Here, I will refer you back to my blog to reread my commentary. You’ve read me before and know I don’t take gender issues on. I feel equal in many ways, and have never looked at gender as a plus or minus. So, please reread what I have to say and note this:

Gender is just a foreground into what was discussed. The discussion was that, based on how the blogosphere developed, a certain network started out and became dominant and this network has, and still is, male dominant. Now, although it may be protested that the list should be more inclusive, the issue is NOT the list.

Great on you for pointing out that the blogosphere is inclusive. It is, in many ways, We can all do it. But we are not on equal footing for being read or not, regardless of quality. I cited my own experience in learning the blogging ropes and reading blogs. How I skipped from one to the other – starting at the centre of the main network and moving outward. In this experience, I come to realize what others have – that the perspectives are fairly similar to my own, mostly caucasian, and mostly male. So, the issue is that the blogosphere may be open but that we don’t read openly because the links are not network wide but exist in small subset networks. The interconnectedness needed for utopic communications is not there.

Now, I hope to avoid gender commentary here. I am not strongly for or against gender issues. I say again this is about making us realize that the blogosphere is not as connected as we think in terms of opinion, perspective, and with that gender, race, etc. Look at your own list and assess this idea. There are incredibly smart people all over the world you likely miss out on – that is the lesson I think we tried to bring out. To go outside the main network and seek those you enjoy and value – and who are likely top in their own little network.

Everything is re-dressed, isn’t it, to some extent? But the ease with which almost anyone can enter the media fray, albeit on a small scale, is rather awesome, I think. … Anyway, this is Duncan’s argument! Come on, Dunc, say your piece :-)

“Anyone can contribute” – But that’s hardly the last word as to who has a good chance of winning. Anyone meeting certain very loose qualifications can run for President too.

I repeat: Is the burdern of proof properly on those who assert a “new world paradigm”, to provide *extraordinary* evidence to back up this extraordinary claim, or not?

Take another link on this site, where Steve Rubel invites everyone to share their top ten blogs under Technorati tag “10blogs”. Anyone can contribute. I’m about to do so myself. I don’t need media connections to be part of this interesting exercise. That’s the magic of blogging.

And without SOCIAL connections, almost certainly, essentially nobody will read it.

Look, where’s the burden of proof here? I’ve been through this many times, and there’s a pattern. No matter how much evidence is amassed that “who you know” can be important, it’s always possible to repeat that writing a blog is unlike any other human activity ever done in the history of civilization, utterly unique, that the only thing which affects it is materials cost (conveniently trivial), and marketing and promotion are completely absent as influences.

Isn’t this an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence? (and re-iterations of the initial idea don’t count).

“But that statement is simply false.”

Sorry, Seth, it’s true. For $zero and no connections, anyone can set up a blog and publish it regularly. That’s self-evident.

On the wider point, the situation of women is reflected in many other activities. In politics you’ll occasionally get a Margaret Thatcher or a Hillary Clinton who will force themselves in by weight of personality and intellect. But such women don’t come in numbers, they are exceptions. In Britain Labour had to have all-women shortlists, and a lot of arm-twisting, to get 100 women into a Parliament of 650. Unhappily, many of those women were simply not up to the job and are quite an embarrassment.

I’ve always believed in letting nature take its course. There should be no barriers, but we shouldn’t construct quota systems either. The women who want to step forward, whether in politics, blogging, business or whatever, will do so. Many won’t.

The Government also changed the education system to favour girls ~ coursework rather than set-piece exams, which boys do better at. The result is that girls now get more university places than boys. This is changing the landscape, but it’s still not resulting in a flood of women into traditionally male areas. A steady trickle would be the best description. BUT it is their choice. There’s no glass ceiling in a country that recently had a woman Head of State (the Queen), a woman Prime minister (Maggie) and a woman Speaker of the House of Commons (Boothroyd).

Regrets, I don’t want to be rude or dismissive.

But that statement is simply false. It is like writing

“Connections with existing wealth and privilege are totally irrelevant to setting up a dot-com business, because the Internet is a New Era”.

I mean, I don’t know what to say that will bridge the gulf. There is an entire social infrastructure which you deny exists.

The logic error is right there. One’s opportunities depend on many factors. Here, for example, one notable factor can be connections with the existing media structure.

I meant that being treated equally can be believed in the senses of an ideal (we should strive for this), and a delusion (this is the way it is). These should not be conflated.