Another not-very-balanced day at Guardian Letters HQ:
Is it because there are no gender-related topics today?
Boz was playing devil's advocate the other day by asking me what proportion of commenters on this blog were male and what proportion female. I can confirm that so far I have had 10 male commenters and seven female commenters - a ratio of 59% to 41%, although it's a bit early to start the whole woolly business of percentages.
I think Boz was trying to establish whether men are more inclined to comment on things in general, which would lead to a naturally greater preponderance of male-authored letters on the Guardian's letters page.
BUT, my main objective isn't to establish whether there's a gender bias on the Guardian's letters page, although that's a necessary part of it. This isn't a feminist enquiry (I am a feminist, but I really hope I'm not the whingeing sort) so much as an enquiry into the way the media works, the way it views its audience, the way it views its own role in catering to that audience, and the way it views the new, more democratic technologies of the web. Stuff that I find fascinating.
So, as an experiment, I'm taking specific issue with something the Guardian's letters editor said about the function of the letters page versus the function of allowing readers to comment online on articles and CiF blog posts.
Specifically, he said that the Guardian letters page provides a service to Guardian readers that is lacking in the online commentary. The implication is that the role of the letters editor is to select the high-quality correspondence and filter out the rubbish, something he says Guardian readers are too 'busy' to do for themselves.
Obviously, that process involves silencing many voices by not selecting them for publication. My thesis (yet to be proved or disproved - I'm just gathering data here) is that female views are less likely to be selected for representation on the letters page than male views. Online, though, all views (apart from the really rude and abusive ones) are given equal space.
And if female views are silenced on the letters page but allowed to be aired online, can the letters editor really say he is providing a valuable service to his readers when 43% of them are women?
7 comments:
So shouldn't you be comparing your results to the male/female ratio of comments on CiF / Guardian articles posts?
If there is a similar male bias on these then you could argue that the Guardian letters page is providing an unbiased service to its readers.
If you see what I mean.
Far too many CiF commenters are of ambiguous gender, James.
Yes, it would be impossible to determine. At least with the letters page you can be reasonably confident that people are writing under their own name.
But in any case we *know* there isn't a bias online, because everyone (apart from the very rudest and most abusive) is allowed to comment.
The only real question is what proportion of letters to the editor are from men and what proportion from women. If there are many more from men, then it stands to reason that men are represented in far greater numbers on the letters page.
"But in any case we *know* there isn't a bias online, because everyone (apart from the very rudest and most abusive) is allowed to comment."
Yes but it is not about whether people are allowed to comment, but whether they do comment that is important. Everyone one is allowed to write a letter, but how many people actually do. In a nutshell are men more likely to feel the need to voice their opinion publically than women.
Your conclusion to your project kind of rests on what the male/female ratio of letters that are sent to the Guardian is and unless you befriend the Guardian postal boy, I thought the CiF/article commenter's might give you a 'best guess'.
Although arguably you are not comparing the same thing as I believe CiF commenting can be quite a hostile place, because everyone has a opportunity to shoot you down, which is less so on a letters page. Which may distort the male/female ratio.
So in short I think if CiF commenter's shows an approx 50/50 split I think it could add weight to any conclusion you make. If it isn't near 50/50 (which I strongly suspect it isn't) then there are plenty of ways you can rubbish that assumption.
Yes, sorry James, I realised afterwards that that was what you meant. It's very interesting and relevant to look at whether men are more inclined to express themselves in public than women.
We're usually given to believe that women are less fond of expressing themselves publicly, but at the same time, it's now well proven that the split of male to female bloggers is almost equal. Which suggests to me that women *are* just as inclined to air their views in public.
I am hoping to collar the Guardian's letters editor one day to ask him about the gender split, but unless he actually counts the letters (I very much doubt it), I think he won't know exactly what it is, although he'll probably have an idea of it.
This gives me a good intro into tomorrow's post, though, so thanks for that!
Boz was probably just being awkward and difficult - because he can be like that - and should like to make it clear he thinks this is *fascinating*. Do you know how long you're going to collect data for??
Boz: No offence meant at all, I'm all in favour of people playing devil's advocate. Erm, I'll probably be collecting data until I get bored or until I give birth, whichever comes sooner. The Blue Kitten isn't due for another four months, though...
Post a Comment