Today I came across this tally of male v. female writers, book reviewers and book authors reviewed in the top commercial and literary magazines. I'm sure you'll be interested, and maybe surprised. I'll be interested in hearing your theories. Mine is that the good-ol'-boy network—emphasis on boy—is very much alive and working at these magazines. As in any business, connections count. Winning an editor's attention has never been based purely on merit.
The gender split in the UW nonfiction classes is always far to the opposite. In the 13 years I've been teaching, the ratio in my classes consistently has fallen in the range of 80-85 percent female, as in this current one.
It has been my general observation that women are more interested in reading about men than men are of reading about women. More women have read Catcher in the Rye than men have read Little Women. And would Harry Potter have been such a phenomenon if Harry had been Harriet? If this is true, it would stand that pieces about men would receive a larger audience, assuming readership to be 50/50 split.
ReplyDeleteOn the assumption that women more often write about women, and men of men (perhaps that's unfair; how many students in class wrote about someone of the opposite sex for our recent assignment?), then it would follow that fewer pieces by women would be selected by editors in search of attracting high readership.
Is this perhaps skewed by the magazines the article analyzed? Many "women's magazines" are almost exclusively written and edited by women.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I've definitely seen Aleta's comment in action and networking is key in any field. Maybe we women need to learn those good ol boy networking skills more effectively.