Dana Goldstein argues that the dearth of women op-ed writers and columnists is not due to editorial sexism, but to women's lack of interest in politics (itself the result of women's under-representation in politics). Her proof? Gail Collins did "bupkis" for women opinion writers. Surely, Goldstein thinks, Collins, a woman and a feminist, would have promoted female talent. Her failure to do so, and the fact that most unsolicited op-eds are by men, proves the women just aren't there.
Where to begin? First of all, just being a woman and a feminist doesn't mean promoting women writers is your thing. Second, even if Collins wanted to bring in more women it's most unlikely that she had "the necessary power" to unilaterally decide who got the coveted permanent op-ed slots. These are major corporate decisions, in which her voice would have been one of many, and maybe -- who knows? -- not the most important one. We don't really believe David Brooks and John Tierney were her idea, do we? Third, as Goldstein notes, Collins found plenty of women for short stints and Timesselect; that suggests that the talent pool is not the problem, although both Collins and Goldstein, oddly, insist it is. (What part of "Barbara Ehrenreich" don't they understand?) Last point -- it's irrelevant which gender sends in more unsolicited pieces. Most of it goes straight into the wastebasket. In opinion journalism, the phone works mostly the other way: they call you.
Goldstein argues that the dearth of women political opinion writing is a function of the dearth of women in government. "Journalism is essentially an observational profession, and it makes sense that many women writers feel detached from a political world that not only showcases very few women, but also relegates 'women's issues' … to second-class status." Well, it's a theory. I wish she had provided some evidence for it. The evidence I see goes the other way: Women reporters are all over the front pages, covering the "hard" political subjects -- Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the elections, the White House, Africa, the Supreme Court. If women can risk life and limb in Baghdad -- war correspondent, now there's a stereotypically male profession! -- why would they wilt at the prospect of writing 750 words about that same war in the comfort of their home offices?
I think the answer to the disparity lies not in the female psyche, but in the different ways newspaper reporting and opinion writing are organized professionally. Reporters at major newspapers are regular employees, with unions and protection through affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws. An editor may secretly believe most women are wimps, but he has to deal with the employees before him. Unless they hit the jackpot and get a regular slot, opinion writers -- and indeed most writers at journals of opinion -- are just freelancers. If an editor doesn't see them, or doesn't like them, they have no recourse. Under Lewis Lapham, Harper's was famous for cultivating one woman writer at a time. That wasn't because only one sufficiently excellent woman writer was available.
It may be that in the population as a whole more men are keen on politics than women. It may even be that more male writers are keen on politics. But that doesn't explain the dearth of women op-ed columnists at elite publications, any more than the fact that most scientists are male explains the lack of tenured women scientists at Harvard. If ideally the best people get hired at the best places, there are more than enough impressive, seasoned, already famous women political opinion writers to fill the small number of openings and then some. The way to ask the question at the top levels is, why doesn't Barbara Ehrenreich (or Dahlia Lithwick, or Ruth Conniff, or Debra Dickerson, or Rebecca Traister…) have a slot at The Washington Post? I think the answer is the same as for the notorious absence of female bylines in The New York Review of Books. Surely Goldstein doesn't think women are uninterested in literature?
The way to ask the question about improving the numbers generally is: Does an editor solicit pieces from women, make working relationships with women, offer women regular beats and challenging assignments, include women in the life of the magazine, and promote them in its publicity? I have been watching how careers are shaped in political journalism for 30 years now and -- sorry, Ms. Goldstein! -- sexism still rules. I've seen mediocre men nurtured as if they were Toqueville himself, while talented women get sidelined. (Just follow a cohort of interns for five years and see which sex gets the mentoring and the lucky breaks.) I've seen men allowed to fail again and again while the editors tried to figure out what to do with them. With women, it's "We assigned her a piece and it didn't work out."
Eventually most of these women go do something else, like write a book or go back to school, or they move into more female-friendly areas of journalism, like entertainment and lifestyle. Then people say, "See? They weren't serious."
Editors who make the effort find women. Sometimes all it takes is looking at the bestseller list! Sometimes it means looking in smaller magazines, or on blogs, or actually reading and responding to query letters. And if they can't find them, they develop them, the way they develop male writers. When I began my Nation column in l994, I was the first female political columnist in the magazine's history -- and not because in 1984 or l974, no women existed who could or would do the job. In the last few years I've been joined by Naomi Klein and Patricia Williams. Both these women are world-renowned writers; no one had to hire a detective to find them. What it took was an editor committed to publishing more women political columnists. Places with such editors --Salon and In These Times come to mind -- have plenty of female bylines. Both publications, like The Nation, have women editors with real power. Coincidence? I doubt it, but luckily recognizing and developing talent is a game both sexes can play. Unfortunately, Goldstein's piece is an invitation to editorial complacency, and that is one quality that never needs to be encouraged.
Katha Pollitt writes the "Subject to Debate" column for The Nation and is the author, most recently, of Virginity or Death!
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
