The Blame Game

Maybe PC, maybe it isn't... Who's to say?

culturebox
Girl Fight
The marginalized debate over female opinion writers.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 2:04 PM PT



Everyone here at Slate kept hoping that the dustup over the number of female opinion writers on the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers would just go away—none of us really wanted to dignify Susan Estrich's ad hominem attacks on Mike Kinsley, our former boss, with a response, for one thing, or felt that her charges would lead to a truly fruitful debate. But the controversy has mushroomed yet again this week, as the country's foremost female columnists began to speak out on the issue. What's emerged is hardly a consistent point of view or—in some cases—the dispassionate analysis for which these women are usually known: A surprisingly vulnerable Maureen Dowd made the very nice point last Sunday that women opinion journalists are often lambasted as emasculating bitches for savaging male subjects; and the wonderful Anne Applebaum is so utterly annoyed by others' claims that she is a "token" woman over at the Washington Post that she considers today's column on the subject to be both necessary and a waste of her time. Yesterday saw Deborah Tannen making the important observation that perhaps "attack journalism" shouldn't be the only mode of opinion-writing featured on editorial pages. (I don't believe she's correct in suggesting that all opinion writing is of the attack-dog variety, by the way; I take Slate as an alternate example of smart, non-vicious, opinion journalism.)

The fact that all these brilliant female opinion writers feel compelled to come forward whether or not they want to (Applebaum went so far as to tell us about the political column she didn't write today) speaks volumes about the real problem. And while both Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post and James Rainey at the Los Angeles Times have done fine reported pieces about the dearth of women opinion-writers, I can't seem to find—beyond a short blurb by Slate’s Jack Shafer—a single opinion column by a single male columnist on the subject. (I don't count Jonathan Turley's scathing column on the personal nature of Estrich's attack, since he does not get to the merits of her claims.) In fact, the most rigorous and systematic thinking by men and women about the apparent underrepresentation of female voices on the editorial pages is taking place in the blogosphere. Really great posts by both sexes on the debate can be found here, and here, and here, and here, just for starters.

What do they conclude? Many bloggers point to the gender disparity among the nation's top political bloggers to illustrate the point that even where there are no barriers to entry—no consciously or unconsciously prejudiced gatekeepers barring the doors—women may simply choose to stay away from certain types of media. And just as women may not be producing opinion journalism at the same rates as men, they may not be consuming it all that much either. In short, there may be an interesting market problem at work here: I know an awful lot of smart, accomplished women who avoid both the op-ed pages and the Crossfire-style "screaming shows" because that is simply not the type of discourse they seek out or value.

I can also swear to the fact that as an editor, the number of pitches I receive from men outnumbers the pitches I see from women by several orders of magnitude. I can add, again purely anecdotally, that women largely send in pitches for reported pieces, and are far less inclined to frame a piece as an "argument"—which may prove Tannen's point that argument is not necessarily a comfortable or natural mode of communication for women (a phenomenon I observed in law school as well). This is, in short, an insanely interesting thought problem to which we are applying very little interesting thought.

There are at least a dozen ways to parse and think through the acknowledged underrepresentation of women opinion writers, and yet—to the extent that we are having a national conversation on the topic—it is a conversation so far almost wholly lacking the voices of men. (I insert here the obligatory disclaimer that but for Michael Kinsley I would probably not have a job in opinion writing today.) The smartest male columnists in the country—people willing to reconfigure the Social Security system in 800 words and able to dissect the Middle East peace process in a single afternoon with their laptops—are not willing to turn that massive store of their brainpower to the equally hard issue of what an opinion page is meant to represent; whether the gender discrepancy here is due to prejudice, socialization, or innate differences between men and women, or some combination thereof; and whether, beyond the crude tools of affirmative action, there is any useful remedy.

Perhaps male columnists are just not interested in this issue because it doesn't represent the sort of "hard news" they're used to commenting on. More likely, they are terrified to opine on the debate because the inquiry is so fraught with the possibility of career-terminating levels of politically correct blowback—à la Larry Summers—that they deem it better to hold their tongues and wait for the storm to pass. Imagine a man writing, as Dowd just did, that women want to be "liked" whereas men don't care. I can already smell their scorched Dockers. ... Imagine a man writing, as did Applebaum, that this is all a storm in a teacup; the sort of trivial bean-counting that is insulting and degrading to women. (Clarence Thomas is routinely characterized as beyond loathsome for making that argument against affirmative action.)

And so a clutch of women are left on the pink margins of the page, to wring our hands and, well, discuss among ourselves. The subtext will thus remain that anyone choosing to speak out on this is somehow hysterical or overemotional; that this is not a "serious" problem since serious people (i.e., men) aren't addressing it. All of which practically guarantees that nothing will be done about defining, measuring, or redressing the issue in the long term. Claims that no man wants to step on the landmine of political correctness, gender stereotyping, and identity politics should not justify bowing out of the conversation. Maureen Dowd, Deborah Tannen, and Anne Applebaum are smart, serious people. They have taken the time to initiate a conversation. They deserve serious responses from men and women alike.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2114926/

This raises another interesting question: why NOW? Women have been working as op-ed writers for years... So why is it now, all of a sudden, that they are complaining that there are so few of them?

And why does anyone care?
Seriously. If this were a discrimination issue, we'd be hearing a lot more about it for a long time. We'd have many rejected applicants speaking up, we'd be hearing about lawsuits, etc. So perhaps we're not talking about the policies of the newspapers. Newspapers like NY Times have many female journalists in their various sections, so we're not to worry about a Ron Burgundy-like regress.
Yet, op-ed writers, such as Maureen Dowd, seem to feel women are somehow discouraged from writing for that particular section.
First of all, does it mean that the women who DO write for it and who complain about dearth of women, are lonely? Why is it necessary for them to have companions of their own sex? After all, neither Dowd nor any of the ones complained about their treatment at work, so why not do their own thing and forget about who else is writing what? I, for instance, couldn't care less whether the op-ed writer is female or male or anything in between as long as the op-ed is well-written and/or makes interesting points. Is it the whole "Woman Power" thing rising like a phoenix from the ashes? (Riding the coattails of the Summers controversy). Power in numbers, that is? Is it really necessary for woment to be many in a certain sphere in order to be powerful?

I don't necessarily agree. Better to have a few strong-voiced women as described in the article than a myriad wannabees just for the sake of "equality" and "diversity". Since quantity doesn't necessarily imply quality, I would concentrate more on the content of op-ed writing than on who is writing it.

Addressing the point made in the article, it's interesting to explore WHY women may be less interested in op-ed writing. Several possiblities here:
1)They may prefer other media, such as blogging.
I for one LOVE reading op-ed pieces, I like the style. But I wouldn't want to be a columnist for a newspaper. I enjoy expressing my opinion in the more independent atmosphere of the blogging world, however informal it may seem. Moreover, it is not my goal to attract thousands of readers necessarily. I prefer the intimacy of an involved conversation of a few loyal readers, the ability to address each one's comments personally, to explore the individual personalities of my readers, and to learn from them.

In other words, although I like the idea of an opinion-piece writing, I imagine something more like an on-line salon, a la the kind made famous by many Enlightenment women, than an impersonal, detached column. [Notice the address of the link: another interesting coincidence!] The fact that this type of environment was once made famous by women may certainly imply something about their preferences to this day... or may turn out to be simply a curious coincidence.

2) Men and women are different. Why is it necessary for them to be the same, to have the same achievements in the same areas? Doesn't true diversity imply freedom of both genders to choose their own interests and what suits them best? Apparently, however, some of the women complaining about the quanitative inequality don't agree. Is it realistic to expect the numbers of op-ed columnists ever be strictly 50-50? Is it fair to anyone? I don't see the newspaper *readers* complaining much about lack of intellectual diversity. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with the columnists being all men or all women or all white or all black, as long as the multiplicity of viewpoints is represented. And yes, it is quite possible for the two genders to support and be interested in "reciprocal" issues.

Does this mean I'm dismissing Dowd, Applebaum, and the others as "hysterical" and "overemotional"? Not at all. But I'm trying to understand their reasoning at a time that gender inequality in the workplace has been aggressively addressed. And frankly, I have a problem with understanding that reasoning. Critiques indeed become suspect to political correctness if and when only numbers are concerned. In fact, that part of the issue I'm very much inclined to nominated for the Political Correctness category.

However, there's more to the story, and it is the second part which gives me some concern. The Slate article refers to a Maureen Dowd article from last Sunday, in which she mentions that men take criticism coming from a woman more personally, that "as a woman" she wants to be liked, not attacked, and that men enjoy verbal dueling. Apparently the latter statement, implies that women don't. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in this particular articl Dowd herself engages in the very inexcusable stereotyping and generalizations which she vehemently attacks. Do men *tend* to be more aggressive than women? What do you think? However, does that men that ALL men are very aggressive and love sparring, and that an insignificant number women likes arguing and wants to be liked? Um, just look at the law school statistics, and the answer may become a little more clear. Anyway, I don't like being told even by another woman what defines or should define me as a woman or as an individual.

Our personalities aren't just shaped by the level of our hormones and inherent aggressiveness or lack thereof. Intellectual inquisitiveness may also be a factor in one's approach to argumentation, as well as the process of socialization, habits, etc. My own personality has changed drastically through the years, as did personalities of many other people, so I don't think it's productive to generalize who likes sparring and who doesn't. It's simply not true anymore. One can like arguing even without being aggressive, just as most people apreciate being liked even if they are generally aggressive and enjoy arguing. One doesn't necessarily contradict the other, but Dowd's article polarizes two personality styles into two extremes.

Moreover, Dowd implies that women who write in a sharp, sarcastic, critical style are often labeled as "emasculating man-haters", whereas men who write in the same style don't. I'm not going to deny that somewhere out there exists a vast number of chauvinists and extraordinary jerks who are very insecure in all possible respects. That is the case. But isn't it the point of the op-ed columnist to raise some ire, to attack those very insecurities, to offend, question, and uncover? Sarcasm, satire, wit are all great tools to criticize weaknesses in one society. And the effect of one's style is evident in whether people get insulted or not.

If they do, it usually means they took your words to heart, they are taking you seriously, they don't want to listen to you, but can't help it. Deep inside they are reexamining their perspectives. Isn't it what every op-ed writer (or even blogger) wants to do? So why is Dowd complaining? I, for one, would have felt extremely satisfied, and would have gotten a good laugh out of the pathetic fools who have no other arguments except ad hominem. But then again, not all of us want to be "bones stuck in the throat of the world". Perhaps, the profession of an op-ed writer is indeed not for everybody.

Dowd ends with the words that we need to find and nurture those women who would bring grace and guts to the Op-Ed pages. My bet is, women with personalities for that type of writing don't need any nurturing. They'll find their own way. PC, oh so PC!

Another "emasculating man-hater" (but in a more universal sense)
Irina