Does it matter that all our bloggers are currently guys?
Sorry for a slightly navel gazing post.
Recently, a number of people I have spoken to have told me in no uncertain terms that while they enjoy The Third Estate, they find it somewhat problematic (or worse) that we have no female bloggers. The result, I am told, is an obvious lack of female perspectives. I should stress that the demographics of our blog do not reflect any deliberate decision, that the writers were brought together partly through social contact, and that we would certainly not be averse to broader representation. Yet my typical response to such criticisms has been:
1: The Third Estate is a blog, not a newspaper or public service. As such we do not aim or expect to cover the breadth of social experience.
2: Personal experience is by no means the only basis of knowledge and understanding. In this regard, I know many men who I feel have a better and more sophisticated understanding of what it means to be a woman in 21st century Britain than many women I know.
Yet many people whose opinions I respect respond by telling me that a greater gender balance would nonetheless add a great deal. So I thought I would open the discussion here. We look forward to your responses.
Reader Comments
Would you kindly care to elaborate, on how you think men can have a better understanding of “what it means to be a 21st century woman”. You seem to implying that there is a consensus on this matter. How does one construct such a notion – how are men gaining this knowledge – through statistics, through literature or through sheer empathy? I’d be interested to hear you go into more depth on this. Because so far you are being 100% anecdotal on that point – the old ‘I know lots of such and such who are such and such’.
which leads on to say – if men can gain knowledge of what it means to be a 21st century woman in britain through literature and writings of other women – then what better argument for voicing these perspectives on the third estate – so that readers can benefit from multiple perspectives.
I’m also interested in what exactly it means to be a 21st century man, as well a 21st century woman. Any (outsider or insider) thoughts on that? Personally I think the absence of women isn’t a huge problem since, as you say, you don’t claim to be representative, but a few female perspectives might provide an interesting contrast. Not really sure how much perspectives can be said to be ‘female’ of course, but to the extent that they can, then there’s an interesting contrast to be had…
Adam you’ve asked for thoughts on that. well if you are interested in exactly what it means to be a 21st century man I expect thats a long and interesting line of inquiry. In terms of the gender of people writing however I don’t think we have a problem with respect to that since there are already not only a majority male voice in this website, but actually an exclusively male voice. You sound like you are asking for cheese when we’re already eating cheddar.
“a few female perspectives might provide an interesting contrast”. You seem to be implying that we don’t need more than a few female voices in, and in those cases only for some kind of balance rather than that we actually value having substantial content and analysis from women.
and finally, how much can perspectives be said to be female? Adam, the whole point of hearing different perspectives is that the reality is that people live very different walks of life. Women in this country have a different experience of life from men, and if we are to understand society fully we must hear voices from all walks of life. Perhaps more critically I would argue that a culture is unable to be coherent while it projects a one sided voice. Its not a matter of contrast for interest, or some kind of pleasing novelty factor to break up the monotony. It is a fundamental issue!
Cambridge Black Students Campaign has a slogan. “Black is not the colour of our skin, it is the colour of our politics.” It’s a phrase that echoes Martin Luther King’s famous speech: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It doesn’t matter that The Third Estate, by chance, has no black writers because all of our writers are committed anti-racists keen on discussing all manner of social phenomena and global cultures. That I’m half-Pakistani does not give me a superior insight into Pakistani politics by virtue of heritage. In fact I don’t think I’ve talked about it once. Similaraly having a female writer simply for the sake of it would be a crude and tokenistic gesture considering The Third Estate has a strong feminist angle. I would very much welcome female writers on board. I would very much welcome Inuit writers on board. It’s the quality that counts. And I would always choose the content of a person’s character over the conents of their underwear.
Salman:
Being a woman or man, black or white, educated or uneducated etc etc does not validate any individual’s position on any given subject. Nor does it give credence or authority to their arguments. The value of an argument is solely on the quality of reasoning, the rigour of the study, the depth of research etc.
However does this mean we should be satisfied by a culture that lacks a broad range of perspective on issues? How is it that we are able to gain insight into any subject in the first place – it might be through reading literature, seeing things first hand, watching a film or looking at a painting. Do you honestly think it is possible to get a full picture, do you think it is possible for a culture to be coherent when it lack views from people of different backgrounds? Do you think Martin Luther King would have supported a society where newspaper articles are written only by white men?
You’re absolutely right Anon, I agree with you entirely. But The Third Estate is not society, nor does it pretend to be.
Indeed we are not a repositroy for culture at large hence the MLK newspaper analogy is problematic. I will respond more fully when I am not in the BL
What Is The Third Estate? Everything.
What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order? Nothing.
What Does It Want To Be? Something.
Does it mean you are all evil and sexist no? does it mean your articles are bad? no. Would it be a richer source of cultural analysis with women’s voices. I think so.
ANON, you don’t seem to be making an argument here. Rather than just asserting that “yes, women would be a good thing” or saying that it would make the cultural analysis richer, could you explain why. What you’re saying at the moment seems to be the same old essentialist feminist/authenticity argument, which I’m not sure has much strength.
I think you’re over analysing Sieyes’s sloganeering. It’s true we want to be something. But we’re not a cross section of society. Whilst our writers come from a range of left-leaning political backgrounds, we do not represent far right viewpoints. Nor can we hope to have representatives from every culture or community on the planet for the sake of richness. The most important thing is the coherence and quality of our project. But it should be made clear, no one is against having female writers come on board. We’re not an order of monks. I just think grabbing the first woman we can find would be a pointlessly tokenistic gesture.
“I should stress that the demographics of our blog do not reflect any deliberate decision, that the writers were brought together through social contact”
- I think this substantiates my long-held theory that you ought to stop playing so much dungeons and dragons and go meet more girls. And get a haircut. And stop smoking those shitty roll-ups. And burn your horrible leather trousers. That is all.
There’s a great article here that I hope solves this dilemma (assuming it actually is one).
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2009/04/blog-diversity-obligations.html
Don’t beat yourself up about it Reuben. You’ve recognised the gap and in so doing effectively done something about it by inviting contribution (as you also do somewhere else on the blog. In the meantime female/feminist commentary on the blog, while it is underrepresented, is only a click away, so keep making the links.
If it’s any consolation, the Bickerstaffe Record is 100% male authorship as well. And white. And middle aged. And middle class (sort of). So compared to the BR you’re paragons of diversity virtue.
Really like your blog in general by the way, though that post form Madrid looks like it might have bee written by a deadlocked gap year twat.
You’re all in Cambridge, right? Whatever happened to the labour club blog – it seems to have gone quiet – or do you not talk to them?
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment. Really like your blog. Have stuck up a link.
“I just think grabbing the first woman we can find would be a pointlessly tokenistic gesture.” I agree entirely, and I’m thinking that the very existence of an article openly addressing the absence of female writers dispels any ideas about the current male cast being in any way intentional, or anything more than coincidental. It would be fun to have some token (haha) female writing on occasion if any worthy material finds its way here, but I hardly feel you’re morally obliged to immediately begin auditioning potential candidates.
…also, Rhona haha thank you for adding some much needed levity.
As a token contribution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8142104.stm
LOL. Btw everything Rhona says is true.
Didn’t she once say the Labour Party is worth supporting? I’m not sure that’s true.