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 …

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 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.

A lot of responses, I think you’ve hit a nerve, tapped a market, whatever. It’ll be interesting to see where it goes.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

a. male

OR

b. related to me.

Plus ca change … .

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…

At the risk of asking a stupid question: And? Why is a 50/50 split desirable?

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.

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?

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.