"So basically having anything personal on your blog as a woman opens you up for attack--even though sharing these kinds of quirks and trivia with your readers is a key part to any successful blog. Women are still seen as unserious, and so blogging--an unserious medium--puts them at a disadvantage."

Having anything personal on your blog and saying controversial stuff together is the problem. See the crazies are, well, crazy. They cannot formulate a rational argument. Thus, they resort to illogical conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks.

I understand that Megan is a woman. But male bloggers get vitriol as well. Certainly, there are specific attacks against women, such as the height and looks stuff, that does not apply to men. The majority don't really care about that stuff, so calling a man fat doesn't really matter.

"I don't understand. How is my liking shoes any less serious than [insert male blogger name here] liking baseball or Halo3?"

First, I think most blog readers are men. Got no statistics to support it, but just a guess. Or maybe more men take the time to comment. I think most women simply ignore posts about basketball and Halo3.

I guess my point in all this is that extrapolating from the response to Megan all the way to women not taken seriously is a bit of a leap. Clearly the people reading, and taking the time to respond to her, even if they are nutjobs means they take her seriously at some level.
 

Sorry, but I also wanted to say that whether a woman is hot or not is completely mutually exclusive of whether to take her ideas seriously.

They are two separate questions.

For example, if Giselle pontificates on world peace who cares? If Madeline Albright or Condi, etc says something about the conflict in Somalia that is something altogether different.
 

FLG: what about all the weird comments about Hillary Clinton and the way she dresses? She wears a v-neck shirt and the Washington Post trumpets the fact that she has...gasp...cleavage.

Of course, everyone to some extent gets nasty comments, but the comments on Megan's blog are amazing. Ross Douthat is much more conservative, but he doesn't attract anything like the same level of nastiness.
 

Fair point about Hillary Clinton and looks. However, still mutually exclusive.

Hillary Clinton, as far as every objective observer can tell, has almost nil chance of winning this campaign, and it has been that way pretty much since Feb. However, she was, and is by some still, considered a serious contender when any other candidate, male or female, would have been written off long ago. So, she is taken way seriously. Far more seriously than facts dictate.
 

I wrote this before McArdle joined the Atlantic, but the shoes-sports point apparently holds.

From what I can tell, the comments women and not men get fall into two categories: the patronizing, 'let me show you why you're wrong, you silly little woman,' variant, and the straight-up 'you're fat.' I've gotten both, but far more of the former than the latter, probably because readers have guessed my insecurities, noting that while I'm not always sure if I'm right, I've spent enough time shopping at Gap Kids to suspect that I'm probably not fat. Or tall.

Either way, I think the question is whether women's writing must resemble men's to be taken seriously. It could be that a woman who's read as much as a man, and who supports her arguments with the same amount of quality evidence, will produce a different piece of writing. It won't be as obvious in a paper or article, where the rules are clear, but will show up on a blog, where it's more what pops into your head.
 

Phoebe: I think that might be right. Rita and I were trying to come up with female writers--that were not Hannah Arendt--who don't fall into this trap. I came up with Virginia Postrel and Anne Applebaum.

The sports-fashion distinction drives me crazy.
 

FLG: What does experience have to do with cleavage? Obama has less experience than Hillary and the Washington Post isn't posting articles about his fashion sense.
 

Hey fashion is just as much a part of the cultural dialog as politics so don't knock it.

And never read Jane Austen so it might be tough to do any comparisons to hand bags. I hate the girly novels shit. Strictly classics around here.
 

Julie: I haven't read enough philosophy so I'd have to do the handbag/lit crit thing. But Jane Austen is definitely a classic. You should give her another shot.
 

If Obama was behind the WaPo, NYTimes, etc would have been hammering him to drop out.

This is not really an experience thing. I question whether Hillary actually has more experience though.

I was discussing the point that women can be taken seriously and their looks can be discussed. I actually posted a thing on this about an hour ago. I actually think the WaPo piece about cleavage was written by and for women. Men aren't really all that concerned about Hillary's boobs. So, maybe women are to blame for women not being taken seriously.

I have never been, nor plan to be a woman, or define myself along a gender spectrum of femininity, but I tend to agree with your main point. My big thing is that focus on looks by men does not necessarily undermine a woman being taken seriously. However, I think many men know this is a weak spot in the female psyche, and use it to attack women they disagree with. That is not fair, but they are idiots.

I am probably just digging my hole deeper at this point.