Since I don’t think in terms of who blawgers are as much as what they have to say, the thought hadn’t occurred to me. But C.C. Holland at Law.com asks, “Where Are All the Female Law Bloggers?” The question, obviously, suggests that they are missing. Anne Reed, Niki Black, Anne Skove, Carolyn Elefant, Susan Cartier Liebel, Blonde Justice and many others. They are all women, as far as I can tell, and I read everything they post.
Granted, Ruthie fell off the face of the earth, but that was only after her spurned love for Charon QC, and the vicious advances of Geeklawyer, all deeply personal and hardly reflective of a trend. But it doesn’t matter, since Holland is unaware that the blawgosphere crosses borders and oceans, so drama amongst female British blawgers plays no role in her analysis.
But as Holland points out, in the broader blawgosphere, there appear to be more men than woman blawging.
Sites such as Above the Law (David Lat), How Appealing (Howard J. Bashman) and Balkinization (Jack M. Balkin) are each authored or edited by one man. The China Law Blog is written by Dan Harris and Steve Dickinson of Harris & Moure. The Volokh Conspiracy, another popular law blog, list 18 contributors, none of whom are female. The woman blogger whose name comes up most frequently in the legal space is law professor Ann Althouse, but her blog isn’t primarily about legal issues.
So what’s behind this seeming disparity?
This universe of six blogs falls a bit short of proof. But Holland notes some statistics:
Joe Hodnicki, co-founder of the Law Professor Blogs Network and co-editor of the Law Librarian Blog, says about 30 percent of his network’s 100 or so bloggers are female law professors.
BlawgWorld 07’s list of the 77 most influential “blawgs” (legal blogs) includes just 13 (16.8 percent) authored by women.
LexMonitor’s directory of AmLaw 200 blogs, approximately 157 of the blogs’ individually named contributors are male, but only 48 — or 23 percent — are female.
I’m beginning to see part of Holland’s problem. She is stuck in the BigBlawg frame of reference, meaning those handful of blawgs that make it onto the radar of clueless people who know squat about blawging. Yet, that doesn’t mean she isn’t right, even if she hasn’t proven it.
Despite her lack of basis, Holland pursues three theories to explain the “no women ’round here” phenomenon. One explanation is that proffered by Holland is that women don’t have time to blawg, because they are too busy with family responsibilities.
Another explanation is that it’s more dangerous for women to blawg, as they are more likely to be subject to personal attacks than men. The corollary to this is that women can’t handle the negative reactions, ranging from “I disagree” to “you’re an idiot” to threats of violence.
But the explanation I find far more reasonable is that:
Women law bloggers are out there, you just don’t see them. “There are more women (law) bloggers than you think,” says Carolyn Elefant, an attorney in private practice who writes the MyShingle blog (and is a Law.com blogger as well). “I think they predominate in the practical blogosphere. I think this myth of there being fewer female bloggers got started because the focus was more on the big-name sites, which tended to be (run by) men.”
Carolyn understands something that Holland appears not to get at all. You don’t just “open a blawg” and go on the Johnny Carson show the next night as the toast of the blawgosphere. It doesn’t work that way for anyone, male or female. Note that Carolyn refers to the “practical blogosphere,” a phrase coined by the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, distinguishing us second-wave blawgers, practicing lawyers who post about real life experiences and issues as opposed to the academic blawgers who monopolized the first wave of blawging.
Holland misconstrues the issue by considering it as a problem:
One explanation for the apparent lack of female voices is that while they’re out there, they’re not as well-promoted as the male bloggers. “Folks tend to link to their friends, and it’s especially hard for a newer blogger to break into that closed circle,” says Dudziak.
“Trying to get links requires being a little extroverted,” says Kimberly Amick, co-author of the California Appellate Law Blog and a senior associate at Archer Norris. “It can be a little intimidating, but it’s really no different than walking up to someone and shaking their hand.”
And, says Hodnicki, “It’s a crowded blogosphere now, so it’s harder to acquire an audience.”
So who exactly is “well-promoting” male blawgers but leaving the females in the dust? And does Amick really think that you get links by asking for them? I don’t think this is what either meant, but it’s how Holland misinterpreted their words.
Hodnicki is right, the blawgosphere is getting crowded, which means that weak blawgs will not get readers and will not survive. This is how it should be. This is pure meritocracy. No one can make someone go to a blawg and read. They do it only if they want to. And it doesn’t matter how many links you have from friends, if the content sucks, no one will come back. Anyone can blawg, but not everyone will survive.
As for blawging “friends”, we make them all the time, not because we physically hang out and have a beer with them, but because we read their stuff and appreciate it. That’s how friendships happen, and I have NEVER seen anyone care if the blawger is male or female, white or black, tall or short. That’s because it’s all about the posts, and we never actually see or touch anyone. I can’t tell if another blawger is tall or short, gay or straight, so there is no inherent bias at all. I can ignore someone just like me as well as someone completely different, if they don’t have the goods.
There is no barrier to entry to the blawgosphere. All it takes is a dollar and a dream (literally) to become a blawger. But after that, it’s purely a matter of creating content that someone wants to read. All the friends in the world won’t overcome lack of content or bad content. No one opens a blawg and proclaims, “I’m male, read me.”
I offer no explanation for the phenomenon of there being fewer women blawgers, if that is in fact the case. It can be a tough gig, but if women want to blawg, I say blawg. Many, perhaps most, of the new blawgs that will appear in the next year will not attract a following. They didn’t last year either.
But as far as I can see, there are some darn good female blawgers who can hold their own with any male in the blawgosphere, if not beat most of them to a pulp. Too bad Holland doesn’t know they exist. I do.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post, and I had many of the same thoughts when I read the Law.com article. BigLaw and Law Profs aren’t the only blawgers. In fact, blawging is all about leveling the playing field and allowing everyone a chance to have their say.
There are certainly more male blawgers than women blawgers, and part of that has to do with societal constraints/stereotypes.
But, there are far more women blawgers–the author of the article just has to look a bit harder and use more than simply LexMonitor’s top 200 as her bench mark.
Great post either way;)
Holland seems to have done a very cursory quantative analysis. I seem to see huge numbers of women lawyers blogging and most are very good, Ruthie apart of course.
I’d like to see the numbers rigorously assessed rather a cursory glance as a plank to start yet another tedious “Men, stop oppressing women!” feminist rant.
Thanks for writing this post, Scott. You made many valid points.
There are so many good, interesting law(yer) weblogs by women, that I can’t possibly read them all regularly. If I had time to read ten blawgs daily, more than half of those I would choose are written by women (you’ve named most of my favorites).
I’ve always said that if I had a life (with more responsibilities and worthwhile activities), I wouldn’t have a blawg. Unlike the best women blawgers, I don’t have the stamina or attention span to Do It All. As with women choosing to stay in BigLaw firms, if there are fewer women blawgers, it’s probably because more women have full, busy lives outside the law — with different priorities than men, and lower thresholds for dealing with b.s. in the comment section.
Whenever I see an article that does number crunching comparing women and men in the legal profession, my b.s.-meter starts cranking up.
Great post.
Having “made” the article as a “leading” male blogger, I find the whole thing funny/strange. I too had never thought about the sex (or race or religion or whatever) of any blogger. But what I found particularly funny was that my firm spent much of last week, planning for and setting up a new (additional) blog, usbusinesslawblog.com (coming out in a few weeks) to be in Russian, on the goings on in US Business law. It is going to be written by two Russian WOMEN in our firm: one with a Russian law degree and the other with a US law degree. Not once in all of our discussions did the “femaleness” of these two bloggers ever come up as either a plus or a minus. Why? Because the blogosphere does not generally work that way.
Scott,
Great post. I’d like to proffer a different perspective, one I’ve run across which may affect both men and women but my experience has been mostly women. I’ve talked to some excellent women at law firms. They’ve been flat out told they cannot blog as long as they work at that firm. Well, they are not about to give up their jobs. Some men I’ve talked with have also been told this so it’s not gender driven but it certainly is limiting to many.
In addition, I believe although those you have mentioned in your post (including myself) are very entrenched in the blogging world. Yet those I talk to are still waking up to its power. Talk to any convert to blogging and they are confused that the rest of the world doesn’t blog, especially the legal world.
I will venture to say women lawyers who do not have a blog are found on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn and I wonder if it is the allure of ‘networking’ or ‘socializing’ which has them stop there maybe first because the cost of entry (in dollars and time) is perceived as zero. Seems to me it is the first portal of entry for more lawyers now then ever before.
Just some unscientific observations.
oh my, thank you for posting this. I never read law.com anymore so I wouldn’t have seen this.
Here is an eloquent post on the same topic your readers may find interesting and it includes some other reasons women may be seen in the minority:
http://advocatesstudio.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/im-here-im-here-really-i-am/
What a great post on this issue. As it happens I was writing just last week about whether women have unique challenges in the courtroom. I’ve found the blogosphere, on the other hand, to be strikingly free of bias — and much more adaptable to a mother’s schedule than the more traditional outlets for networking and professional expression. (If I posted as often or as thoroughly as Scott does, though, I’d probably think differently.)
Just got around to posting about this over at my Women Lawyers blog: http://nylawblog.typepad.com/women_lawyers/2008/10/where-are-all-t.html
I am at a conference now so responding under stealth. When I was interviewed for this piece, I explicitly mentioned Denise Howell, Niki Black, Susan CL, Ann Reed, Kelly Erb (Tax Girl) as well as all of the women who are running terrific practice oriented blogs (Andrea Goldman – Massachusetts contract law, Leanna Hamill, Mass trusts and estates) None of this got into the article.
Wow, you mean to say that the NLJ had a ready-set story and didn’t want to hear facts that might get in the way of it? SHOCKED.
See above. I don’t read it anymore, not since my favorite reporter is gone. So typical.
Everybody I’ve talked to — everybody; no exceptions — who has been very close to a news story that they were interested in and involved in has found that reporters covering it have gotten important (not always vital) stuff wrong.
It would be a great surprise to me if C.C. Holland at law.com was immune to that (at least) tendency.
As expected. While I don’t doubt the accuracy of the quotes used, I felt rather certain that Holland had an agenda and was using them the quotes and selective information to achieve an end.
“Women good, men bad.”
Ah, the utter tragedy, and injustice, of Nature, of biology–and of the girl and boy thing. Where will it all end? “Where Are All the Female Law Bloggers?” has been getting lots of press–but we can’t figure out why. The…
OK to be fair s/he is a freelancer whose article was published by law.com.
And to be more fair, or fairer, it’s not just an ALM thing. It’s also an AP thing, and an NPR thing (yes it is!), and a local paper thing.
And to be fairest of them all, it is hard to have your story blasted to smithereens by some wonky person on the other side of the screen and/or phone. Deadlines call, editors bitch, so it happens.
But even (especially?) after talking with 100s of reporters over the years, it still tees me off!
“Women good, men bad.”
Ah, the utter tragedy, and injustice, of Nature, of biology–and of the girl and boy thing. Where will it all end? “Where Are All the Female Law Bloggers?” has been getting lots of press–but we can’t figure out why. The…
Hi Scott,
I appreciate your comments and your insights into this article, but I do feel that I need to defend myself, both in terms of points you raise and comments made by others posting feedback.
First, the actual problem stated in my article was that “it seems…that the majority of high-profile legal blogs, whether in academia or the practice of law, are helmed by men.” You talk about me being stuck in the BigBlawg frame of reference, but actually that’s in line with the parameters of the story as I stated in the first paragraph, as evidenced by the adjective “high-profile”.
Second, you seem to feel I overlooked Carolyn Elefant. However, she was both quoted in my article and listed in the sidebar as a notable strong voice. While I personally am familiar with Niki Black, Blonde Justice, and many other female law bloggers, I couldn’t interview all of them for the story due to time and length constraints. In addition, the sidebar article listing strong female voices didn’t purport to be a comprehensive list of all female law bloggers; it was created by asking my sources which blogs they read regularly and by scouring lists of “best” or “top” law blogs. That said, I should point out that Ms. Black and Ms. Liebel are also listed in the sidebar to the article (http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202425020848).
Third, the theories advanced in the article are not mine. I am not a legal blogger and wouldn’t presume to assume I know if or why it’s harder for female legal bloggers to become well-known. The theories were culled from interviews with nearly a dozen law professionals and academics, not all of whom were quoted in the final story. It’s insulting and demeaning to me as a journalist to assume or propagate the assumption that I was just making up my own ideas and finding support for them anywhere I could.
Fourth, I take issue with your assumption that I misinterpreted comments by Kimberly Amick and Mary Dudziak. Those are verbatim quotes taken from interviews. Dudziak was discussing the difficulty of getting reciprocal links, while Amick was advocating networking as a way to try — the operative word in the quote is “trying” — to get links.
Finally, I know that there are good women bloggers out there. I spoke with many of them for this article. The problem is, unless you know where and how to find them, they often fly under the radar. (Try a Google search on “law blog” and you’ll see what I mean.)
To Anne and Joel: I’m dismayed you believe I had an agenda and wrote the story to fit. As with all my work as a freelance journalist, my job — and my approach — is to ask a question and see where it leads me based on the interviews I do. In this case, it led me to the theories proposed and the research available to me within deadline constraints and space considerations. I don’t believe I got anything substantially wrong based on my interviews and research, but if I did I’m happy to correct it.
I’m happy to have you defend your approach, but I’m sticking with my position. If your parameters were to limit your focus to the original Big Blawgs, then you began with invalid parameters and drew inductive conclusions which, as matter of logic, are inherently wrong. As for the theories, you picked them and, by promoting them as having some basis for validity by including them in your piece, endorsed them. You could have stated them and then explained why they were not valid, but you didn’t.
As to the quotes used, I stated that I didn’t doubt the accuracy of your quotes, but your interpretation of what those words meant, or how they fit within the context. As we both know, quotes come as a part of a whole, but whether the quotes capture the import of the whole is another matter.
I don’t challenge your integrity as a writer, and can’t stop others from wondering whether you have an agenda that colored your views, but I can, and do, disagree with the thrust of your post. But I do appreciate your stopping by to explain your views.
I don’t particularly believe that your agenda, whatever it might be, necessarily drove errors (of fact and/or analysis) in your story.
Which is probably why I didn’t say that it did.