Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Crikey seeks women: for conversation, companionship and fun times
|
Crikey has been indulging in a bit of reader research of late (yes, you people fascinate us) and there’s one particular thing that continues to bug us no end. The gender split amongst our email readership is a shameful 70/30. That’s 70% male, people. Keep in mind the website could be a whole different kettle of girl fish, we don’t know, but we know that comments are predominantly from men. Crikey has occasionally been accused of being too blokey, but in house, around the editorial table, the gender split is a perfect 50/50. University interns tend to be predominantly female (we hear that ladies regularly top their university class these days) and interestingly, the work experience kids are always boys. Actually, the scales were tipped as of this morning when Mick, our new subeditor, joined the team (hello, Mick.) He wears cowboy boots. Besides, it was generally agreed around the editorial meeting table this morning that the men in here are “reconstructed.” That is, they bake, they talk about jasmine, they wear rainbow stripey socks, they make pots of tea, they play mixed netball, they are very caring and sensitive to their own girlfriends, wives, daughters and sisters, but they still like footy and wrestling and dogs. Or as Green put it, “we’ve considered carefully the advances of feminism over the last few decades and placed ourselves within that context, while still pulling chicks.” Our production editor Leigh is probably the most traditionally blokey of all the men here. He threatened to sue if that wasn’t pointed out. In short, the men in here defy description. But blokey would not be it. But despite that, occasionally women have accused Crikey of being too macho, and complained that there are no female voices, to which the four females around the editorial table have replied, “what are we, chopped liver?” So it seems there’s hurt feelings on all sides. Especially after reading studies that contend that women’s online presence is beginning to outstrip men. Studies like this one that report that 42 million US women use social media and that women worldwide really, really like reading blogs. So what’s going on here? True, the majority of Crikey’s outside contributors are men, but is the content really that blokey? Yesterday on twitter editor Jonathan Green asked:
Crikey received some very interesting responses, and in the process triggered a debate about the gender imbalance across the spectrum of political discussion:
Mr Possum Comitatus put the call out for female bloggers on his Pollytics blog:
Lisa Gunders responded to the question on The Memes of Production:
We want more talk on this. And we’re thinking of starting a political blog written by women, for everyone. So email boss@crikey.com.au, comment on the website, give it to us straight. Crikey wants to pull more chicks, tell us how. |
|
|
61 Comments
Even if he was trying to be ironic or bait female response, blog posts such as: Ben Pobjie’s “Keeping women in their place: on the Brownlow red carpet. Wearing dresses.”
(http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/17/keeping-women-in-their-place-on-the-brownlow-red-carpet-wearing-dresses/) whining about the sound of female sports commentators are both tedious and non-conducive to female participation in Crikey.
I (perhaps unfortunately) have an opinion about almost anything - and yesterday commented on Krudd’s habit of not looking his questioner in the eyes when he responds in QT - and was roundly trashed by several of whom I thought all were male - assuming Venise Alstergren is a woman and AR a male?? Crikey was recommended to me by a male friend - thank you Neil S.
Having had years of successful publishing of letters in SMH - I miss something. Perhaps I’m just a great big show-off. But that won’t stop me from having an opinion about most things
that matter.
And by the way I still receive two Crikey emails every day - and have told you several times. Have I made a double sub???
JC
A Broadsheet style blog a la Salon is a great idea and I dare say I would be a regular visitor.
I’d like to offer too, that the blogs Polly pointed out as having no equivalent in Oz (i.e. Pandagon and Wonkette) cover a very broad cross section of issues. I read Pandagon for the snark but also for a comprehensive view of politics that doesn’t exclude issues or voices because they may not be considered ‘mainstream’.
Lisa Gunders captures one aspect of the issue. But i think Crikey could do worse than take note of what industries and issues women are most employed in and interested in, then find out what matters to women in those areas and begin to engage with those issues. But it would important to make sure you take account not only of which issues but on what terms they are talked about and of interest. You can talk about work/life balance all you like but you won’t pull more chicks on the issue unless you can talk about it in a way and on terms that they care about and they think is meaningful. So, IMHO it will be as much a matter of the approach/angle as it will be the topic - she says, desperately trying not to use the D word.
Mind you, if the problem is that more women than men think that discussion about socio-political problems is a waste of time that is better spent doing something about it - well you’re probably stuffed.
Give us a girls a discount… to even out your readerships gender balance.
While I generally have trouble understanding why anyone would not read Crikey, female or not, I think the lack of female readers could possibly be a more general problem that women, well, some women, can be less confident in expressing strong political opinions and Crikey is all about strong opinions.
In terms of commenting - just because women aren’t doing it doesn’t mean they don’t feel a part of Crikey. I don’t usually comment (unless something really pisses me off), partially because I’m a bit shy to (despite being a journalist) but also because I usually agree with a lot of what is said so there doesn’t seem much cause to comment!
I think a women-only blog that is for everyone is a great idea though.
First, while you may ‘hear that ladies regularly top their university class these days’ the ideologically sound hear that it is women who regularly top their university class.
Secondly, your content is overwhelmingly blokey: business, politics and footy. Either stop running so much blokey stuff or leaven it with some material specifically directed to women. Have a look at some of the better women’s mags to spot the difference.
Thirdly, while Crikey may have balanced editorial staff, is writers are overwhelmingly male. Here’s a few suggestions:
Dorothy Illing
Margot Kingston
Helen O’Neil
Jane Richardson
Julianne Schultz
Anne Summers.
I really like Crikey but I knew from a young age I was a bit unusual in taking an interest in politics and foreign affairs while my peers discussed lip gloss and boys (not that I’m not interested in these things either), but I think women tend to take more of an interest in the personal whether that be an issue directly relating to themselves or personal about someone else.
This is not such a bad thing and certainly I head off to Fairfax online to provide me with more of a fix on that front about the difficulties of work/life balance etc. Some articles like the one mentioned about the female footy commentator that was posted up on Crikey a few days ago just leave me cold. In fact anything sports/ macho just bores me to tears. But I love a good political joke
On the same day that you whinge uncomprehendingly that girls don’t love you, you publish advertisements in your daily email for two novels. One has an exploitative cover which I venture to suggest would be offensive to most women, and the other is spruiked as having “big hairy nuts”.
Co-incidence, or are you just slow learners?
“In short, the men in here defy description. But blokey would not be it.”
If the Crikey articles I’ve been reading on and off for three years now are anything to go by - oh, yes, definitely blokey!
And delusional also it seems.
)
There’s the issue of content (which is indeed a bit on the blokey side), but I think seperately, there’s an issue quite broadly in social media with women contributing…. not necessarily because of the content, but often in the way comments or forums then respond to the initial cotent. To comment, and then follow up on responses to your comment, ie, defend your position, etc, is time consuming, and often degenerates into dealing with a lot of stereotyped, ill informed assumptions for very little purpose at all. This is such a boysy approach, and is prevalent all over the web! In political discussion it seems even more so, and unless you’re prepared to fit yourself into a very bizarre, competitive locker-room like mentality, it’s incredibly difficult to actually build yourself a profile and reputation - even as a commenter - to make those initial comments worthwhile.
I had wondered about this, and not just re Crikey. There is a blokey air about Crikey (“pulling chicks”) and while no one wants it to go stuffy PC (we have The Age for that), if I noticed a whiff of undergrad testosterone in Crikeria then it might well be a lot more obvious to women. The other thing I noticed as soon as I started joining in online comments (only recently) was the aggression, rudeness and insult. This is far less evident on Crikey than most places (eg newspaper bloggery) but it is still a rather macho environment. As a talented insulter myself (punched by the disgraced Mayor of Ballarat, court case etc; sued by Frank De Stefano -Geelong mayor and Kennett crony who has just spent the last 7 years in prison for theft- when I was a Geelong City councillor c. 1990) I was surprised by own reaction when my balls were kicked online: my replies were calm and rational. Weird. But it works. Who cares if people belt each other like Punch and Judy? My eyes glaze over. Who wants to read 1000 foam-flecked posts on each morning’s steaming deposition by Andrew Bolt? I’m sure it’s a therapeutic laxative, but…I just want genuine argument and info, esp. from my opponents. I want to convince them. Life is short and getting shorter all the time. On Crikey there’s a fairly decent tone and when there’s not, a soft answer can turn away wrath, not to mention elicit thoughtful responses from the uncommitted.
Anyway, I doubt that most women relish endless canine blogfights.
Then there’s the question of topics, which others have alluded to here. A lot of Crikey is the daily biff and bash of official politics, polls etc. Not my scene ( though I loved the Goblin Wretch episode), and maybe not to the taste of many women either. There isn’t much reflective sociology. Generally, the deeper reaches of policy, economics and society generally may attract more readers, male and female, than the daily stoush of public life. Maybe it’s the quotidian stoushiness of “daily news”which turns women off?
I’m with Gavin M re: Margo Kingston.
Despite the fact that I’m from the wrong side of Crikey’s gender ledger.
I’d happily pay extra for my annual subscription, if you could persuade Margo to join the team.
I still haven’t forgiven those useless idiots at Fairfax, for shafting her and destroying Webdiary.
Hell, why not give Fairfax a real kick in the family jewels and poach Annabel Crabb while you’re at it?
Are you thinking about a women only blog, or women-friendly blog? A blog, written by one of your fine female editorial staff, concentrating on a female perspective of policits, where the comments section had strong, firmly enforced rules about no personal attacks on other commenters would be a brilliant thing.
I’m pretty sure most of your female readers could hold their own in any debate, but opening yourself up to sneers or smackdowns from strangers is not something most women feel comfortable doing.
Love the idea though, I hope you go ahead with it.
Ooh, the divine Ms Crabb. Yes please!
In this household the reason is very simple. I’m a chick and my husband subscribes. So the name attached to this comment is his. Would you like me to start my comments with some kind of warning, “chick on a rampage”.
Just for the record every day we watch the ABC2 news in the morning and then at at about 12 I sit down and read Crikey as I get the email and my husband reads it when he gets home. We used to buy The Australian but we gave up on it’s over-sensational myopic “some times blatant crap” content. The rest of the time I go to the ABC news site and The Guardian. We like to get a rounded perception of news (actual news) and some commentary/opinion, it allows us to have thoughtful political and social arguments instead of totally blinked ones the Australian papers give us.
Don’t care if you are blokey, I mean wake up and smell the coffee, journalism is run by males in Australia you either accept it and filter or go crawl under a rock.
X reasons why women read/write less politics etc than men
1) the gender split in household duties, etc leaving time poverty- yeah i think that’s pretty true, especially in australia
2) the private/public split as female/male domains, which persisteth - whether for political, cultural or biological reasons, probbaly a combo of all three
3) the male desire to argue and contest - which an immediate turnaround online news service maximisises. men love to, need to, bang antlers
4) female tendancy to not do 3) ….reason? lack of antlers
5) narrow conception of ‘public issues’ in news editing - newspapers long ago addressed this with feature sections, women columnists writing about whether buying expensive shoes hurts the third world etc, etc. Female preference for concrete, narrative and emotion-centred accounts of reality, male preference for abstract, systemic and power-centred accounts - the latter then prioritsed as real news.
6) failure of women to step up to the plate as a continuation of second wave feminist revolution. I’ve noticed a lot of women who say they dont have time to read the newspaper somehow manage to find it to watch ‘search for the next top model’
7) failure of women to step up to plate and be polemical writers because it involves conflict and contestation. Preference of women to slot into media work which is in service to others - chiefly editing - rather than assertive in its own right.
I’m the (female) subscriber in our household. But perhaps the not-so-blokey Crikey contributors could be a little more self critical? Why for instance does Guy Rundle (a writer whose style and content are frequently admirable) need to slip in the odd go at women? I recall a “smart” remark about the smell of hormone patches at a recent Germaine Greer lecture. And today the incidental dig about suicidal actresses. I thought they were all actors now anyway …
John Quiggin’s blog has a rigorous comments policy that prohibits course language, racist and sexist comments, and personal attacks. I wonder whether this would count as a “women-friendly blog” in Jane’s terms?
Many of John’s commenters identify as women, but as most are pseudonymous, it is impossible to be sure of the proportion. I wonder whether he gets more women commenting (or reading) than other blogs with similar interests? It would be interesting to know.
And also, Jane, it is not only women who refuse to open themselves to the sort of abuse that is common in some parts of the blogosphere.
I agree Adam’s other half - and would welcome a forum for conversation - as I find women are very well informed and honest with their opinions. However, I am astonished by some who are so dead-set and I could say ‘blind’ in their voting habits - not unlike my own (husband) - but now politics has come out of the closet and is more that accepted conversation fodder on most occasions.
JC
Feedback from a subscriber
All my closest friends are highly educated, politically engaged females. Since subscribing to Crikey, I’ve been surprised to learn that none of my friends do, nor do they think of ever doing so, although they are always interested when I tell them about a recent crikey article.
I decided to subscribe when I discovered that so many good writers were contributong regular articles. I couldn’t really afford it at the time - but made an ideological decision about supporting a genuinely independent media in Australia. I’m always conscious of the disjunction between the name and the content - but being fascinated by language, I’ve always enjoyed it. (and “Blimey” although as it’s the billing bit, perhaps it should be called “Bloody Hell!” or “ouch!”)
Plus the sheer desperation for some vaguely intelligent media commentary without having to wrescle hopelessly and painfully with broadsheets - I’ve always felt guilty about the sheer waste involved in daily newspapers as well. Maybe more women might subscribe if they they could pay by monthly installments. I only realised this once I had decided to subscribe.
The only content I tend to identify as “erk-blokey-skim over” is that football stuff. The article about the WAG/commentaters I assumed was a bit of gonzo journalism. I subscribe to Crikey TO GET all the politics, business, media etc etc stuff.
I have been very grateful for being directed by Crikey to LP and similar playgrounds. Please develop that side of things.
There could be more about the cricket.
I have to agree with many women here. I’m a subscriber, my (male) partner is not. But I have definitely noticed that it seems that all your regular contributors are men. And there is a hell of a lot of ‘blokey’ stuff about blokes screwing over other blokes in the media, business, politics which I tend to skim read.
Alas, so little time to post on Crikey these days as I’m singularly obsessed with watching the trailer for The September Issue and elsewise feeding my Anna Wintour obsession until I can get to the flick. I’ll be available for opinions on other matters after I get to the doco this weekend.
This just in from occasional Crikey contributor Eva Cox:
I’m reluctant to comment sometimes as many commenting threads seem to have the air of being one big circle jerk - alpha personalities posturing, all aspiring to proverbially “win” with their point. I’m all for conversation, and some verbal jousting etc - but am not concerned with convincing others of my opinion (vs sharing it); not into commenting for sport or to win.
In my household, she reads mainly in bed. While I do most of my reading sitting up. We have separate e-mail accounts and I am the Crikey subscriber. She rarely looks at her e-mail, anyway. I did print out the Crikey daily newsletter at first and she did read it in that form. But we both agreed that that was a waste of paper. I watch a fair bit of TV, and I read a newspaper on most days. She rarely watches TV, never watches the TV news, and no longer reads newspapers. She is a voracious consumer of political essays in book and magazine form. We both read bits of the weekend SMH. I read the two news sections. She reads Good Weekend and Spectrum. For her, computers and the internet are a resource for researching topics of interest. She would never go to a site just to see what they had written today. The only interactive site I know of that she has returned to on many occasions is The Australian Woodworking Forum. But again, that was research (powertools).
Another Crikey contributor, Mel Campbell, also editor and publisher of The Enthusiast, has written this over at The Dawn Chorus:
http://thedawnchorus.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/crikey-wants-to-pull-chicks/
I’ve been lead to understand, well according to Sex and the City anyway, that women are better communicators then men, perhaps we feel less need to voice our opinions to the great unwashed out in cyberspace and instead choose to use the face-to-face model. Face-to-face may be out dated, but if it worked for the classics (pre-advent of the printing press that is) it’s good enough for me.*
With regard to subscriptions, as soon as women are receiving equal pay for equal work I’ll see if my weekly wage can cover the cost. Or else I’ll wait at home for my boyfriend to print me off a copy (with all the controversial and offensive sections blacked out I trust).
*yes I’m aware of the hypocritical nature of this post.
Is it just me, or is this comment stream a little less…adversarial than usual?
I know the discussion started off with wondering why women are under represented in Crikey subscriptions, but I think the comments attached to a blog are equally as important as the major content. It sets the tone of the blogger’s article if he/she knows there will be a 3-way stand-up-drag-down going on after the article, this can attract or repel certain types of readers, which is then reinforced in the following discussion/argument.
John, you are absolutely correct in saying that it’s not just women who don’t want to get involved in the “I’m here to win” approach that many blogs take, many people would be happier to contribute to a discussion rather than a futile or belittling argument (and I will definitely track down the blog you recommended - thank you).
I also agree thoroughly with Nanette – I love Crikey, you guys are the last bastion of quality journalism in Australia and I would love to see you widen your appeal to include more women. That does NOT mean writing articles about shoes or Australian Idol (please!!) but it does require female voices, in the writing as well as the editorial. It means allowing a female perspective, a supportive voice for of all the choices women make (not just writing for career women or mothers) without man-bashing or patronising your readers. In a forum like Crikey it means taking the political perspective of the issues that matter to women and providing a well informed analysis of the direction our politicians are taking them. Surely surely surely, this would not be a difficult thing to do?
I have to ask, as I ask myself, what difference would more women in the comments section make to Crikey? I suspect very little unless the articles provoking the comments were different in several ways. How? A wider range of topics - as Eva Cox noted, there is more to what is happening, even in the political sphere, than the biff of Parliament. What else? A reduction in snide innuendo in some articles, less ‘gotcha’ overall, better writing more often, oh - and what’s with the breathless reporting of assorted bad behaviour in other media outlets? And I have to ask - who cares who watched what on TV last night?
Plus I do wonder about the notion that ‘convincing others’ is the point of an ongoing conversation. I prefer thoughtful exchanges in which it is clear that participants are paying attention to each other and reflecting on their own position as a result of the other contributions. Hammering a point is not my style, though of course, I can do it. I have often thought that I could open a blog-commenter-persona email account as subscribe under a false (gender neutral) name. After I retire, perhaps. Then again, there are so many things to do that don’t involve the risk of personal abuse on line and hence in my face.
Now when I read comments here or elsewhere, I think huh! or snicker or sigh; I am virtually never interested enough to go back later and see how the ‘debate’ is going. Will I think differently in a couple of years (yeah, the older end of the demographic)? Maybe with more time - or maybe I just won’t resubscribe.
What difference would more female comments make, eh?
I am passionate about politics, the reason I subscribe to crikey, but I don’t think, from my experience, that this is as common among women as it is among men. Additionally by the time I read the daily email I haven’t a lot of time left to provide comment. I will try harder in future.
I’ve had a bad experience in making one comment, so I am loathed to make another, but I am the only person in my circle of friends who subscribes to Crikey (ranging from scientists to stay at home Mums and artists) I can’t even get my husband to read it - although I do flick him the occasional article. And I just run out of time to continue this comment …
I’d suggest perhaps more female-written articles (I’d include Kate Grenville in the list higher up) and leave it at that. Other steps risk defining Crikey as LESS of a female space. To give an example: in that dreadful proposed preamble of the constitution, there was something about Australians believing in”respect for women”. Which meant that being Australian meant Not being a woman. (or Aboriginal from what I recall).
Someone on another site commented on the “dryness” of some of the content. That’s the stuff I love and pay the money to read.
Gender issues are tricky!
I am surprised at the amount of attention this topic has received compared to “real” issues like ETS and the RET, the disintegration of the opposition in this country and bullying by China to nominate several current examples.
I suppose one could take account of “Parkinson’s Law” in relation to one of his observations that the amount of time spent on a topic is inversely proportional to its importance, and that on a relatively unimportant issues everybody is an expert.
I find it irritating to try to analyse women’s readership of Crikey. Crikey was never meant to address gender balance, or was it?. I am the subscriber in our household, which means our gender ratio would be perfect if my husband were interested in politics. He is not. He prefers history and archeology than modern politics, and just recently he has won vice-championship in contract bridge in Canberra.
Why should Crikey readership reflect the university ‘gender (im) balance’? ? It implies that only highly educated people can read Crikey.
The gender attraction of this quite interesting on -line paper reflects rather our gender imbalance in the Parliament, State or Federal, than university enrolment. Trying to speculate why most of female would- be- readers stay at the kitchen table rather than at the computer desk, is a bit too far fetched.
Some women I know, prefer chatrooms and more personal blogs, some are researching Ebays, clothing, celebrities’ scandals, playing cards on-line, taking photos, spending ours using e-mail to friends and relatives. Many women use computers for professional purposes like business, research, banking, stock exchange, etc.
The kitchen table and household duties, shared or otherwise, do not usually stop women from using a computer. It’s a matter of interests not chores slavery.
My question: What was/is the purpose of making Crikey more ‘feminine’ or women friendly? Is it the subscription revenue increase attempt in times of crisis? Or is it a PC exercise?
My suggestion would be to go for ads and advertise women cosmetics, underwear and kitchen utensils. See, what happens. Perhaps a ‘winning a spaceship’ lottery can do the trick.
I personally prefer Crikey to stay as it is. That is why I do continue my subscription. I always look for some info I can’t get from other sources. Yes, preferably ‘nice, embarassing leakage’ or political ‘little secrets’. And tips and rumors. I also like Guy Rundle articles. And the readers’ comments. But NOT because I am a woman.
And of course, whether we like it or not , we have definitely (so far) less scandals to report on than we had under the previous government. So, one may think that under the Howard government Crikey was a bit more exciting… Or perhaps Crikey had less censorship under the Liberals? Just wondering…
PS. And I definitely do not like the idea of logging in each time I want to ‘Leave a reply’ !!!!!!
Best regards
Rena Zurawel
What an interesting blog thingie. I’ve hardly ever read one, but I got all the way to the bottom of this one. Perhaps it’s because I’m still at work and not looking forward to the mess at home. I subscribe to Crikey because a) Melissa Sweet gave me a free sub for a year and b) I figured it was worth starting to pay because I like the independent viewpoint. And the electoral graphs. And now I know about Dawn Chorus (thank you). Irreverence is important, even if it’s blokey. So is a sense of safety. I hope more women start writing articles.
Thanks Greg Angelo for that obtuse gem.
As a Crikey subscriber and one-time intern, I must object to the evident trend in seeing politics as ‘blokey content’. I would much prefer read Crikey than 99 per cent of women’s magazines.
If you look at the gender imbalance in Australian politics it’s probably pretty similar to the subscriber skew. While ever women remain default primary parental care givers, and while boys and girls are encouraged to pursue different interests from an early age, and while women are judged on appearance just as often as for their skills, and so on, the skew will likely remain.
Firstly, I don’t think objecting to the term “chicks” is PC - there’s a big difference between blatant sexism and being PC. For example, ‘chairperson’ is perhaps a politically correct term, however, I objected to ‘chairman’ when I was in that position. It all depends I suppose. To me, the term “chick” can trivialize the comments of women. It’s demeaning! After the age of perhaps 16, we’re women. Young women perhaps, but women nevertheless. Cutsie names don’t conjure up seriousness.
I’d suggest that the reason why I can access Crikey early each day, is I don’t go out to work, I’m not raising kids anymore(grown up)and I live alone - I can please myself! Most women don’t have that luxury. I would’ve been lucky to have time to even look at a computer when I was going out to work and raising three boys; doing almost all the cooking, shopping, cleaning etc - their father would’ve had all the time he wanted??Nothing changes does it?
I’d be very interested in anything Eva Cox writes, particularly about women’s equality in pay etc. It’s amazing to think that in 2009, the gap between male and female incomes has just broadened - again! Well over $200 per week now! Was on the news yesterday???Even though my child raising days are over, I’d still be interested in women’s issues. Why not about older women’s issues too?
The log in feature is a deterrent to a time poor woman as is the kind of belittlement that Greg Angelo puts forward ie why worry about what is important to women because other things are always more important. It is the equivalent of editors making boys the hero in children’s fiction because both genders will read the book whereas if a girl is the main character only girls will read the book. Women are probably less inclined to try and ram their opinions down others’ throats and prefer a discussion rather than a personal attack.
Political writing is the poorer for Margo Kingston doing other things and I would love to have more writing from Eva Cox. Judging interest by the number of comments can lead to a skewing to topics where those with time to comment determine the content in the future. I am not interested in football but would happily read about tennis and netball.
“The gender split amongst our email readership is a shameful 70/30. That’s 70% male, people.”
At the risk of asking a stupid question: And? Why is a 50/50 split desirable?
hmm… lots of great comments here, going to be hard not to repeat something or someone. It’s an interesting puzzle to deconstruct this. Content is definitely where the blokey bias manifests itself. Having 50/50 staff is going to infuence the office culture, but does 4 guys working with 4 women result in the women writing in a more blokey fashion, or the men writing in a more feminine fashion. Evidence points to the latter, but at the end of the day there are more factors going on.
I work in an interesting place. A parent company - incredibly male dominated and blokey (in passing the company is very gender balanced but the men throw their opinions around much harder than the women) set up a niche brand start-up targeting a female youth market. They admit they can’t do this on their own so they get in a senior lady who culturally totally clashes with them. She has since set up a modest sized department to manage the brand and collectively the attitude and culture is uniquely feminine The environment upstairs (blokes) and downstairs (chicks - they call themselves that) couldn’t be more different. However, i don’t see any of the cultural differences shifting in one direction or the other… the girls upstairs seem as quiet, uptight and content to be run rough-shod by the blokes as ever. The girls downstairs are very comfortable with blokes, but view them on their terms (they have finally stopped joking about wanting to see me in the pink, sequined mankini they had on display- i think they were joking anyway)
where am i going with the parable? maybe in journalism there is a last vestige of male dominance underpinning the culture. If so, it could influence the approach to work of both men and women, but people are so comfortable with it, they don’t see it as a problem? Maybe? I don’t think any of the upstairs girls are maladjusted, downtrodden or disheartened to work in the environment they do, but they could certainly loosen up a little if the girls downstairs are anything to go by.
Back to content. One thing you could try if you were keen is to get in a reasonably senior ex-staffer from a fashion mag. Might sound crazy but there’s a whole other journalism world out there not in newspapers, and there’s no reason being an online publication to mimic traditional newspaper content…
And now, i realise i could be offending anyone you’ve actually employed from a fashion mag:) call me armchair expert #41.
a few more things i could suggest but i’m getting the wind up from my wife who wants to check out TMZ…
I would love to see more women writing here, I think that would be just adorable.
Don’t fret Crikey - it’s a male thing. Men are more instantly vocal whereas women analyse and contemplate the detail so by the time they’ve formed an opinion Crikey’s onto another topic. It’s a gender thing. Blokes are out there particularly on social commentary. Radio talk back is dominated by men less cautious about how they impact. They put it out there get it off their chest and move onto the next topic. Even today’s comments in the Daily Tele story about pollies using allowances for lollies, books etc - male-dominated. of the 32 comments 21 are from men: “sack the bastards; hope they choke on the jaffas and so what’s new pollies are all crooks”. No pun intended but they’re short and sweet comments fired off with little substance.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/auditor-general-uncovers-fedreal-mp-expense-abuses/comments-e6freuy9-1225764521416
Maybe some of us man-types can pretend to be women? That seems to be the go on a lot of other websites
Regrettably the women with whom I work all read gossip mags over lunch and the people to whom I send snippets of Crikey are all either:
a. male
OR
b. related to me.
Plus ca change … .
Being female and ethnic (hahaha - minority blues), I have found Crikey’s approach to news refreshing. There’s a directness, forthrightness and often ‘punchy’ aspect about its editorials and contents, which I guess, some people would describe as blokey, but I think is related more to the informal style of the medium, rather than a ‘blokeyness’ about it. Those characteristics are what I like Crikey. That, and the fact that all sorts of opinions are published here.
I often skim titles first before deciding whether or not to read the full articles, and I always look forward to my Crikey email each day! I tend to only post comments if something pleases me particularly (and mostly this pertains to anything FDOTM). I rarely comment if I disagree with an article because 1) I don’t want to be suckered into an emotional response and 2) no matter how well constructed one’s arguments are, one feel as though one’s diatribe means squat all to the paid author. Like most of us here, I prefer to get news from various sources and form my own opinions, and Crikey is a welcomed part of that.
I’ve come to this post via a bit of twitter chat, which led to standing back from the pushing and shoving at LP, then stopping in at memesofproduction. Finally, I figured it might be worth checking out this entry to see what the fuss was about.
I have to say, my first instinct was not to post a comment. Firstly, I had to register and log in. Urk. Then, and most importantly, by _not_ commenting, I made my point far more succinctly than any comment could. I don’t read Crikey very often and I don’t comment here simply because it does not interest me and it’s not relevant to my online activities. It’s simply not important enough to warrant a comment or a read.
It feels as though this article is asking “but why isn’t anyone listening to us? we’re really important!” when the absence of comments from women obviously demonstrates how unimportant this site is for many of them. Or more importantly (:D), how unlikely women are to _comment_ here. Perhaps your site simply isn’t doing it right? This is a very ‘traditional’ discussion: formal turn taking (comment by comment), clear hierarchies in terms of who gets to speak and speak with most authority (posting ‘staff’ followed by commenters), particular language use and modes of engagement (from the formal to the ‘neat casual’ of colleagues at a work lunch), certain topics under discussion.
I think my journey to this post demonstrates how this particular woman is participating in online talk. I like the to-and-fro of twitter, and being able to unfollow people quickly and easily. I like knowing who I’m talking to (ie I know who my followers are), I like knowing who I’m listening to (I choose to follow you, I don’t have to wade through your comments to the ‘good bits’).
I like reading blogs and posts by people I know, and by people I like. It’s like a conversation - I’d rather not spend my time being insulted/berated/irritated by people I don’t like. If I don’t know them ‘in the flesh’, then I’ll have come to know them through ‘listening’ (lurking) for a while, and then a ‘safe’ comment met with welcoming response.
Finally, critical mass + topic of interest + word of mouth from people whose opinion I value will lead me out of my usual way to new sites/discussions.
Nothing new here. This is how I participate in face-to-face discourse. Or the combination of f2f and mediated discourse of work/academia/the rest of my life. This sort of participation is gendered, because I am, and - as with all of us - my engagement with the world and with the rest of the people in it is in part shaped by my experience _as a woman_, and more importantly, by my gender.
Do you want this type of woman on this site? If so, you’re going to have to change the architecture a little, let alone move the furniture about.
If, however, you simply want women who write and talk and read ‘like men’, then carry on - “listen to me! I’m really important!”
When I say ‘like men’, I am, of course, being tongue in cheek. You know that I mean that if you want women participants, you’re only going to get participants who are interested in the particular modes of participation your site facilitates. If your building does not provide a nice sitting area, we will not stop to chat. The features I listed above tend to encourage particular personality traits and modes of participation which are associated with your conventional/hegemonic masculinity. I mean, it’s all very well for your posters/authors/participants when they:
“bake, they talk about jasmine, they wear rainbow stripey socks, they make pots of tea, they play mixed netball, they are very caring and sensitive to their own girlfriends, wives, daughters and sisters, but they still like footy and wrestling and dogs.”
etc, but I’m not much interested if they don’t also know how to _listen_ as well as speak in a conversation, if they are not also capable of asking other people about their day/outfit/ideas and then _listening_ to the answer rather than waiting for a chance to respond with their opinion. In other words, it is not whether or not someone is a man or a woman that matters to me, it is how they communicate and interact with me and with others (because how I see you treat other people is as important in shaping my opinion as how you treat me).
I mean, why are you interested in women readers at all? Are you looking for ovaries, or are you looking for particular ways of thinking or speaking/thinking/listening/reading/writing? Will any woman do? If so, then I am _so_ not interested.
It doesn’t help that your description of ‘your men’ had a fairly strong wiff of heterosexual panic about it. It’s ok - we can still pull chicks! Well, obviously not, if you’re not getting them to read your articles. More importantly, I’m not terribly interested in spending time with a bunch of blokes who are worried that declarations of stripey sock wearing and cake baking might compromise their masculinity. I understand that that section of your post was meant to be a *joke*, but it’s that sort of humour that suggests that your editorial team aren’t entirely comfortable with themselves. We’re not queer! Really!
I have to say, I’m far more interested in descriptions of the women on your team than the men - talk of Eva Cox catches my attention, for example.
Really, all this is the basic stuff of public sphere analysis. Perhaps Nancy Fraser &co. could help you guys out here?
I keep wondering: perhaps it would be more productive for you (Crikey eds, etc) to go where the womens is at, spend some (as in a _lot_ of) time _listening_ and _watching_ and learning how women - and other folks - use the internets? I’ll make it clear: listen, listen, listen. And then (once properly socialised of course) participating in _those_ discourses. Once you’ve learnt how to play nice there, it’s more than likely that you’ll discover people following you back to Crikey. Because they’re interested enough to see what you have to say in long form, beyond the briefer comment or tweet.
Of course, this approach will mean abandoning the higher status of ‘author’ of posts. You will have to muck in with common types over in (gasp) other people’s blogs.
I do feel as though in writing this I’m once again taking responsibility for that type of man who doesn’t quite understand that being ‘sensitive’ isn’t quite good enough. I mean, I want you to put your dirty clothes in the laundry, sort the wash, put it on, do the hand washing, hang it all out, get it back in, sort it, fold it, iron it, put it away. I’m not particularly interested in explaining how you do all these things or having to remind you to do ‘your share’. Because, for fuck’s sake, I have quite enough emotional work to do without taking responsibility for the way you feel as well.
If no women are participating in your site (and I need more evidence than just dodgy email figures - how are you defining participating? Perhaps that’s your problem: you only define ‘participating’ in very limited terms?), then you’re doing it wrong. But it’s your responsibility to find out why - we shouldn’t have to explain it all to you. We certainly shouldn’t have to justify our lack of interest with a list of all the things that make us busy or keep us from paying attention. As I’ve said to prospective housemates who were also first time share-housers: I’m not interested in house training you. Come back to me when you’ve got the mad skills.
I guess what I’m saying, is that the formal ‘newspaper’ or ‘magazine’ style of Crikey has pre-ordained its banishment to the body of the page. Whereas the interesting stuff is off happening in the margins. Or, more probably, in the coffee shop at the back book shop over a nice slice of cake. Look up! You’re missing it!
I have contributed to a couple of articles recently 1.climate refugees in the South Pacific 2.Qld criminal code on abortion in reference to Cairns couple being charged by Dr.Caroline de Costa.
Obviously I have an innate attraction and care for these two social justice(and as I live in Queensland) issues and so when I saw the topics in my newbox I went straight to them.
I made comments during the Queensland State Election, and an article that put a more positive light on ALP machinations. I would have conversed more, I was campaigning in the real electorate as I am Secretary of Wivenhoe ALP in the Brisbane Valley!
I had observed the scarcity of female comments in discussions. For myself if I had a ‘job’ writing on broad range political/social issues I would focus on that, but for now my volunteer efforts include publishing my poems at http://www.myspace.com/jewelsescape
the new poem “The State We Are In’ was performed at an ALP branch event I organised, called Pollies, Poets & Pies, and was about our migration from a Kennett led Victoria to Queensland, with the fact that many like us are changing the cultural and political boundaries literally!
The balance is not just being online sharing, but what you do to provoke change, so I am preparing for a rally outside Qld Parliament on 3/9/09 to say that the abortion law 1899 should go to the dustbin of history in 2009.
If you would like me share my opinions and experiences with you more, I will allow some more time, but for now I have to get the washing off the line.
Why:
The articles are too long, probably because most writers are male. Men hog the floor when they talk and hog the keyboard when they write. Guy Rundle please note. You’re very funny but get an editor.
The humour is too blokey: eg. newsreaders in satin.
The humour is too wordy. eg: what’s wrong with lighthearted but brief? Even the Lowbottom High diaries could do with a bit of cutting.
Most of the writers seem very young: eg: no real life perspective.
I continue to subscribe year in, year out because:
A:Your political reporting is good
B: You tell me what other media outlets are reporting on and doing.
C: You give me an old age pensioner concession.
D: It leads me to online videos I wouldn’t bother to seek otherwise.
Liz Johnston
Ok. Thanks for the opportunity to give some feedback.
I’m female, gen x, politics is important to me although _not necessarily parliamentary politics_. I am not consumed with household duties and have all the time I want to hang out on the internet. I am not, as some commenters above say they are, averse to swearing or mention of hairy balls. And just so you know, I am not interested in celebrity news, The Age online sh*ts me to tears, The Australian is better quality but too conservative, and I’m just generally struggling to find worthwhile Australian news and current affairs content. I don’t think I’m alone here, female or otherwise.
But I’m not an avid Crikey reader. I probably preferred the earlier incarnations, but was put off by the eventual need to subscribe.
With this current incarnation I do find myself wondering ‘What is it even about?’ The new layout makes me dizzy and all I can see is supposedly funny cartoons next to headlines neither bearing any proper relevance to the article they belong to, and pictures of possums and dogs. Maybe I’m missing the point, but I don’t seem to be able to find any original content here anymore that isn’t a blog post about some poll.
In terms of blokeiness, yeah, it does feel like a bunch of middle aged men having a pissing contest. Or a Navy bbq. Or Don’s Party.
So why do I visit Crikey? I just come back from time to time in the hope that I will be able to find something interesting or insightful somewhere in the Australian media. Usually I just go with The Guardian and Salon. I think Crikey is a worthwhile project, and it’s good to see you’re looking at ways of expanding your readership.
You have at least one subscriber, female, consistent commenter; Jonathan Green you have used my work on the racing industry, don’t forget! A person who has no qualms about copping a shit-load of irate and hostile posts. One whom, I admit, doesn’t stick only to politics and someone who suffers withdrawal symptoms without her daily fix of Crikey. One undervalued, unloved, ignored, disregarded and paid up subscriber. ¡Sob! sob sob! Heartrending cries of despair.
My point being where there is one there must be others. Also, could it be possible that many younger women who are married, may be prepared to sublimate their strong political agendas in case the male in the partnership will feel threatened? It has been happening since the beginning of time, so I have no reason to suppose this sort of man has died out.
I am merely venturing a mild ‘perhaps’. Having spent most of yesterday in the blood-soaked arena of Poss Comitatus and his penetrating question on this topic.
I don’t need to offer any suggestions as to what I feel needs to be improved. Because I would have said so long before this.
BEN POBJIE: Why do I get the feeling you just delivered a swift backhander to the female vote, sorry, reader? Or, am I just used to your ironic, adorable satire?
ohforgodsake women. What a lot of long winded drivel. You especially dogpossum.
When my daily email arrives I search, first, for Guy Rundle. Whether or not this person is an actual male or merely a Mary Ann Evans or Ellis Bell acolyte, I don’t really know. However, I’m happy to read him/her, forever, even if he/she writes about footie.
I am a subscriber. I love Crikey. There are so many wonderful points and issues in these comments, so I wont repeat any of them. However I am time poor. If you want to come around and do the housework, I’d be available to make comments.
@LizJ - pleas, let us keep the satinwatch, it’s just too funny. Maybe there could be an equivalent? Tiewatch? Re lengthy articles, I don’t so much notice this, they still read really quickly, what takes time are youtube/podcasts. You can’t read/view these quickly.
A lot of responses, I think you’ve hit a nerve, tapped a market, whatever. It’ll be interesting to see where it goes.
Meski,
I’m of a generation that practised equal opportunity ogling. So, ok, keep the satinwatch but instead of tiewatch would it be too unPC to have buttwatch?
I subscribed to Crikey for a few years - and still devour most of your free content on a daily basis - and I appreciate Crikey as one of the few (only?) independent sources for journalism in Australia, and one of the few that are willing to dig a little deeper and hang onto a bone long after the dailies have packed it in. Laura Ingalls has put it well in her comment above.
I have to say there a blokey vibe to Crikey - you can call me a joyless wonder, and yes, I’m aware of the palaver around the AFL “experiment” - but, to give an example, Ben Pobjie’s “hilarious” female commentator piece last week made me feel uncomfortable, and unwelcome. If he was making a point he sure bruised it in the process. Having said that, as a woman interested in politics and media, you learn to look past that sort of thing, because it’s everywhere.
I didn’t stop subscribing because of that, though. It’s much more boring than that. I was always too busy working to click more than half a dozen links from the emailer each week, and on most days I didn’t even get a chance to open the email. Then when I get home (even as an educated woman under 30, with no kids), I’m the person in our house that takes on the shopping/cooking/managing time with friends and family, etc - because if I didn’t do it, we’d be fast-food-eating hermits. Perhaps a series of stories about the continuing gender imbalance in home duties is in order? I’d also be interested in reading about Eva Cox’s thoughts on the equal pay campaign (could this be a Crikey cause to replace the Gretch-hunt?), and if you got Margo Kingston on board I’d probably pony up for a sub again.
Nice to read everyone’s thoughts. I suspect the gender divide is much much less than the difference between me and any (and every) other reader, male and female, and each reader from each other.
I am a long time subscriber, occasional contributor and so much more than ‘a bloke’. I hate a pigeon hole, what can I say.
I’ve agreed with many comments from women and men, and disagreed with many comments from women and men. Re the time issue - it’s a furphy. Time is made for what is considered important. I dislike the intellectual laziness of the ‘time-poor’ argument, everything is a question of the priority that you give it.
From the comments, every reader looks at it differently. There’s lots that I skim through or miss completely. I don’t mind that I skip through some sections, I’m generally here digging for gold.
I would love to read more women’s writing, but what I would really like is for them to be able to write and post comments and receive others comments without thinking of it as a personal attack. An earlier contributor made salient remarks about a ‘next-wave’ of feminism. I concur!
Come on women, man up! (oops)
I won’t comment in depth because I can’t anonymously. I don’t have time to spend writing and editing to do my post (against my real name) justice. And yes, I’m busy doing the second shift: cooking and cleaning after a longer day’s work than my partner while the dearly beloved bloke plays on his laptop with a bowl of icecream. We see the housework needs to be done so we do it. It’s easier.
Bottom line: keep up the independent journalism - don’t girlify it! And publish my comments when I do feel passionate about a topic enough to respond …