To John Andrews:

I gave the link that statistic came from. It is a very conservative figure and the true percentage is likely much greater.

As for the burqa, it is merely a male preference in a patriarchal society. Whereas our own patriarchal societies prefer females naked, exposed, or at least looking as sexually inviting as possible, other cultures prefer their females not be exposed. Neither one is an indication of more equality, they are just different forms of oppression. In a truly egalitarian society, costumes would be determined by a person's occupation or situation, not by their sex or gender role.

The world is a stage, John, and social roles are determined the same way that they are in theatrical productions. Characters in plays are assigned names, costumes, hairdos, makeup, mannerisms, and speaking lines to make their social role and value explicit to the audience. We don't see military leaders walking around in mini-skirts. We don't see politicians dressing up as clowns and asking people not to laugh. Whether females are wearing burqas or are dressed sexually, sensuously, and provocatively, you are in a patriarchal society.

In an egalitarian society, everyone in an office, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, sex, or any other factor, would wear office attire, everyone in a factory regardless of age, ethnicity, race, sex, or any other factor, would wear protective clothing, and everyone on a farm, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, sex, or any other factor, would wear clothing appropriate for farm work. Only in patriarchal societies like ours and those of Islamic countries are females designated as a special caste and required to wear distinguishing costumes based on sex. Whether the caste-assigned costume is maximal or minimal is just a matter of taste. That it exists is a matter of discrimination.

If males don't take their seats in Congress or in the stock market wearing drag, it is discriminatory to require females to do so.

I hope you are correct and that what I'm seeing here is not typical.

Mark,

As you of course know, and I apologize if you really don't know this - women are exactly as able as men to submit, write, post, and use every other feature of the site. As far as welcoming women's submissions in the parts of the site where we do in fact determine visibility or publication, the truth is women's submissions are more welcome than those of men, to offset long standing difficulties, etc. In the parts you refer to, blogs, say, women, like men, can simply post.

I don't know the percentage of women who read the site, or even of Sustainers, I would not be surprised if it was 50% or more.

So there is an issue regarding participation levels, for women, and other constituencies as well, but not one for yoru kind of shotgun histrionics.

I should spend a minute on the purpose of your post... You rightly point out that the U.S. has an abysmal record in all things social - which is true, gender, race, class, and on and on. That is why many of us devote our lives to changing this country.

However, you then suggest that because there are horrible activities in the U.S., which there are, and because the U.S. is the world's number one rogue state - all people in the U.S. should shut up about anything bearing on social concerns the U.S. violates, or at least anything you don't want them to be saying. Because, there are grotesque gender injustices, you don't want to hear criticism of gender relations elsewhere, and so on.

This is worse than a simple mistake. If members of a society could not have moral and social opinions about anything outside their society because their society engaged in related criminal injustices, then, of course, no one could have any views about anything... outside their own society.

Just as a sidebar, I doubt that anyone has ever argued that Ahmadinejad would be a very poor choice for a Socialist International Member, or his party, on grounds that Iran is sexist. Such an argument would be idiotic. If anyone did argue against an Iranian group on grounds of the ills that occur Iran, that would mean that that person would also have to argue that an International should have no members from any country that was guilty of crimes and injustice, which would lead to a very sparce International indeed. The grounds upon which to reject a group from an International are the practices and views of the group itself, not of the country that the group comes from.

Now the real question that arises from your comments, and that needs addressing. Why, given the number of women active on the left, aware, informed, insightful, and engaged - generally more so than men - do not more women post blogs, comment on content, and for that matter, write articles, whether on Z or elsewhere?

This is a serious question, and an important one - but answering it is not simple.

There is no policy barrier.

There is no exclusion of women at Z or elsewhere in the U.S. left publishing world, for that matter.

On the one hand, any such barrier would instantly, and rightly, provoke incredible opposition - destroying the publication that was culpable. But, on the other hand, actually such opposition is no longer needed because, again, there is no serious left operation that I am aware of, anywhere in the U.S., that has even an inclination to in any way reject women's contributions - and, quite the contrary, most are far more eager to receive submissions from women than men, and more likely, other things equal, to accept women's submissions.

So what is the reason for the undeniable relative dirth of women's writing? Well, honestly, I don't know.

Most people, including most women and most men, would argue that women's reluctance to submit articles, post articles, post blogs, and post comments - all online - has a few causes including, for example: One, it derives from women not feeling confident or being inclined to write, etc. due to an incredibly long denial and diminishment of their capacities and worth. Two, it derives from even women who are confident of their abilities not wanting to participate due to anticipating stupid and denigrating behavior from men. Three, it dervices from women having much higher standards of what is worth saying out loud, what is worth writing - where men are happy to put any drivil that comes to mind into print. Four, it derives from women not having the time to devote to such activities, due to sexist allocations of labor throughout society. Five, it derives from women's distaste for online activity.

I think all five of these causes exist and operate. But I have to admit, I do not think these five are enough, alone, to explain the imbalance, both on Z, and pretty much throughout the left in the U.S.

My guess - and this is purely a guess - is that the percentage of women relative to men using apolitical internet social networking sites is much higher than the percentage of women relative to men engaging on left sites - so while this doesn't eliminate distaste for the internet as an explanation, it does reduce its power.

What about either having doubts about one's ability, or much higher standards for taking part in writing as compared to reading, or not wanting to deal with male jerks, or being too busy to find time, as explanations?

I have no doubt these factors are real and powerful. I have no doubt they would affect the relative levels of male and female participation adversely. But I do have doubts they are alone sufficient to explain the situation.

Why do I think there are additional factors? After all, these five are very substantial. Well, medical schools and law schools in the U.S. are over 50% women. These venues are surely as demanding of confidence, and more demanding of time, and also more likely to exhibit idiotic male behaviors, even than the left. Yet despite the reasons not to do so, women participate. So...I am a bit confused, I admit, by the overall situation.