Perhaps the obvious answer is that women don’t gravitate towards talk radio, period. It’s the sports talk of political junkies. Successful women’s programming tends to be based on the Oprah model: the sharing of personal stories, ideally inspirational, and a more “inclusive” approach to dialogue.
That being said, I’m a woman who used to enjoy talk radio and has always been bored senseless by Oprah. For a long time I listened to Rush: I enjoyed his intelligent criticism of liberal policies; his bracing energy; his sense of humor. If I was in the car long enough, Rush would bleed into Hannity and others, and I’d listen to them too. However, over the past few years, I found myself joining the female majority and changing stations when these shows came on. At first I thought I was doing so because, as a mother of three, I didn’t need another person in the car yelling at me. Then, when I’d force myself to listen, I felt like I was trapped in an elevator with someone whose ego squished me up against the doors: when they weren’t boasting about their moral courage or superior worldviews, they seemed to take everything that was happening politically as a personal slight–or achievement, depending on what it was (Electoral victory? All thanks to my listeners! Electoral defeat? The people were denied my message by the liberal media!). That is, when they weren’t trying to sell me a Sleep Number Bed. I’m sure many male listeners have tuned out for the same reasons.
But maybe this type of personality is just innately more off-putting to women. As women, we know this type of man. We may have dated this type of man. Lord knows, we may have married and divorced this type of man. But however we may have come across him we know this much: We want to get to our floor and leave the elevator as quickly as possible.
I disagree with Danielle. I love talk radio and think it’s place in our free speech touting republic is indispensable. Perhaps I’m a black sheep among women and one of those political junkies Danielle refers to– talk radio is my form of sports talk. But God, what would we have done without Rush during the Clinton years? What would I have done without Rush during my years at a liberal women’s college? Rush kept me sane through his entertaining and humorous articulations of conservative principles. I will always feel indebted to Rush for his contribution to radio, and to giving voice to my thoughts as my political conscience formed. During the days where our presidency and capital city bathed in mud bath–oh the Clinton years– Rush was the voice of reason and sanity for millions of Americans.
I’m an avid talk radio listener but it is pretty heavy on national policy, and polls show that women don’t know much about national issues. They can tell you who’s on the school board and why their mayor is a fool, but not why Nancy Pelosi’s pork bill is a disaster. Also, talk radio is characterized by bombast, teasing, and other locker room manners that don’t sit so well with women. The put-down is not a woman’s preferred weapon. She’ll do the quiet shiv every time.
Well, I agree with Danielle that many of the fairer gender (though this one and her friends excluded) prefer to focus on feelings rather than facts. And so they are more comfortable in ‘Oprah’s’ audience than that of the more bare-knuckled but thought-provoking talk radio world. However, when it comes to the private world, women are willing to make strong value judgments (don’t we all love to do that?). Especially conservative womenÑthus the popularity of Dr. Laura.
Like her, I make value judgments all the time on my parenting show: it’s a little more practical and old school, more Irma Bombeck than Dr. Phil, and a lot of women seem to respond to that, regardless of their politics.
I’m so horrified by Obama’s policies that I don’t feel that this recent conflict with Rush is doing anyone any good. I think most women dislike political talk radio because they are conflict-averse and, as Mona says, not very interested in the details of politics. You don’t see many women at National Review or The New Republic and they’re way under-represented at political blogs for those reasons. Who is the female Chuck Todd?
Hey, but I like talk radio, and ain’t I a woman? Actually, I have a theory about why women might not naturally tune to Rush or Hannity or even the brilliant Laura Ingraham. Contra Mona, Marty and Danielle, it’s not the hosts’ forceful delivery or the fact that they may talk about abstract ideas or are conservative but because—RIGHT NOW FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY! BLAH BLAH BLAH! LIFELOCK! BLAH BLAH BLAH! ORDER NOW AND DON’T FORGET TO TELL THEM YOU HEARD ABOUT IT HERE! BLAH BLAH BLAH! Radio ads are great for generating revenue, but they’re maddening for a listener who’s working in the kitchen: There you are, pondering Obama’s ghastly budget, when suddenly someone is yelling at you to buy a dozen-fresh-roses-right-now-just-key-in-my-name-at-the-top-go-to-www.etc. and you can’t turn the dial because you’re either chopping or stirring or up to your wrists in raw chicken. This is why many sensible conservative women listen to NPR or C-Span; whatever the occasional provocations, at least there’s a nice simmering hubbub of conversation with no salesman screaming at you.
I used to listen to Rush & talk radio almost all the time. Now, except for Laura Ingraham, whose inspired riffs on the culture I enjoy, I make other choices. Those choices include The Teaching Company lectures (now learning about opera, China, and World War II, depending on what has been recently returned to the library), free LearnItalianPod.com lessons, or maybe partying with Jimmy Buffet on Radio Margaritaville on Sirius satellite radio. Or maybe I have plugged in my Ipod and am rocking out to the choral parts of Handel’s Messiah, the greatest piece of music ever composed (but ONLY with a boys’ choir; girls RUIN it).
This reflects a couple of things. First, since the talk radio heyday of the 90’s, there has been a huge technological revolution dramatically expanding both audio choice as well as opportunities to escape the horrors of reality. Second, talk radio is a subversive conservative alternative to much of the dominant political culture, and conservatism is now in a dormant phase. The Fourth Generation will once again rise forcefully to answer the excesses and misjudgments of the current Messiah (and, to quote John Cleese in Life of Brian, “He is the Messiah! I oughta know, I’ve followed a few”). But for now, the Third Generation is spent. We go gently into that long good night. Consider learning more about opera.
About the Contributors:
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C. area.
Danielle Crittenden is a Washington-based author and journalist.
Meghan Cox Gurdon is a columnist for The Washington Examiner and a regular contributor to the books pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Betsy Hart is a nationally syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service. Betsy’s show, “It Takes a Parent,” is featured on Chicago’s WYLL/AM1160 radio and also heard on NationalReview.com.
Margaret Hoover has served as a congressional staffer, at the Department of Homeland Security, in the White House, and in two national presidential campaigns. She is a Fox News contributor and a member of the Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution.
Melinda Sidak is Vice-President of Criterion Economics LLC in Washington, DC.
Marty York is a television editor living in Washington.
17 responses so far
1 Go Dog Go! // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Wrong question: It’s not that women don’t like talk radio, it’s that they don’t like sexist dinosaurs whose time has come and gone. Seriously, radio is still a fine medium but for an increasing number of women the messengers are just relics of an increasingly irrelevant brand of conservatism. “Progressive Conservatives” are the next wave — You’ll see when women lead a revival as the next power players.
2 ModerateGal // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I agree with you totally, Go Dog Go. I like the idea of Progressive Conservatives.
3 shotpusherRN // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Progressive Conservative is an oxymoron. Love talk shows, Mark Levin is a personal favorite; hate all that touchy feely daytime crap like Phil and Oprah. That’s what’s wrong with this country, feelings carry more weight than thought. Now we have a sleek, urbane package that is screwing up the country. Some women make me cringe and they’re my own species!
4 Rhampton // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:41 pm
An interesting discussion among female journalists, radio hosts, et al., but it is seems unlikely to be reflective of women who are not listening to Rush. I want to know what are the actual motivations of real (non-media industry) women.
5 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Are women any more or less drawn to liberal or liberal-female talk radio show hosts? Do they like Stephanie Miller more than Rush? I would like to see this discussion expanded.
6 johnnycat // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Also, I like what Meghan says about NPR. I always wondered if there was the possibility of developing at least a conservative alternative to shows like “Democracy Now.” This would go a long way in stifling the criticism that conservatism lacks intellectual congruity.
7 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:59 am
What I have seen, is that in venues where men don’t have to watch what they say, they can blurt out some real sexist stuff. Venues like talk radio and certain right-wing Internet blogs, where you don’t have to give your full name. And that stuff can be uncomfortable for women, especially today where there are plenty of other media outlets where women don’t have to listen to that sort of thing. Rush Limbaugh is notorious for making digs at female Democrats that are gender-related–he said that the reason Hillary was rejected by the voters in 2008 was that they didn’t want to see a woman age in office. The atmosphere on talk radio resembles that of a tavern where men go to rant about their wives or women generally or the mess in Washington, over a few drinks.
8 sinz54 // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:06 am
johnnycat: For over 30 years, the conservative intellectual alternative on PBS was William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line.” The passing of William F. Buckley last year marked a watershed. William F. Buckley was the conservative who sold the idea that conservatism could be based on sound intellectual ideas. But now, conservatism is becoming less intellectual and more aimed at Joe the Plumber. Rush Limbaugh has far more fans than National Review.
9 bartlettb // Mar 7, 2009 at 8:21 am
It is not just women who have turned off talk radio in the last few years. I listened to Rush almost every day for close to 20 years. One reason I always liked his show is that he was a conservative first and a Republican second. Around 2006 I concluded that he had gotten turned around and was a Republican first and a conservative second. That’s when I stopped listening.
10 Dan Crank // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:43 am
Most of you people seem to see your selves as intellectually superior to average people that listen to talk radio. Why is that? Just because you are criticized for having different views on abortion ory marriage than the average nonintellectual mind numb robots of talk radio. We are not the enemy. Come to common ground with us not the left.
11 johnnycat // Mar 7, 2009 at 11:01 am
sinz54: I also listened to William F. Buckley and I ordered some of his Firing Line shows from the Hoover Institution from which I subscribe to the Hoover Digest. I also read New Criterion, and everything from the ISI and City Journal. I find Heather MacDonald to be my favorite writer there-why doesn’t she have a talk show? But I also listen to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin-I don’t really like Hannity. I recognize that appearances of what the conservative has become can be deceiving, but as someone who has been in it for some time and who is highly educated (I’m not going to tell people how many degrees I have) I know that losing one election does not mean you lost the war. Conservatives were caught into defending a war where a lot of the left and the media tried to stop by throwing a lot (not all of it was I concede) misinformation. It was hard, after years of playing defense to go on the offensive for someone we did not really believe in. Conservatives who want to throw Rush and Levin under the bus, are allowing the left to define their movement and not analyzing the real problems that came up within conservatism because we had to play defense over the war. Just a reminder: Frum wrote the most pro-war book during the Bush Administration, which the left decried as the Neo-conservative proof of plans to invade Syria and Iran. If he doesn’t address the question I raised in this post, maybe he is the one trying to regain credibility with the left by attacking the right.
12 Go Dog Go! // Mar 8, 2009 at 1:05 am
The reason women will lead the revival as “progressive conservatives” is simple: Their best positioned to rebut the hardcore, right wing men of the party that put conservatism where it is. A rejection of the Rove/Delay win-at-all-costs Bush-era Republicanism is the purge necessary to rebuild a foundation. Progressive conservative women offer the ability to discuss issues with substance and civility (as they do on NPR) rather than the shout-downs and bombast currently en vogue. More importantly, women offer the perceptual distance and optimum positioning point to put forward kitchen table and health care-related solutions. Empirical data indicates this is the fertile territory of a conservative rebuild and the same white guys clamoring for tax cuts and obstructing past proposals have zero credibility there anymore. Besides, younger Americans are increasingly tired of men talking about an issue many see as pertaining to a woman’s body. It will be moderate women (NOT the Coulters) who will best be able to frame and communicate relevant positions on these issues with the American people.
13 sinz54 // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:24 am
dan crank: It’s not us who don’t want common ground. On abortion, we have made proposals on how to soften the GOP platform’s hard stance, without totally abandoning the traditional pro-life slant. We have suggested ways that homosexals could be given the same rights as married heteros, on issues like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., but without full marriage rights. It’s the hard-core Religious Right that won’t compromise on anything, ever. Embryonic stem-cell research is a perfect example. Even if it’s limited just to those embryos that would have been discarded anyway from in-vitro fertilization attempts, the Religious Right still says no deal. The stem-cell issue is the place to have this out once and for all. If the Christian evangelical base of the GOP is seriously interested in “common ground,” let them start by softening their hard-right opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.
14 BarbD // Mar 9, 2009 at 4:51 am
I’m a woman who listens to talk radio — on NPR. Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air. Whatever the hosts’ biases, these shows present a variety of views and (in the case of some of the shows), listener response. Discourse can be passionate without being insulting or rude, and I’m better able to listen to what’s being said (whether I agree with it or not). Bloviating just causes me to tune out — whatever the person’s political persuasion.
15 Realist // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:02 am
shotpusherRN said: “Progressive Conservative is an oxymoron”. Wow. What a sad statement. It’s just this kind of inflexible, reactionary thinking that has gotten us where we are today. The term “Progressive” shouldn’t fall under the ownership of the left. It is a large number of independent voters (social progressive, fiscal conservatives) that went with Obama big time and will continue to do so in in the future unless some compromises are made. This is why I have supported Michael Steele from the beginning and will continue to so.
16 sinz54 // Mar 9, 2009 at 1:07 pm
BarbD: You would probably have enjoyed David Brudnoy’s talk show, locally on WBZ-AM Boston. Brudnoy was a true intellectual, erudite, quiet and serious. He discussed literature and the theater as well as politics and world affairs. Another similar show I used to enjoy was The Connection, on NPR, when it was hosted by Christopher Lydon. After he was let go, the show went downhill and I stopped listening. But these shows tried to appeal to your mind, not to your adrenal glands. They weren’t intended to rile you up to go vote against Democrats. That’s what the usual group of right-wing talk radio shows is for.
17 sw // Mar 9, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Meghan, most radios of the boombox persuasion today have remote controls. You don’t have to listen to the ads … although they can be weirdly fascinating, focusing as they do on the timeless traumas of humanity: baldness, obesity, getting and spending, and (thanks to computerized services) finding a mate. It’s the real world, like it or not.
I thoroughly detest NPR (Nat’l Palestinian Radio) and always have, even when I was a Democrat (pre-9/11). Their soporific, condescending pieces on those cute’n'quirky yokels who — imagine that! — live in places other than the coasts, could make me gag. The very sound of an NPR voice is unhealthy for most living things.
I like Hewitt – he should not be lumped in with the rest – he is something of an intellectual, and once in a while there is Shakespeare, classical music, serious history on his show. But these guys do have an irrepressible urge to be cheerleaders– and most of us get over that in junior high school.
You must log in to post a comment.