Attracting Readers:
Sex and Audience in the Blogosphere

Silenced by Sexuality: Sex, Attraction, and Women’s Participation

On the Weblog Right Wing News, John Hawkins encapsulates a somewhat extreme version of the argument about women’s use of sex in their blogging:

So while women can be successful in the blogosphere without ever showing a pic or mentioning sex, if you’re a female blogger and you’re attractive, you’ll get more traffic if you post your picture on your page. And if you’re so inclined to talk about sex, hey why not? It’s only going to bring in more visitors . . .

“But John, but John, that’s so unfair!”

The reality is that most men enjoy being around &/or being flirted with by pretty women—even in the cyber world—and you need to just accept it. Being surprised that’s the case is like being upset that your dog enjoys chasing a ball or chewing on a bone more than going to the opera. That’s how it is, was, and will probably always be and if you’re shocked or angry about it, you have the problem, not the dog.¹

While Hawkins by no means represents all male bloggers, his view is shared, and stated, by other men in the “where-are-the-women” threads when the subject of sex is raised. Here, (hetero)sexuality’s place in blogging is as natural as a dog with its bone. However, Hawkins’ uncritical treatment of the issue of sex and attractiveness, while crudely put, represents another common assumption in the blogosphere: Flirtation and the expression of sexual desire, provided they are unthreatening, are both acceptable; after all, bloggers are human beings with urges, and Weblogs are spaces for the free expression of thought, with nothing off-limits. Men and women are free to write about sex and to respond to others’ writing about sex. As a consequence, however, women’s full and uninhibited participation in blogging can be lessened. As examples of this inhibition, I turn to examples from the Weblogs of political science professor Daniel Drezner and Washington Monthly professional blogger Kevin Drum.

On three occasions, Drezner posted photographs of women on his Weblog, DanielDrezner.com: actor Salma Hayek, Miss Afghanistan 2003 Vida Samadzai, and Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Veronica Varekova. He discussed their attractiveness, and other men left comments on the posts agreeing with him. In March 2004, in response, Laura McKenna wrote at her Weblog, Apt. 11D:

After surfing around for a while amongst the big shot bloggers, they did seem to link only to each other a lot. I rarely saw a link to other women. (Allison Kaplan Sommers [sic] recently posted that maybe her latest pregnancy would get her linked by Instapundit, since nothing else she wrote seemed to get her noticed.) The pictures of Salma Hayek or Miss Afghanistan weren’t offensive, but it did set up a Maxim atmosphere. There is a fraternity amongst the current events bloggers that does, inadvertently I’m sure, exclude women.²

McKenna is not the only woman to use the “fraternity” metaphor to describe the political blogosphere. Another common metaphor for it is “locker room,” neither of which is particularly inclusive. I would add that it is significant that McKenna posted these thoughts on her own Weblog—her own space—and not as a comment at Drezner’s Weblog. However, a woman calling herself “Cali (girl)” did leave a comment at Drezner’s Weblog, which reads:

I think what puts some women off from Dan’s blog is the occasional racy pictures or comments about sexy women, or the like. Now, it’s not outrageous. In fact, racy is probably too strong a word. But after reading/seeing, in a short time period, the pictures of the Sports Illustrated woman and the Selma (sic) Hayek in red, I just felt that Dan seems to be writing JUST for men at times. Which is fine, I’m not judging. Just saying that it makes me go to other sites for the economics stuff I used to come to this site for, because I’m not sure when he’s going to be doing his just for men stuff.³

This comment left on Drezner’s Weblog by a woman posting under the screen name “adoherty” also suggests that the photographs make some women less inclined to participate in the conversations under his posts:

[Drezner] says “Maybe it’s because of posts like this one [which links to the photograph of Varekova]” but then notes that he hasn’t received any objections. Well, this particular female lurker wouldn’t object, because it’s his blog & he can say & post whatever he wants to. “Posts like this one” do, however, create a sort of boys’ club-house atmosphere that contributes to my disinclination to speak up.⁴

Taken together, these two comments are very illuminating. Given the nebulous, silent presence of lurkers, it is difficult to claim with any validity that the element of sexual attraction in blogging does or does not deter women’s participation, or to specify to what degree. Further, both women here emphasize that it is Drezner’s prerogative to say what he wants on his own Weblog; the importance of individual freedom and decreased presence of community norms could be a reason that expressions of sexual attraction are not criticized more strongly in political blogging. Still, while many exceptions exist to the contrary, I would argue that most bloggers want both to have individual freedom and to create multiple forums (their own Weblogs and those at which they comment) of open participation, unconstrained by exclusionary practices, however subtle.

At Drum’s Weblog, a reader with the pseudonym “SSJPabs” (2004) writes,

I’m going to be really annoying and chauvinistic and non-liberal about this because I FEEL like it…

…are they hot? Do they have pictures of themselves on the site? Wonkette is INFINITELY more interesting because she’s got a decent-to-good rack. That’s what I want to know.⁵

True, this comment could easily be read as a joke, but a reader with the pseudonym “Eukabeuk” responds, “basically, it’s a sad truth that *most* men don’t give a damn what women think unless they have a nice rack. It’s the perpetual presence of comments like these that drive women away from this type of forum.”⁶ Far from being a social difference that can simply be bracketed, the female body is conspicuous in the blogosphere, and its presence can be disruptive. While women can—and sometimes do—obscure their gender by using gender-neutral pseudonyms, women who participate as women can expect, if not harassment, at least some flirtation: agreement with and praise of their words with the added acknowledgement of their physical attractiveness, reminders that they are different.⁷

1. J. Hawkins, “Tweaking Delicate Feminist Sensibilities in the Blogosphere,” posted to Right Wing News, April 22, 2004, http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.PHP#001965 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
2. L. McKenna, “Why Don’t More Women Have Political Blogs?,” posted to Apt. 11D, March 12, 2004, http://apartment11d.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_apartment11d_archive.html#107913704556492034 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
3. Cali (girl), comment at “Blogs, Politics, and Gender,” posted to DanielDrezner.com, March 11, 2004, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001151.html#012336 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
4. Adoherty, comment at “Blogs, Politics, and Gender,” posted to DanielDrezner.com, March 11, 2004, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001151.html#012336 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
5. SSJPabs, comment at “X Chromosome Blogging,” posted to Political Animal, June 3, 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004066.php#186162 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
6. Eukabeuk, “X Chromosome Blogging,” posted to Political Animal, June 4, 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004066.php#186329 (accessed November 5, 2005). [↩]
7. I recently received the following message via e-mail: “Okay, so I’m reviewing a manuscript for publication and I’m not sure if the author is using performativity correctly and I hate unnecessary critical jargon and when I google I find your blog. Today’s musical question: what’s better than a smart Ph.D. candidate? One that’s really cute and hot. Carry on. In Vino Veritas, [name omitted].” I get e-mails like this every few weeks. [↩]