Why Don't Women Comment At The WSJ?
I'm a woman and I do, typically on entries about politics or economics, and occasionally, on other topics. But, the other night, while commenting on the piece about what a scumbag Charles (taxes and ethics are for other people) Rangel is, I noticed something that resonated in my head -- every commenter but me was a man. In fact, I think that's the case on most of the WSJ political or economic entries I comment on. All women all shy? Only interested in the price of shoes?
Note: When I went back, there were a actually a few women who'd commented -- like four or five out of 131. So, I wasn't the only woman commenting, just nearly the only one.
Yes, here's an area where there's no law to be passed to have equal rights and equal speech -- all you have to do is type some words in and hit "submit" -- and where are all the ladies?
... where are all the ladies?
Generally speaking, women do not have systematizing minds.
Taking a political or economic position requires systematic thought.
Take a look at the magazine section in your local book or grocery store sometime. Girl brains and boy brains are not interested in the same things.
Hey Skipper at July 28, 2009 12:15 AM
Assuming the core WSJ audience is still traders or financial-sector workers - how many of those are women?
Ben-David at July 28, 2009 1:09 AM
Once upon a time, the League of Women Voters was seen conducting Presidential debates, asking serious questions. Now, political parties have noticed that this is not a good thing. It interferes with their message, "We can give you money!"
Their voice has been largely unheard. It's a sad thing. You could make the case that all of the welfare programs, good and bad, have come about as a result of women voting, yet people ignore a valuable voice about what all government programs cost and do.
Radwaste at July 28, 2009 2:07 AM
Presumably women commenters are only paid 60% of what men commenters are.
Pseudonym at July 28, 2009 5:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/28/why_dont_women.html#comment-1660075">comment from PseudonymHa - funny, Pseudonym!
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2009 5:49 AM
It's a good question. The WSJ does conjure up an image of financial-industry manliness -- imposing classical-style buildings, heavily paneled conference rooms, and such.
Do commenters tend to congregate at blogs where the blogger is of the same gender as the commenter? Seems to me like that's the pattern, but I don't have any data. I'll see what I can find. Here's another question: when you read something, and you can't identify the gender of the author from the name or what's written, what do you assume? When the gender of the author is not identifiable, I tend to assume it was written by a man. Do women tend to assume that an author of unknown gender is a woman? How strongly does this correlate, if at all?
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2009 7:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/28/why_dont_women.html#comment-1660091">comment from Cousin DaveWhen people are named "Rob," "Bob," and "Tom" I assume they're men, although the editor of the Ventura County Reporter is a woman named Michael.
My friend Virginia Postrel began her career at the WSJ, and my mother reads it, Cathy Seipp read it (saw her subscription on the table when I was at her house in the mornings), and it's my favorite paper.
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2009 7:05 AM
> women do not have systematizing
> minds.
All minds are "systematizing". It's kinda definitional.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 28, 2009 8:07 AM
I haven't commented on the WSJ piece not because of where it originated but because the politics in New York sicken me. Albany had been on lockdown for weeks due to a power struggle between the two parties. A Senator I had once admired was part of a coup. Its not the coup I had a problem with. It was who he chose to lead it. He chose two reprehensible men who have no idea that they are where they are to serve anyone but themselves. The Charles Rangel stuff is nothing new. Its business as usual though because it just keeps piling up with him and there are never any consequences just as we have one Senator waiting for a trial for slashing the face of his girlfriend, an attack that was partially caught on video, and another Senator who feels his office is for the sole purpose of raising funds for his own personal use. They were the swing of power that shut down Albany and any work to be done. They are part of the reason our taxpayers were paying millions of dollars each week for nothing to get done. They are the reasons our weak and useless governor ordered them to stay in Albany over the 4th of July weekend where most Senators speaking to the newspapers discussed their bbq plans. I have written all of my local politicians, the local newspapers, and anyone who will listen. My lack of comments are not because I am a woman but because I have been directing efforts regarding this elsewhere although I will concede that it is not likely to get me anywhere. I cannot answer for the rest of the ladies, but that is my excuse. I am not naive enough to believe that we live in a rose colored world. I have met some of these politicians though and I've met some of their families. Whether I always agree with their politics is not the point. I have a reasonable expectation that they were elected to do a job and that if they don't do it they should be thrown out of office. Charles Rangel is just the tip of a very big iceburg here in NY.
Kristen at July 28, 2009 8:11 AM
>>Do commenters tend to congregate at blogs where the blogger is of the same gender as the commenter?
Cousin Dave,
I don't think I pick blogs by gender BUT - to my own considerable irritation - I have several times blindly assumed a neutral-sounding commenter was a man, not a woman - and never the other way around.
A slightly less subjective objective. Metafilter is, on the whole, left leaning with tons of female commenters.
But almost without exception, when a casual mistake is made about the gender of a writer, it's the same deal; a male writer is the default assumption.
(I know why I don't bother with the WSJ. The writers, in the main, are a bunch of brians! As in Amy's brian. People who are often smart about the facts, even nimble in their analysis - but come to pigshit-thick Republican conclusions.)
Jody Tresidder at July 28, 2009 8:18 AM
Fuck it: "A slightly less subjective objective"??
I meant to write "observation....". Sorry.
Jody Tresidder at July 28, 2009 8:21 AM
Excuse me? What the fuck are you on about?
Can you honestly tell me that analyzing things in a factual manner with no concern for the outcome will ever lead to "good Democratic conclusions"?
I can assure you that you will not. Progressive "thought", such as it is, is made up of unicorn farts and Skittle rainbows.
That you view "Republican" conclusions as some sort of insult tells me that you find the very act of thought repugnant.
brian at July 28, 2009 8:37 AM
>>Excuse me? What the fuck are you on about?
Brian,
Don't fret. Take the earlier compliment - even if it's not worth much:)
Jody Tresidder at July 28, 2009 8:50 AM
Compliment? This by you is a compliment? It's like saying "But she has a nice personality."
And dismissing the conclusions of a significant portion of the country as "pigshit-thick" is hardly in the same category of "faint praise".
Right now, we have a government set to spend us into oblivion, and the analysis of the CBO is being ignored because it doesn't fit The Narrative™.
The WSJ is the only major news source to buck this trend, and they are accused of "reaching pigshit-thick Republican conclusions" as though the political correctness of a conclusion ought to even be an issue.
brian at July 28, 2009 8:59 AM
Jody
I don't want to start a flame war, but I want to ask you a question.
What part of "Don't needlessly insult another person's opinion" do you not understand?
How does the comment "Pigshit-thick Republican Conclusions", further either this debate, or any opinion as to the validity of your thoughts?
Besides, how is insulting others, "Playing Nice"?
Thomas at July 28, 2009 9:10 AM
Thomas - it's not the insult per se that I object to. I insult people's opinions all the time.
But I prefer those insults to have more to them than a game of "Yo Momma". These issues are too important for that.
We have a Congress full of people who give every appearance of being retarded. They are debating bills that none of them have even read. And when people find out what's in them and ask about the details, the response is something along the lines of "Yo momma. Oh, and shut up."
And Jody has taken the measured conclusions from an analysis of data and dismissed them, not as faulty, or as factually incorrect, but because they represent the wrong political worldview.
brian at July 28, 2009 9:23 AM
Wow, that pigshit comment tops them all. I agree with Brian, that moron in the whitehouse, coupled with that moron Pelosi in the house, and Reid in the senate, has set up the perfect storm for the glue sniffers who voted for buzzwords like hope and change. 6 months in and we have already written enough bad chacks that our great great grandkids will be paying off. And somebody here seriously doesn't see this as "bad". This country is at the abyss and needs to pull back from the unicorn and rainbow followers in charge
ron at July 28, 2009 10:08 AM
So Brian when do you expect those fine folks in leadership positions to read? I mean they are all very busy working on staying where they are and trying promote one or two of their own pet ideas. I have heard that almost all of them rely on staff to actually read and write stuff and to provide quick summaries of what they are supposed to think. Of course the real fun is most of these staff members are just out of college and have to work very long hours to try to keep up with the load. The fun result? Much of what our government does is the product of tired twenty-somethings (lots of energy but not much experience).
Jim at July 28, 2009 10:51 AM
I have commented on the WSJ before. It was dimaying how long they took to post the comments and how quickly they used to close some topics. I suspect all those women who don't post there are the ones whose economic knowledge dictated their vote for Obama. They probably don't understand the WSJ and dont read it. I have an online subscription.
Isabel1130 at July 28, 2009 11:18 AM
Simple solution - if you don't have time to write it, or you don't have time to read it, then you don't vote on it.
If our so-called representatives do not have time to actually represent, then they ought not be there.
The problem, I think, is a critical disconnect. The politician perceives that his job is to pass laws, and therefore has dozens of employees whose sole job is to create laws for him to present for passage.
Which means that a lot of ideology-addled youngsters are crafting policies they do not comprehend that are to be imposed upon people that they do not know by people who do not care.
I don't see how this is a recipe for a happy outcome.
Perhaps we should return to the colonial method - the Congress meets for a short time every year, considers the most basic items that are important to the continued function of the republic, and goes back home to find honest work for the remainder.
brian at July 28, 2009 11:36 AM
All minds are "systematizing". It's kinda definitional.
As well as being relative.
Relatively speaking, male minds systematize more than female minds.
The answer to Amy's question is staring everyone in the face. Look at the contents of magazines, and their target demographics.
Any guesses as to the M-F ratio for subscribers to The Economist?
Hey Skipper at July 28, 2009 12:03 PM
There's a well established gender gap in political knowledge. A common comparison that you'll see used is that the average woman's political knowledge is approximately one major education level below the average man's. So a college educated woman will tend to have the political knowledge of a high school educated man, a female post-grad will compare to a undergrad male etc. This apparently holds regardless of education. Though there are of course many exceptions.
So it's not surprising that women may participate less in political forums, or stick to political forums where there is less oppositional debate.
Jack at July 28, 2009 12:04 PM
brian,
Basically, part time politicians. Add in term limits and I think you would be on to something. Lets throw in, that there has to be a vote by the people on any pay raises for members of congress as well. At that point, it can get back to being meritocracy that gets people a raise, not simply being elected.
Lets also do away with the amendments to a bill that have nothing to do with the proposed subject matter of said bill. Get rid of the pork.
Honestly, how do you read a 1300 page bill in 1 day before voting?
E. Steven Berkimer at July 28, 2009 1:12 PM
>> Relatively speaking, male minds systematize >> more than female minds.
>>> ...Look at the contents of magazines, and >>> their target demographics.
Reminds me when the teachers, family members and adults in my life use to tell me "boys are better at math than girls. Boys are better at science than girls. Boys do the bills and go to work, and girls stay at home and raise babies and clean the house". I can't imagine what life would have been like *knowing* how utterly ridiculous those comments were earlier than a few years ago.
Granite, I came from a culture where these things were the traditional value system but it still amazes me how grown adults can say these things with a straight face. Yours was a softer way to put it, but the same thing -- different paint job.
And as far as magazines. I've never bought one of those you’ve mentioned past the age of 18. I wonder how much that has to do with societal conditioning vs. "systematizing" of brains.
I also think it is worth noting that women firefighters or police officers (or similar physically demanding occupations) who haven't been able to physically perform to the level of men shouldn't get a job in that field...but that is something entirely different.
Okay, fine, you hit a button. But the fact that women's brains somehow work different than a mans (in your specific example) is idiocy.
Feebie at July 28, 2009 4:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/28/why_dont_women.html#comment-1660216">comment from FeebieBut the fact that women's brains somehow work different than a mans (in your specific example) is idiocy.
Men's and women's brains do work differently in many instances.
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2009 4:57 PM
>>Men's and women's brains do work differently in >> many instances.
Agreed.
In his specific example, regarding finances and politics and *how many women post about it* (and not to forget, relative to magazine demographics), I think that has more to do with societal conditioning than of a systematizing function of the brain relative to gender.
My bone of contention is not that genders are not different, (females geared towards empathy and nurturing, men like to build things and blow shit up) rather, it is the access to certain information that is necessity to create wealth and gain individual financial independence is not as highly expected of females in society ("You'll just get married and have a man provide for you") as it is with men, therefore, women are not *choosing* to learn about these things as much as they would if these expectations were neutral.
We weren't talking about HOW women were responding on these blogs...it was more or less to point out the absence of their postings.
THAT has little to do with systematizing. I was working off his example.
Feebie at July 28, 2009 5:18 PM
I wish I'd linked this during the toilet discussion.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 28, 2009 7:43 PM
Feebie:
Okay, fine, you hit a button. But the fact that women's brains somehow work different than a mans (in your specific example) is idiocy.
If it is idiocy, then it has a lot of evidence behind it.
At least 75% of Economist subscribers are male. No one turns women away, nor are they charged more for the magazine than men.
Take a look at the credits for a Pixar film. There are a fair number of women listed, but almost none in the systematizing (i.e., software and hardware) end of the production.
Women do not read Road & Track, and could scarcely care less about systemic details such as torque, horsepower, spring rates, and so infinitely forth.
Now, one explanation for this is that women aren't doing, and reading, such things because "... it is not as highly expected of females ..." There are two problems with that. First, it reduces women to the role of passive victims. Second, and more disturbingly, it presumes humans are blank slates.
They are not.
One of the many differences is that women do not systematize to the same degree as men, and because they don't, women do not blog on political (or computer, or car) subjects anywhere near as often as men.
Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.
Hey Skipper at July 28, 2009 8:34 PM
See also - why your boyfriend doesn't notice that his house stinks, and those socks on the floor will remain invisible until he runs out of clean ones.
brian at July 28, 2009 8:58 PM
See also also -
Put a man and a woman into a room for sixty seconds. Take them out, and ask them to describe the room.
I guarantee you will get very different results with few exceptions.
We call these exceptions "outliers".
brian at July 28, 2009 9:02 PM
>> First, it reduces women to the role of passive victims.
Notice my second post. I pointed out they weren't "choosing" to learn, read..etc. I don't play the victim card, but you didn't present it in a very nice, thoughtful or fair fashion (and thus my ire) and you pointed to "silly magazines" as evidence that they lack systematizing skills (we are "less than" silly little book readers - just cuz).
The question was...Why are they NOT posting...not how.
Not quality of the posts, not emotive arguments in the post, not substance or organization...it was their absence of posts.
>>First, it reduces women to the role of passive victims. Second, and more disturbingly, it presumes humans are blank slates.
Look, they do it to themselves by *choosing* not to learn - but it still doesn't mean societies encouragement of men and women's participation in these areas is neutral.
I don't believe humans are blank slates, nor should they be. Not asking for a leg up, not asking for pitty, not asking for an unfair advantage or to bring *the man* down..not asking for anything but acknowledgement that with respects to financial independence and creation of wealth, it is not a value that is as highly encouraged to be obtained for females as it is for males, thus, fewer women post on these subjects.
If these things were neutral, I am quite sure we would see less women fighting tooth and nail for alimony payments.
Feebie at July 28, 2009 9:03 PM
If 'systematize' means to bring into order by methodical organization, then no. If 'systematize' means to combine functional elements to work coherently towards a goal, then no.
Brains are inherently systems, but not minds. A brain can function perfectly coherently according to physics, and yet produce an unsystematic mind. A brain is not a mind. A composite is not the action of the composite. And aggregate is not the action of the aggregate. De dicto is not necessarily de re. I can't believe I have to explain this to a a genius like you.
Mostly, we use 'systematizing' as a comment on degree not kind. Then, to say one lacks a systematic mind means one is less systematic than expected or in comparison. Crid, you do this often, take a matter of degree and treat it as a matter of kind, obliterating convention and common sense. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.
You speak often of cocktail parties and Martinis. Don't drink and think.
At various times, you've claimed to possess the solution to the problem of the criterion, the status of unobservables, the solution to the primary-secondary quality question (there are no secondary qualities!), and other vexing philosophical problems. I guess you solved the mind-body problem, too. Next, you'll be pronouncing on P vs. NP. Can't wait for the solution! We really need an answer about the Mass Gap. Can you turn your systematic mind to it, pretty please.
We need the help, crid. But don't let me interrupt y'all's cocktail party. Wouldn't want to kid you all, either.
Now, onto the matter. When women lose their speech by a stroke, they almost always get it back. Men never do. MEn have a more specialized brain organization. then at the macro level, perhaps men's brains are more systematic. However, it's not at all clear what this means for minds. We do not yet know how brains host minds. Only crid knows that.
Jeff at July 28, 2009 9:16 PM
I don't play the victim card, but you didn't present it in a very nice, thoughtful or fair fashion (and thus my ire)...
That women do not systematize to the extent men do is a brute fact. It is neither thoughtful or thoughtless, nice or mean, fair or unfair, it just is.
Also, I did not point to "silly magazines". That characterization is your own. What I did assert is that the commenting on the WSJ requires a certain degree of interest, which also implies background knowledge. There are NO magazines targeted at women that cover that territory. In fact, I'll bet you can't name a magazine, or anything similar, that both contains systematic knowledge, and is targeted primarily at, or read by, women.
There is the answer to Amy's question. Women are, in general, not interested in systematic knowledge, and, as a consequence have little to go on and scarcely any motivation to do so when it comes to commenting on the WSJ.
For the same reason, women car mechanics are thin on the ground, and if something is broken or needs building, it is almost always going to be a man that does it.
Hey Skipper at July 28, 2009 9:34 PM
>> it just is.
I said the way you presented it.
Yes, interest and knowledge. I am not disagreeing with you.
What I am saying, is that if these things were values set equally for females in society you would see more *participation and interest* on these blogs.
Feebie at July 28, 2009 9:57 PM
Youse guys are fighting the good fight with each other. Good luck to all of you... Kill, kill, kill. (Especially Feebie, because Skipper's being a numb-nuts agitator again.)
Here's my theory: It's human nature than in any society, men and women will exhibit different character traits. The fact that these traits may be flipped in one culture and flopped in another does not therefore mean that sex differences are 'just cultural', or that we get to choose which way these distinctions will be expressed... It's not evidence that the brutal, compassion-less man has his boot on the sister's throat.
I really, really wish women (in particular) could understand this. Not everything in human nature is up for grabs. Many, many, many of our problems are from nature, not policy. Women (in particular) want to believe that once we're all feeling the same thing, we're all kind of the same person, in a Enya-lyric kind of way. (This is the kind of feminism where we're all wearing chiffon in front of a window fan being filmed at 300 frames per second, we're all vegetarian, no angry sex, toilet lids are always down, no peanut butter knives the sink, etc.)
Wrong planet!
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 28, 2009 10:19 PM
See, that's why I like you Crid. I completely agree...and no invalidation was necessary (ahhhem, skippy).
Feebie at July 28, 2009 10:33 PM
What I am saying, is that if these things were values set equally for females in society you would see more *participation and interest* on these blogs.
I understand that is what you are saying. However, you are presuming as true that which is at stake, and which the article crid linked directly contradicts.
Society is people, not some imposition from on high. There are M-F traits that are invariant across societies. Amy has picked out the evidence of just one of them.
BTW, who sets the values in society, other than the people who make up the society?
Hey Skipper at July 28, 2009 10:36 PM
Skipper - The article Crid linked, and as he stated above did not invalidate a set group of people based on differences or particular personal preferences with respects to their sex.
Using the specific example of women's magazines (which are ridiculous rags that indulge women in liberal victimhood and dependency...and their overuse of the word "canoodling" can send me into dry-heaves instantaneously) as indicia that women don't post in the WSJ was a back handed way to state your particular point.
Feebie at July 28, 2009 11:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/28/why_dont_women.html#comment-1660272">comment from Crid [CridComment@gmail]does not therefore mean that sex differences are 'just cultural', or that we get to choose which way these distinctions will be expressed... It's not evidence that the brutal, compassion-less man has his boot on the sister's throat. I really, really wish women (in particular) could understand this. Not everything in human nature is up for grabs. Many, many, many of our problems are from nature, not policy. Women (in particular) want to believe that once we're all feeling the same thing, we're all kind of the same person, in a Enya-lyric kind of way.
Absolutely agree, Crid. I study human nature every day -- and not just speculating on it, but reading data, and Crid is right. It's a good deal of what I write about in my column. For the column I sent out today (not in the papers yet), I talked about female choice. Women are choosier than men because they have a higher potential cost for any sex act (Daly and Wilson: "eggs are expensive"). A woman can get knocked up for nine months and then have a mouth to feed. A guy can have sex with 40 women and walk away from all of them. It isn't gay men who are promiscuous -- all men are. It's just that hetero women won't play along.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2009 12:27 AM
Yeah— This is why heterosexual aids never happened.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 29, 2009 6:30 AM
what Amy said. What crid said, too. But, for the record, I don't like his tone.
Jeff at July 29, 2009 9:36 AM
They don't see the point in getting into useless arguments with a bunch of asshats?
nonegiven at July 29, 2009 10:54 AM
I subscribe to a mailing list for professional & serious amateur conchologists. Most of the posts go into obsessive detail about the taxonomy, anatomy, and biology of seashells. Now here's a field in which you'd expect women to have only a superficial, aesthetic interest - "Oh look at all the pretty seashells!" - but the list is owned by a woman, and women, while still definitely in the minority, contribute to the discussion at a much higher rate than they do to the WSJ comments. There've been plenty of brilliant systematic female minds in conchology since long before anyone ever heard of Gloria Steinem. Carlotta Maury wrote the definitive treatise on the shells of the Gulf of Mexico in 1922, Ida Oldroyd did the same for the shells of the west coast of North America in 1924, Myra Keen wrote a masterwork, still in print today, on the shells of the tropical Pacific coast of the Americas in 1958, etc etc. The pool of shell nuts is a lot smaller than the pool of WSJ readers, but the barriers to entry for WSJ commenters are much lower. Any jackass can skim the article & write the first thing that pops into his head, and plenty of them do.
Not denying the universal trend here, or the obvious fact that men's & women's brains are wired differently. Just giving an example of what women can do when they choose to put their minds to it. If I wanted to draw grand sweeping conclusions about the nature of the female mind, the male monopoly on WSJ comments is not the first thing I'd look to for evidence.
Martin at July 29, 2009 11:25 AM
Feebie:
I was not "invalidating" a certain group of people, and the example of women's magazines was exactly on point.
Women are in the minority on the WSJ blogs, or others like it, because far fewer women than men systematize knowledge. It isn't a matter of choice or culture, it is a consequence of evolution.
That women's magazines are categorically different than men's magazines is a point in evidence of that assertion. It is a fact and nothing more. That you find it backhanded is something you added on your own.
I find it astonishing that the same people who believe in evolution somehow conclude that it stopped at the neck. Yet that is precisely what is required to conclude that differences in what interests men and women is due to "society".
Hey Skipper at July 29, 2009 11:56 AM
"Yeah— This is why heterosexual aids never happened."
The majority of AIDS victims have been heterosexual from the very beginning of the epidemic down to the present day. But even so that supports your argument, since it was marital infidelity and priostitutes that spread the disease.
Jim at July 29, 2009 3:08 PM
Oh, gee. Grace Hopper was (is?) the senior name in computer programming.
I bet you can't out-fly Mary Gaffney or Patty Wagstaff or out-fight Laila Ali, either. Danica McKellar can probably calculate anything faster, too.
There are exceptions to any rule. They serve to illustrate potential, not the mean.
I found the members of the LWV exceptional. Few know about them. More know about Victoria's Secret models. This means they are clearly more important.
Radwaste at July 29, 2009 3:14 PM
Jim, I've been told by people in the industry that the majority of hetro AIDS victims contracted it from blood transfusions. It may not be true anymore, but it was definitely true as recently as ten years ago. There was a bad problem with the blood supply prior to about 1990; people don't realize how close it came to becoming a national emergency.
Cousin Dave at July 29, 2009 6:54 PM
> The majority of AIDS victims have
> been heterosexual from the very
> beginning of the epidemic down
> to the present day.
In the United States? In my (our) cohort? Heterosexuals infected through heterosexual contact?
(Reading on: Cousin spots the issue)
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 29, 2009 7:29 PM
Rather than research Jim's insinuation, I'll let him cough up his own numbers... But I'd guess that this has something to do with what he's saying.
(Apologies for re-re-re-posting the link all these times over the years, but it's worth reading. As Amy recently noted, "All Cultures Are Not Equally Squishily Wonderful".
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 29, 2009 7:50 PM
I used to comment on the WSJ on a regular basis but I stopped for a couple of reasons. One, it just seemed like a boys club and two, I'm so digusted with the government, Federal, State and Local,and with Wall Steet that I've gone a little John Galt.
I am still a daily WSJ reader and I've had a subscription since university.
For the record I do read women's fashion magazines, because I need to follow fashion trends for business, not because I find the articles interesting.
I'd rather read blogs by women, like this one. And I miss Cathy Seipp's blog.
belle de ville at July 29, 2009 10:13 PM
"no angry sex"
Well fuck THAT!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 30, 2009 11:54 AM
Leave a comment