Weekend Navel Gazing: Old Boys Clubs
Commenter Ktward writes
And so I’m wondering, E.D.: If you weren’t speaking to Forbes readers and the Boys Club that is the League (not a criticism, simply an observation), might your take on OWS be less guarded?
Granting that she is just making an observation, it seems that her observation is correct. The gentle-persons in the club are predominantly gentile-men (No Jews that I am aware of) although from very different and diverse backgrounds. So, are we
So I have a number of questions:
1. Why is this so?
2. Is this a bad thing?
3. Should we do anything about it?
4. What should we do about it?
Otherwise consider this an open thread.
J.L. Wall is Jewish (unless I am very much mistaken.)
For some reason we can’t get girls to write here. I would gladly change the name of the site to The League of Ordinary Ladies and Gentlemen if we could get a few female writers on board.Report
Also, Daniel is Jewish. I honestly don’t know the religious/ethnic make-up of everyone here. We are a bunch of dudes, though, so that’s something.
If any girls want to write here they should email me.Report
When Patrick asked me to contribute an essay on immigration for the lower section, I asked Joni Hersch at Vanderbilt through my nom de guerre here. Naturally she didn’t respond, probably thinking I’m just another Internet nutcase. She has some interesting stuff like like this that I think would be worth the “gentlemen” treatment.
Perhaps if someone like Jason or Erik invited her directly?
BTW Erik, this wasn’t the email I sent to, I used the one that is spam protected on the “Contact” page. In fact web trawlers have likely already snagged the mailto: you have above and you’re getting offers to rescue Nigerian millions as I write this. 🙂Report
“Jewish with a goyische name” may be more accurate, so I don’t take offense.Report
Okay ED, here is a brainteaser for you: I am not Jewish–pretty much split right down between Irish/German, but have been tested for “Jewishness”. Now how is that possible? No, this is not some deranged Hitler Youth Eugenics, Shockley craziness–this was Harvard Medical School.
Now, what in the world am I talking about?Report
Calling it the League of Ordinary Ladies and Gentlemen will look silly if the female contributors stiff us. Since this is the Internet, a good many contributors will stiff us. At least half have so far.Report
What do you mean by “stiff us?”Report
At least half of the people I remember getting regular front page gigs here stayed for a month or two and left. It’s not for everyone.Report
One thing I’ve noticed (in real life, even) is that most folks have two or three really good lectures.
Here’s what I think about *THIS*, they could say and write a kick-ass essay that will get everybody all het up and half of them will start applauding and the other half will start throwing punches and everybody’s happy.
It’s just that after you tell your two or three really good lectures… where do you go? It ain’t easy, I tell you what.Report
Yeah, that’s me with jokes.Report
Also, I think ktward was simply asking if I’d be more open to expressing slightly more radical views outside the fairly libertarian sites I typically write for…which, as I said, would not be the case.Report
I’m a white male atheist, so I fit the stereotype unquestionably.
As to what to do about this, I suppose the only way to know is to ask the women who comment or lurk here. Would you like to contribute. Is there something we could do to make it more comfortable for you?Report
well, I’ve got a post that I’m working on… I don’t actually intend it to be antagonistic, but I’m playing off of one of Patrick’s responses to me…Report
Few women possess the sociopathic narcissism to be a libertarian?Report
So, the way to demonstrate I’m not sociopathic is to prefer the use of force over voluntary organization? One of us certainly has a different conception of sociopathy than the other.Report
No, you demonstrate it by preferring involuntary organization over the use of force.Report
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.Report
It means gracefully submitting to the will of the majority in order to avoid needless confrontation. Yes, sometimes confrontation is necessary and desirable — we call that civil disobedience. If something more than civil disobedience is necessary then we’re probably not living in the U.S.A. (at least not yet, some may counter).Report
Thanks, Karl. But I still prefer voluntary association to being told by the majority that I must “gracefully” submit to their will, which in fact is backed by the threat of force, no matter how graceful my submission. So your distinction between “involuntary organization” and “use of force” is a false distinction.Report
Not at all; the distinction exists in our minds but is as real as our collective interactions — at what point does one wish to claim victimhood?Report
As real as our collective interactions. Priceless.Report
Thank you. I take everything as a compliment.Report
Have you met women?Report
It is certainly my understanding that this was originally a libertarian site, but it seems a bit of a stretch to think of it in those terms as it continues to evolve.
Without going to the masthead to do a contributor review, I would list Erik, Ryan, C-Carr, Russell, Alex, Burt, Patrick, Shawn, Elias, Burt, Rufus, and myself as folks that either aren’t libertarian or if so just never write about being so.Report
Actually, when this site began back in January 2009, there were only 2 libertarians, one of whom rarely contributed. I REALLY need to do a post on this site’s history when I have some time. At the time, Erik was most decidedly anything but a libertarian, I think. Most would have viewed the site as being center-left on the whole, but we’ve always been conscious to avoid any particular ideological mission for the site.Report
That’d be an interesting post actually. I’d like to hear what happened before I discovered this site. Like, how did it all start?Report
Right. Because there’s nothing sociopathically narcissistic about “Make people give me stuff for free!” There are people at the OWS rallies demanding that their personal debts be cancelled, and we’re the self-centered ones.
Best not to use words you don’t understand.Report
… Libertarians are self-centered. As in the people running the Libertarian Party. The greens are just overly punctilious geeks.Report
the obvious – the name of this blog.Report
I told them that we should be “Gentlepeeps” but my pleas fell on deaf ears.Report
Heh. I only got here via the spouse – To be honest this blog has been around long enough sans regular female perspectives it seems to be silly to be bothered by it now – or I could say again (this point has been brought up before yes?). Mostly – like Rufus said just not particularly interested.Report
I will say one of those things that I say all the time:
If you’ve a hankering to see a female perspective: WRITE AN ESSAY! Dude. We will post it.
I cannot provide a female perspective on stuff. Only you can. (Well, there are others who can, of course, but I’m not a member of that set.)Report
yeah well the things I find interesting wouldn’t necessarily draw what League regulars seem to love to debate on so I’ll pass. I agree with Rufus. Why would I want to write for the sake of adding a female perspective for a bunch of guys who don’t need and don’t regularly ask for it. Hell, I don’t think of this blog as exclusionary so I don’t see the big deal. Seems like over-sensitivity to me.Report
the things I find interesting wouldn’t necessarily draw what League regulars seem to love to debate on
Try us.
We’re not *ALL* perpetual adolescents who argue stuff from a perspective of being steeped in cultural privilege! Some of us returned to adolescence after a period of adulthood!Report
I think she’s scared of paleocons?Report
May I be a dissenting voice here?
As I said above, this isn’t a libertarian site any longer. And people post on everything from politics to education to food & wine to books, tv & movies to personal essays about their lives.
Why not submit something on something you find really cool? Would I find something that strove to be in a female’s voice interesting? Maybe, maybe not. But I’d be pretty stoked to hear something in Johanna’s voice.Report
I don’t see this as a libertarian blog and never have. It’s about culture and politics as a particular outgrowth of culture, on theoretical levels as well as practical. As far as libertarian ideas go I think it’s fair to say a lot of us have at least flirted with them. I’ve not only flirted with libertarianism but we dated for a while and are still on good terms despite going our separate ways.Report
Agreed. This site has a lot of libertarian and libertarian-ish perspectives but we’re much more diverse than that.Report
Both your strength and your weakness.Report
Johanna:
Will a name change to a more gender neutral name make you feel better? Maybe that and a cup of warm milk, since these days the only thing that matters is catering to peoples feelings and their self esteem.Report
You probably missed her saying that anyone worrying about these things, “Seems like over-sensitivity to me.”Report
Rufus – Exactly. The title is merely the first thing you see and a first impression. Attractive to women in a marketing sense? Nope. My initial comment was my drive by attempt at humor obviously taken far more sensitively than I imagined. If you find an interesting commentor that happens to fit the personality of this site is and is also female, I don’t imagine any hesitation for adding her into the blogroll. Sorry, but the invites to me feel more like when my guy friends in high school wanted me to play Dungeons and Dragons – I’m just not into that. I honestly wouldn’t be a good fit. I don’t have much to add to the types of conversations which are the mainstay of this site, hence I prefer to lurk. But really, to this female, I’m neither offended by the title, the subject matter, or the fact that this is primarily a boys club. Go forth and quit worrying.Report
Also, diversity of perspectives is good in that it keeps all lines of enquiry open. Its also good to balance out the non-epistemic factors which may go towards shaping our beliefs just so that the epistemic factors dominate.Report
1. Maybe the name. Also, plenty of people find the things we talk about a bit boring. I can’t usually get my friends to read it. My wife hardly ever reads it.
2. Not unless we’re obliviously discussing “what women really want” in every other thread.
3. Maybe an open call for female contributors would help. Since most of the readers are males, probably not a lot though.
4. Bear it in mind when gender issues come up here. Try not to piss of Tiger Beatdown again. Be polite.Report
P.S. I was joking about Tiger Beatdown.
Honestly, my sense from observing real world professional magazines is that trying to self-consciously add the “female perspective” tends to go really badly. Is there a specific female perspective on Libya? On Occupy Wall Street? Maybe. But most magazines, when they hire female writers to offer the “female perspective” are just paying them to be women when most writers just want to write about everything. The worst, in my opinion, is when magazines hire women writers and then assign all of them articles about relationships. It’s so obnoxious.
So maybe just make it clear that we’d love to get contributions from anyone who has anything interesting to say.Report
Oh, and try to avoid really oblivious posts like, “Jay and Rufus Discuss What Women Want”.Report
“They want to bug me while I’m writing essays on the internet.”Report
I was thinking one of those blogginghead split screens with both of us going, “Jeez, man, I don’t know…” “Hey, don’t ask me!” for twenty minutes.Report
“Sorry, gotta cut this bloggingheads short. Maribou needs me to run to the library with her.”Report
“Oh, that’s alright. I’m starting to get a little drunk anyway.”Report
I actually think I’d find this a pretty great bloggingheads concept.Report
“Whadaya want to do tonight, Marty?”
“What we do every night, Pinky.”Report
“So maybe just make it clear that we’d love to get contributions from anyone who has anything interesting to say.”
So basically you’ve never encountered women with “anything interesting to say”?Report
Not remotely what I was saying.Report
What I was basically saying was that E.D. the editor-in-chief, should make it clear that, regardless of the site name, anyone and everyone is welcome to contribute anything they find interesting. It’s also what I was literally saying.Report
After having gone back and reread the original comment, this seems like an almost purposeful misreading.Report
But not necessarily so. I like the points of view Alyssa Rosenberg brings to the table on nerd-culture issues, for example.Report
Fair enough. It can be done well. I’m basing my observations on having a good number of friends who are female and freelancers- they get asked to write about some pretty condescending topics generally, especially given their respective areas of expertise that get rejected.Report
As I think about it, here may lie the difference:
I do not get the sense that Rosenberg writes about what she does because she is told by her editor to go look at those things from a female perspective. I get the sense that she loves the subject matter she chooses to tackle, and rather than bringing a “female” voice instead just brings her own.Report
Yes, it’s the difference between having a “female contributor” and a contributor who is female.Report
This is navel gazing, so why bother?Report
So is talking dreamily about what a world with no government would look like, but we seem to be happy to do that often enough.Report
As if. We mostly talk about how awesome it’d be if only the government were made of angels who didn’t game the goddamn system.Report
And pretend that markets reward those who provide value rather than those who are really good at gaming them..Report
We need to elect a higher class of people who won’t be taken in by people who are really good at gaming things. Obviously, the best way to attract them to the job is to give the government more power.Report
Yes, I missed those dreamy conversations.Report
It would be easier to ban ktward.Report
Indeed!Report
Aha, a sense of humor. A breath of fresh air.Report
You’re entirely too kind, I assure you; compliments of a rockin’ Bloody Mary Sunday, my double-x breath isn’t all that fresh.Report
Is Gawker averse to letting it’s writers post on other sites? io9 has several writers who happen to be female and interested in writing on subjects that seem to be of interest. Other than Alyssa, who seems to have a pretty good gig where she could post anything she would write here at, no one comes to mind as a natural fit, but I also read a pretty tight circle of blogs.Report
Wasn’t there a woman that had byline privileges a few months ago? What ever happened to her? (I can’t think of her name, though)Report
I think she was Lisa Kramer. She was pretty sharp, and I miss reading her posts.Report
open thread question – is there a way to find old ‘Off the Cuff’ posts after they’ve scrolled off the sidebar?Report
They’re in the monthly archives together with the posts that were on the cuff.Report
Ah, danke muchoReport
A blogger-friend of mine wrote an interesting essay that relates to this topic somewhat: http://dyske.com/paper/765Report
One of a few reasons I continue to read here: y’all have a spectacularly entertaining talent for transforming molehills located in one hemisphere into mountains planted in the other hemisphere.
On occasion, I’m compelled to qualify an arguably imprecise comment. But this one comes as a curious surprise.
The League is absolutely a Boys Club, and I wouldn’t at all see that changed. Just because gals aren’t regularly front-paging or frequently commenting doesn’t mean we aren’t reading and genuinely appreciating. Myself, I love the familial dynamics between the smart guys here. It’s like spying on a smokey cigared poker game between Aristotle and Plato and Nietzsche and … well, you get my meaning.
80% of the time, were I to inject my non-Club persona and female sensibilities into the mix I might screw up the thread and miss the very insights I’ve come to value.
So really, E.D. Don’t change a thing.Report
@ktward – agreed.Report
I know what you mean kt. I do rather enjoy spying on boys from time to time. This just gives a format to do so.
I have just recently discovered this site so take my comments with a grain of salt. I will echo ktward and say “don’t change a thing”. It is what it is. Don’t fix what ain’t broke. There are way too many girls clubs out there for you to worry about it.Report
Crap. I guess this means I have to stop hanging out here in just my underwear.Report
lol
The thought did cross my mind; if us girls keep hangin around we are going to kill the vibe and with it our guilty pleasure.Report
Nah, I think it works best when you dive into the water when you feel the urge. (Like now, for example.)Report
Women spying on men in their underwear? This really isn’t the kind of website I thought it was, just please, please don’t start doing pictures.Report
Please, I go comman…whoops, too much info.Report
I am an atheist with a predominantly Jewish heritage, social democratic young, white dude. I also have had a lot of people ask me why I blog here, but I used to tell them it’s a pretty liberaltarian type of place — and lately with the additions of Tod and Shawn and Erik’s continual evolutions, ideologically, I don’t think I would even grant the “tarian” description anymore. I’d say this place is best described as an earnest, somewhat high-brow but not wonk-y place that could use more females (and perhaps a little more gonzo); but that is basically just a place for polisci nerds and fellow travelers to yak it up.
The lurk-y, drive-by readership does appear to be much more right-wing than the actual masthead, though, which I think is interesting and curious and have always wondered about.Report
Yeah, this is what I meant in my post. I had assumed that the contributors had changed over time, but that the com minty had stayed somewhat fixed.Report
I meant community. But I love that spell check translated whatever I actually typed into “the com minty had stayed somewhat fixed.”Report
Hey now, who are you calling right-wing? I think I’m offended.Report
Gentlemen, I enjoy this site as a reader. I am a mid-30’s white female corporate-type married mom with diverse interests (tech to public policy to economics; cooking, food, and wine; books, movies, and t.v.) and a capitalist libertarian. This group tends to be intelligent, thoughtful, and truly interesting. I don’t think you need to spend much time navel gazing on this one. Just be who you are.
In another time I would love to weigh in regularly. I certainly have no shortage of strong, well-thought opinions, but my employer currently gets the majority of such efforts. For now, the demands I have permit me the indulgence of reading only. I suspect I’m not the only one who enjoys reading but doesn’t typically comment. Please do keep up the thoughtful discourse so the rest of us can enjoy it!
Report
Thanks for sharing Char. Tip o’ the tophat to ye.Report
+1Report