« Lullaby | Main | Biased "Fact Checkers" Shilling for Obama? »

October 06, 2008

Male vs. Female Bloggers: A Theory

Glenn Reynolds asks and answers: why aren't there more female lawprof bloggers?

... here's my own hypothesis: Men are genetically programmed to try to stand out through action, in the hopes of attracting women. It's true, of course that blogging is a relatively ineffective way of doing that -- but so are many other ways this urge manifests itself, like extreme Star Trek fandom. The point is the genetically programmed urge, which isn't programmed into women in the same manner. Is this true? Beats me, but it's amusing.

Ilya Somin piles on (lot of that sort of thing going on lately):

I don't doubt that men (at least heterosexual ones) have a strong genetic drive to attract the attention of women. I'm a bit more skeptical, however, of the claim that this explains the predominance of male political bloggers. Looking at the demographics of political blog readers some 72 percent to 80 percent of them are men themselves. Since political blogging reaches an overwhelmingly male audience, it probably isn't a very efficient way to attract women. It may not be quite as irrational a dating strategy as trying to attract women through "extreme Star Trek fandom," but it's probably less effective than checking out to Ladies' Night at the local bar. If you spend a lot of time blogging, you probably could have devoted that time to other activities where meeting women would be more likely.

What then explains the prevalence of male political bloggers? Many factors may be involved. But one crucial one is probably the fact that women generally have a lower average level of interest in politics than men. The gender gap in political blogging is just one of many manifestations of the broader gender gap in political engagement.

The blog princess finds this observation broadly true, notwithstanding her own predilection for enthusiastically thwacking our Democratic brethren in Christ upside the head with a clue bat on the flimsiest of excuses. However, she would like to offer an alternate theory.

Male bloggers (as with men in general) are intensely competitive by nature, and blogging, like sports, offers just one more arena for guys to test their mettle against each other and (potentially) showcase one set of manly skills: that of argumentation. Blogging involves many of the same features as competitive sports: teams (alliances), statistics, rankings and scores (how many guys are positively fixated on their sitemeter stats and ecosystem rank?), grudge matches (flame wars) and a safe outlet for aggression (let's face it - although many onllne arguments can get quite nasty, when was the last time blood was spilled?). Blogging offers men a direct way to participate in a highly competitive hobby that stimulates their minds and gives free reign to their competitive instincts; instincts I would add that are often stifled and discouraged in the "real" world. In short, in the less straitlaced, more freewheeling online world, men are more free to be men: they experience less opprobrium and more (and more immediate) gratification.

The experience is different for women. Not necessarily bad, just different.

Women tend to blog for different reasons. While I can't speak for all women, let me lay out the reasons I've blogged as long as I have.

First and foremost, unlike men I don't blog to compete with other bloggers. The competitive aspect of blogging is not only not attractive to me, but a positive turnoff. I genuinely don't care about having my site become bigger or more popular than someone else's site. All that means is someone else will get their Hanes Ultrasheers in a wad for no reason. Yee ha.

It deprives them of something they value, while awarding me something I neither want, nor need. No one wins. Every time VC goes over 2000 visits I day, the minuses of blogging begin to outweigh the pluses. The site gets too big for me to handle in my spare time and I end up quitting out of desperation, which effectively knocks my traffic back to a manageable level for a while. Things like getting rid of trackbacks, deleting old posts and my blogroll have also helped. While one hates to be a stinker, it's a question of sanity and balance and in the end, I think blogging has to be something you do on your own terms, or not at all.

So why do I blog? Conversation. The Internet is like a funnel. I'm an introvert. That doesn't mean I'm shy - in fact, I'm quite self confident. It does mean that I'd rather talk about abstract things or one topic in depth than engage in small talk about taking my dog to the vet or your sister Ariel's boob job. In real life, the chances of my running into other people who are interested that kind of conversation (about 25% of the population) are fairly remote. The blogosphere sifts the wheat from the chaff, allowing me to engage in conversations with like-minded people. I don't have to endure conversations about Auntie Mabel's hysterectomy when what I am really interested in discussing is whether a Surge will succeed in Afghanistan or why simply suspending mark-to-market accounting rules won't alleviate the credit crunch.

Women, I have noticed, tend to blog for the joy of initiating conversations and friendships with other people. They enjoy getting to know their readers - talking to them, exchanging views with them, knowing their likes and dislikes and even sometimes the major things that are going on in their lives. To me, my regular readers are little different than people I know in real life. But therein lies a problem.

If you are any good at what you are doing, you will form a connection with your readers and your site will grow. And when your site grows, that growth destroys the very thing that attracted you to blogging in the first place. Increased traffic attracts trolls and administrative effort begins to outweigh the 'fun stuff', like the pure joy of writing.

When my site gets too big, I start to feel I don't have enough time to respond to people and I get overwhelmed. The site takes over my life as opposed to being a welcome diversion and because I've always had a hard time not answering mail when people take the time to write me, I feel guilty when my work or my home life make it impossible for me to keep up with mail from readers, or with comments.

I realize this doesn't make sense, but feelings often don't. Over the years, I've realized that I have to set boundaries. Sometimes now, I just don't answer mail when I get a flood of it. But I feel bad every single time.

The thing is, I feel genuinely honored when someone takes the time to write me. I always hate to think that someone has taken a moment from their day to write and then not gotten a reply. At any rate, just a theory. I think the inherent nature of blogging rewards men (whose interest in blogging tends more towards the competitive). It has been less rewarding for me at least, as my sites have grown.

Your thoughts?

Posted by Cassandra at October 6, 2008 09:06 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2445

Comments

> extreme Star Trek fandom.

WHAT? Star Trek fandom won't get me laid??


D A M N ! ! ! !

:^P

Posted by: Obloodyhell at October 7, 2008 08:53 AM

BTW, Cass, you might like this, courtesy Ace and Patterico:

LAT So Afraid of McCain Confronting Obama on the Economy They Embargo McCain's Remarks on Fannie/Freddie, and Then Claim McCain's Afraid to Talk About the Economy

Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, indeed.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at October 7, 2008 08:56 AM

I agree! It _is_ hard to find other women interested in the political sphere. It isn't that I mind constantly talking about kids, kids and more kids, but I do like getting off that standard somewhat self-absorbed topic.

I also can't sit around and read blogs as much as I want. So, it seems to balance out as a diversion not an occupation.

Posted by: baberuth at October 7, 2008 09:02 AM

Well, I'm sure you've noted my propensity for extensive commenting.

:^9

It's been suggested by a few that I ought to have my own blog -- but
a) Then you MUST come up with topics regularly
b) You have to deal with the overhead of operating a blog.

I've thought about it, and my conclusion is that the blogosphere needs commenters, too -- esp. ones willing to fisk the crap out of... the crap.

This also allows me to spend as much time as I feel like -- if I don't want to blog much, I don't feel obligated.

I believe the best description of my goal is a Reality Check. Not only do I re-vet my own reasoning, I also test the factual basis of it for sustained validity, too.

I comment for one of two reasons:

1) I do enjoy ripping the heads off of idiots. I tone that down to match what the site seems to allow or is appropriate. I'm a lot more rude in some places (one individual described it as "I don't suffer fools gladly") than others.

2) I think it's important to keep fact-checking your own positions, and the best way to do that is to force yourself to justify them to others. Not only do known facts change, their weighting does, too, and sometimes there's a need for a radical shift, a phase change, justified by events -- I was quite displeased when Clinton operated Project Echelon. And, I'd've been unhappy with Bush, too, for much the same -- but then 9/11 happened, and now it's got a lot more justification than it did then... Nothing to do with GOP-v-Dem.

Posted by: Obloodyhell at October 7, 2008 09:19 AM

I agree with obloodyhell -- I like to fact-check (and logic-check) my own positions by justifying them against potential opposition. I could do that by blogging myself, but I'm too lazy and inconsistent, so I do it by leaving comments on other people's sites.

I don't run into that many people in real life that are simultaneously (1) interested in discussing politics (or other controversial subjects), (2) able to analyze and back up their positions, and (3) willing to listen to opposing views expressed politely. I mostly count on blogs for that kind of interaction.

Posted by: Texan99 at October 7, 2008 09:49 AM

Depends exactly what one means by a "political blog." Usually, people writing about the-shortage-of-female-policial-bloggers seem to mean an "inside baseball" analysis of political tactics. I'm personally more interested in policy & philosophical takes on politics, and in this context, I think female bloggers are just about as common as male.

Posted by: david foster at October 7, 2008 09:49 AM

OBH scares me.

Seriously, that is part of the reason I like VC. I can drop in, put my feet up and shoot the breeze awhile. Sometimes I am just lurking, especially on threads that get very involved, but that is the charm for me. I don't always have to say something, but I come here to learn. I lurk at the donovan's place too, because it is a different atmosphere.

Cass's is the restaurant, donovan's is the pub.
Both offer great mental stimulus, but with their own styles.

Cass with let you throw darts. So will the donovan, but what both sites have in common is that the more finessed the snark, the more fun it is to read.

heh.

*takes feet off sofa, puts clogs back on and goes off to class*

Posted by: Cricket at October 7, 2008 10:02 AM

It may also interest you to know that OBH, YGN, BillT, spd, pile and the rest of the knavery have been what has kept me learning and you people have NO IDEA how much you have helped me in the past five years. Not just with learning about the political blathosphere, but with allowing others to express their thoughts and opinions, and the seriously good debate, you have helped fill in some gaps in my rather sketchy education.

It is because of you people I am slaving away over my keyboard, going back to school. Oh, I am going back because I want to, but for the first time, I can admit I have the heart of an accountant.

Does this mean I get to go on Oprah and have a moment?

Posted by: Cricket at October 7, 2008 10:07 AM

I've often thought that I ought to just go back to commenting on other people's blogs :p

I used to have a lot of fun just reacting to what other people wrote and lobbing snark! Certainly it takes a lot of the pressure off, and I find that after writing here I have no energy left for being witty at someone else's site, even when I'm interested in the conversation. And as David notes, I have no interest in the 'inside baseball' aspect of politics. I don't care about the power struggles.

It's the ideas that motivate me.

Posted by: Endangered Midwestern Corked Bat at October 7, 2008 11:17 AM

I don't doubt that men (at least heterosexual ones) have a strong genetic drive to attract the attention of women.

I don't know why she excludes gay men. Consider the professions that gay men dominate, such as women's clothing design and florists. Most of them tend to end up being at the center of attention of a great many women.

Posted by: RonF at October 7, 2008 12:11 PM

Hm...

On the one hand, Grim's Hall has been highly successful at attracting women. I think cleanly half of the regular commenters are female, even though the subject matter really isn't oriented especially to women. Some of it is neutral (politics, finance, cowboy movies, cultural posts, etc), some of it is tilted away (discussions of knives and knife-fighting, guns, war). Almost never do I write something with 'female readers' especially in mind, though I do often write things with a particular female reader in mind.

I'm pretty sure that 'attracting women' wasn't my chief motivation in starting to blog. (For one thing, I was already several years married by the time I began.) So we're in one of those areas where we're guessing at unconscious motives, which is always dangerous.

I'm also not thinking that 'competitive' is really the way I'd describe Grim's Hall, or blogging in general. As you may have noticed, I don't care if people agree with me or not -- in fact, the ones who interest me most are the ones who don't agree on everything, and want to talk about it. While in a sense the comparison of ideas is 'competitive,' it's also very much not a competition: nobody is necessarily going to "win." What's wanted is a deeper exploration of different reasons for feeling or thinking a certain way.

Now, some men who blog are certainly otherwise -- our Major Leggett, for example. Fine guy, good Marine, but he wants you to agree with him. When he asserts a position, he wants people to line up with it, or to discuss it until (and with a view toward) a resolution is reached whereby "we agree." That's highly competitive behavior, but you'd expect that from an officer of Marines. He's a hard charger.

I think I frustrate him on occasion because it's not important to me whether or not he and I agree. I respect him regardless of whether we agree (which sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't). He's a fine man, a good husband and Marine, and the rest is largely academic.

On the other hand, then you have a co-blogger like Eric, who doesn't care if I agree with him or not. And another one like Joe, who comes around precisely because we disagree, and he likes it.

I think most men blog because it's a good way to kill time at work, personally. It's like getting to be at the bar with your friends, until you're finally free to get up away from that desk and go actually be at the bar with your friends. Some others, like myself, do it because we like to explore ideas, but may not live close enough to others who share the same interests (one will walk a long way even in the biggest city before finding someone who shares an interest in both cowboy poetry and Aristotle; and if there are more of them in the country, yet they are further spread).

I'm not sure there's really anything subconscious at work. If there's a sex difference, I would say it was this: Women tend to make friends where they are, with the people around them, based on social and nonverbal clues as much as anything; men make friends only with people who interest them. So, maybe the internet's capacity for sorting out 'the people interesting to me' is more important to men than to women.

Posted by: Grim at October 7, 2008 01:36 PM

Your probably the first blogger I've come across that is upset they have too much traffic. I don't subscribe to the competitive aspect, but you should be happy when your site is getting traffic, which means you're writing commentary that people find interesting. The discussion aspect is important too as you mention, but just talking with "like-minded" people can get a bit dull. Dissenting views are always more interesting than the "amen"-type comment.

Posted by: LT Nixon at October 7, 2008 01:59 PM

Amen, lieutenant!

Although, I do think Cassidy has a good point about traffic. Higher traffic is good if and only if it doesn't dilute or disrupt the quality of the discussion. Dissent is welcome, so long as it is polite, courteous and honest.

Posted by: Grim at October 7, 2008 02:09 PM

I don't mind dissenting views, Lt. Nixon.

If anything, I think I've encouraged them here. We've always had at least one or two folks who can't stand what I write here at VC, and who tell me I'm off my rocker, or that I'm wrong about various things :p

But there's a vast difference between commenters who want to provoke intelligent discussion and those who go out of their way to upset and disrupt the conversation. Even many of the 'trolls' themselves have admitted that they've intentionally come here (at first) with the express intent of pissing people off rather than simply exchanging views.

That's not productive, because when you start lobbing insults it doesn't have the effect of opening minds to your way of seeing things. It just causes people to go into a defensive huddle and then they won't even entertain the possibility that there might be some merit to your ideas.

Some of the best discussions we've had here have occurred after initial conflict when people refused to react to provocation and the flamers saw that they weren't going to get the reaction they hoped for. That's why I think rules are so important.

This is what Mark InIrvine, in particular, doesn't seem to see. I know he feels aggrieved because he is one of the few people I banned from VC. In all these years, I've banned only a handful of people.

Deb Frisch, for one. Mark is another. So as you can see, you really have to push me to the wall before I'll ban you. And it is usually only after repeated warnings.

I did so reluctantly. Very reluctantly. I don't hate Mark. In fact, I rather like him. But he kept yanking people's chains and pitting one friend against another and they kept reacting. Sometimes they were at fault too, quite frankly. That is disruptive.

The bottom line is that he was the catalyst for a whole slew of problems that I didn't have time to sort out. He kept picking fights, day in and day out and he had a bad habit of going for the jugular when he started to lose an argument. He still does it, and he can't see that he is doing it.

In the end, I had to put a stop to it, and I did.

My house, my rules. This isn't a democracy :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 02:31 PM

Women tend to make friends where they are, with the people around them, based on social and nonverbal clues as much as anything; men make friends only with people who interest them.

Well, I don't think that's right, because your "men" statement applies more to me than the other. All my life I've had one friend from one group and another friend from another group (IOW, I won't bother with a person unless they interest me :p). I think my "Internet as a funnel" description pretty much describes how I've used the 'Net as a filtering system to make my social life more efficient.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 02:37 PM

OTOH, I may not think like a typical woman, if there is such a thing :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 02:38 PM

Well, regardless of whether you are typical or not, you're a clear exception to this discussion. If we're asking "Why aren't there more female bloggers?", those who are in fact female bloggers are exceptions to the rule being investigated.

So, far from being evidence against my proposition, the fact that you have that drive might be evidence in favor of it. What we'd then need to demonstrate was whether or not it held true among women who do blog, versus women who don't.

Posted by: Grim at October 7, 2008 03:10 PM

Waaaaahhhhh!!!!

Stop being so logical! :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 03:14 PM

My house, my rules. This isn't a democracy :p

Well, I wasn't arguing with that, haha. But I always get a kick out of trolls, probably for the sheer entertainment value. But, it makes sense if your readership is getting furious and truned off by your blog because of nasty comments left by a few knuckleheads that you would consider banning. I've just never run into the problem.

Posted by: LT Nixon at October 7, 2008 05:06 PM

This is part of why I all but shut down my blog for about 2-3 years. Back in senior year of college, when I started blogging, I got way into the politics stuff, but then felt pressured to write good, well-researched posts daily in order to "keep up" with my readers. At that point, I think a part of me enjoyed the competitive aspect of political blogging as much as other parts of me disliked the work it took.

I, too, am an introvert who would rather talk in-depth about certain things with certain people than to have a lot of conversations about nothing special, but when I started attracting trolls (specifically one troll that I went to school with), I got very intimidated and gradually stopped blogging about political stuff.

Now that I have found new interest in my blog, I have started getting political again occasionally, but I find that I check myself on that fairly often, partly due to the fact that I have a number of readers on both sides of the aisle politically. I want to say what I'm thinking, what my beliefs are; I want to have those deeper conversations, but I don't want to scare them away from my blog and/or lose their friendships. Plus I don't have the stamina (or the time) to keep up a serious political blog. So I find myself more often a political commenter on blogs that do talk politics than a political blogger on my own, though I used to be one, and sometimes still want to be one.

Posted by: Emily at October 7, 2008 05:16 PM

Every time VC goes over 2000 visits I day, the minuses of blogging begin to outweigh the pluses. The site gets too big for me to handle in my spare time and I end up quitting out of desperation, which effectively knocks my traffic back to a manageable level for a while. Things like getting rid of trackbacks, deleting old posts and my blogroll have also helped.

Please stop, Cass, you are killing me here. My diaphram can't take the laughter.

But keep blogging though, cause otherwise that would kill me.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 05:51 PM

I don't have to endure conversations about Auntie Mabel's hysterectomy when what I am really interested in discussing is whether a Surge will succeed in Afghanistan or why simply suspending mark-to-market accounting rules won't alleviate the credit crunch.

What about all those Cheese bikini contest conversations, Cass? What slot do they fit into, small talk or talking shop about Afghanistan and the Surge?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 05:52 PM

I don't subscribe to the competitive aspect, but you should be happy when your site is getting traffic, which means you're writing commentary that people find interesting.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing except that female bloggers like Michelle Malkin and others who have quit, when they get too big, inevitably get a bunch of misogynist trolls that start up the threats. THen you'll have to do a Neo-Neocon and start banning people.

Cassandra will be very sad and unhappy if she has to do that all day long. And given the tenacity of the people who don't like people like Neo and Malkin, I'm pretty sure she will be doing it all day long past a certain point.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 05:57 PM

So as you can see, you really have to push me to the wall before I'll ban you.

So how does Bill keep pushing you to the wall and never actually reaching it?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 06:00 PM

I think people (women) vary in their tolerance for unpleasantness, Ymar.

Michelle Malkin is (I think) perhaps more naturally pugnacious than I am. I don't enjoy conflict. I won't back down when I think I am right on an issue, but I never go looking for a fight and I genuinely become upset if I think I have upset someone. I don't like to use terms like 'moonbat' for people I disagree with. I understand that others may, and that is their right. I even laugh when they do (I have to be honest here).

It is just not something that I feel comfortable doing because it annoys me when the Left calls us Wingnuts and other names. I don't care for labels. I don't think they're conducive to thoughtful discussion. I laugh just as hard as anyone else when people are just making a joke, but I can also see how many times they're hurtful and polarizing, so I try not to engage in too much of that stuff. My humor is pointed enough as it is :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 06:36 PM

Bill mostly makes fun of me.

Anyone can make fun of me here and get away with it. They can insult me, and I've left the insults up. There have been some pretty ugly things said to me over the years. But they are just words.

Mark InIrvine used to do it, and he was pretty sharp with his digs. It was when he turned on my friends that he got in trouble.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 06:39 PM

Besides, I don't think Bill means it :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 7, 2008 06:39 PM

Hmm. I hadn't been on this blog so much for a while, since Ms. Cassandra took her leave of it for a while. I did catch the overflow of e's yesterday/today of the ensuing contretemps. But I've mostly been sitting on my porch this afternoon, cleaning my guns and reading my Bible...

Posted by: lutonmoore at October 7, 2008 07:07 PM

I got my TV out here on the porch, too. Mother Tammy Fayegelica's show's fixin' to come on. She's with that Baptist Nun Order they got, it's big in Carolina. What's all this talk about some debates?...

Posted by: lutonmoore at October 7, 2008 07:57 PM

Well, Auntie Mabel's hystericalectomy isn't nearly as fascinating as the Japanese warming bras. Or the caption contests.

I will tell you though, the day I wished we had a computer and I could record a particular conversation was when my cordless phone somehow intercepted a conversation between two guys; one was going to a family reunion and the other fellow was commiserating with him...I screamed and yelled...they didn't seem to hear me. I would hang up, and try again fifteen minutes later. I couldn't use my phone for two hours. Choice language of a manly nature was to be heard from the two Brawny types...it was hysterical.

Or the time the two guys were talking about their vasectomies in their backyards...yes, this was in government quarters and no, I had to have the windows open because it was hot and Fort Lewis didn't have A/C in their quarters. You might need it on two days out of the summer.

Blogs have since filled my need for spying on the neighbors.

heh.

Posted by: Cricket at October 7, 2008 09:13 PM

Michelle uses different language, is all. She doesn't necessarily look for a fight, but she will allow dissent as long as it doesn't get ugly.

What I found funny was that over at TOB, one of my comments met the editorial eraser of doom. His blog, his rules. I genuinely don't care if a comment of mine gets deleted, as long as I obviously violated a rule. But the donovan deleted a comment of mine, and he very kindly told me in an email why. I could see his point and had no problem with it. He didn't have to tell me, but he took the time to say why. It was a couple of years or so ago...

Posted by: Cricket at October 7, 2008 09:23 PM

> Does this mean I get to go on Oprah and have a moment?

No, it means you have to go onto The View and rip the libtards a new rectal orifice...

:oP

Posted by: OBloodyhell at October 7, 2008 10:13 PM

> OTOH, I may not think like a typical woman, if there is such a thing

I don't think there is a "typical" woman, but there is a sort of "normal curve" -- and I suspect you're at least one or two sigmas out, Cass.

But I think that's in a good way -- one of the main variances is that you're more connected to reality and action->consequences than many women are.

Posted by: OBloodyhell at October 7, 2008 10:20 PM

If I may lob a potential bomb out there, it occurs to me that there is a key difference in what women seek from conversation as opposed to men, or so I've been told and have few observations to contradict...

A guy starts talking about his problems with other guys -- his friends tend to offer their points of view, possible solutions, and ways to deal with those problems. Support is good, too, but guys tend to be looking for ideas when they do this.

As I'm told, when a woman starts discussing her problems with other women, she's not looking for solutions or ideas, but support. Women (supposedly) don't offer solutions for the most part in such situations.

This is supposedly one of the complaints women have with men when talking with them about their problems -- the men try and offer solutions and not enough support.

I'd suggest that this ties, probably, into the ways women approach blogging. You cannot get the same kind of interpersonal support from a blog that you can from direct contact, so that knocks out a lot of reasons for blogging. It also sets up a blog that does exist but which is little more than a misandryst caffeklatsch (I can think of at least one -- think Daily Kos but for ball-less-wonders and women only).

As a result of the above, I think it may tie to why there are fewer women bloggers -- blogging doesn't tend to give women what they look for in interpersonal contact.

The above statements are broad generalizations, and don't necessarily apply to any single person, male or female, who reads this, comments on VC, or even blogs regularly. They are attempts to speculate on underlying human behavior.

Posted by: OBloodyhell at October 7, 2008 10:49 PM

ARRGH. Stupid line break:


more connected to reality and action->consequences than many women are.

Posted by: OBloodyhell at October 7, 2008 10:52 PM

Mark InIrvine used to do it, and he was pretty sharp with his digs.

I still don't get why he would talk until the moon rose and set with some folks here in the comments but never really touched my comments directed towards him.

Ya think he may have known what my real thoughts and intentions were?

Neo used to have a bunch of people who kept commenting under her posts but claiming things about her posts that were patently untrue. Neo kept having to say "did you even read my post" and having to copy and paste the stuff over again in the comments section. You could see that this was taking Neo's time away from writing posts that I was interested in reading.

My house, my rules. This isn't a democracy :p

This reminds me of people who believe that in times of peace, cooperation and committee decisions can usually manage most things but in times of war, a benevolent dictatorship must need arise to take care of most things. Contrast this with people who believe that in times of peace, like Obama, there is a need for a Strong Man to take Charge and make sure that Corruption is taken care of and all that, while at the same time believing that during times of war and existential threat, committees and "cooperation" (international) is needed foremost.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2008 11:42 PM

I was reading Debbie Schlussel's comments on 'The View' and for once, just rolled around with laughter. It takes three liberal women to keep an airhead in line. Now, my college courses tell me that women usually seek information. Guys want solutions, women want to flesh out the sketchy details with contextual information.

Cassandra, you are a blogging blogger who blogs.

Posted by: Cricket at October 8, 2008 06:09 AM

I, for one , am delighted that you chose to return to blogging. I enjoy your style and wit. The Knavery have their own verve. Finally, THANK YOU for banning that a$$weasel Mark!

Posted by: unkawill at October 8, 2008 07:00 AM

... my college courses tell me that women usually seek information. Guys want solutions, women want to flesh out the sketchy details with contextual information.

That made me laugh out loud :p

It reminded me of that male vs. female brain thing (the nothing box).

My husband is so patient.

He comes home from work very late at night. And he is always tired and sort of shell shocked. He always calls me from the road to tell me he is coming home, which I love.

And I am excited, because I am alone all day in this house. So I can't wait to talk to him.

But he has been around people all day. He wants to see me, but also he really just wants some peace and quiet.

Peace and quiet :p Yeah, right. Around me???

Heh. On the lucky nights I feed him dinner and we go to bed and turn the lights out. And it is not quiet or peaceful, but he is happy.

On the unlucky nights, he tries to make me happy by talking to me :p Dear God in heaven. The man suffers, I will say that for him. But in recompense, I will say that I never talk to him in the morning.

Beyond "Good morning, babe... love ya." we do not talk in our house before we have had several cups of coffee, and never on a work morning. It is not allowed. Violators will be shot.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 8, 2008 05:58 PM

OBH, I agree in the main with the first part of what you said. Women, when talking about a problem to a friend, are usually just "venting" - they don't necessarily expect you to solve the problem, but just enjoy sharing their feelings and/or discussing possible solutions. However, unlike guys, they don't really care whether the bitch session yields a solution. The "purpose" of the discussion for them is sharing their feelings and they feel better for having done so, whether or not they arrived at a solution.

Men, OTOH, when listening to a woman "vent", tend to feel that they have been tapped to provide a solution.

If they can't come up with one (or, as is likely, if the women continues to natter on about her feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings, since to her, venting was more the primary purpose of the discussion than having him step in and save the day) they get really annoyed and frustrated -- not realizing that they would make her completely happy if they'd just STFU and just nod every now and then and say, "Yep, that sux babe" and not show their impatience. The less impatient and annoyed they act, the sooner she'll shut up and go shopping.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 8, 2008 06:05 PM

If there aren't as many women it's because were doing everything else the men couldn't handle. LOL

Posted by: Trish | eMail Our Military at October 11, 2008 07:47 PM

If there aren't as many women it's because were doing everything else the men couldn't handle.

Heh. That's got enough truth in it to get a Get Out of Snark Free card from me...

Posted by: BillT at October 12, 2008 03:31 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)