Late last year, the website ChurchRelevance.com published its biennial list of the top 200 church blogs. Kent Shaffer, founder and ministry consultant, aggregates faith-related websites that he considers the most influential, based on a number of readership metrics. Apparently Shaffer hit a nerve. Why?
Because he didn’t include enough female bloggers.
The backlash prompted a follow-up post from Shaffer, Where are the Top Christian Women Bloggers? (wherein he is in near full retreat), as well as spawning multiple Top Christian Women’s Blogs posts compiled by, well, female bloggers.
Apparently, we have entered the age of Affirmative Action Blogging.
I divide time between church / faith-related blogs and writing blogs. Whereas, Shaffer notes, “the gender gap among [church leadership] bloggers has now shrunk to roughly a 60/40 ratio,” in Christian writing circles, women rule.
I’ve been to six Christian writers conferences over the last seven years and the demographics haven’t changed — roughly 15% men. My agent represents 50 clients. Seven of them are men. When I started blogging back in 2005, I was so distressed by this “gender gap,” that I considered starting a blog ring just for men, which I entitled The Brotherhood of the Blog. It would be similar to the many, many Christian women’s’ only blogrolls like CWO Blog Ring and Christian Women and Bloggers, which lists hundreds of Christian women’s blogs. (‘Course, this is nothing compared to THIS LIST of 600-plus Christian women bloggers.)
I dropped the idea for a Men’s Only Blogroll when I was informed it sounded chauvinistic.
Question: Why is it that Christian women’s blog rings are cool, but Christian men’s blog rings are chauvinistic?
Anyway.
I once had a discussion with an industry insider, one of those discussions that you don’t have in a large circle. We were talking about this obvious gap in Christian writing and blogging circles. They suggested how Christian women bloggers are a sort of privileged class. They’re mostly white, stay at home moms, middle to high income. In fact, if memory serves me, in some of the follow-up lists that countered Shaffer’s, the absence of women of color was noted. Ironic, isn’t it?
Which is the problem with demographic minutia: Where do you stop? Christian Women of Color Blogging Ring? And what happens when those women of color tilt toward one color? Must we then specify ethnicities? Christian Women of Asian Decent Blogging Ring? And don’t forget single mothers, and singles, and LGBT, and…
…the list goes on.
So while there may be a slight disparity between men and women blogging about church / faith-related issues, the writing community balances the scale. And the scales usually do balance. Only, now, I am the new minority: Conservative. White. Male. Blogger.
“They’re mostly white, stay at home moms, middle to high income.” Which perfectly describes the now-and-forevermore CBA dynamic. And which is why a year ago I finally threw in the towel, and am now taking my new stuff to the general market.
For male writers, there’s simply no fighting this tide, and as I heard a preacher say once (about churches, but the analogy holds here as well), “go where you’re celebrated, and not just tolerated.”
Good advice.
If I expressed my true thoughts on this, I would annoy most of the planet. Let’s just say that as a moderate, lower middle-class, older single female and former Bible editor, I don’t read many women’s blogs. There just aren’t many out there that tackle topics that intrigue me (at least that I found). On the other hand, I used to read a blog from a guy in NZ who kept me on my theological toes, and I loved it. Now, because of my job, I focus on writing blogs, and that takes up what time I have to prowl the blogosphere. But I’d love to find one blog from a conservative woman who tackles scriptural issues and interpretation and positions them in light of other theological POVs.
I find I normally go to a blog based on what they are talking about, rarely because of who is talking. If I did I’d probably follow less blogs period because when you dig you start finding things you disagree about and then you’re going to their blog already with a chip on your shoulder. Whereas if you read first and get to know them through that . . .
I wish people would try laughing a little more. I mean it’s not this guy’s fault that he did not find more women’s blogs influential. Now if the metrics were really high for a woman and he purposefully omitted her. That would be something, but otherwise, it’s a matter of an opinion.
I’m currently having a conundrum about my blog content for issues somewhat related to this. If I’m not careful I can become overly cynical and satirical… When I say overly, I guess I mean…too much for the stereotypical Christian womens’ blogging sphere. Part of me thinks, “I’m a woman so I need to have a lovely blog theme, and I need to speak in gentler tones, have less opinions, be a little less snarky…or avoid snarkiness altogether.” I really don’t know. To be honest, I’m a little burnt out on the blogging scene, but perhaps it’s just me… It seems there are so many people chattering, but not saying anything interesting. I think maybe I’m just grumpy. I blame winter. Did this comment have anything to do with Mike’s blog post? Perhaps what I’m trying to say is, I’m not a girlie girl so I’m a bit demographically challenged as well.
Oh, I should add, and yet I’m still too girlie for the Boys Clubs.
It’s not really demographic minutia though. Women outnumber men in most churches, and make up the bulk of the bloggers, lay ministers, and parachurch ministers. There’s a reasonable expectation about representation then, especially since it’s not just a matter of an engaged minority over a disengaged majority. If I had a “best 200 video gamer blogs” and 90% were written by women gamers, it would be sort of the same.
What worries me is that your 85-15% experience is going to increasingly become the norm for church in general. This I think leads to male overreaction and refuge in hyper-traditionalism to the point of misogyny, and we see it things like the Christian Game community.
While women definitely seem to outnumber men in most churches, I don’t think it’s anywhere near approaching the 85-15% ratio. If it did, there might be the over-reaction you speak of. In fact, I think that the reaction to some of the female bloggers in the afformentioned posts is the result of male heavy leadership structures.
Not yet, but I wonder about the future. If you take that top-heavy ministry focused male stratum out, and just compare laymen and women, I wonder what the percentages would be.
Women outnumber men in my church but I think that’s mostly because we have an older population in my city, and women have a longer life expectancy. I don’t see church moving to that 85/15 split – if it does, it has failed.
And back to the subject of blogging. Maybe I’m abnormal, but I don’t follow blogs based on the gender of the blogger, but on their content. And despite being a white work-from-home mom, I’m not interested in mommy blogs. I want information that is going to stretch me. Sometimes they are from men, sometimes women.
If I were to generalise, I would say that a lot of the male blogs have loads of followers and are very professional, but are actually little more than personal puff pieces with great SEO headlines but litttle in the way of content (Mike Duran and Passive Guy are exceptions).
I’m really tired of listening to men whine. There are, in toto, more male blogs than female blogs (last I checked). Men dominate in churches (pastors, elders). Men dominate in society (top political positions, top CEOs). So women have finally made headway in the publishing world over the last 200 yrs, and they’re good at linguistics and writing. Yet, they still don’t win the majority of literary awards. I say let the women have their place in society, even if it’s only in the Christian book market. Why infringe on it? Why resort to snarkily calling those who are successful “over-privileged white women”? Why not just start your blog ring? Does it really worry you that one person called it chauvinistic?
As for the 200 best church blogs–the dude who compiled it didn’t couch it as a male blog list, nor did he couch it as a subjective these-are-my-favorites list. He tried to use “science”, and that’s where a lot of people called him out. There were women church bloggers who checked their ratings, or somebody else checked them, and discovered that they should have been included on the list according to the raw numbers alone. If their claims are correct, it leaves me to wonder how the term “church blog” is being defined. Who is the master of definitions? That person is in charge of the game. Perhaps women aren’t entirely happy about the way this man defined them and/or their blogs.
Good points here, too, Jill. And much more coherent than my comment.
Okay, I just looked up recent stats, and blogging is now pretty close to 50-50 regarding gender. It looks like women may even have overtaken men in Wordpress and Blogger demographics.
I get what you’re saying, Mike, and I’m totally in support of an all-guys’ write club for you CBA dudes. I think I want to start a CBA tomboy’s writer girl club. Anyway, Jill has a point, if the numbers were in any way fudged, that was unfair. And sitting around complaining about how many woman are in the CBA is wrong, just like it’d be wrong for me to sit around and complain how many Asian people are in WV (which I would NEVER do–I wish I was Asian sometimes. But you see, they can’t help that they’re Asian, like we can’t help that we’re women writers). I don’t know if this makes sense. But I’m just saying, I have lots of gal writer peeps, and if you want to chill w/us at ACFW this year, watch what you say. *kidding*
If “sitting around complaining about how many woman are in the CBA is wrong” then why wasn’t “sitting around complaining about how many woman are in the [Top Church Blogs list] wrong”? For all I know, there’s just as much a bias AGAINST men in the CBA as there was FOR men in that blog list.
Everything you say here is what I would say as well. Every.single.thing.
Actually, “I’m really tired of listening to [women] whine.” Which is what the brouhaha over their lack of inclusion in that list seemed like to me. And for the record, the “privileged white women” statement was an observation made by someone in the book industry. “Does it really worry [me] that one person called [an all-male blog ring] chauvinistic?” As you know, Jill. I can take a little heat. However, it’s comments like yours that confirm that there would be heat to take. 😉
I’m trying to figure out, from what I wrote, why you would come to the conclusion that a male-only blog ring would be chauvinistic and/or wrong to me, personally.
Because of your apparent reaction to this post. Unless I’m not the one “whining,” “infringing” on women’s advances, or “snarkily calling those who are successful ‘over-privileged white women'”? It reads like, “Why not just (shut up and) start your blog ring?”
Well, why don’t you start your blog ring?! You obviously want to!! I apologize for the whine accusation, however. There does seem to be an awful lot of whine coming from men lately. For example, many men, as in the comment above, feel that there are too many women in churches. This isn’t true in my experience (except that widows do seem to tip it slightly in favor of women), but, hey, if men don’t like it, then why don’t they tip the balance back in their favor and start attending church? Stop dying younger, or something. I don’t know. But from what I remember of the “whining” over the 200 blogs being mostly male, it was predominantly because there were female “church” bloggers who had the stats and still didn’t make the list, which made it appear (from the outside) that the deck was stacked against them. I think that’s a valid and overlooked point in your post, and it has more to with definitions than it has to do with genders. Then again, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe women don’t fit the male definition of “church” blogger.
You make it sound like all we have to do is put the Mansignal up, and deep from within our Mancaves men will spill out and refill the church. There’s a lot of debate how to reach men, and some of the attempts to have been silly-the whole Christian MMA focus for one thing. Some are even harmful. Some have more or less vanished, like Promise Keepers.
I’m not sure what is the solution. I’m more about realizing the reality on the ground at this point. While women’s roles are enlarging to be able to be the kind of bloggers deserving entry on this list, men’s roles are changing too.
Yeah, but I’m not sure what the big deal is. The demographics say that evangelical churches are only slightly tipped toward female attendance–47% vs 53%. That’s not that big of a difference if you take into account widows. In addition, I’m not sure what that small percentage of Christian men who don’t attend church think they want. If more men attended church, the church would be more masculine. On the other hand, I’d prefer it to remain neither feminine nor masculine so that both sexes will feel welcome. This is one of those head-smack moments when I know I won’t win this argument. Men think the church is too feminine and women complain that it’s too masculine, to the point that they don’t have a ministry there. And suddenly we have a lot of stupid division between the sexes, which is not productive in the least. So exactly what do men want from church? And what is wrong with simply reaching people, rather than individual sexes? Is the gospel now too feminine for men?
I don’t think the demographics are that narrow. I mean, like I get the pew figures you quote there, but when you start looking at things like christian college sex ratios it changes. Or even acceptance rates: Wheaton College for example seems to be perfectly split at 51% men 49% women until you realize they accept a dramatically higher percentage of men than women-something like 60% vs 45%. There’s a lot of friction if we are close to parity normally, and I’m not sure why.
I don’t think I’m the best person to ask what men really want from a church. Generally you don’t want to ask the outliers like me. I’d ask Jed, or maybe some of the male teens you know from homeschooling co-ops.
I don’t belong to homeschool co-ops. And I don’t know anything about Christian colleges–I thought we were talking about churches!
Well, gender ratio of male to female believers in general. If male/female believers are relatively equal in church apart from widows, you’d also expect to see them equal in other aspects, like christian college enrollment, ministry involvement, and other things. Either there’s a lot of disengaged men filling up the pews every Sunday and not doing things like volunteering in lay ministry or getting married to Christian women, or the statistics might be skewed some.
The disparity of the sexes is present at all universities, not just Christian ones (excluding science/tech institutes such as the one I attend). I don’t know the stats on ministry positions.
Jill, I agree with you that the complaints had some legitimacy. But weren’t the complaints about absence of women bloggers of color equally valid? Ultimately, Shaffer admitted it came down to his choice. If this proves his bias, so be it. There’s disproportionate gender tilts in lots of fields. Both ways. Women faith bloggers are a powerful contingent. They should start their own Top Blog lists and list all women if that makes them happy or they think it balances the scales. (Of course, then they’ll face similar scrutiny as to what demographic, ethnic aggregation they compile.) As I concluded this post: “…the scales usually do balance. ”
The reason I’m even more reluctant to start a men’s only blog ring is because of reactions like the ones at Shaffer’s blog and on this post. Feminists seem to patrol the web with new-found vigor. Sorry. For now, I’ll stick to making “snarky” comments and retreating into discussions about theology, culture, and writing.
Also, the fact that women outnumber men in church — and remember, I pastored a church, interact with lots of pastors, and speak fairly regularly at churches — does not anger me toward women. It angers me towards men. This is also one of the reasons why I’m not a traditionalist when it comes to gender roles in church. Women already have a significant role in church. That should be represented in the leadership makeup.
You mean reactions such as mine? I don’t patrol the internet, Mike. I read and comment on your site because I like it. And as far as women compiling their own list–okay, fine. I write the furthest thing from a church blog, so it won’t be me compiling it. I wouldn’t have had any problem with Shaffer’s list if he had made it male only from the get-go or hadn’t gone the direction of “stats” to make it seem scientific rather than opinion-oriented. And honestly, it was simply a list that made me roll my eyes and think something similar to “Oh, yeah, Christian men and their need for a hyper-masculine religion. I almost forgot.” But that was/is pure cynicism. I know you aren’t like that. Neither is my husband and neither is my dad.
‘Actually, “I’m really tired of listening to [women] whine.”’
Snarky!
“You’ve stirred up a bloody hornet’s nest, now!”
“Are you afraid, John?”
“Yeah, a little.”
“Well, so is the sheriff, and today I gave him something he’ll not soon forget.”
“You fool! You’ve started a war!”
“We’re already at war, Will. And I say we strike back at the very man who takes our homes and hunts our children.”
“We? You’re planning to join us then, mate?”
“No, to lead you.”
Hmmmmmm….
Jill touched on most of what I would say, including being tired of hearing men whine.
The thing is, the Church Blogs are different from Christian Writer Blogs. Why can’t women lead in theological circles and discussions? Why must we be satisfied with our little ghetto of swoony bonnets?? That in itself is pretty chauvinistic, far more so than any “men only blog ring”.
What you write here is just the same kind of tired pap we get to hear from churches all the time. “Well, you can teach children’s Sunday School!” No, you can’t be a pastor or a deacon or an elder. You can’t write theological articles for the church paper. You can teach children’s sunday school.
This is the same thing. You can’t be counted as a Church Leader or even a Leading Writer in the Sphere of Theological Bloggers. But you can write a book about how an Amish woman falls in love with the Mennonite boy next door! There, there, dearie. See how popular you are in the ghetto?!?
I’ve said here before that I support women in ministry and church leadership positions (not just Sunday School), and do not adhere to a theology that keeps them from ministry. So I’m not sure what I’ve written here that is “just the same kind of tired pap we get to hear from churches all the time.”
I believe it’s about the same in the general market. I’ve been to many writers conferences and the attendees are always predominantly women, about 75%, I’d say.
Just cruising the interwebz and found a link to a post which single-handedly proves why you (specifically you) don’t want to get involved in the blogging manosphere:
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/06/does-manosphere-blogger-vox-day-really-support-the-murder-and-mutilation-of-women/
For those of you who don’t have a ready supply of brain bleach, no one with any intelligence would want to be associated in any way with these opinions. If this is what ‘man blogging’ is about, then steer well clear.
And he calls himself a Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale
I’m not going to defend or berate Vox Day. I haven’t read enough to know exactly where he stands on these issues. A cursory reading of those quotes, and the fact that he’s rebutting atheist PZ Meyers, leads me to believe he’s simply extrapolating atheistic assumptions to their logical ends. In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint, feminism can be problematic. But, again, I haven’t read enough of his position to comment confidently.
However, you’re right. If that’s what “man-blogging” looks like, I’ll steer clear.
Um, wow. Wow. I’m speechless. That’s pure ugliness.
I don’t know Vox Day at all but if you read the quoted blog post (http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2012/06/scientist-beats-up-pz.html), it is readily apparent that he’s not putting forth his own opinions on womens’ rights. He is mocking some guy named PZ Myers for not recognizing how his own philosophy can be used to argue for things like not educating women.
I like to joke that the all knowing Google never tells lies but let’s not slander someone before back checking quotes to the original source, eh? 🙂
Yes, true. I just read VD’s post. It isn’t at all saying what it has been reputed to be saying. But on another note, why in the name of whatever (don’t want to curse) do you think Mike’s blog ring (that he won’t start anyway) would be of the same chest-thumping quality as blogs in the manosphere (that question to Iola above)??
I linked over to Vox Day’s post yesterday, and his stance wasn’t clear to me. If he was being “tongue in cheek” he needs to work on his comedic skills, otherwise, he can expect to be misquoted and misrepresented. Personally, I found it all in poor taste, but it’s a free Web and I’m free not to buy any of his books because now I can’t get past wanting to wring his neck.
I think his point was in formulating an argument using the same standards that the atheist in question uses (except when the atheist wants to discuss religion, where he seems to apply a different standard of non-argumentation). He was giving the atheist a taste of his own medicine, as far as I can see. However, some of his (VD’s) arguments ring false to me.
One reasons is that manosphere is a specific term. It doesn’t mean all male bloggers.
Manosphere is a catch-all for blogs that tend to follow some form of radical masculinism based on the idea of Game. You get guys like the PUA-the pickup artists, who use Game to get lots of women to sleep with, MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, who disengage from women, marriage, and society in general due to its perceived bias to women, MRA, Men’s rights activists, who focus on societal double standards applied to men, and others, like Christians or married men who use game to try and deal with women. There even are some women manosphere bloggers, who believe game is true and try to use it to work on their marriages.
Game is essentially the idea that “women like jerks” given a pseudo-scientific evolutionary psych explanation. Think freudianism in how it tries to explain things. It’s deeper than that, but it essentially argues that both men and women are attracted and deal with each other in an irrational way due to biology, and you have to interact based with that. Like one of the principles is hypergamy; women will always be attracted to men more powerful, more wealthy, and more attractive than they are, and fail to be so with lesser men due to the need to provide for offspring.
This kind of philosophy is incredibly radical, and often toxic and misogynistic. It’s not simply men blogging, and most men don’t hold to this although they may grumble at times about things similar. It’s a completely different worldview and has nothing to do with chest-thumping or complaining about imbalance in the church. I don’t think Mike’s ring would devolve into this any more than a woman’s ring would become a center for radical matriarchal feminism.
Vox though is a Christian Game person, and he really does say things that can be offensive. You don’t need to read manboobz-just read Vox Popoli some, or his game blog Alpha Game Plan. This individual post may be misrepresented, as manboobz is a site designed to mock the manosphere, but Vox has been pretty open with what he believes on his own blogs. A Throne of Bones really doesn’t touch on the content of what he writes there except tangentially, but he does write and say a lot of things which are problematic, and to be blunt, plain out wrong if not unchristian. I don’t say this lightly.
So this is why I think you don’t need to worry about Mike’s ring.
“often toxic and misogynistic”
Often toxic? Sounds like that might be understating it.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It’s definitely eye-opening. Seeing as how I try to *avoid* jerks, I won’t be hanging out with the manclan.
And I don’t like saying that either. I liked vox’s book, and I like what he says when he talked on spec faith about his ideas in writing it. I’m sympathetic with his aims in writing it, and I don’t like to accuse others of anything. But while the manboobz article misrepresents him, he does say some controversial things at times.
Um, I wasn’t worried about Mike’s non existent blog ring. I was questioning Iola’s insinuation that Mike would become part of the manospere. Okay, I feel like I’m talking about someone as if he weren’t in the room. He can answer for himself. However, none of Mike’s previous posts would induce me to believe his ring would be part of the manosphere (of which I’m quite familiar). I’ve also been reading Vox Day’s articles for years (WND and occasionally his blog), so I’m already aware of what he generally believes. p.s. Chest-beaters=men who pretend to be alpha males when they are not. Real alpha males don’t find it necessary to create game blogs on the internet because they assume themselves to already be in control in their sphere of influence. The top alpha males are the ones running this country as politicians or corporate bosses. And I’m pretty sure they don’t give a shit about MRAs on the internet. Social control isn’t about controlling/manipulating one sex or the other; it’s about knowing how to manipulate both.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say you didn’t know. I think I got my reply-chain crossed up. I wanted to explain it because the manosphere really isn’t that well known, especially among Christians.
I regret the day I stumbled on it. 🙁
Interesting discussion here.
Like Vox Day’s apparent “Devil’s Advocate” arguments with/about PZ Myers (if there is no God, as atheists claim, then everything is reduced to the physical and to this world only, and so people are economics, market values, and valued based only what they can do and provide as a gender — as opposed to [I don’t know if this is really discussed anywhere on his website] people who are Christians, who believe that people are spiritual beings as well, and that their God-given souls have intrinsic value, not just economic value.)
I mean, I get it. Looking at life from an evolutionary standpoint … well, such people can contradict themselves, and it should be pointed out to them. I don’t think many atheists would really want to live in a world that purely operated from an evolutionary standpoint. I think people in their hearts do recognize the value of human life (even if it is only their own), even if they do not recognize that God is the one who gave humans value by sending His own self (in the form of His son, part of the Trinity, and therefore part of Himself) to die for humanity.
And, of course, God is the one who created humans, giving them value that way as well.
I’m in the new minority too – thanks for letting me know.