"And I think both Hawkins and Spoons, if they desire any claim to intelligence at all, need to recognize the circular logic they're using. "The blogosphere isn't sexist because attractive women actually have a gender advantage when it comes to being linked" is the very definition of sexism."

Fine. If you want to argue that the blogosphere is sexist in favor of women, I'll concede the point. But that wasn't what Michelle was arguing. As for the "attractiveness" issue, it's too bad John brought it up (although he was really just responding to Michele, who brought it up first), because it's blinded you to his point. Most of the time, readers have no idea what a blogger looks like, male or female. And women, all things being equal, have an advtage getting attention in the blogosphere, simply because there aren't many women bloggers doing right-of-center politics. Deal with it.

Of course, if you're having too much fun playing a victim of the Oppressive White Male Patriarchical Phallosphere, don't let me interrupt you.

Damn. I go away for a weekend and all hell breaks loose. I will fall back on my right to remain silent and/or interject marginally humorous anecdotes in the future.

This whole thing is a non-issue, fanned into bonfire status because some fucktards (not you, Ilyka) simply like to see who they can stir up into a froth. And now, Michele has quit. Thanks, fucktards.

answer to question asked, as a married man with only a smile and a kind word on offer, i don't much care about the motivations of the women (and men) who spend their time, interests or eloquence with me. i am glad to share.

were i on the market for a companion, then, as you suggest, i would care about the motivation of that lady (men need not apply, thanks) and would reserve my attentions to those i believed had motivations that matched my own. for her however to be completely disinterested in financial matters seems unlikely -- abnormal in fact. i contend then, that her interest in financial concerns is a matter of degree and either extreme would be off-putting.

as for female bloggers getting all the success (or not), i checked the top 100 on the ecosystem and it seemed surprisingly manly to me.

for her however to be completely disinterested in financial matters seems unlikely -- abnormal in fact. i contend then, that her interest in financial concerns is a matter of degree and either extreme would be off-putting.

Yeah, I can't expect anyone to totally ignore attractiveness concerns, either. Fair enough on that score--I'd just rather it had nothing to do with weblogging.

For the record, neither I, nor John, argued with Michele's contention that Wonkette used sex talk to get noticed. If she had left it at that, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it. However, when Michele tried to spin a vast right-wing conspiracy against female bloggers, I had to call bullshit. Michele was tremendously successful, and will be again if she comes back. She is certainly the last person in the world who ought to be complaining about discrimination against women.

For the record, *this* man doesn't like gold-diggers, and nor does he like women who are trying to use his acquaintance to get something else.

Evolution, baby! That's why women go for the guy with the big bankbook, and why men go for the women with the big b's. Evolution, over millions of years. It ain't gonna change in 50 years, dear.

It ain't gonna change in 50 years, dear.

Given that the whole point of evolution is adaptation, I think you're wrong. But fact is, it's already changing. It's changed dramatically enough in the last 50 years as it is.

I out-earn my boyfriend. My mother out-earns my father. And one of my grandmothers worked until she was over 70 and out-earned my grandfather for much of that time, too.

Evolution? Honey, you're standing in it.

That's the second time I've seen Hawkins involved in a "sexist" brou-ha-ha. Not that it matters, but I de-linked after the first one. Not because I think he's sexist, but because he comes off to me as condescending. No one, of either sex, likes that.

Thanks for including me on your list!

But for full disclosure, I gotta say that John was incredibly supportive of my measly efforts back when I started blogging. I'm still grateful for all the traffic he sent my way.

My two cents: John Hawkins is a blowhard. That article pissed me off to no end and made me so angry that I couldn't even write about.

Hey. I had this argument, like, a year or so ago, only Wonkette wasn't around for it.

Hawkins was just as big an ass back then, though, and Spoons used about the same arguments.

I believe I refrained from commenting to Spoons then.

I think I shall do so again.

You forgot Susanna Cornett on your list, Ilyka. Oh. No you didn't. Never mind.

Miguel said it. Evolution!

The attractiveness of the opposite sex is based on survivial and producing offspring. The common characteristic sought is health. And then there's --

Does the male have physical prowess so he can drag something dead back to that cave so the wife and kids don't starve? If there's a fight with another clan, will he be a survivor?
Does he have high status in the tribe so the family gets food when there isn't enough for everyone?

Does the female have the boobs and hips to produce and raise new DNA? Is she young enough to produce lots and lots of new DNA?

It isn't fair or just - but evolution doesn't care about that stuff.

I agree with you. I agree that men often behave in what I often consider to be a strange manner. And yet, those are the guys that seem to get the women. Most women, apparently, respond to the very stimuli you say they don't respond to. And the closer I have moved to behaving in stereotypical fashion, even when it's a bit outside the way I'd like to behave, the better my luck. Evolution. It's all the rage.

As far as blogging goes, women do have a bit of allure, but not enough to hold my interest for very long if that's all there is to it. The women bloggers I read (michele, tanya, willow, jane galt, andrea harris) don't ever used the fact that they're women to "sell" the blog. I read them cuz I like what they have to say, and I like intelligence and a bit of venom.

Afterthoughts-

Some civilizations have added one more item.

Is he/she someone you enjoy talking to?

(ps - Living organisms are DNA's way of producing more DNA.)

Men being pigs _is a good deal for women_, because women are mostly not great deals. It's an anaesthetic. On the other hand, the poor sap really does like his woman. You can count on him. Just let him know, every now and then, that you're satisfied with him.

As for talents, women have all the talent you want to do anything men do. They do not, however, have the interests needed to maintain the illusion that (say) mathematics or physics is important, to the point of having no social life. So you find that women do not want to argue about mathematics or physics.

We've been doing this for 30 years, right? Go over to sci.math or sci.physics, and I bet without looking that out of the last thousand posts, there are zero women. These are not groups of experts, but rather groups of morons. They are intensely interested morons, though. They argue about why gyroscopes do not fall over, and they're mostly wrong. So qualifications don't even come up. All that comes up is : do you want to argue endlessly about gyroscopes? For women, the answer is no. There's your data.

From among the world's best maniacly driven mathematicians and physicists, you get your world-class people, and they're all men, because they come from that interested population.

The way interests differ between men and women is mostly that men isolate and resolve things, killing off other issues along the way, one way or another. Women on the other hand are happy with, and seek out, complexity, and do not resolve it. It's not that they're satisfied with an inferior sort of knowledge, but that they're comfortable with this state, and seek it out. Hence soap operas, its dysfunctional form. Or, under pressure, why a woman invites company over to feed them, adding another layer of crisis in a crisis. It keeps her interested.

Feminism is formalized bitching - something's wrong. The woman does not resolve it; the man has to. They both follow their interests. The woman will stop perhaps when a chemical calculation says it's okay, and the man will try to figure out what she really wants. She doesn't really want anything! She's just being complex and multi-faceted.

The differing interests give differing blogs.

If you write about your dream last night, I don't read you any longer, but I'm just a guy. If you redecorate your blog once again, well, what do you expect.

Wonkette isn't using sex to attract guys. It's a scandal used formally to take off from, in a gossip-styled destruction celebrity in general. That's where all the kick-me signs came from.

Ron, just my opinion ok, please write your long posts on your own blog, so i can read them there.

Short form: explanations of sexism are wrong. The sin is not in being wrong, but in not being interested in getting it right. ``lalalalala I can't hear you''

So women seek out the wrong thing. Instead of the stifling of the Cinderella Complex, there is Received Feminism. Which one do you want to ruin your life with. How about neither.

Behavior comes from genes, especially behavior related to sexual attraction. The genes are very slow to change.
Men really are different from women. Men's brains really are different from women's brains.
There are more male geniuses and more male morons. Women cluster more around the midranges.

Don't even try to figure out why the top physicists, mathematicians, and engineering professionals are overwhelmingly men. Women are free to train in those fields, and achieve as highly as their talent will allow. Why not?
Women are 70% of psychology doctoral graduates, and achieving parity in medicine and law. Women are gaining fast in finance, business, accounting, etc. But some fields are resistant to the female brain--so far.

I'm married. I like puppies a lot, though.

Good post...and thank you for including me on your list!

Crap. I can't remember the question...

Anyway, the female blogs I frequent, I do so because of content.

Case in point, Zee of SpicedSass (http://www.roadsassy.com/spicedsass/). One of the best right-of-center blogs out there.

She's never written about her boobs. Others on the list above have.

Five things to say:

1. Thanks for the link to my blog.

2. I can't believe women write about their "boobs" on their blog.

3. I really can't believe the whole "Bloggers with Boobies". Sounds like a bunch of...boobs.

4. Can't think of anything for point 4.

5. I have about three readers. I never brought the whole sexism question into wondering why I have a small audience. I always figured it was because I once posted a picture of my cat. Which, as you know, is the kiss of death for a serious blog.

She's never written about her boobs. Others on the list above have.

Have I ever written about my mammalial protuberances? I honestly don't remember if I have, unless it was to illustrate a point in the drag queen story, or some such nonsense.

I appreciate inclusion on your list. Some awesome bloggers there and I'm flattered to be included. But honestly, I don't blog for recogintion. It's fun when it happens, and there's that thrilling little rush when I see a trackback on a post I've written. But that's not why I'm here.

I blog as a safety valve, a pressure release, an outlet for my creative side when no other outlet is available. I sometimes blog for clarification, and for affirmation that I'm on the right track. And, admittedly, sometimes it's for vanity. There, I said it. It's a prideful, egotistical, vain thing sometimes. And I daresay it's the same for the men.

(to be continued)

I've never written about my boobs on my blog. That's not the kind of attention I want. Frankly, I would find that kind of attention really creepy.

From what I've seen in blogging, there are females who trade on a perceived attractiveness (like including a "hot" cartoon rendering as a centerpiece of their blog, whether or not it has anything to do with how they actually look), or implied attractiveness (by using flirtatious or sexual language in posts and responding to commenters).
These female bloggers often gain readers quite rapidly. Often far beyond what I would think their content deserves.
Of course, there are other ways to make rapid gains in leadership; playing on appearance/sexuality is merely one way. There's nothing wrong with that, I think. On the other hand, when those female bloggers complain about sexism in the blogosphere, they deserve the smackdown they get.
I have no idea what most female bloggers look like, and I don't care. I read them for their content. Or I don't.

Well my dear...despite what some will think after they read this, you aren't so far off the mark.

Examples: Outside the Beltway had a post back in October that pointed to the pics of all the female bloggers. It got a hit from Instapundit. Did anyone come to READ what I wrote? Nope. They came to gawk at my photo.

I took it down. I don't want people coming back because of the way I look. I want people to come back because of what I write. I have stated so damn many times over the year that I have been blogging that I am completely AWARE that I'm not the best writer out there, that I am not the most in tune to specific topics, that I am not the smartest blogger when it comes to politics and understanding every issue. BUT! I began my blog to learn. I began my blog to learn more about politics, to debate!!!!! and to learn how to write better.

Some people get upset when others point out their errors...I want mine pointed out, (albeit by private email), because it only helps me write better.

I want debate. I'm sick and tired of people thinking:

a) I can't debate her, she'll get upset. (Do they think this about a male blogger?)

b) I can't debate her, she comes back fighting and acts like a bitch. (Do they call male bloggers 'bitches' when they smack down arguments left and right?)

I wrote, on my one year blogiversary that I was going to take my page OUT of the Eco-System because first of all, it doesn't correctly illustrate who is really good and who sucks ass. But it is nothing more than a phony assed popularity contest and I've always hated that shit. I have made an alternate page full of links and will submit that since people seem to be so concerned over links but my main page would not show up any longer.

I used to think it was all about promoting but the thing is...people know I'm out there. People read my site. People don't often comment...whatever...but they read it and if I lose readers.....to me that says I need to improve my writing skills or my arguments or my knowledge on the subject.

But yes, there definitely is a difference in the way readers react to male bloggers and female bloggers.

That is to be expected as it is that way in real life. What I don't appreciate, however, is when it's more often about the looks or body parts than it is about the content and how I should be happy anyone linked to me because I had a photo up.

That kind of attitude will set me on fire any day of the week no matter who said it and how much I enjoy their writing.

I don't care if someone notices I'm a female. I'm DAMN proud I'm a female. What I don't appreciate is when I'm treated like a little girl. Fuck. That.

I don't know if my thoughts rolled along there and I don't have time to preview as the thunder is rolling in fast and I gotta turn this off now.

But thank you for this post and thank you for the link and that link means a hell of a lot more to me than many because I KNOW you linked me because of what I have to say, not because I look pretty.

Conservative woman blogger here, who has not once threatened release of the girls. Have they even come up in comment conversation? NOT! [WTF?]

There are a lot of good women bloggers out there that aren't using their sex to their advantage -whether they know it or not.

Just sayin'.

You know I read this once, and then following a link I found it again and re-read it. You know, just offhand, there are a couple I'd take off that list of yours becuase I think they're just dreck, but then, there are some you missed, so it works out.

Funny thing is I think both you and Hawkins have some good points. Maybe I'll have to write my own essay about it some time. Mostly you're talking past each other, although Hawkins was foolish in his generalization, showing how little he knows about right-leaning, left-leaning, and other poli-blogs by women.

Methinks the ladies doth protest too much.

Ilyka - Stipulating for the moment that you may be a freakish statistical anomaly in your personal behavior & attitudes, I have never dated a woman who wasn't on some level interested in my money. Why are you speculating on the Bizarro World where creatures exist who look like men and women but don't behave like them? And why are you angry about it's unreality? You might as well be upset at gravity. You are all gold diggers; that why it is always the guys who pay for dates. We have adjusted. The relevant question for us is what we get for our gold. You ask if men like women who are -only- interested in our money. The existence of whores would tend to indicate we do. Women who are called gold diggers are called so because they are not honest about being whores and because they try to charge too much. Women who fancy themselves neither are overlaying emotional constraints on the basic transaction. Men throughout history have supported women who did no work outside the home. Rich ones have been expected to support women who did no work at all. Now some women are (foolishly) working. [I say foolishly because it is a bad deal for them.] However, essentially none of these women are supporting men who do not work for a lifetime. I don't expect this to change. If any of you ladies feel like supporting a man, email me back. I am intelligent, polite, & even look good. However, if you want me to tell you pretty lies, please provide a script. I would say I was hard working and a good provider, but that apparently doesn't matter now because I have somehow stepped thru a feminist looking glass...

Just like the bunch of dum neo-cons you are.
A woman (wonkette) mentions her boobs or sex or whatever and you all go crazy especially the conservative women. But you DON'T have a problem with the violent imagery of death, guns and fantasy killing of little brown people in your neo-con blogs. This doesn't faze you neo-con idiots in the least.

You people are so fucked up about a little sex and sex talk, it's not even funny.
(It's the Janet Jackson boob incident all over again, only it's wonkette this time.)

Grow up and examine your culture of violence not sex. Breasts never killed anybody. Breasts GIVE life.

Retards the whole neo-con lot of you.

audiblehaltermiss