(I think one of the important points here is to acknowledge the possibility that the origins of people’s preferences may be relevant. That is, tastes are shaped not only by individual idosyncracy but also socially structured experience.)

For example, it is a known that compared to women, men are more knowledgeable and more interested in politics and more likely to feel politically efficacious. This is not to say that men are not more likely to claim credit; the two differences can exist side by side. Differences in political engagement between men and women have been observed across democratic societies, especially ones where the dominant religion is Catholicism. These differences have been explained in different ways, including differences in resources, gender-based social roles, and gender consciousness of women.

Some surveys have shown differing levels of ability to identify political leaders by gender; for example, one survey from the 1980s found that men were more likely to be able to name a slate of world leaders, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher; or that Canadian men were more likely to be able to identify Prime Ministers, with the exception of Kim Campbell. But I’m not sure it’s been systematically shown that there is any sort of role-modelling effect.

There are issues that those white, well-educated men just do not see because they have never had to. So even if they’re well-intentioned, their pieces miss out on issues important to other types of people because they don’t know that they’re issues in the first place. It reinforces the idea that the white male is the default, and in particular the white, well-educated male.

Why can you only relate to someone based on their skin color and gender? And not their ideas?

I’m not saying you *only* relate based on demographics, but the more someone is like you, the easier it is to relate, and that includes race/gender, etc. and ideology.

Do all white men enjoy privilege

Yes. It operates in different ways at different times (and to different degrees), but it’s always there.

But I don’t see going to the “I don’t see enough of (fill in gender/race) and that makes feel like I can’t relate to who they are” card to explain why women are this or that. I don’t want to play the game of a victim.The reason why women are not making partner in a law firms or getting the CEO positions is much more complicated than shouting sexism and white man privileges.

No one’s arguing that racism and sexism are the sole causes of the disparity, merely that they’re relevant. If you read Zuzu’s post, she says specifically “There may not be active, conscious misogyny and racism going on, just an unexamined clubbiness, but if the progressive opinion universe is serious about promoting voting among populations that aren’t voting, they might want to do a little self-examination.” That’s hardly playing the victim.

It’s strange then that Katie Couric was hired for such a prominent position if that is true.

And people repeatedly questioned as to whether or not she was fit for the position, whether she could project substantial gravitas, etc. And here’s a short post about representation of women in the media

The fact that I see more men on tv does not dissuade me from watching them

Yes, but seeing more women on TV, does, in fact, dissuade men from watching. That doesn’t bother you?

Girls for (at least) last twenty years have grown up in a culture that says girls are just as good as boys.

Except that the reality doesn’t match the message. If that’s really the case, where are the female TV anchors and political writers? The partners in law firms, the heads of government agencies? Rhetoric about equality and equality are not equivalent.

I have every intention of being a judge, but there are not a lot female role models. 2 women total serving on the Supreme Court doesn’t make me think I don’t want to aspire to that level. But it makes a hell of a lot harder to find people that I feel I can relate to. White men enjoy privilege that I never will.

a major reason these women don’t vote is they feel like they’re not well-informed and therefore aren’t qualified to vote.

I think more so than ‘women follow politics less than men, and thus feel uninformed’ is that women, as has been mentioned a million times on this site and other feminist blogs, are less likely to be confident in their own competence. In my experience, my female friends are more likely to tell my they don’t feel well-informed enough to have an opinion and male friends are more likely to say ‘here’s the opinion I have based on my limited knowledge,’ even though my female friends tend to have about the same grasp on the issues (which is better than they think it is) as the men.

Eh, also the Weekly Standard website has prominent pictures of its writers next to every article. Is this part of the way the Right tries to promote its writers into celebrity status? When you look at all the people in the punditocracy, including not a few women, who have made media careers in the right wing noise machine, it’s obvious they’re doing something very different, though I’m not sure the Left would want to copy that.

As to where the wimmin at? My hypothesis: blogging. :D