nah...

[Moi ;)]

LOL, Noz, Blogistan....

[Chris Clarke]

The frustrating thing for me, as a semi-clueful man, about this whole stupid subject is that we men on the left were supposed to have gotten over this back in the 1970s. Not that there aren't sexist, clueless men on the left still - it's just that I'm beginning to think that a lot of them are under the age of 35.

It's not like there's anything the Angry Women Bloggers have been saying in this context that's revolutionary, extreme, or new.

Maybe its another "liberal versus left" thing. Maybe we lost that consciousness-raising as we got swept to the right in the Reagan-Clinton years. Maybe I just hung out with the five men that had their shit together in the 1970s. I dunno. It's depressing, and I'm sorry.

Oh, and PZ: not that my opinion is the important one in this thread, but if it was, it'd be that your work to debunk people like Summers is way more important than who you link to, and that you nonetheless link to lots of good work done by women - including my pal Diane Kelly the penis researcher.

[doghouse riley]

I gotta tell ya, the most depressing thing in all of this for me was learning that Drum was the source of some of those stupid quotes. Before that I held to the notion that he was just a misguided, cossetted white guy who had inadvertantly displayed his ignorance.

And that was not out of any desire to protect him, just the basic benefit of the doubt I'd give anyone until proven different. He's proven different.

I guess my question now would be, can white male bloggers climb the Hit Parade, let alone get commercial backing, without becoming low rent media whores? My first task will be scouting around for some doubt.

[doghouse riley]

I gotta tell ya, the most depressing thing in all of this for me was learning that Drum was the source of some of those stupid quotes. Before that I held to the notion that he was just a misguided, cossetted white guy who had inadvertantly displayed his ignorance.

And that was not out of any desire to protect him, just the basic benefit of the doubt I'd give anyone until proven different. He's proven different.

I guess my question now would be, can white male bloggers climb the Hit Parade, let alone get commercial backing, without becoming low rent media whores? My first task will be scouting around for some doubt.

[doghouse riley]

I swear I only hit "Post" once. Sorry.

[Chris Clarke]

It's OK, doghouse. Nobody expects us guys to be completely comfortable with technology stuff yet. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

[SharonD]

I don't know how to make a new thread -- I'm not really a blogger -- but I wanted to get this out ...

On sagging bloodhounds and aging

I was flipping channels one evening and caught a minute of Jeff Foxworthy doing a standup thing.

It was his turn for the bathroom; the door was slightly ajar. He carefully peeked and saw his grandmother naked.

Oh no. Horrors. Sometimes he still gets cold chills thinking about it. Everything was in the wrong place. She looked like a bloodhound wearing a shower cap.

Laughtrack. Cut to the audience, a middle-aged woman laughing heartily.

I was thinking about it in this way. I wasn't offended or anything -- Jeff's pretty funny and I like him.

But I wonder, what would it be like for him if he saw his grandfather naked?

Would his grandpa have spindly white legs with rivers of blue veins.

Would the man's privates be elephantine from prostate troubles.

Would his chest have a shiny, winding, railroad-track scar from that heart surgery 6 years back.

Would his flat man-breasts sag upon his chest like a pair of short-stack pancakes.

Would his arms be corded and knotted with veins that had worked hard over 4 score years.

Would we laugh if Jeff talked about his grandfather naked?

If not, why?

[Billmon]

When I first read this post, I was going to leave a comment chastising Roxanne for blaming Drum personally for a collection of anonymously moronic quotes. (The phrase "collective guilt" came to mind.) But I held my tongue, which in retrospect was obviously the smart play.

Ordinarily I'd give Kevin partial credit for at least having the courage to acknowledged authorship, but he won't even do that, except in a generic way.

[NTodd]

Nobody expects us guys to be completely comfortable with technology stuff yet. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

Online Barbie says, "Blogging is hard!"

[Shakespeare's Sister]

the most depressing thing in all of this for me was learning that Drum was the source of some of those stupid quotes

What I found depressing was the number of posts I was reading on women-authored blogs lauding the efforts of a covert sexist, efforts which amounted to little more than disingenuous attempts to "solve" this issue while masking its real roots. I'm not a sucker, and I didn't want any of my fellow bloggrrls to be suckers anymore, either.

It was good of Drum to own up to being the source, but the issue is not defining "women's issues," as he'd have us believe. The issue is that "male" is still seen as the norm, and "female" a deviation from that norm. There are "issues" (Social Security, Bankruptcy Bill, etc.) and then there are "women's issues" (fair pay, abortion rights, etc.) and then there are other secondary issues, like gay rights (which you'll also find women blogging about with more regularity than men).

I'd frankly have preferred to see Drum admit that he has been viewing women bloggers not as his equal (as the quotes certainly reveal), instead of reducing his sexism to simple confusion rooted in semantics, with a pithy little tidbit like "In other words, if men complain that women spend too much time blogging about "women's issues" — and I know that some of them do — and if women complain that men spend too little time blogging about women's issues — and some of them do — we better figure out what we're talking about," but at least it's a start.

[Hanna]

Thanks Roxanne for taking this on *again*.

(I'm leaving out all the cursing and screaming and yelling and throwing things cause I've done that on other blogs comments and I'm pooped out. But there's one thing I thought of while writing all of that and I think it's a significant challenge that we must deal with creatively after we win this fight, and we *will* win this fight.)

This isn't going to end until we replace the top tier of bloggers with a different set. Currently the top tier of ... I can't even call them liberals ... and barely left ... non-right-wing bloggers is centrist/moderate and just barely to the left of that. They're not progressive by any stretch of the word.

I'm hoping that that's going to be changing. It has to change.

And when it does change, we have to be ready not to make the same mistakes they did. We're have to have blogrolls with four thousand or four hundred thousand links on them and somehow be fair about it. I have no idea how to do that.

Right now, there's a clique of female bloggers and there's a clique of male bloggers. The male bloggers are the ones with the power right now. They go on television and speak for us (ignore our needs, ignore our issues). That has to change. We have a hard fight on our hands now, but when we win, we're going to have an even more difficult task.

I don't know how to deal with it. Does anyone else?

Love,

Hanna

[Thad]

The male bloggers are the ones with the power right now. They go on television and speak for us (ignore our needs, ignore our issues).

[ahem] Wonkette [kaff kaff]

I get your point, Hanna, but look -- right now there's a lack of any left-leaning bloggers on TV -- centrist or liberal, male or female. And the one person that does get widespread mainstream media exposure (who, uh, happens to be a woman) doesn't speak for any of us. [Not to dump on Ana Marie, who is very good at what she does, but she's not a liberal partisan by any stretch.]

That said, you are absolutely right about the narrowness of opinion on the left side of the aisle, even the blogosphere (it goes all the way from centrist to moderate!). But since even those centrist-moderate views are shut out of the mainstream media club, it would be significant progress even to get Kos or Digby or Atrios on TV or quoted in mainstream sources. Surely they are preferable to Wonkette, at least?

[Thad]

(I hasten to add that in my ideal world, Roxanne, Amanda, Lauren, and Julia would all have their own cable TV talk shows.)

[mrs mcmuffin]

Strike action being much on my mind (I am on strike on Wednesday for the first time since the early 90's), how about a gender strike? Women, remove your links to male 'political' bloggers-the good guys will support this-and don't visit male blogs for a week. That will bloody teach them to ask where the women are, they'll see it when their hits plummet and their advertising revenues fall. In the meantime let's visit each other daily at least(-well not me, this is not naked self interest as am never political with a big 'P' and blog with the husband). Anyone want to organise 'Women only blogging week'?

[Chris Clarke]

Women, remove your links to male 'political' bloggers-the good guys will support this-and don't visit male blogs for a week.

Don't know whether I'd qualify as a political blogger, but if y'all decide to run with this "Link-sistrata" strategy, I'd be happy to blog about participants for the duration, thus sending traffic to the sisterhood and filling my traditional role as a traitor to the male gender.

[bellatrys]

Actually, no, Hanna, I think it's worse and better than that. (Yup, both.) There are a bunch of us who think of ourselves first and foremost as *progressive political bloggers* who happen to have a lot of overlapping intersets which mean we *also* talk about cats, dogs, snakes, crafts, books, favorite TV shows/movies, food, places we've lived, hobbies of sundry sorts, and collectively indulging in that perennial *favorite* hobby, snarking at displays of public stupidity.

Unless talking *about* sex, either as sex, or in the form of making a bawdy joke as part of the rest of it, who has what form of DNA delivery system is irrelevant to us, at least as compared to talking about Trek or Monty Python or medieval cooking techniques or making really awful puns.

As a result, we all in the Axis O'Wierd tend to have sidebar links that are packed with a) funny, smart, socially-conscious and passionate people of b) varying backgrounds, locations, and genders. (Some of us I strongly suspect are actually aliens, but I'm not saying who.)

Then there are the Serious Political Bloggers, who don't do things like engage in satirical parodies of pundits in the voices of characters from the X-Files, or carry on running gags about being stalked by sex-crazed right-wing pundits, or do Subliminal Cinema complete with horrific illustrations, create scary musical Flash movies about Ahmed Chalabi, page-by-page deconstruction of bad Christian futurist fiction, or speculate on which Infamous Mythical Character the Rumsfeld or Coulter are. (Lovecraftian Old One? Countess Batthory?)

These, for some inscrutable reason, are the Gatekeepers of Good Taste in Political Blogging, like the literary critics who insist that genre fiction isn't literature. They say we aren't real - but only those of us who are XX. (They just ignore Seb and co, but they don't bother to rationalize it.) Then they get upset when we get upset at them for saying this.

Answer to this? I don't know. I don't find them interesting or relevant, and I only any more read MY, Brad DeLong, and Dumb when people I *do* read link to them.

OTOH, KD may very well just be Jealous that s.z. scooped him with Gannongate *and* got national media attention, forcing the "real" media to sully their pure mouths with the words "World O'Crap"...

I think it really may do us a service, in that these periodic stupidities remind us that not all the evil is bottled up in the dragons - that is to say, the wingers...

[Amanda]

Mrs. McMuffin, I threatened to strike, but I think that might not be an effective strategy from me, considering that I co-blog with a man. Maybe only refuse to link to men who don't seem to be making an effort to rectify the situation?

[Roxanne]

You mean a "Boy Cott"?