"Gift" Is German For Poison

On Wednesday, Kevin Drum posted on "Women and Blogging":

On a lazy Sunday several weeks ago I wrote about the dearth of women among the ranks of the most highly trafficked political bloggers. I suggested the reason was partly because high-traffic men don't link much to women and partly because fewer women than men write political blogs in the first place. But why do fewer women blog about politics than men?

In reaction to that original post, I wrote "Kevin Drum, Clueless Privileged Liberal Man, Speaks".  Subsequently, I became unsure if Drum is actually clueless or is doing the triangulation dance of the professional moderate.  His "where are all the women bloggers" shtick certainly garners him enough attention, and the right sort of attention for someone who wants to be labeled "independent."

The post Wednesday didn't help.  "Why do fewer women blog about politics?"  No, why are male bloggers like Drum begging the question? He offers as evidence only that the highest-trafficked blogs have fewer women than men, which hardly supports the contention that fewer women blog about politics.  As Charlie at Shades Of Grey writes:

By taking the position he does, Kevin Drum is supporting the idea that politics generally and the blogosphere specifically is a meritocracy. He's saying the only reason there aren't more women linked to is because women are lazy and don't put in the same effort men do. But as one blogger put it, if this were a meritocracy, nobody would know about Glenn Reynolds.

Also, Drum pulled the lamest CYA move that a racist or a sexist can do: He quotes members of the minority group to put forward the propositions he's too chickenshit to stand behind himself: "In the past few days this topic has suddenly gotten a renewed round of attention, and it turns out that a fair number of women agree with me — but only partly."  Also, he quotes Dahlia Lithwick: "'[men] are terrified to opine on the debate because the inquiry is so fraught with the possibility of career-terminating levels of politically correct blowback—à la Larry Summers—that they deem it better to hold their tongues and wait for the storm to pass.' Yep, that's me. Who needs the grief?" You know what?  If you believe the shit you're saying, then say it and stand behind it, instead of hiding behind the InstaHack defense that you only link to it.

Drum further quotes Lithwick for the proposition that women addressing sexism in opinion writing should be responded to seriously, and then says, "And the men who do respond deserve serious responses in turn."  This is a self-pitying red flag.  He's saying, "Don't attack me for the opinions I hold."  Worse, he's implying, "If you attack me, I will just ignore you, and then where will you be, little woman?"

Taken together, the question-begging, the cowardice and the passive-aggressiveness all seemed like a retrograde step to me, but Prof. Bitch disagreed:

I am impressed, and I will go so far as to say that my vitriol last time was, if justified, apparently somewhat misplaced, based on the outcome. ... Drum's continuing thoughts on the subject of women bloggers are balanced, thoughtful, and show that he's done some research. It takes integrity to deal with a big smackdown by going away and doing some reading and coming back and continuing to try to think through the subject.... And the point he's making, which is that men need to step up to the plate and take this stuff seriously, is exactly right. And it's exactly what men need to realize. And so, good for him.

She and I discussed my reservations privately, but I didn't want to throw shit on Drum if, in fact, he was arguing in good faith.  But she sees the light in the wake of Drum's post yesterday, titled "The Gift That Keeps on Giving".  In it, Drum says:

Sure, there are plenty of battle hardened female opinion writers, but, by definition, we only see the ones who are comfortable in the fray — and their numbers are fairly small if Dahlia Lithwick's experience with comparative submission rates is any guide.  I think a lot of women — the ones we don't hear from — really are put off by the tone and substance of opinion writing, and we do them a disservice by pretending they don't exist.

You know what?  Plenty of men are put off by the tone and substance of the food fight, too.  Have you ever heard of John Stewart, or what he said to Tucker Carlson?  When Stewart said Tucker was a dick and his show was hurting America, men and woman applauded.  Did Kevin poll men to see if they were put off by the way political discussions on blogs go?  And if not, why not?  Because, I think, Kevin Drum wants to find evidence that supports his pre-existing belief that women are not temperamentally suited to the role that he, Kevin Drum, has achieved prominence in,  and because it suits Drum's aims for his writing career. 

It's still an open question, but I think the weight of the evidence is that Drum is using feminists as a foil to burnish his "open-minded moderate" credentials and keep himself politically viable with the right.  Like the inclusion of Amy Sullivan as a poster at WashMo, Drum's writing on women and politics is meant to demonstrate where he thinks the Democrats should be going: into the center-right position on religion, abortion and equality.  Cleverly, he is Sister-Souljahing women and they don't even know it, assuming he's arguing in good faith and might change his mind. 

When someone plays you, I suggest, the proper response is to ignore or belittle them.  Drum may be - in fact, is - good on many issues.  But when he starts writing about women again, the response should be vitriol and silence.  Stick to Social Security, Kevin.  It's all you really know.

Comments

[bitchphd]

Yeah, well, I'm unlikely to give him the benefit of the doubt again.

Because I'm an unforgiving bitch like that.

[Mithras]

You notice the topic of giving women bloggers the benefit of the doubt does not seem to enter his mind.

[Roxanne]

I don't think it's possible for me to belittle him more than I already have. Even *I* have my limits.

There's something else going on, too, that I think is quite interesting. With few exceptions, the women who were recently added to Drum's blogroll last time around are either (a)strangely silent now or (b)sticking up for him.

Wassup wit dat?

[Riggsveda]

Shorter argument on the Drum issue:
Bush is president of the U.S.
Ergo, no one else is much interested in representing the American public, and Bush is the preferred candidate, and Bush is the candidate most interested in making substantive changes in government on behalf of the voting public.

"Politically correct blowback"? Fuck you, Dahlia. The evidence of trenchant, incisive, combative female writing is all over the internet, and only people with a death grip investment in keeping the dialogue in the same old ditch would be making the weak-kneed claims that she and Drum are making about the dearth of female writers.

I am so weary of this conversation. It's the same conversation people were having in 1969. And 1939. And 1919. Ad nauseum.

[JD]

In the absence of something substantive to talk about, talk about (blog-centered) identity politics!