Kelly writes: "Barely a fifth of op-ed articles in major newspapers are written by women. Yes, they're boys' clubs - but that's not the whole issue."
The OpEd Project recently found that a mere 20% of op-eds are written by women. (photo: MomItForward.com)
Why Women Have No Opinions
14 June 12
early a hundred years since women won the right to vote, their political and societal power is still only a fifth of what it should be – if the most influential space in major newspapers is any indicator. As the OpEd Project, an organization that aims to diversify public debate, recently found, a mere 20% of op-eds are written by women.
Researcher Taryn Yaeger looked at 7,000 pieces that appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal between 15 September and 7 December 2011, and found that while women wrote more frequently than men about so-called "pink" topics (like family concerns and home life), they were almost mute on matters such as Occupy Wall Street and other protests or rallies (14% of commentaries), international politics (13%), and the economy (11%).
Op-ed writers help to determine what the news is. They influence what we, as a country, contemplate and care about, and how we think of the big stories of the day. So when half of the population barely contributes to public forums that provoke so much discussion and action, democracy falters.
"The people we hear from on the issues of the day effectively narrate the world," says Katherine Lanpher, an instructor for the Op-Ed Project, a group that works to increase the diversity of voices in the media:
"Op-eds aren't about writing. They're about power. They are a relatively simple tool that can lead to influence."
And when women don't exercise that power, they lose it. By being effectively absent from "the conversation" much of the time, they're not exerting as much influence as they could and should – which also means it's easier for the issues significant to them to get swept under the rug, or decided by people who do not have ovaries.
Take, for instance, the question of reproductive rights. While it's hard to draw a direct correlation between women's under-representation in the op-ed pages and the scary way that coverage for birth control and access to safe abortions have come under attack recently, it seems fair to suggest that there might be a link. After all, men control close to half of the dialogue about what it is to be a contemporary female: astonishingly, females wrote a mere 53% of op-eds even on "women's issues".
"What this [op-ed imbalance] brings to mind, in particular, is the recent all-male congressional hearing on contraception," says Anika Rahman, Ms Foundation president and CEO. What's she's referring to is a February meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform; five male representatives – and not a single female – got together to voice their objections to a new federal law requiring employers to waive any co-pay fees for birth control.
Admittedly, there does not seem to be much of a gender gap when it comes to opinions about birth control coverage. But perhaps that has something to do with the way so many men in America – from religious leaders, to politicians, to, yes, op-ed writers – are still telling women what to think about their bodies, their health, and their future.
It's not just on Capitol Hill, however, that women often aren't given a chance to speak about their issues. On television, too, they're often shut out. "During the debate on birth control, cable networks called on male guests to talk about it by a margin of nearly two to one," Lanpher notes. (Let's not forget that women are minority voices in the film industry and on corporate boards, too.)
What's surprising, however, is that even when there are no gatekeepers to exclude them, no old boys' network to shut them out, women still aren't piping up enough, as evidenced by Wikipedia, where 85% of the contributions come from men. Does that mean that women are silent by choice? Does it imply that they're so under-represented in the most important sections of our major news media because they choose not to participate? Unfortunately, that seems partly true.
A significant part of the problem appears to be that women just don't have confidence that their opinions matter, or that they are informed enough. Therefore, they don't bother aiming for the op-ed pages. Says Lanpher:
"Women and other minority voices, in my experience, are usually the first people to say, 'Oh, I'm not an expert in that, you could find someone better to talk to,'" "'What if someone who knows more calls me on it?''
It seems, in other words, that a lack of self-confidence is part of the problem. But there's an ouroboros element to women's insecurity: it's understandable, if lamentable, that they have trouble thinking of themselves as experts when four out of five of the pontificators in the mainstream media are males – and a very specific kind of male, at that. "Close to 80% or more of the participants in public conversation are white men of a particular social strata who went to the same schools," says Lanpher. "If you don't match up, you're going to hesitate to put yourself out there."
Sue Horton, the op-ed and Sunday opinion editor for the Los Angeles Times, made a similar point recently while talking to Erika Fry, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review. Fry summarized Horton's take this way:
"Submissions from women are more likely to be from writers who are particularly informed, while a much greater share of submissions from men are 'dinner party op-eds' – pieces written because the author has an opinion on the subject, not because of any particular standing or expertise."
Women will write in when they feel certain they have specialized knowledge of a subject, whereas men don't feel they need much more than a strong opinion or an interesting idea. We females need to remember this the next time we're at a dinner party: men aren't necessarily more expert than us, even if they're more more likely to be bloviators – at friends' houses, as well as in illustrious publications.
If we women started speaking up more often in private settings, perhaps we'd find our voices – and feel more empowered to speak our minds publicly and prominently, too.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Women can be competitive too, but not in the same way. Their identity and self-esteem do not seem to depend so much on winning games.
Women at extended family dinner parties can come up against the in-laws loud mouthed bigots. I used to join in the arguments, and my mother-in-law told me to just stay out of it because nobody paid attention to the loud mouths anyway. I found that she was not correct, but that she had learned to stay quiet as a defense, and the loud mouths didn't care what they talked about as long as they dominated everybody else. For the last eight years of her life, she stopped talking altogether. Is that a way to live as a human being? Maybe every woman (who wants to) should submit op-eds to the newspapers just to see if any are printed.
Quoting RLF:
You already have half of the problem in hand: you recognize a fault in yourself that is common amongst people with strongly held emotions. Let me presume to offer some timeless advice:
1. Always listen carefully to what your adversary is saying--you may have some things uncommon.
2. You change the world one little b it at a time. Choose your shots carefully: DO NOT try to supersaturate your audience with an all-encompassin g grant. .
3. What one needs to succeed in ANYTHING is enough guts to get started (which you have) and enough intelligence/in sight to know when to quit. ("Enough is too much!" Always leave 'em asking for more.)
I have learned that most folks are not at all interested in learning. They just want to win.
Deeply held-but-supres ed convictions are cancers that need the clean fresh, palliative air of expression amongst one's peers. How unlike a a solitary-confin ement prison is self-imposed silence?
Caveat: By voicing an (adverse) opinion, you will invariably provoke an exchange, and it is through honest exchanges that one is forced to evaluate and justify one's philosophy---to one's self. At times one cannot "justify" and, thus, we learn humility and, in the best of all worlds, banish our own fanaticism & orthodoxy.
You go, Gal!
I have often asked myself why older women seem to become quieter and quieter. Some old men do, too. but doesn't seem to be as often as old women. I am living it now. I think you are right.
Is this attitude ""conventional wisdom" or is it a cop out? I tend to see it as a cop out in just the same light as I see a multitude of "Joe Sixpak's" habitually, blindly embracing GOP candidates who openly stand espouse interests diametrically opposite from "Joe's". Were females honestly and thoughtfully interested-in-a nd-dedicated-to furthering so-called "female issues", then the political landscape of this country would be vastly different from what we have today.
Better? Maybe.
Worse? Possibly, thought I don't see how.
But in any case,"different ", and I---a guy---am ready for a change.
'So it will come to pass that when women participate fully and equally in the affairs of the world, when they enter confidently and capably the great arena of laws and politics, war will cease; for woman will be the obstacle and hindrance to it. This is true and without doubt.'
Tahireh, the first woman to believe in Baha'u'llah's Herald, the Bab (the Promised Christ) stood up for equality in 1850. She was murdered by the Iranian government, but before she offered her life she said:
'You can kill me as soon as you like, but you cannot stop the emancipation of women."
This process is unstoppable, though at times it seems like it is not moving. The poor women in the Middle East Islamic republics must be liberated from their burden. The people of the West hide their shame in their ignorance, while needless suffering continues.
Even strong women can be intimidated by the most powerful, who are usually men. If they succumb to that power they join the league of driven, power society that ignores decent women AND men.
I have witnessed decent women, with a woman's intelligence and sincere effort to accommodate, be either driven from their career or forced to morph into male thinking.
Child rearing, society at large, religion, and male favoritism, contribute to women losing their contribution to society and intelligent discourse. A sad loss.
I'm in my early 70s and I no longer care if I'm attractive to men. When I was young it was "dangerous" to speak out because you would be rejected, thought of as "odd" or shunned in some way. I know women have gained much in the ensuing years, but perhaps some of this still applies.
Just the other day at lunch I disagreed with a man my age on a political issue and while he didn't say anything directly to me I could tell he was livid that a "mere" woman disagreed with him. My reaction was F*** U but would a younger woman react the same way?
For those whose self-image is tied in to "winning," or being better than everyone else, of course they will take contradiction personally.
There is, I believe, a Zen way of looking at competiton, where the other person, male or female, is seen as a foil, as a way of challenging us to become more or better than we are. What the other person does or says is, then, not taken personally, as their is no threat to the self-image.
Competition of the former variety may, as has been written, bring out the best in products, but the worst in people.
It's also been written that friends do two things for us: they support us, and they challenge us. Support helps us with our balance, but it is challenge that keeps us growing. How many people do you know want a lot of support, but little challenge?
Women OTOH (at least in my generation) were allowed competition only with each other for male attention and approval.A high achieving, alpha female who doesn't understand the team ethos is not tolerated. She will be either sidelined (shut up) or given a pedestal where she cannot affect the team.
I think a woman's self image, self esteem, is determined by what she allows others to dictate what she should do, be or think or what she herself has decided what to do, be or think.
My teeth itch when I see a man demean his wife in public and she tolerates it rather than make a scene.
Friends, as opposed to the work place, can be supportive and/or challenging
....they can also stymie us with all good intentions in the name of "safety".
The balance of support vs. challenge is perception, I think.
The way I try to make everyone else my equal is to see myself as a human being first, and then look at everyone else as a human being as well. Everything that I am as a person then becomes a sub-heading under the main heading of Human Being. For instance, I could be a black female, who plays saxophone, who loves to bowl and fish, who is an accountant, and so on. Those are all parts of my being a human being.
The people I find hardest to deal with are those who have learned to pigeon-hole themselves, and can only interact with others on the basis of the ways in which they have learned to pigeon-hole themselves.
One of the things both men and women have learned to do is use their gender as the main heading. When that happens, they will then react to others based on what they've learned to believe about both their own gender, and the "others" gender.
Change the perspective, and you change the interaction. Easy to say, not so easy to do.
EXACTLY!
I so wish we lived in a society that placed more value in women's health and well being, giving them the respect they so deserve. We men also deserve to be challenged more by our female friends, spouses and partners. Ridiculous that so few women serve as our representatives and in leadership roles, while many that do, ape the worst of classic male attitudes such as dominance and intolerance. Society could use a lot more nurturing and a lot less dominance and arrogance.
Don't go to church
For generations men held their financial power over women, until women began working voluntarily and became more educated. Men who feel women do not need them lash out to rein them in. The strongest men realize it is a benefit to partner with a woman who does not NEED him, but WANTS HIM.
Men have fears, and being dominated by a woman is as much a fear as being dominated by another man.
Many men also aren't used to women standing up to them, and they don't like being contradicted. I was shocked (and shouldn't have been, in retrospect) when I was at a party in which all the men were sitting around the table, talking about current affairs, and all the women were out by the pool. I chose to sit with the men. At one point during the conversation, I said that in a truly democratic society, half of our politicians would be women. One of the men cut me off and said, "We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic." So?
When America was founded, the republic consisted of state legislatures that would appoint Senators and Electors (who would elect the President). Andrew Jackson was the first President who was actually elected by "popular" vote, but after the good ol' boys nomination system.. Because of the 1968 Democratic Convention where the good ol' boys forced Humphrey on us (and he had been a good supporter of civil rights, but unfortunately a rubber stamp for the Vietnam War), it was decided that popular vote even in the Primaries would actually determine who would be nominated from the political parties. On the Federal level, we have a democracy (sort of), except that our representation is not equal (Senators and Electors from small states have much more power per population than from large. The smallest states are unequal even in the Representatives .)
It's funny. I wasn't a great history student (teacher was right-wing, and I tended to disagree all the time), but I can sure remember the separation of powers etc., and the propaganda that the small states ought to rule the bigger states for some reason.
Those men, however are not necessarily in power. They are merely closed-minded and opinionated.
Just look at every internet bulletin board with men on it, 90% of the pixels are wasted on posturing.
I agree with you. Many men, reflexively, respond to the sound of a female voice without hearing any of the words. Some just listen and hope for intimacy. Some REFUSE to hear ANY woman-sounds EVER
Except that these are not 'conservatives' [regardless of the Rovian manipulations of langauge] but rather right wing radical extremists ... .
Your research showed 1/5 (20 percent) of op-eds were by women, but most of these were about the home. STILL? Not even 3/5 of a person? But then you stated that pieces about hard news by women are less than 14 percent (about 1/7). Come on, guys, for that low a figure, it means you expect us to have no voice and no equality, less than we did a century ago. But women today enjoy a full day at work, a full evening of childcare, and a full night of housekeeping. If you won't give us a voice, it's high time that you let us keep all our income, and paid us for housework and childcare. If you want a "traditional" woman, you better pony up the percentage of support that women enjoyed 50 years ago.
The issue with the patriarchy in this time described by (and, a great philosophical debate at the moment, like GUTCP at BlackLightPower .com) asymmetrical crimes, white collar in other words, is that they stem out of an application issue with management's relationship to symmetry as Gregory Bateson goes into in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. What is SWAT gets its instructions from the cells it was supposed to go after. Google Indira Singh Guns and Butter from 2005.
Re op eds: I have lots of thoughts, but I'm not a writer and they aren't necessarily well organized. I've had letters accepted, but never longer things.
I hope more women will participate. I'll certainly think about making the attempt.
Not until I went to the publisher, calmly and politely, did that editor begin to back off slightly.
If I have to fight that much with my local rag, I can only imagine the problems women have to face with the real sharks.
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Validity-Contract-Replace-Social/dp/1477409327#reader_1477409327
WOW! This is GREAT!
Ballet brought down the Soviet Union; not the men in powerful world positions, but the women artists. There isn't any sexism in the world, oh no, not your world, which is why your post is the only one here that has any hint of whining.
I vote, We are Progressive independents, I write and call my reps all the time and Obama too. I marched and protested and women need to take the bull by the horns and act.
Thankyou, Vardoz I have no brothers and my dad died. I grew up in an environment where ALL women's ideas mattered ALL the time. I find men's ideas so pedantic that I tend to ignore them and talk only to women. I find that male comedians have more to offer than ur average chest-hair-wear er
Yes, I agree, as well as in conversations between men and women, often the woman's idea is initially rejected until a man says the same thing, and then, as if by magic, the idea gains traction, and is often repeated back to the woman who originated it, with credit being given to the man. This has happened to me MANY times. Glad to see it in print so I can appreciated that this phenomnon is happening to many women, not just me, so actually this is a social problem: inequality.
My favorite comment EVER was when we were seeing a marriage counselor because I myself had been naughty, the counselor said, "You say your wife has been having an affair with her boss for 5 years and wants to leave you to marry him, but you don't want to let her go? WHY?"
I will never so long as my brain keeps going forget that comment.
I really don't feel that giving an opinion contrary to the opinion my husband just gave is a bad thing.
And I enjoyed arguments with said boss very much. Argued with husband in private of course.
So whose fault is that?
Moreover, I think that the entire premise of Kelly's commentary is faulty. Take CNN for example. Almost every one of the commentators and analysts are women, such as Kristie Lu Stout, Nina Dos Santos, Fionnuala Sweeney,and Christiane Amanapour. In fact, at least during the the time slot in which I'm watching this network, male commentators and reporters are a distinct minority.
For example, when the first banks failed, I compared them to canaries in the coal mine, and said that this was the beginning of a serious recession. "Nonsense," my husband declared, and I didn't pursue the matter. My opinion does not matter to this man and it is easier to shut up than find a new father for my children..
For example, when the first banks failed, I compared them to canaries in the coal mine, and said that this was the beginning of a serious recession. "Nonsense," my husband declared, and I didn't pursue the matter. quote]
You and I are married to the same man perhaps. I could give a list of examples as well; my favorite is when I told him that the stock market was just a big casino (said about ten years ago when he first started playing cards). Men still think that they are in charge, OR that they are supposed to be in charge, i.e. know everything.
The conclusions drawn from this study are faulty.
They looked at PUBLISHED op eds, not the op eds that were submitted to the editors.
You don't think there could be BIAS in the SELECTION of op eds CHOSEN to be published????
REALLY NOW.
All the speculation in the comments here, as well as the speculation in the article, is grounded in the false premiss that the sample accurately reflects the op eds WRITTEN by women, as opposed to the op eds SELECTED by the editors. Of course there is BIAS in that selection!
Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina"
fronbtlinemom@yahoo.com
We are vertebrates on a ball in space.
Either we under stand the problem and/or the goal and seek to communicate effectively
or
we are lost in a version of thumb-sucking
JUST to make some fictional/cultu ral/primitive ideas continue to fly in the face of progress.
RSS feed for comments to this post