In today’s podcast, entitled “Women are not men,” Stephen Dubner discusses unexpected statistical differences in activities shared among both men and women. Particularly intriguing, he explains, is the discrepancy between men and women in terms of their presence on Wikipedia; in addition to the fact that (according to a study conducted in 2013) only one in every six women is an editor on Wikipedia, women also account for only about 9% of the website’s total edits. This gendered imbalance has been problematic on the website since its inception; one such woman Dubner interviews recounts the tale of her first days at Wikipedia wherein several of her articles were outright denied for seemingly no apparent reason. Whether this was in practice an act of sexism or not, it is still questionable that her article would be shot down so quickly while men’s articles at the time were accepted with open arms and were not highly criticized. Perhaps, at the end of the day, a continually strong male presence online is merely a function of the social construction of gender more than anything else. Society has historically valued the opinions and morals of men to a much greater extent than women, and even though one’s identity is masked considerably behind a computer, this standard has unfortunately continued to be the case online. To that end, I find it especially interesting to ponder the concept that men continue to be the dominant gender even on the internet; if we cannot physically see that it is a man who is posting content behind a computer, how is it that we sense a man is indeed the one posting it? Is it the way the content is written, or even the “voice” that the content gives off? If so, the perhaps the ultimate question is why what men write, even in the privacy of their own homes and sheltered from the outside world, is more valued and is taken more seriously than what women write?