Immediately after posting my “it’s business, not sex” comment, I saw that the immediate comebacker was likely to be “well, yes, but business is the way it is because of sex too”. Touché But I’ll try to expand with some perspective.

Nearly twenty years ago when I was an undergraduate, the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) did a study to try to figure out why computer science at the graduate level was largely dominated by men. Frankly, I wondered it too: I think that in the graduate class I was in women were outnumbered by roughly 20 to 1.

As a personal anecdote, I think that the vast majority of men that I talked to interested in trying to understand what the problem was and to ameliorate it. This was likely due to the rather selfish possibilities of having access to a greater number of women to serve as potential dates than rather true altruism (hey, we were predominantly in our early twenties and single, so sue us) but certainly sexism (even in the form of acknowledging different skills or levels of ability being common between the sexes) was just not on the radar for most of the men I knew (additional background, I attended the University of Oregon, widely acknowledged as a bastion of liberal ideals).

The ACM identified a number of issues. Primary education often steers young girls away from careers in mathematics and science. Women have insufficient role models and mentors. The rigors of pursuing a PhD are often incompatible with beginning a family.

All were I suspect true to a greater or lesser extent. But what was also true was that there were many men who were suffering from the same problems. I had a friend who was pursuing his PhD who spent 18 hours a day at the college, and was basically making a choice between spending time with his wife and baby girl and pursuing a career that he hoped would be both financially and emotionally rewarding. It was a tough choice, a concious choice, and one that he wished he could make a different way.

It is certainly true that women continue to be discriminated against in a number of subtle and overt ways, but often men are victimized to a lesser degree by the same societal mechanisms that ultimately harm women and other minority interests. Traditionally, men’s life expectancy has been lower, men suffer greater instances of stress related illness, heart attacks and the like. As no surprise, women’s rates of these illnesses are climbing as they participate (often involuntarily, due to increasing economic pressure on middle america) more fully in the work force.

What’s my point? That pursuing a more gentler course for humanity isn’t a male or female issue, it’s a quality of life issue for all of us. We are a better society when both sexes pursue a balanced approach to the choices we make in life, and having women participate more fully in media (and frankly, having men participate more fully) is an excellent way to make these issues rise to the top of the public consciousness. I think that individual voices of all kinds (with all their inherent complexity) are important to hear, far more so than encouraging a particular group or a particular agenda.

Ultimately, the question has boiled down to “what can I do?” I’ve discovered that there is nothing to keep me from acting as a mentor, from examining my own actions for prejudice, and to just take a moment and see which of my own behaviors seem to be programmed from society against what I know or truly desire. And I try to talk about it in my own online blog and podcasts, slipping it in subtly between barbecuing tips and gadget news, where nobody will be expecting it.

This is long enough. Thanks for the topic and the ability to add my comments.

“There are certainly problems with the current journalistic tradition, and yes, those journalistic traditions were generated predominantly by white males, but that doesn’t mean that they are tied to sex in any direct way.”

I can understand that perspective. I’m not saying that all men communicate a certain way and all females communicate a certain way. I’m simply pointing out that there’s a wealth of research which indicates that men and women tend to approach communication differently. In the world of journalism, the more typically male approach to communication has been strongly incorporated into journalistic norms, values, and practices — everything from what qualifies as news to tone to types of quotes and information presented. Personally, given the weight of available research on male/female communication I think it would be remiss to ignore the role that gender-specific communication styles have played in the evolution of journalism.

“I suspect that the failings of modern journalism has far more to do with the business of journalism than the sex of journalists.”

Well, business in general also is strongly influenced and predominated by male behavioral and communication styles. So saying it’s just business really only reinforces the gender-bias argument — at least from my perspective.

“it’s cheaper to pander than to educate. It’s cheaper to attack than support. It’s cheaper to simply invent than to research.”

Acutally, in my experience that’s not usually true. It’s all a matter of how you approach journalism. Educating, researching, and analysis can be accomplished simply and inexpensively through journalism. Maybe not in-depth all the time, but still significantly most of the time, if you make that your goal and your editor allows that approach. The big challenge is getting journalists and editors to think along those lines and hone those skills.

I do think the rise of “citizen media” is improving the diversity of available perspectives and approaches to news and other kinds of information. However, so far its effect is very limited simply because the internet is not the main source of news and information for most people. Also, it seems to me that so far the most popular online sources of news and information tend to either reflect or exaggerate the norms and goals of traditional media. it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out over time.

I love your blog/podcast, Brainwagon, too Mark!

I suspect that the failings of modern journalism has far more to do with the business of journalism than the sex of journalists. Because media has become a business first, all the concerns of businesses rise above those traditionally attributed to journalism: it’s cheaper to pander than to educate. It’s cheaper to attack than support. It’s cheaper to simply invent than to research.

To me, the principle advantage of the “citizen media” is its relative freedom from economics. It is precisely this freedom that also makes it so useful for minority voices of all kinds. Previously to reach large numbers of individuals you had to have access to newspaper, radio or television. Now, all you need is access to the Internet. If you are dissatisfied with the current media, you can go ahead and invent your own without having to get permission from anyone.

I revel in the diversity of opinion that one can find in online media, which stands in stark contrast to the monotone that is displayed by the more traditional mortar and brick establishments. There is no better way to change the old media than by making it compete with the new kind.

By the way Amy, love your blog.