Help Us Feminize The Cabal!

Hey guys,

I realize that we want things to be egal and all that, but it could
be there aren't as many female pundits for the same reason there aren't
as many female comedians or comedy writers. Because they aren't as
frequently as good at it.

And Michael, if you weren't a Neocon desperate to show people you aren't a heartless right-winger about everything, you wouldn't need me to come over and say that for you. You would be able to admit that yourself.

It is simply easier to find qualified male pundits than female ones. Not
as hard as finding competent female sport announcers, but it is still
harder.

What about the fact that women aren't as frequently trying?  You say that it's "easier to find qualified male pundits than female ones," but that sentence would be a lot more fair if you cut out the word "qualified."  There simply aren't as many women who write about politics, period, and I'd argue that it's not an issue of inherent ability so much as social norms.  Punditry requires the willingness to make passionate arguments and to defend your opinions, and passionate, opinionated women get called out as shrill bitches.  No wonder the applicant pool is so small.

Izzy wrote,

"What about the fact that women aren't as frequently trying?"

No, Izzy, I don't think this is an issue of laziness.

"There simply aren't as many women who write about politics, period, and
I'd argue that it's not an issue of inherent ability so much as social
norms."

This is what Maya's article in the NY Times asserted as well. I don't find this answer or the article convincing because it assumes that all disparities must be because of bias. Which isn't to deny that there is a bias, and there are pressures. As a kid, and even afterwards, I have found myself in social and vocational situations where it was expected, as a guy, that I would follow sports. I found that expectation most annoying, and paid the social cost for not doing so. There are pressures, there are biases. But. This is to question the assumption, or rather, insistence, that bias is the answer in its entirety. Maybe it isn't. It seems many men really do genuinely enjoy vicariously watching other men throw balls at each other and tackling each other on TV. What can I say, I'm effeminate. I don't.

But it may not even be one of ability, but rather, or also, of interest. I bet I could follow sports, and over time, have some passable theories about last night's game. But other things interest me more.

"Punditry requires the willingness to make passionate arguments and to
defend your opinions, and passionate, opinionated women get called out
as shrill bitches."

And men get called names as well. Just ask your colleagues Joey K the "Self-hater," Eli Valley the "sicko," or Michael the Incorrigible Neocon (no quotes necessary for Michael. That one's mine but others should feel free to use it). What I would concede is that when the punditry is limited to expected chestnut issues and positions, disrespect occurs frequently, because what is being said is no longer interesting or even informative. For instance, Jews or feminists or civil rights activists will be dismissed as shrill if they offer the exact same party line answer to every issue, i.e.; anti-Semitism, sexism, racism. But even there, if it's done well, like say, with this Jewish-feminist, the reception is going to be different than say, another Blu Greenberg essay on halachic process.

why you need more political bloggers when you already have ten that are amazing.  It suggests to me that Daphne, Izzy, and Maya believe that women view politics differently than men.  This may be the case.  However if they concede this point they should be willing to accept the fact that female views on politics don't appear to be in high demand compared with that of the male poli-bloggers.  I agree with the other ladies that social norms may contribute to a smaller pool of qualified female applicants (and possibly even a smaller readership).  I just don't think this requires any action to be taken.  As a woman I can relate just fine to what the male bloggers are saying.  If I didn't I'd write about it and I'd be willing to bet that Jewcy would be receptive to, or take issue with my views,  in proportion to the validity of my claims; either way I feel that I'd be heard.  All  that said, I'd love to read an intelligent female political blogger on The Cabal.  I'd also like to read something from a poli-blogger in my homestate of Connecticut.  I don't expect anyone to go out of their way to satisfy my personal preferences though.  This constant call for society to change to suit women (fairly comfortable Western women mind you- not politically oppressed Islamic, Chinese, or African women who are truly in need of societal change)  or for women to change to suit those who want to obliterate "the status quo" makes me as mad as when my friends tell me they will be voting for Hillary "because she's a woman".  To that silly logic I'm forced to reply with the equally unserious: "Irma Grese was a woman too, you know".

as I often do with things that you say. You said:

"<i>It is simply easier to find qualified male pundits than female ones.</i>"

I think that it is far easier to find <i>successful</i> male pundits, but not qualified ones. Clearly you don't read <a href="http://www.jezebel.com"> Jezebel</a>, <a href="http://www.wonkette.com">Wonkette</a>, or any number of others that I could name.

Granted, Slate's xx factor is pretty lame (sorry Michael), but that has more to do with the format than the ability of women to write, write well, incisively, and amusingly.