An experiment revealed a very curious thing. Of the 44 comments (as of now), only one came from a woman (thanks, Kath). Why would that be? Some obvious possibilities:
- Women do not read SJ, and its readership, as Cristian Farias suggested, consists of “hetero cis white males.”
- Women are “terrified” (whether of me, math or leaving comments), as Vin Messina suggested.
- Women, unlike men, either have no relevant work experience to offer, or nothing that compares with that offered by men.
If the first possibility is the case, it would be a particularly sad commentary on the state of gender affairs, as it suggests that women have no interest in reading about legal issues that don’t inure to their gender benefit.
If the second is the case, it would be an even worse commentary, clearly sexist, suggesting that women are only interested in blogs that pander to their self-interest and provide a safe and supportive environment. No one, without regard to gender or any other characteristic, is assured of a tummy rub here.
And if the problem is the third possibility, then the issue is societal, in that inequality has allowed women to avoid the hard and unpleasant labors that men appear to regularly undertake. If the goal is gender equality, this is a terrible problem. If the goal is special treatment for women, then not so much.
*The options are not, of course, mutually exclusive or comprehensive.