23

A UK freedom of speech website.

This site’s name should be self explanatory, but I had a look at their list of writers…

9 women

17 men!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/conwom-writers/

I’m very left-wing, but I thought I’d have a look because I’m interested in hearing other women’s views, so it was such a let-down to see a site with “women” in the title literally dominated by men.

A UK freedom of speech website. This site’s name should be self explanatory, but I had a look at their list of writers… 9 women 17 men! https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/conwom-writers/ I’m very left-wing, but I thought I’d have a look because I’m interested in hearing other women’s views, so it was such a let-down to see a site with “women” in the title literally dominated by men.

14 comments

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 18 points

One of those “disappointing but not really surprising” moments.

Totally. I might not agree with their viewpoints, but I still love to see a space with only women’s views.

It’s disappointing that there are men writing there, but to be honest I was surprised that they are the majority.

[–] Lipsy 8 points Edited

I suspect that the main purpose of this outfit is to preach from behind an electronic pulpit to (where "to" has a big chunk of "at" hiding in it) Women, about how to live the purportedly ideal, Proverbs 31 type, Womanhood.

The people doing the same thing from behind physical pulpits are mostly male, too. Why would this be any different?

Is it really written to conservative women though? Their title says "woman" in singular, and their mission says nothing about women. It looks to me it may be a poor job at branding, and "The Conservative Woman" refers to Kathy Gingell who is the head of this media?

[–] Lipsy 4 points Edited

The creators have taken obvious pains to style the site like a periodical, and distinctly not like a blog.
Periodicals with people-titles (excluding one specific person's name, e.g. Forbes) are absolutely alws named for their archetypal target reader—unlike blogs, which are generally named for, or at least around, their authors—so the point of the title is definitely "This is our target readership."

It's true that there's a pretty severe dearth of content on Women's issues, but guuuuuurl! What else would you expect?
I mean, subordinating the self-actualization and general good of Women to those of the greater crowd (family, society, whatever) is a nasty little feature of Female socialization everywhere—but nowhere more than in socially conservative circles.

Too many articles that center on the concerns and issues faced specifically by Women, and they might even be knocking on the door of (le gasp!! Quelle horreur ma soeur!) FEMINISM! And certainly the royal we won't be having any of that.

Really hard to say. The site said they've been around for 6 years. It might have started out like a blog by Gingell and the site underwent changes and redesigned overtime, but the name stuck? They don't even really spell out the title now just ACW? Kinda like how how many left wing women orgs still have "women" in the name but blatantly now recite the gender creed and went co-ed, and won't ever even mention the word "woman".

Interesting thought... but on the About Us page, the site is named 3 different ways.in just the header, the subhead, and the very first line of text. • "TCW" • "ConWom" (channeling the way Korean and Japanese abbreviate stuff... or the US military, but only if every letter is capitalized) —and— • The Conservative Woman

Oh, and, lest i forget... the domain is conservativeWoman​.co​.UK, too.

So now we're at 4 different redundant namings, within the same 1 inch or so of vertical space (depending on how you have yr browser configured)
Doesn't look like anyone's forgotten what this site is called. 😂

[–] Future [OP] 2 points Edited

Oh that’s a good point! It makes more sense seeing it that way. It’s clearly not about the viewpoints of a collective of women, and more about it being headed by a woman.

Yeah she needs some help with a branding expert. The title is confusing as hell.