White male and american: don't like it? Then sod off.

Jeff Jarvis is squealing like a stuck pig because Steven Levy dared to point out that the blogging A-list is less diverse than the Bush Cabinet. He's had three goes at it so far - 1, 2, 3

This is the way it starts:

First, what's wrong with being a white male? I'm white and male. Not much I can do about it. Not much I want to do about it. I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for it. I'm white. I'm male. I blog. You got a problem with that? Tough.

Jeff and many other respondents just won't deal with Levy's key point: if everyone can blog and its all so wonderful and equal how come the A-list is so predominantly white, male and American. So why is everyone so afraid to answer this question?

Here, from Steve Gillard, is a classic example of the confusion:

White America has a very hard time hearing what non-white America thinks. Why should blogs be the exception?

This guy seriously doesn't get the point. Steve, blogging is supposed to be different to 'old' media. Strangely, a lot of the comments on Jarvis' site also take this 'hey, we're no worse then them' approach.

Jarvis also has a second line of defence along the lines that everyone can blog so old notions of class, race, gender don't matter anymore. At least, not on the blogosphere. Weird stuff. But Jeff, aren't you even just a little perplexed about why the A-list is so similar in its characteristics to the dreaded mainstream media?

But these pathetic efforts pale in comparison to the 'analysis' offered by Kevin Drum who a few weeks ago turned his intellect to the delicate question of why do few women are in the top league of blog political pundits:

So what's up? There aren't any institutional barriers in the traditional sense of the word, which means either (a) there are fewer female political bloggers and thus fewer in the top 30, or (b) there are plenty of women who blog about politics but they don't get a lot of traffic or links from high-traffic male bloggers.

My guess is that it's a bit of both, and the proximate reason is that men are more comfortable with the food fight nature of opinion writing — both writing it and reading it. Since I don't wish to suffer the fate of Larry Summers I'll refrain from speculating on deep causes — it might be social, cultural, genetic, or Martian mind rays for all I know — but I imagine that the fundamental viciousness and self aggrandizement inherent in opinion writing turns off a lot of women. Which begs another question: does this mean that women need to change if they want to enter the fray, or does it mean that the fray needs to change in order to attract more women? As usual, probably some of both.

Unfortunately, the blogosphere, which ought to be an ideal training ground for finding new voices in nontraditional places, is far more vitriolic than any op-ed page in the country, even the Wall Street Journal's, and therefore probably turns off women far more than it attracts them.

Unbelievable. 

Shakepeare's sister gave him what for:

In any case, the discussions of any predispositions toward political blogging that are allegedly unique to women aren’t useful. You just piss us off, and in the process, usually make yourself look like an ass.

Which still leaves us with the question, why? So far one of the best attempts at analysis has come from Chris Nolan.

But we need more analysis of this phenomenon which is limiting the new medium's potential for changing the way we see the world.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Jay Rosen to step up to the plate. Usually, he is so quick to criticise. Bet if he does weigh in, it will be to take his usual elitist swingeing attacks against anyone who doubts the sanctity of the blogging A-list.