Maybe the OS women are better writers. aaaaaaa....

Interesting research, and good read. I don't know the answer to your question. I just think of all writers as writers, and not a specific gender. Good question, though, and I agree with you about the recipes, even though I am a prolific cook. As such, I really don't use recipes. Thanks. R-

This is an interesting observation, and I have a theory or two about why women seem to dominate.

First, I do think that women blog more on this site than men, so they are going to have a much greater share of covers.

Secondly, and at the risk of gender stereotyping, women here seem to be more into the networking aspect of OS than men. It seems like women truly find friendships here, whereas men do not seem as inclined to form a bond with those who read their posts. You therefore have more women reading the posts and rating the works of other women than you have of men doing the same. I may be way off base with this observation, but it's my percepti0n.

Finally, and this is related to both of the above, in our society men are still more likely to be away from the home during the day pursuing their occupation than women. If women have more discretionary time in the house, it gives them more time to be actively involved in an online network like OS.

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with women editors. In fact, I've been noticed more by the current editor than I have in well over a year. I would hate to see this site become one that is overly dominated by a single gender. I would like to see a lot more diversity, especially from male African-Americans and Hispanics of either gender.

Could be more for women, but I do like that there are avenues to reach just one of the sexes or express how certain groups feel on OS.

Also, not everybody on OS responds directly via comments or their own blogs. My audience is guys, and I hear from quite a few via private e-mail, and find that quite understandable.

The "kitchen challenges" started with the arrival of Francis Lam (a guy) at Big Salon, and they are about food-writing , not a bunch of recipes. You know - writing about food, like writing about money and politics and all the other stupid stuff that makes up life. If you think that's a girl thing, you're missing out on some good stories.

Intriguing observations! I hadn't really considered this partly because, frankly, there are so many people here whose genders I don't know. I also do not think there is a real correlation between quality of writing and the cover, though the quality of covers has dramatically increased with the arrival of Emily. That said, I think there are a number of superior posts that do not get the EP nod.

Like you, I value view points, perspectives from a diverse demographic, and would be disappointed to see that narrowed down by any category.

It's a fair question.

Intriguing thoughts. Must be careful on how to respond...

A very helpful piece of data that I don't know is what the female-male overall proportion of OS writers. If 2/3 are women, then the ratios you cite aren't all that surprising or problematic. I just did a survey of my Favorites. The ratio for who I prefer is 54% female, 38% male. (Some were unknown. Lacking genitalia, I'm still uncertain of Freaky Troll's true sex.)

If OS is overwhelmingly occupied by women, is it OK that most topics gear toward women (which I agree is true of the examples you cite)? I don't know. It'd be nice if us guys were thrown a bone once in while.

But this conversation might become more confusing when you consider other imbalances. What about the apparant overwhelming number of white people?

Certainly, OS is mostly for women. I mean... that's why *I* come here. ;)

I'm considering cross-dressing (to into the right frame of mind) and changing my avatar, which right now is in transition from a skateboarding frog to a frog wearing a cape, which is a segue step toward full blown dirndls and the gods know what all else. Last, in certain venues would be the trip to Sweden. Here, however, I may simply change my name to Pat Paust. Ambiguous enuf so that if challenged by a gender patrol I can shrug it off as their mistake.

I don't do fearful things or foodie things well - yet, but I can learn. Cover display means so much to me **bats eyelashes and tilts head coyly** Yeah...I mean, yes, it's a long and screwbally road, but in the end...I just can't wait until I see myself on the cover of the Open Salon! ta-daa dump

I would think fear and food are masculine concerns as well as feminine.

I happen to know a number of men who talk about their fears (only one of the men I'm thinking of is gay, in case you're wondering), and nearly all the men I know are into cooking (my father and both my husbands did most of the cooking - it's a wonder I ever realized that woman's place is supposed to be in the kitchen).

I don't think it's useful to consider gender here. Tho this concern could be looked at from a reverse angle: More likely women editors because it's probably not as high-paying a job as feature columnist on Big Salon? More women blogging here because they haven't got high-paying, demanding careers?

However, I will say that I thought your calm and reasoned approach to the Mehserle mess, with details about tasers and guns, etc., was interesting and should have been featured on the cover to counterbalance the emotional reaction. Still, what you seem to be saying now on that topic was that emotional ("feminine") reaction got more attention than logical, cool ("masculine") approach. That's a dichotomy that may have some validity, but less and less so as women's opportunities achieve parity (except, haha, in the Catholic priesthood). Having known lots of emotional, even 'hysterical' men, I really don't think it's a gender difference. Socialization made it seem so for a long time, but men here write about (and exhibit) emotionalism quite freely, and women like Saturn Smith do cool analytical writing. And Stellaa does cooking and logic with equal facility.

P.S. - And you're asking for it, you realize...

Hm. I wonder if you would say it was a site mostly for men if the ratios were reversed. If, for instance, the last two of three editors had been men or if the male to female ratio of covers were 2 to 1. (I think that a man has been editor for most of the time OS has been in existence, if you wanted to count it that way.) If you look at The New Yorker, as an example, there are rarely more than one or two women with features, but no one considers it a "men's" magazine.

Biblio's got a point.

Never been one to worry about the gender or sexual orientation of those who write.

Procopius writes: "First, I do think that women blog more on this site than men, so they are going to have a much greater share of covers."

I wonder if there is a chicken-and-egg thing. If more men's posts were on the cover, would men be more likely to blog here? The men I know who have departed from OS haven't stopped blogging; they are just blogging elsewhere.

Mumbletypeg writes: " If you think that's [food writing] a girl thing, you're missing out on some good stories."

But around here women seem to respond more to the food open calls than do men. In that limited sense food writing on OS tends to be more of a "girl thing."

Kit Duncan writes: "Like you, I value view points, perspectives from a diverse demographic, and would be disappointed to see that narrowed down by any category."

True that, but it may be that featuring more women writers on the cover is an intentional thing related to business strategy. In saying that OS might intentionally feature more female writers, I don't mean that in a sarcastic or cynical way. I assume that the decisions made on OS -- editor, open calls, cover selections, and so on -- are both intentional and rational. E.g., if a clothing store carries 75 percent women's clothes and 25 percent men's clothes, I assume that the store is responding to the local market, not discriminating against men.

Kit: " I also do not think there is a real correlation between quality of writing and the cover . . . "

I also noticed that and was baffled by that for a long time. And then I noticed that a lot of the high-quality posts that were missed were posts written by men. (Excluding posts written about gay topics by either straight or gay men. Gay topics tend to be featured on the cover, as are the anti-organized-religion and how-I-lost-my-religion posts, written by either gender.)

Skeptic Turtle writes: "A very helpful piece of data that I don't know is what the female-male overall proportion of OS writers. . . . What about the apparant overwhelming number of white people?"

Nor do I know that, in either case.

Mark R. Trost writes: "Yes this site is skewed toward women. But there's not a sinister reason for it. . . . So women’s pieces are more marketable. Women = cashable."

I don't assume that there is a sinister reason for it. It could very well be part of a rational business strategy. That said, if it is part of a business strategy, it would be nice if the site managers just "came out" with it. And then men can decide if this is a venue in which they want to participate. I've been around here since April 2008, and no one ever told me that the site is intentionally skewed toward women. If it is, I'd like to know that. If not, then it would be interesting to know why women's posts dominate the cover.

Mark: "Look at today's piece about protestant pedophiles. The piece is about protestants yet the editor chose to feature a photo of a MALE ROMAN CATHOLIC."

Yeah, I noticed that. I was just thankful they didn't use my picture.

Mark: "Yet whether or not women are featured shouldn't matter."

Well, it does and it doesn't. Cover posts are supposed to be the best of the best, so to speak. If it is in fact not how they are selected, then we should know that. If OS says "look, we're trying to make a living here, and by featuring women's posts on the cover we make more money," I wouldn't have a problem with that. Or maybe it turns out that women are better writers than men, at least here. I think many of us just want to know what "game" we're playing -- what the rules are.

Myriad writes: "More women blogging here because they haven't got high-paying, demanding careers?"

Good question.

Myriad: "However, I will say that I thought your calm and reasoned approach to the Mehserle mess, with details about tasers and guns, etc., was interesting and should have been featured on the cover to counterbalance the emotional reaction."

Thanks. I just figured that my approach wasn't very entertaining and perhaps too emotionally detached for the OS crowd.

Myriad: "P.S. - And you're asking for it, you realize..."

I have very thick skin, and my wounds heal quickly.

Stellaa writes: "So what if OS is female dominated? The rest of the blogging world is male dominated."

The interesting question to me is WHY it is female dominated. If it is because of an intentional strategy on the part of OS, then it would be nice to know that.

Token Tarheel writes: "As you admit to being out of ideas, so too does it seem are the majority of those who have been here for a while . . . "

Yeah, what happened to me is that one day I realized I hadn't posted in a long time. Finally I realized it was because I had nothing more to say. Oh, I throw out the occasional piece like this, but nothing memorable or very interesting to people around here. I have had a small, largely conventional life. I'm not gay, haven't had a sex change operation, haven't met any famous people, and haven't had any remarkable accomplishments. It's just me and my opinions, and most of my opinions aren't worth a post. So I am happy to exist here on the margins.

Token: "I honestly think your suggestion that Salon go on and bite the bullet and convert the site to some kind of exclusive women's forum is their best bet."

It would give the site a defined theme and identity. And I think it's turning into that anyway.

The Biblio Files writes: "If you look at The New Yorker, as an example, there are rarely more than one or two women with features, but no one considers it a "men's" magazine."

But there is a whole social aspect here that doesn't exist at the New Yorker. And my guess is that quality pieces from either gender would be equally considered there. I don't think the same thing happens here.

I think one also shouldn't underestimate that there are probably more women with time on their hands to be on Open Salon than men. Take that for whatever it's worth. It probably does lop the side.

What about the hard on that OS has for PhD's, doctors and lawyers? That hasn't gone away.

I think the name has something to do with it. Most people think the "Salon" in Open Salon is some sort of website where women get beauty tips.

yes. I think it is mostly women. that's my estimation.

as such, because we are the more numerous (my guess) and the more prolific, we should garner the most EPs. Numbers are numbers.

I sometimes get concerned when anyone starts analyzing things along a gender line in a free space for creative people like this. No one is saying that you aren't right or that you are wrong. I am just thinking about this from my point of view. I came here to practice writing and get feedback. I like it when people read my work and say something I grow from it. It has nothing to do with who is commenting, unless they have some ulterior motive that I am too naive to understand. I guess I do have some time on my hands right now and will probably always have some time on my hands. Its the age thing. When I came here I noticed that there were a lot of real writers, new writers, artists, cartoonists, paid contributers, (someone told me that) and some people who just never seem to be satisfied with just writing, they inject a bit or more than a bit of drama now and then. When I feel like it I write, when I need to write something that is burning in me, it can end up here. I like to read. Trust me, I don't check your sex at the door. I hope that you can rediscover something that interests you to write about and contribute some cool stuff to the melting pot of writing here. I welcome more of anyone who wants to join in.

I came here to write, not create too much controversy. I have made that reputation elsewhere politically. I am inspired to write about
my life here, my own fiction, I feel I am on a springboard of creativity. I also tell people if I think they should put their work out there broadly, it if has what it takes to be an op ed piece. I encourage people to be assertive about their point of view, otherwise how do we get to learn or discuss. I hope that you will throw some work up here that makes you proud and we can all enjoy. You did some fine research here, but I am not really sure if what they say is relevant to an artist's work. Segregation of the sexes in art is probably the last place that would really work. However, a men's site might be good, maybe you could start it and test it. Perhaps that is a genius idea. Don't know. Thanks for making me think. Rated for honesty and all that work you did.

Well, I can't speak for the other women writing here, all I can say is I am here to write about something that I have not been able to share in real life because it would have disasterous consequences. And, as a woman, I need to share. My genes demand it. So perhaps that influences what is going on here, too.

Well you sure stepped in it buddy. Good topic for discussion. The fascinating thing is that some commenters are convinced of their "reasons" and yet they are very different.

Prediction - in another year this site will look real different again. When Thomas is doing the pages he changes the right-side four hour feed to 12 hours or 24 or even three days. That limits the exposure of the group here that primarily just likes to bitch at each other - and of course it pisses them off too. Uh oh, now I said it.

Well, duh.

How else you gonna have so many cat fights?

OS is de facto gender biased but not gender exclusive.

I've noticed this as well, Mishima.

I came to see that understanding the audience here at OS is just to understand that you are writing to a majority female community.

I personally don't think it's a bad thing at all. The only thing I dread is your prediction that OS will become a woman's magazine instead of a Arts, Food & Politics magazine (one day).

Interesting.
I'm glad to be pointed in the direction of your article about the verdict, as I have questions about transit police and weapon use. (I'm definitiely Alison somebody btw - but enjoyed being gender free for a few months when I first joined...since then people have thought I was British and/or from Chicago, as well as occassionally mistaking me for someone else. :))

@Mumble

I agree. I see Mishima as one of the highly intelligent members of OS but I would have to also disagree with him as you have that 'foodie' stuff is not a female thing but just a human thing. I myself am not inspired by cooking and food like others are, but I have many friends who are men that just don't ever blog that are 100% 'foodies' and could probably write in length about those topics without ever dropping a recipe. I've actually recommended to most of them to check out this site for just that reason, we could use more male 'foodies' on here to be sure.

Why, yes it is -- which is why I come here. To me, the majority of people here are women, but men's input (and output) is very welcomed.

maybe the only men who make the cover are girly after all.
nah, i am joking! you bring up good points, and i have wondered this myself. i am thinking women are more prolific writers, so the number of posts by women are far greater. i hope your writing gets noticed.

God, I hope not. I'm here for the men...uh, er, writing.

Interesting speculation, Mishima. I think that this line of thinking might be helped out by data from a larger context. We might have the impression that the world of the Internet is male-dominated, but this doesn't hold across the board. For example, social networking Web sites. Facebook users are 55% female, and if you follow the link I've just given to an age breakdown, it shows that largest sex disparity is in the 45-54-year-old group--the age group I'd guess would form a plurality among active OSers--at 61%.

The ratio of female to male cover posts is typically around 2 to 1.

I think that it's reasonable to guess that this ratio of cover posts might reflect the comparable ratio of women to men on OS. If it's close to that of Facebook, then there's really nothing surprising here. (How different is 67% from 61%? Is 61% enough for us to wonder whether Facebook is mostly for women?) As for male bloggers leaving OS, it's a complicated issue, how people spend their discretionary time. And it's not clear to me that more male than female bloggers have left OS.

So, interesting questions, but I'm not sure that any conclusions are justified.

I am not sure that writing can be gendered like that. I was once told that I "write like a man". Still scratching my head over that one...

Interesting, thought-provoking piece. I would like to see more men blogging on OS, just as I would like to see men and women of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. I've only been here since March or thereabouts, so I haven't had time to observe the gender shift you mention. But it could very well be the case that women just blog differently from men, and find OS a convivial place to hang out. A question worthy of attention.

I find the idea of a gender bias on OS disappointing. I recently joined for the opportunity to write and get feedback. I am currently writing from my own experiences and I am a woman, they tend to be "female" experiences. If there is a preponderance of women on OS, why does that have to mean that there is no longer a place for male voices? (Why do I feel like declaring that OS should just "give in" and become a "woman's site" is denigrating the writing that is happening here?) Why does this have to be about gender at all?

Mishima,
I looked at my 11 editor's picks over almost two years and really only one of them could be considered "female":
Baby Bird in my Bra
I have been gone for five months so maybe have a fresh eye. I have noticed that there are lot more personal stories and some salacious ones which are pretty light. However, Procopius and Kent Pitman (two favs of mine) are indeed getting more covers.
How could your brain be empty?

Mishima, I think the issue you raise is a legitimate one. I also think there's a related phenomenon in which the Editor's have unacknowledged favorites. I've spoken on this before and will try not to belabor it, but I wish I knew if the bias was only in the fixed list of people who get preferential cover position or if it was also in the general lottery. Since the two are not visually distinguished, it's hard to know. But those would be structurally very different situations, possibly admitting different cures (assuming one thought anything was broken, which I realize is a subject of dispute as well).

Women dominate OS based on numbers. The notion that unequal outcomes by gender is due to some sort of unfair bias strikes me as far fetched.

OS has its fundamental biases, but that is simply the nature of the place. Generally liberal and politically correct.

People on OS tend to be nicer than most places on the net -- another thing I believe is associated with the majority female participation.

The only example I will cite is the 'dustup' between the positive menstrual people and the child privacy people. When two liberal values conflict, sparks fly. Fortunately, I had no dog in that hunt. Although I would have left the kid's picture out and included a photo of the used tampon. But no one asked me.

Interesting question, which may be difficult to answer. I tend to have the same views as Rob St. A. and Kathy R. above. Perhaps this is attributed to exposure. If you have more people in a certain group (gender, age, political interests, etc.), there is a greater likelihood that pieces/articles from that group get picked for EPs ceteris paribus. For instance, there are very few people who are on the right side of the political spectrum compared to those who have left-leaning views on OS. I do not remember seeing any EPs given to the members of the first group. However, maybe there is a bias towards not selecting articles from right-leaning individuals… I won’t raise the quality of the posts from this particular group here.

BTW, I discussed this with my wife while I was writing the comment and she said that if you believe the particular theory that women have evolved to be more language and communication oriented, then it makes sense that there would be more women bloggers in general. Where she blogs, most are women (this is partly attributed to the topics she writes about).

Kathy Riordan writes: "I think one also shouldn't underestimate that there are probably more women with time on their hands to be on Open Salon than men."

That point of view could have two interpretations: first, that there are more active female members than male members. And second, that women post more frequently than men. Either one could be true, or both.

Poorsinner101 writes: "Ratio of Mishima666's responses to women vs. men is 3.5:1.6"

Alas, I've been out-calculated!

SheilaTGTG55 writes: "You did some fine research here, but I am not really sure if what they say is relevant to an artist's work."

You may have a point. I was a data analyst for over twenty years. So I am always interested when I see trends in numbers. But the trends may ultimately not mean anything.

grif writes: "Prediction - in another year this site will look real different again."

Probably so. It is very different from when I signed up over two years ago.

Stellaa writes: "Frankly, I don't understand why it bothers you and Token."

I notice a certain trend and think that the trend is worth looking at. People have offered various explanations -- more female members, women post more, women network better, OS management wants a site weighted toward female interests and posts, and so on. Which of these are true I don't know. But I'm concerned about the trend. In the future, will OS become a place where men will feel that they have barged into a sorority house?

aim writes: "I'm glad to be pointed in the direction of your article about the verdict, as I have questions about transit police and weapon use."

I don't think anyone can fully understand the situation without looking at such details.

Rob St. Amant writes: "So, interesting questions, but I'm not sure that any conclusions are justified."

Yes, more information is needed before coming to a conclusion.

Mark writes: " If you build it, they will come. You don’t need an EP."

That is certainly the experience of many. But many others built and few came, even for those very talented.

o'stephanie writes: "I looked at my 11 editor's picks over almost two years and really only one of them could be considered "female."

It's not so much that female-oriented topics are favored but that there are a lot more posts by females on the cover. Let me put it this way: it is my impression that if Fred and Mary both wrote identical posts, it would be much more likely that Mary's post would end up on the cover.

Kent Pitman writes: ". . . I wish I knew if the bias was only in the fixed list of people who get preferential cover position or if it was also in the general lottery."

That's a very interesting question. How cover posts are selected has always been a mystery, and the editors aren't talking.

Nick Carraway writes: "Women dominate OS based on numbers. The notion that unequal outcomes by gender is due to some sort of unfair bias strikes me as far fetched."

Not every bias is an unfair bias. As I suggested -- and as some commenters agreed -- it is entirely possible that OS favors female writers for business purposes. If so, that's fine with me, but I would like to know that that's what is happening. I mean, when the cover posts are around 80 percent female, I think it's a fair issue to raise.

Kanuk writes: "However, maybe there is a bias towards not selecting articles from right-leaning individuals… I won’t raise the quality of the posts from this particular group here."

That may be another chicken and egg issue. If conservative posts ended up on the cover, perhaps more conservative writers would post. Or maybe more conservative writers would join, and the quality of conservative posts would improve.

But it's interesting that you commented, because whenever I think of the cover I think of your posts. You've written some terrific posts, especially your posts on health care. Well-written, clear, and important posts, with original ideas and information. And I look at your great posts, some hardly even noticed, and compare it with some of the stuff on the cover, and I can't believe that your posts aren't on the cover. And I am forced to wonder how those cover posts are selected. And I wonder if you were "Ms. Kanuk" if your posts would have been on the cover, and you would have had the readership you deserve.

I agree with Rob that the numbers probably amount to a reflection of the overall ratio of female to male members of OS and that it's difficult to draw any real conclusions. Still, OS does indeed "feel" more female to me, and it also feels like it's becoming more so. I assume that more female members have come and gone than male ones, but for some reason, the male presence seems to have diminished a bit. I say this with regret, as I enjoy engaging with men here and in person. Which is to say that I see a difference in both the style and content between men's and women's writing, both here and in the larger world of publishing. I do not agree with those who suggest that gender is irrelevant. Perhaps it should be, but that doesn't make it so. Frankly, I miss the rather scientific, analytic posts that went round here a couple years ago. Those posts, if they were not written by men, tended to be attended to by them.

Stellaa, your comments suggest that you think Mish's post here is whiny. I disagree. I think he asks an interesting, if ultimately unanswerable, question. And I certainly don't think the worst-behaved OSers have been men. But perhaps it's a matter of preference. I loathe the emotional drama that erupts occasionally here, almost always dominated by women. That they perseverate via their posts on the meta relationships drives me crazy. (To be clear, that is decidedly not you.) And I think you engage in a bit of gender mischief yourself, hinting at the shallow competitiveness of men.

But I agree with your point that the mix of topics plays a role. I'm not sure why--perhaps it has to do with women having had more experience in diverse fields, given their greater likelihood to work part-time or even handle the huge variance of tasks on the homefront--but I think it's true that women have a greater tendency to both write and read about a wider variety of things.

I think everyone else hit on valuable points as well, some that I never thought of.

Mostly, I think the best thing about OS is its variability. Mish, for whatever reason, I don't tend to read any of your posts but I love and respect your thoughtful comments.

Like any magazine, the attitudes and sensibilities of the leadership, the writers and the readership are going to impact the tone of the material. Still, I don't find the Male/Female binary to be the most effective lens via which to come to an understanding of this particular arena. I'd be more interested in a breakdown between baptised Catholics and Satan's minions.

It's pleasantly reminiscent of undergraduate studies. Vive le sexe.

Everything you claimed is true. I believe the membership may actually be close to 75% women and therefore, the front page, etc., is in the correct proportion.

My concern is for the general piling on that goes on the minute there is a post about a man doing something lousy. There is never a mention about "another side" to the story. He is automatically placed in a category of Men Who Will Do That Kind Of Stuff and then, more generally, into the category of MEN.

It is sad to me that there are such negative feelings about men here.

I have recently written to one of the most talented and respected writers on OS. I told her I was concerned with the amount of ill will I see towards men on this site. I also told her that most men I've known are good men but it would seem that most men women know are not.

Further, the majority of men on this site are good men, thinking men, feeling men. But, if one of them steps out of line and writes something decidedly "male," he will be taken to task and perhaps even shunned.

I hope I am not right about this. I hope there are men on here who will continue to be able to write what is on their mind without being scolded. I hope there are enough women on here that can enjoy honest writing from a male point of view without letting their prejudices about men get in the way.

We should all learn from each other.

Thank you for writing this. I hope it opens up a fruitful discussion about your subject.

I find the supporting information offered in this post odd, if not a little bit unsettling. My initial response is, “So what?”

Women only gained the right to vote in 1920. It’s 2010 and they still lack genuine parity in society as a whole.

If women are driving and influencing Open Salon I say more power to them.

The idea of bias or lopsided gender distributions in Cover posts would be almost laughable had it not be raised as a serious point. Fairness regarding the Cover and EP’s has been debated ad-nauseam and really should cease.

Apart from that, Stellaa rightly observed that the issue of readership is self selecting.

From the women I have met and know here at Open Salon, I’ll say without hesitation that men who write well and and publish engaging posts will gain a following.

If such a lopsidedness exists at Open Salon I’m proud to be apart of it. I don’t mind one bit being the one striving after parity for a change.


p.s. I doubt the issue of women writers flourishing here has driven away any serious writer. It’s more likely that the introspective, often ill-mannered inbred nature of Open Salon consistently commenting on itself has influenced that.

Lainey writes: " I don't tend to read any of your posts but I love and respect your thoughtful comments."

Thanks. Then we make a good couple, because I don't post very much!

Lainey: "Still, OS does indeed "feel" more female to me, and it also feels like it's becoming more so."

I know exactly what you mean, but I would be hard-pressed to describe the feeling in words or make a case for it in a formal argument.

Lainey: "Frankly, I miss the rather scientific, analytic posts that went round here a couple years ago. Those posts, if they were not written by men, tended to be attended to by them."

Some of those posts are still around, but no longer featured on the cover and thus harder to find. Some of the ones who wrote those posts are gone. And some who could write those posts don't because they might not play well with a largely female audience. Speaking only for myself, I am very happy if anyone reads my posts, but I don't feel that I have as much to offer to a largely-female audience. For me, it's kind of like speaking to people who have a had time understanding my accent.

D Art writes: "Thank you for writing this. I hope it opens up a fruitful discussion about your subject."

Yes, I think the discussion has been very good. My intention in writing the post was not to give answers but to provide a forum in which the issues could be discussed.

Stellaa writes: "Since I know that Mishima does not shy away from frank debate and discussion, I do find the tone whiny."

Stellaa, I am always happy to address your concerns. By "whiney tone" I assume you mean that the post complains about trivial things, perhaps in a childish manner.

I believe that you think ANY discussion of the selection of cover posts to be trivial. As you say, "it's their playground, as a guest I take the benefits of the traffic."

You see, I believe that attitude trivializes our involvement in OS, and sees us in a subservient position with respect to OS management. The "playground" metaphor indicates that we are children being cared for by the benevolent adults who run the site. Or perhaps you think we are rather like the dogs, spoken of in the Gospels, who eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table, and as long as they let other people read our posts we must be content and not ask any questions.

Concerning my specific post, it doesn't whine about anything. It simply documents a trend and speculates as to the reason. As I stated in the post and comments, it is a trend that may be driven by the demographics of the OS members. Or it may result from a business decision by OS management. Or it could be that cover posts are selected on some other basis. It is a trend and these are questions that others have observed and asked, both men and women, though perhaps I am the first to offer a post.in which these things could be discussed.

Stellaa: " When the men were editors, the same group complained about the ratio of gay friendly posts on the cover."

Some of those posts were of poor quality in my opinion, and their only virtue was that they were on gay topics. If OS wanted to claim that they put "the best" on the cover, then they should have put the best on the cover.

Dennis writes: "The idea of bias or lopsided gender distributions in Cover posts would be almost laughable had it not be raised as a serious point. Fairness regarding the Cover and EP’s has been debated ad-nauseam and really should cease."

And it will cease when OS management finally explains by what criteria posts are selected for the cover. Many of us have asked the question for more than a year, and it remains unanswered.

I guess we all need to assess why we are here and what our aspirations maybe.

As far as the open call challenges, I very rarely write specifically for them. Incidentally, you failed to note that though you have a point about the gender issue it is also of note that these often relate to what would be suitable for Americans to respond to, yet an internet facility should be aiming at something wider than the one nation. (It is part of the WORLD wide web, isnt it?) So, we look at issues here that relate to American independence day, without a thought to the national concerns of those out side America, or the current debates on BP and the gulf, without a thought that for many years there has been international concern that AMERICA has been causing international environmental disasters.

If you read my posts (you all are welcome to come and take a peak) you will find that I am writing from an international experience, bringing in aspects of what has happened in various parts of the globe. Is anyone interested? Probably not a lot from the amount of traffic that comes there, but maybe the whole OS community, including men, needs to broaden their horizons a little.

However, at the end of the day, I am not here for the ratings, nor to see how many editors picks I get. I am here because I have a desire to write. If any of you wish to read what I write then thats a great bonus, if you want to give constructive criticism, good, we all learn from that.

jonmagee writes: " . . . yet an internet facility should be aiming at something wider than the one nation."

Excellent point. But I want to move on to something else you said:

jon: "However, at the end of the day, I am not here for the ratings, nor to see how many editors picks I get."

Yes, I'm sure you're not concerned about all that in a vain or self-centered way. But getting on the cover can be an excellent way to develop a readership -- not a requirement, but very helpful. As your readership grows and you get comments and ratings your posts become even more visible. In that context hoping for ratings and covers is quite reasonable. As Token Tarheel has noted in one of his previous posts the search tools on OS are very primitive, and thus it is difficult to find interesting posts. Cover selections can and should help us to identify the good posts.

There's only one way to end up on the cover, and that is if the editors select your post. If good posts from an international perspective should be featured on the cover -- and I agree they should -- the editors have to do that.

But consider the experience of one OS member living in and writing from Indonesia, Padraig Colman. Padraig wrote great posts, but eventually became discouraged and rarely posts here any more. Here's how he described it:

"I was hoping to use OS as a showcase for my work but I doubt if anyone will be impressed by the downmarket tabloid that the cover has become. There is far too much from YouTube and unoriginal takes on the news or on what the poster happened to see on TV."

So an obvious question is what was selected for the cover instead of Padraig's posts. Here's an example. Two Christmas eves ago the editor selected a "breaking news" post for the cover dealing with Michael Vick, an American football player who was convicted of dogfighting. This post included the following beautiful language: "In short, Vick is a chump ass motherfucker who hardly deserves a prize for courage."

That same Christmas eve here's what Padraig wrote, and what was NOT selected for the cover:

"While NGOs stood wringing their hands or trying to mobilize funds only from international sources, Buddhist temples around the country were the quickest to respond. Those affected by the tsunami rushed into temples where they were received with warmth. These temples along the coast became havens of shelter, not only for Buddhists, but also for Hindus, Muslims and Christians. There are innumerable stories of the incredible generosity of these temples. Monks gave up their robes to bandage victims, looked after their children and babies, fed them from whatever little provisions they had, and comforted them. Illustrative of the genuineness of this response was the remote Eastern province temple of Arantalawa. Here LTTE death squads had once hacked to death young Buddhist monks. Now Arantalawa opened itself to nearly 1,000 refugees, most of whom were from the Tamil community and may well have included the very assassins who had hacked the young Buddhist monks."

It was a great post, inspiring, well-written, and about an international topic. But instead of that the editor selected "chump ass motherfucker."

Thankfully, the new editor is vastly better, and I'll give her credit for that. But I think you can see that cover selections are important, and that poor selections can discourage good writers as well as baffle the readers.

"o'stephanie writes: "I looked at my 11 editor's picks over almost two years and really only one of them could be considered "female."

It's not so much that female-oriented topics are favored but that there are a lot more posts by females on the cover. Let me put it this way: it is my impression that if Fred and Mary both wrote identical posts, it would be much more likely that Mary's post would end up on the cover."

Mishima,
I am surprised that you are suggesting blatant sexism, directed towards males. It is not then a preponderence of topics that women are interested in that makes this seem so? How is the selection of the byline gender a good business decision?

Oh, and the only reason that my one EP post might be considered is that I impy that I am wearing a bra in the title. (In a perfectly chaste manner, I believe.)
This came up before and was handled with some aplomb when we gained Man Talk Now.
I sometimes do not know the gender of a poster or have been proved wrong,, so I mostly discard the gender label in most of my dealings.

o'stephanie writes: "I am surprised that you are suggesting blatant sexism, directed towards males."

I don't know if that's the case. I certainly don't think that the editor wakes up in the morning and crosses men's posts off the list. It's just that, as Lainey says, " . . . OS does indeed 'feel' more female to me, and it also feels like it's becoming more so."

It is difficult to describe the basis of that feeling, but it has to do with the topics of the cover posts, the gender of many of the writers, the open calls, and in general the overall atmosphere. That doesn't mean that there is anything sinister going on. But it is something that some people, men and women are starting to notice. It's not offensive or unwelcoming, but different and noticeable.

I think I understand now. In all truth, I have been gone for several months from OS, so am finding my feet again.
I am, however, wondering about the gender labels--if perhaps another adjective would do? Gender is a very complex concept.
I will pay attention to this now that you have courageously brought it up.
And you say you have no original thoughts! I think this was an excellent and very thought provoking post.
I am also wondering if my male OSers feel constrained in what they write and if they would write different posts if they felt more free to express themselves.

Honestly, the most interesting and thought provoking comment thread that I've read all week, maybe all month.

D Art wrote: I hope there are enough women on here that can enjoy honest writing from a male point of view without letting their prejudices about men get in the way.

I think there are a lot of women here that appreciate writing from a male perspective. There are also, however, a lot of women that will call men on it, when their "male" perspective drifts in to a "sexist" perspective.

If you want to call me not giving a pass to a bunch of guys scratching their asses while ranting on about "knocking off some pussy then dumping the bitch", or similarly offensive sexist pigisms, my personal "prejudice", I guess you've got me. But, dude, that doesn't make it wrong.
.

The most honest comment of the bunch and sums up OS, bigots who don't see their own bigotry.

"I think there are a lot of women here that appreciate writing from a male perspective. There are also, however, a lot of women that will call men on it, when their "male" perspective drifts in to a "sexist" perspective.

If you want to call me not giving a pass to a bunch of guys scratching their asses while ranting on about "knocking off some pussy then dumping the bitch", or similarly offensive sexist pigisms, my personal "prejudice", I guess you've got me. But, dude, that doesn't make it wrong."

i haven't had a post recommended for the last 39 extending for over a year. as far as i can tell it's the record for a serious writer whose been here as long as i have. i don't cook. i thought OS was going to be a place where people discuss ideas. i don't get it. my pm's to the last editor were ignored. i'd go elsewhere but am very thankful for the readers I have and the quality of their work and it doesn't matter to me if they are male or female. i try to be equally attentive and don't suffer fools well of either sex. I fear the woman take more offense then the males when i am direct, and consider a number of women "on-line" friends and fellow writers for whom I have a deep respect. since there is no other reason for doing this than personal gratification and meeting another mind. the whores and pimps who only write for ratings give me gas. i'm incapable of kissing ass. (it's a long standing problem) Rated, commented upon, and long ago befriended. what more can i do?

i thought of something else to do. I PM'd the current editor with my opinion it would have shown class and discretion to pick your post. I hardly bother to edit many of my comments and longer, or to post. I hardly feels worth the effort. the "pink cloud" is gone. I wonder if this is really a viable media, though it has advantages other media don't. Think $.

Mishima and anybody else who is still listening:

I don't think it's just gender. The cover today has four posts up by writers who were listed on the days you made an accounting Mishima. (I didn't check any others) Two of them, fingerlakeswander and luluaphoebe have had three out of their last four posts recommended IN LESS THAN A MONTH. They are good writers and I am not dunning them, so don't get me wrong, but I also don't buy that's a coincidence. Knowing them, I wonder if even they don't find it peculiar. It's hard not to make a case they are receiving preference. RickyB put up a fine "inside Israel" post, as usual, which isn't being selected.

It's hard not to wonder what is going on and to keep writing since it is clearly the case and management or the readership the publication pretends to serve in a particular way (i.e. YOU MAKE THE HEADLINES) isn't taking any responsibility.

Bitches!
I mean... I love the women of OS! The other editor you mentioned is a girl in man's genitalia. As was Kerry...
Yes M, for whatever reason it IS a woman dominated site. The post I put up yesterday was called by Beth Mann "one of the most powerful entries I've read on OS."
Beth knows what makes a good blog. Certainly one of the best of the best contributors. I answered the 'real families' open call (and like you I NEVER participate in those things... cold watermelon artichoke soup... puhlease) but my blogs, as they always are, are ignored by the editors. I've grown to be alright with that. Just do it for my own pleasure, and the pleasure of my many readers... mostly female.

If I only read the cover stories, I'd be missing a lot. I guess I'm not that concerned with who gets most of the OS goodies. The world of writing is much larger than OS, for one thing. Also, I pick and choose and explore and cruise and come up with my own excellent reads. A fair number of them are men (HI TRIG!) and I love their writing for the same reasons that I, well, love men.