Tom Fuller’s climate change survey confirmed something I already suspected: most of the climate blog addicts are men.
Now, I’ve got to tell you: I’ve known this a long time. I know most my commenters are male. Nearly all the “handles” at the more highly visited blogs (RC, CA, RorgerPJr, JoeR and WUWT sound male. In contrast, when I blogged about knitting, nearly all the visitors were female. Still, I can’t help wondering about the split?
Does this happen because the topic is political? Is it the overtones of science and math? Personally, I lean toward thinking it’s the political aspect of the debate. Lots of my female friends have blogs and visit blogs. They like gathering information and exchanging chit chat. Most have strong political opinions, but want to spend their free time engage in fevered public debates.
So, this aspect of climate blogs would probably bother many women of my acquaintance.
But then, I’m just making general observations based on my friends, neighbors, experience in an all girl high school. Maybe my experience is not typical. That said, I don’t mind rampant speculation as long as it doesn’t become hostile and idiotically bigotted. So, I’d like to read yours! Also, if you like, feel free to mention whether you are male or female.
PS: Some of you may have noticed the servers was down this morning. I have a shared hosting plan; someone else on the host was sucking up all the CPU and Dreamhost had to kill them to get us back up and running. With luck, the problem won’t recur.
There could also be many women like myself who read the blogs but comment only rarely. By the way, I do enjoy your site immensely for both content and tone of comments. Thanks!!!
Hi Lucia,
Realizing what a treacherous subject this is, let me recount my trek in the murky area of “global warming concerns.” The implication would be that many other men have done something like what I did. I will then show why I think my approach would not appeal to women.
Last winter I was a guest at a party attended by several people whose discussion verged on hysteria over what they took to be the soon-to-arrive ill effects of man’s assault on nature. instinctively, I thought they were nuts, but didn’t argue because I realized I didn’t know any more about it then they did.
I long ago bought into the the theory that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are NOT out to get you. So as hysterical as they were, it was not impossible for them to be worried about something that was actually happening.
So I started to search the web. I found papers by Dyson, Stockwell, Tisdale, Spencer ,Lindzen and of course Steve M, and McKittrick. I started reading CA, Blackboard, AirVent, and Roger Jr’s. postings daily. More recently I’ve gotten into E.M. Smith’s work. I read IPCC4 and M. Mann’s first hockey stick paper – trying to get a handle on the thing – so to speak.
This has not been easy for me, a retired architect. I believe that I’ve spent hundreds of hours on this and except for knowing the terminology better, I still don’t have a definitive grasp of this stuff – but then maybe no-one does. I have concluded that feedback is where the hinge is, though.
So here I am, maybe better informed but still in the dark.
What I did was impractical and inefficient. None of the women I know well would ever do what I did. My take is that these studies were impractical in the extreme. But then if you don’t want to take anyone’s word for it, what else would you do.
I also wrecked my eyes and will have to get new prescriptions for the 3 sets of eyeglasses I use.
So there you are. I suspect that many of the responders to Tom’s survey are guys like me – people who really really need to have a basis for having a controversial opinion and were willing to commit the time.
Does this make any sense?
It could be that women are not into science blogs or science in general. I belong to an Astronomy club which has maybe 120 members. Most are men. Plus I agree with what Annette said. Maybe women just don’t comment for some reason. One reason could be the high frequency of snarky attacks when one does comment; and maybe women do not feel confident in their knowledge of Science or Statistics, so are afraid of being attacked. I know that even with my advanced degrees in Math that I hesitate to comment for fear of making a blunder .
Editing may not be working: Read “Just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are NOT out to get you.” for what’s in my first post.
I would make 2 speculations .
Speculation 1 .
Climate blogs deal with climate . Climate is physics and mathematics .Actually when one goes in serious things like Pielke Sr , L.Motl or CA it is difficult physics and mathematics . So those who are interested and more importantly comment , have advanced degrees in mathematics , physics or engineering . I have no data on that but as Tom Fuller asked the question , he will give a number . I would not be surprised if the people with advanced scientific degrees were around 90 % .
.
Speculation 2
The female population in this particular category is underrepresented . I have not much data but I have found gender statistics for the mathematical olympiads . The number is around 10 % female . It depends on countries but varies broadly between 0 and 15 % (the teams are 6 people) .
Admittedly this population is far from being representative of the overall population but that was mentionned in Speculation 1 – when we deal with climate , we don’t deal with the typical average population sample .
Perhaps is there a gender statistics of mathematic and/or physic PhD that would give similar numbers .
I have that for 1 French university that also gives a number around 15 % .
.
Assuming both speculations as true , I would have predicted that the female population taking Tom Fuller’s survey would be at or slightly below 10 % .
How far below would depend on what is in the 10-15% who have no scientific degree . My speculations don’t cover this part .
On the other hand what I would find very surprising and actually strange would be if the percentage of people with no scientific degrees was very far below 80-90 % .
Erratum : On the other hand what I would find very surprising and actually strange would be if the percentage of people WITH scientific degrees was very far below 80-90 % .
Annette–
Thanks for visiting (and commenting.)
Jack…. I have to admit I’ve never seen the appeal of astronomy! Oddly, it’s pretty obvious quite some male staples at climate blogs had no grasp of relevant science or statistics, but they still comment.
TomV– Tom Fuller didn’t ask what field we were educated in. But, like you, I suspect a large fraction of my readers are engineers, scientists, mathematicians, programmers etc. (I’ve emailed some privately, and that’s what they seem to be.)
I think it is largely because women tend to be more concerned with building consensus and not “rocking the boat” than men. Obviously not all women are like this (case in point, the women in my family, including my wife, are all well educated, highly accomplished and quite outspoken), however my experiences in the classroom and in business indicate that most women are far less likely to stick their necks out and take positions that their instructors, managers, or peers are apt to find disagreeable. I believe this is largely a function of how women are raised in society.
Another factor is likely that women tend to balance their available time more towards social pursuits and family/children. There are countless examples of men spending most of their spare time working on their cars, collecting things, coding, HAM radio, etc. These are activities that generally do not contribute directly to their income and are comparatively anti-social. Even for people employed in technical fields, women tend to see it as more a means to an end than a lifestyle, a hobby, or what have you than men (obviously this is a broad generalization). Since few individuals have a direct professional interest in this area, in order to accumulate sufficient knowledge to express strong opinions in this area, you need to spend enough personal time at it to convince yourself that perhaps the party-line is wrong… which, again, tends to select for men.
“Men hunt, Women nest” Jerry Seinfeld:
http://www.tv.com/video/26338/men-hunt-and-women-nest
Hey Lucia, I blogged about knitting, though on my other blog and not my climate blog. And granted it was my wife’s, but guys CAN write about both climate and knitting….
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/10/kate_groves_win.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/11/my_wife_as_fash.html
Warren Meyer
coyoteblog.com
climate-skeptic.com
coyote–
Cute knit bags! I love the “The Scarlett Pochette”.
To some extent I agree with Pete. Women tend to build social networks based on equality within the group. Men tend to build networks based on dominance. Even if I strongly disagree with someone and have evidence that will make that person look like a complete imbecile, empathy might prevent me from ripping that person to shreds, thereby lowering their standing in the group.
I’m sure there are many women who are reading the blogs but not commenting. But, from my own biased standpoint, women are just busier than men. 😉
Male here, my degree is in finance, but modelling is certainly a part of that field. The rest of my family are scientists or engineers, male and female, which has helped pique my interest as they tend to snort whenever AGW comes up. I spend more time studying this than the female scientists however, I contend Tamara has it right, many women are busier.
Climate blogs are pretty rough-and-tumble places these days. On a lot of blogs (not this one, which is why I love it) the level of snark can be very off-putting, and the attacks very upsetting. I don’t know if this skews the gender balance, though. Lucia, you need to start a new knitting blog, full of controversy, statistics, politics, and personal attacks. Then we’ll see which gender flocks to it.
Hi Lucia,
I am indeed a man, though that doesn’t mean I will cut you any slack when we meet for the shoot-out at Weehawken (if you remember?). In fact, I rather think you should cut me some slack, since I expect you are a better shot (I sense that your education has been thorough).
The imbalance does not just prevail on science blogs but also on political and financial blogs, and so on. I suspect that Tamara is right, that, as a generalisation, women are busier. Mind you, I hardly ever watch television, that could be another factor!
It’s not just blogs, of course. If you go to almost any type of meeting at which men and women are equally represented it will tend to be the men shooting their big mouths off disproportionately, I think.
Btw, Tom, on a point of yours – I don’t have a science degree, in fact I haven’t studied science ‘formally’ since I was 16. I don’t appeal to my own authority, but I do work on understanding what I read and write about.
One other thing about Tom’s results: i will be very interested to see what proportion of skeptics describe themselves as liberal. I’m one of them, and let me tell you, it gets pretty damn lonely on some of the other blogs. Probably kind of like being a gay Mormon (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Simon,
Senior year in college, I went skiing at Iron Mountain in the UP. We stayed at one of the students Dad’s cabins. At one point, the guys suggested we plink beer cans. So, I tried it a few times. I’d never done it before, but hit the beer can the second time. (The range was not far.)
Then, I decreed the past time was way too noisy and went in to make hot chocolate. That is the full extent of my shooting experience.
So, do I have more or less shooting experience than you?
Lucia,
One session shooting a .22 (some kinda rifle thingy). I also hit the target! If we stand far enough apart we should be ok though 😉
Douggerell,
Liberal has a different meaning outside of the US. You will likely find that many of the international participants are ‘liberals’ by US standards but conservatives by the standards of their home country.
Simon–I think I was using a .22 caliber to plink the beer cans too. Very boring activity.
I’m sure if we ever get to Weekhawken and stand far enough apart, we will both miss each other.
Raven (Comment#23072)
I’d question your view from a UK perspective, at least – there’s no way that anyone here who described their views as ‘liberal’ would characterise themselves as ‘conservative’.
Simon Evans,
Surely Raven was saying the opposite of what you interpreted, ie that US ‘liberal’ is actually conservative elsewhere.
Simon,
Do conservatives in the UK think the ‘public option’ for healthcare should be eliminated? Do conservatives in the UK make abortion, gay marriage and gun control primary issues when it comes time to support a candidate?
“Probably kind of like being a gay Mormon (not that there’s anything wrong with that).”
Try being a Vampire and Jehovah’s Witness!
Raven,
I probably should have used a capital L for ‘Liberal’. What I mean, simply, is that UK folk would denote their political affiliation in terms of Conservative – right wing, Labour – used to be left wing but now mostly pretty centrist (that’s in my view, others would disagree and say they still are), Liberal – leftish, or maybe centre-ish. Others might quibble, but I think that’s not an unreasonable rough idea.
To your questions, sure, I recognise that the conservative wing of US political views is further ‘out’ than it is here. On reflection, I think I misunderstood your first post! (as Dave Andrews suggests). Silly me :-).
I understand the UK Liberal/Conservative leftward shift, compared to the US labels; I was married to a Scotswoman. Anyway, I’m considered kind of moderate by some of my friends, so maybe I’d be considered a UK conservative (couldn’t see myself voting for Thatcher, though). My point was, a lot of the AGW/skeptic divide here in the States is political, and I’m curious as to how many self-described Liberals / Obama supporters are skeptics. I’d like to think I’m not alone.
What’s wrong with being a vampire Jehovah’s Witness? Maybe a werewolf Scientologist would be worse; they’d probably never get “clear.”
Evolution.
Women tend to be cooperative, and men combative.
The latter describes a lot of the blogs on climate change, thus the attraction to men.
BTW, congratulations to all the men who come to Lucia’s site, for getting in touch with their feminine side.
Here in Australia it is even more confusing. The Liberal Party is the party of the right (conservative) along with their even more socially conservative National (once Country) Party, the Labor party (spelt US style without the u) is of the left, I think on a global scale both are of the centre. In fact the ALP (meant to be Australian Labor Party) is seen by of the left as standing for Another Liberal Party. The Cap-and-trade (ETS) issue is even crazier the governement (ALP) plan looks likely to be voted down by a combination of the Liberals, the even more conservative National Party and the Greens (a green-left party).
I know why at least one girl doesn’t read climate blogs.
The info she may encounter on a climate blog might offend her delicate political feelings and confuse her Imaginary But Passionate Quest To Pretend To Save The Polar Bears From Mean Conservatives.
:Mr. Winky:
Andrew
Probably you would find that blogs that are more biologically or socially oriented that talk about climate would have a higher percentage of women. Think of the percentage of women that were in your college classes vs those in the Biology dept for example. My guess is that percentage wise that ratio might hold in the blogosphere. I also think that women listen more than talk on average in most social situations where there are men present.
Woot! I saw on Tom’s article today that 5% of the skeptics who responded voted for Obama, and 49% voted McCain. 5%, baby. I feel better already.
I blame testosterone.
Very few people actually have the knowledge to comment intelligently on climate science debates. Of those who do, many are no doubt women, but they don’t get involved because…. of all the T-driven males who combine aggression with mono-mania to a degree that women are just turned off. If you take out the few posters with science, stats and math degrees, you’re left with “They’re so stupid!!!” And that serves equally on both denier and apocalyptic blogs. I think guys just treat it a blood sport – you get your shots in, and then come back tomorrow for more. Women can certainly be a nasty as men, but the method is different.
I lurked for ages on various climate blogs then started to comment with an obvious female handle. I made lots of silly mistakes early on as I was still getting into the subject areas. In most cases I was ignored but I did experience snarky attacks and in some cases people took the time to correct me to help me learn. I ended up with some great dialogues with specific commentors as I became one of the community. I’ve laid off for a while, because it was just taking too much time and I’ve prefered to lurk recently. Perhaps men simply have more time to comment.
Most of the comments above get it right. I’d also say that women, although perhaps no less opinionated, are less likely to feel the need to have their opinion heard. I’m currently writing up climate stuff for a website and helping a few others. I can’t explain why, but I have the sudden need to start commenting and making my opinion heard.