In which two female writers from VIDA: Women in Literary Arts crunch the numbers and let us know how The Rumpus is doing in the gender disparity department:
We want to give the editors of The Rumpus credit. When they posted a piece by VIDA: Women in Literary Arts which addressed the gender disparity in The New Republic, one reader felt inclined to question the publishing habits of The Rumpus. So we offered to take a look at their numbers. And they accepted.
We started at January 2010 and found that The Rumpus reviews a lot of poetry and experimental fiction; that is to say that The Rumpus gives the best small presses their due. It’s therefore apparent that The Rumpus is democratic, at least in this regard. And as a forum for the literary, The Rumpus has a constantly revolving group of reviewers, and the texts it focuses upon are globally and aesthetically varied.
We therefore weren’t all that surprised to find that its numbers held up better than many other publications in terms of male versus female authors represented.
Be assured: The Rumpus’s stats are not exactly what we’d consider ideal. But they actually demonstrate a fairer take with regard to gender than many other major literary venues that purport to tell us what we ought to read.
We noted, however, that the number of male authors who review the books and, more significantly, the male authors whose books are reviewed, for some reason or another, has risen significantly in its most recent issues. What can this tell us? That men are generally more disposed to write reviews during the summer months? That huddling around the BBQ makes them feel more inclined to review books by men?
We are joking. What we really want to say is: you don’t look perfect, but you look pretty good from across the room through beer goggles. We wish the numbers were equal. But we love that you tend to review a lot of fiction and poetry books by women. And if The Rumpus give more space to women writers in your fantastic interviews during the remaining months of 2010, VIDA will squeeze a few of its nonprofit pennies to buy you a round of cosmos.
***
VIDA’S COUNT FOR *THE RUMPUS*
Regular Columns:
Authored by Men: 7
Brian Schwartz
Nicholas Rombes
Rick Moody
Ryan Boudinot
Stephen Elliott
Steven Almond
Ted Wilson
Authored by Women: 2
Antonia Crane
Sari Botton
Rumpus Interviews (since the beginning of January 2010):
(Please note that we focused only on book reviews and interviews with literary authors.)
Interviewers:
Male: 20
Female: 18
Authors Interviewed:
Male: 24
Female: 14
Rumpus Book Reviews (since the beginning of January 2010):
Reviewers:
Male: 77
Female: 55
Authors Reviewed:
Male: 74
Female: 57
Co-authored M/F: 1
***
Rumpus original art by Jason Novak.
38 responses
I’m sympathetic to the project of championing equal access for women and exposing gender inequities. But this counting business seems rather petty to me. Will we soon ask magazines to initiate fixed quotas, too? Wouldn’t it be a better use of these fine writers’ energies to write some things that take the tops of our heads off, rearrange our guts, etc.?
Excellent work, Cate and Susan. One number should be amended above, however. There are three regular female columnists for The Rumpus: Antonia, Sari, and me.
A female reader —
A. I’m not worried about Cate and Susan writing something to take off the top of my head. I appreciate your concerns over their writing time. But, too, you could be annoyed with me as a writer playing too much badminton. We all decide where our time goes. This seems a worthy use of it for women writers everywhere. In fact, a generous gift. Why?
B. Because Every time a female writer states what so many of us believe to be true — that male writers get more print and accolades — there’s always someone who says: prove it. Cate and Susan have set to work to do just that.
C. Why are numbers important? Because I don’t think anyone is intentionally trying to keep female writers down. Not at all. This is a blind bias. Once we see the numbers, acknowledge it’s there, then we can talk about it, think about it.
D. No one’s talking quotas. Discussion sounds good to me, though.
All my best,
Julianna Baggott
Actually, four. There’s also the fabulous Funny Women column.
I was just about to say…
Actually, five: Alina, too!
“This counting business” demonstrates that women writers feel a vague sense of disenfranchisement not because they are petty complainers, but because (as the numbers bear out time and again) the work of men writers is more published and more reviewed. Fine women writers are writing “things that take the tops of our heads off” all the time, but VIDA’s gender counts, however petty they may seem at first blush, prove that there is something broken in the system that carries work from writer to reader. What is it that makes men’s work more publishable? I appreciate that VIDA is trying to start a conversation about that.
Thanks for the clarification, Sugar and Elissa. And I do want to note, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the “Funny Women” and “Dear Sugar” columns are either anonymous or shared. Which brings us to another issue, or couple of issues, of course. But it’s true that both columns are places where the writing by women is recognized.
Thanks, VIDA/Rumpus. Why this gender count makes women cranky is a mystery to moi. It saves me the trouble. As a female who sometimes submits material to various publishers, online and off, it’s good to know which ones are most likely to accept it.
There’s nothing wrong with making these counts; the problem is that these numbers mean nothing if we don’t also know how many men vs. women are writing and submitting.
Instead of dot dot dot, I’ll say what I was just about to say.
Dear Susan and Cate and Rumpus readers and all women and all men and everyone in-between:
While I find the mission and effort behind this article important, the reductionist quality of this list fails to capture the full picture of how women are represented at The Rumpus. Now, I’m the first to play the numbers game and expose the sexist literary world for what it really is and bemoan to my girlfriends about the lack of [insert what you think is lacking here: tampons, for instance].
But the numbers above don’t address what I did last night.
Last night I missed The Rumpus Summer Shakedown co-hosted and co-produced by Rumpus regular contributor and powerhouse Rozalia Jovanovic. I missed seeing Jessi Klein and Sara Marcus and Corrina Bain in New York. I missed The Monthly Rumpus in San Francisco and couldn’t see one of my favorite writers and friends, the unmatched Katie Crouch.
Last night/this morning I worked until 4am on the Funny Women column, our 31st, for today, written by the talented Jennine Capó Crucet.
Last night I talked to senior literary editor Julie Greicius about sending Rumpus Women, Volume I to the printer. Here are some numbers for that: 20 female contributors, 2 female editors, 1 first book by The Rumpus Paper Internets.
Susan and Cate, I think the work you do is awe-inspiring. I stand behind it, and I’ll stand beside you.
But I wanted to provide a real human woman’s voice who works behind the numbers you’ve listed. I needed to say something because numbers alone divide and underrepresent the tremendous work I, and countless other Rumpus volunteers, try to do for women and for people in general. I started Funny Women for the express purpose of giving women a room of their own on the Internet. But the numbers don’t reflect that, and why, because it’s “shared”? The numbers don’t reflect my entire life’s mission, nor do they capture one of my life’s challenges…see my question to Sugar that provoked my dad, worried and upset with what I wrote, to question why I write at all if it can hurt so much and if people can read it.
He asked me, “Why write for The Rumpus? Why make this public?” And it was difficult to answer him. “For money.” No, I don’t get paid at all. “For fame.” No, I don’t have enough Twitter followers. “For other women like me to read and identify and learn as I learn.” Yeah, that’s why I write. That’s why I make it public. I do it for women like me, and I do it for me, because I have something to say–something that I think (hope, pray) other people want to hear, and I’m lucky to have a platform and a community of writers who let me speak my truth and help me edit books & columns and push me to be better.
And when I say “push me to be better,” I mean “push me to stop thinking I need to be better,” which is the point I’m trying to make regarding your article. While I think The Rumpus needs to be better in light of your findings, I think even more that we need to refocus on how fucking awesome we already are.
So true, Shulie. I fear the stats for that might be even more disturbing. How does one figure out the number of women submitting/published and men submitting/published ratios?
Counting is important because it allows us to examine patterns over time. The pattern that we find over and over again? Women writers, while writing as much as men (or more?), are not published or reviewed as often as men. When we document such patterns we have a starting point from which to examine the forces that bring those numbers about. Sexism seems like such a thing of the past to so many. I mean, think of all the great women writers we all love! And yet, and yet, and yet….the numbers tell us quite a different story, don’t they?
As for Sugar, I’m anonymous, but I’ve “come out” as a woman writer. Which, yes, Susan, brings up other issues.
Thanks again for doing this, Susan and Cate. It’s important work.
Beverly,
I don’t think there’s any way to do that without being on the inside and knowing how the magazine solicits/selects pieces for publication. In fact, even though I’m a senior editor here (I am, right?), I couldn’t tell you anything about how it happens outside of the little corner I’m responsible for, and if someone did ask me to provide those sorts of numbers, I don’t know if I could produce them. It’s not something I track.
Another interesting thing to consider with sites like The Rumpus, where readership can actually be counted, is which posts are being viewed the most. Dear Sugar consistently ranks under the most “popular” column, also based on comments, but the majority of others are reviews and columns by or about male writers. This may have less to do with the power structures of publishing and more to do with the effect that that structure has on readership…or maybe it just has to do with the material and the appeal of the work itself…
Brian’s point about transparency is interesting–it’s difficult to track and make public counts of who is writing and submitting. But it’s easy to count who is getting published. So it’s odd that people so often get upset when someone does count–you’re not revealing anything that wasn’t public, accessible information. You’re just looking at the same data, in numbers.
I echo Julianna’s comment above.
I think it’s great that someone’s keeping track, and great that The Rumpus has given me the chance to review some great poetry by women writers – helping bump up those Rumpus stats a teeny bit.
Everyone needs to be held accountable because there is such a thing as unconscious bias. Women who never ask for equity (in publishing, poetry, reviews, awards, grants, job pay, votes, property ownership) will never get it. It’s not wrong to want coverage for women writers, women reviewers. It’s not reductionist. It’s basic literary equity.
Wait, how could you forget to count the two best features on The Rumpus: Funny Women and Sugar?
I’m a little upset this article doesn’t factor in the men who were previously women.
I am glad the Rumpus is having this conversation because I really like the way this site has conversations. Interesting that the header on the main page to link to these comments, etc., was “Rumpus Women Respond to VIDA.”
The conversation overall reminds me of conversations about racial bias. No one wants to think their favorite people are biased in any way. I like what Sugar said above – this is a starting place, a little reality check. How far are we from where we want to be, and how much do we need to turn to correct our navigation?
And who the hell is Ted Wilson really? I love the titles of his columns.
That one review of a book co-authored by a man AND a woman? Yeah. That was this guy. Feel free to clap me on the back, people.
I’m putting on my “speculation” hat and trying to imagine if these numbers were reversed — not the Rumpus numbers but the numbers in publishing in general — whether or not men would feel compelled to keep quiet about it. It’s seems pretty astonishingly impossible. In fact, the alternate-universe brain-beam from the speculation hat suggests to me that there would be a full-frontal assault with Limbaughlike reverberations, an angry echo-chamber of manly shout-downs and bah-bah-boos. Keep up the good fight, my friends!
I say keep on counting! I like it. The numbers matter. Often I buy books from hearing about them in reviews, articles, etc. Numbers matter.
I quite agree with Julianna Baggott and Jeannine Gailey that it’s a blind or unconscious bias. The numbers help us sort things out and I appreciate The Rumpus being so open about where they stand in the count. Without consideration and evaluation, there can’t be appropriate change. The numbers are a place to start and move forward from there.
I find it most telling that unlike a lot of publications I can think of instead of running around huffing the Rumpus has published this count here. I think the value in that is seeing not only who publishes whom, but seeing who is willing to begin a conversation. I don’t think counts like these are intended to be a conclusion on their own. Rather that they are a place to begin what can be a very valuable conversation.
The numbers are interesting and worth thinking about, but when it comes to the gender of reviewers, I don’t know if the numbers reflect something about The Rumpus and its editorial practices or the basic problem of finding women who want to write reviews. I have no idea why this is, but I’ve worked on two journals now where we tried to balance the roster with women but had a hell of a time of it because plenty of guys wanted to do it and not many women at all. The good news is that if you’re a woman who is interested in writing reviews, there are probably a lot of places who’d love to hear from you.
There’s about to be a female cartoonist- me!
There is a tonal thing about this piece that is concerning. It’s almost like: We’re the police, and we’re watching you. If you don’t do it the way we want you to do it, we’re gonna get you. And this mentality creeps into the comments section below: Dear Sugar doesn’t count, because she’s anonymous. If a woman makes a choice, in other words, that conflicts with the position of whomever at that moment speaks for VIDA, then that woman is out the same way the men are out.
VIDA started because one of the VIDA members was denied a panel presentation. Interestingly, there were plenty of panel presentations that made and plenty that did not make that year. Some that made directly concerned matters womanly and some that did not make directly concerned matters womanly. Anecdotally, most of the panels I attended that year were well-stocked with women (perhaps because I’m a woman and am drawn to panels featuring women.) Statistically, the AWP has been tracking these things for two years now. Here is the link:
http://smtp.awpwriter.org/conference/2010ConfArchive/2010surveyreport.php#overview
What does the link show? That in 2009, 676 women presented on panels versus 594 men. That in 2010, 834 women presented on panels versus 716 men.
Despite the claim above that men will kick and scream about statistical imbalances, I have not heard one man raise an objection to the statistics. Nor have I heard anyone at VIDA say one word about them, even though the panel assignments were the straw man that led to the founding of the organization.
Anecdotally:
I do think that because women are more likely to write domestic fiction that is truly domestic — that lacks, for example, a social agenda (i.e., The Corrections or Freedom) or looming extra-domestic metaphorical overtone (i.e., Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping) — that those who consider major literature to be that which tackles the social, the sweeping, etc., are less likely to champion it, and that those who choose to champion literature on these grounds are most likely to be men.
I also think that when women write these kinds of books and write them well, they are championed. For examples, see Toni Morrison, Joyce Carol Oates, Cynthia Ozick, and Margaret Atwood.
I think that invoking Jodi Picoult or pitting her against Jonathan Franzen does not strengthen anyone’s feminist argument. Jodi Picoult is not a very strong writer, particularly of sentences, particularly again of characters.
I used to read for six different literary journals. I did not see any difference in the ways in which work by men or women was evaluated. Looking at my back copies, I see a wide variance issue to issue in how many men and how many women we published. I attribute this to what work came in when and how all of our readers (men and women) responded to it.
Two gender correlations: Women seemed in general more likely to champion stories set in the home, more likely in general to champion experimental poetry, and less likely in general to champion experimental fiction. Men seemed in general more likely to champion stories set in the workplace, less likely in general to champion experimental poetry, more likely in general to champion experimental fiction, and more likely in general to champion stories set in the workplace. Men seemed more likely in general to champion stories and poetry that favored strong formal allegiances, and women seemed more likely in general to champion stories and poetry that was more often expository or digressive.
For what it’s worth, these generalities did not fit me, nor did they fit all the men in the offices.
Ultimately, I found that the men I worked alongside were eager to publish work by women and that the women I worked alongside were eager to publish work by women. Gender was not the major issue VIDA is making it. I fear that the politics of polarization VIDA is pursuing will cause us to focus on the wrong things in literature: He v. She, instead of: What’s in the work, and is it the best work, and does it advance the cause of literature?
By the way: Dear Sugar has her own reasons for writing pseudonymously. She doesn’t owe me an explanation. Here is my reason: I don’t want anyone at VIDA to retaliate against me for speaking as a woman and as a feminist, as it my right, even though it doesn’t fit with VIDA’s narrow idea of what a woman and a feminist is allowed to think about these things.
“Counting is important because it allows us to examine patterns over time. The pattern that we find over and over again? Women writers, while writing as much as men (or more?), are not published or reviewed as often as men. When we document such patterns we have a starting point from which to examine the forces that bring those numbers about.”
I agree with all of the above, except there is one caveat: I’m not sure if there are as many women writing as men, but there are less women submitting than men. I’ve worked at many magazines and have talked about this with editors both male and female and we’ve all noticed this. Even when you solicit an equal number of men and women it is often the case that men are more ready to send out work.
Now, I say this not to say that its women’s fault they aren’t published as much. This is still an issue of sexism. But it is misguided to merely look at a website or magazine and declare the magazine sexist because it publishes 40% women when maybe its getting only 30% female submissions. As a man, I don’t feel comfortable really speaking for what causes this discrepancy. I’m sure there is a broad range of reasons. Perhaps seeing more men in print discourages women, perhaps since more women tend to assume child rearing and home care responsibilities there are less writing, perhaps women are still taught at a young age to not speak up for themselves or be as aggressive as men. I assume all these things are true and more.
But I think the root problems here are more interesting and relevant than the only looking at the surface statistics. At the very least, you need to look at the statistics that inform the surface ones.
Also, I agree it is supremely silly that Sugar and others don’t “count” because they are anonymous or multi-author. It also seems quite silly that the VIDA authors have determined who counts as “literary” authors instead of just counting all authors or all interview subjects. I don’t get the logic there.
I fear that the politics of polarization VIDA is pursuing will cause us to focus on the wrong things in literature: He v. She, instead of: What’s in the work, and is it the best work, and does it advance the cause of literature?
I emphasized that part because it seems to me that whenever this sort of conversation starts, someone makes this argument, and frankly, it drives me insane, because it suggests that there is some objective way to measure what is the best work. There isn’t. We all, as writers or readers or both, value different things in writing, and so what one person finds to be the best writing, another finds to be tedious and unreadable. And I’m not just talking about differences in personal taste here either. I’m talking about what different readers, different critics, different writers value, what they consider necessary to a piece of literature for it to be great.
I think that the way publishers and reviewers approach work written by women and people of color and the LGBT community and other ignored and under-represented communities is just as important as what’s in the work because most people will never know what’s in those books if reviewers don’t face their unconscious biases and start presenting those voices to the mainstream of readers. To act as though great work from underrepresented communities will somehow magically bubble to the surface is to ignore all evidence to the contrary, and it’s become clear from the general response to this movement that the major players 1) aren’t paying attention to those underrepresented communities and 2) that if they’re going to change, it won’t be because they discovered the problem on their own. I think that if you want to advance the cause of literature, you have to do things like what VIDA is doing, because otherwise the gatekeepers will continue to privilege straight white male authors and limit access from everyone else.
I’d love it someone (Rumpus? VIDA?) designed a web app called “Franzen Yourself” where you could upload your own “serious writer” pose and superimpose it on this image:
https://www.stanford.edu/group/ic/cgi-bin/drupal2/files/franzen_0.jpg
Then we could see all sorts of women’s faces (not to mention non-white faces) gracing the phrase, “Great American Novelist.”
Oh, but wait, you know how women are: they probably won’t even bother to upload. Poor gals just ain’t ready to get out there and get ums. : p
PS: I think I just discovered my photoshop project of the day. 🙂
Glad to see that we don’t come out smelling too badly… and we’re always looking for reviewers – of all genders – to review interesting books by authors of all genders. As an all-volunteer literary outlet, we rely on a coalition of the willing – so the disparity partly arises from which reviewers are available to review (and follow through on reviewing) which books. For example, Susan Steinberg has owed us a review for about nine months now – rest assured, we will run that sucker the minute it comes in, regardless of her gender!
Still, we can do better, and we will. Thanks VIDA!
Brian Spears said: “I think that the way publishers and reviewers approach work written by women and people of color and the LGBT community and other ignored and under-represented communities is just as important as what’s in the work because most people will never know what’s in those books if reviewers don’t face their unconscious biases and start presenting those voices to the mainstream of readers.”
I agree, and I think people’s ideas of what is “great” are often tied up in what they are already familiar with, so writing that comes from these underrepresented groups is dismissed as not “great” and not “universal.”
I posted this comment on Elissa’s blog item but I guess I should post it here too (it’s slightly different because it’s a later draft).
I know that the film section wasn’t counted for some reason, but I’ll weigh in anyhow with my experience, apropos of Antonia’s comment on the other thread.
Last year and earlier this year when I had much more time for editing, I made a concerted effort to cultivate women who expressed interest in contributing to the film section or submitted to it. And I had some success with that, but not nearly enough to satisfy me. I don’t know how the number of female contributors vs. male contributors breaks down in the film section, but I’m sure it’s pretty appalling: I found it wasn’t possible to keep the parity I sought given the fact that over time, many more men have submitted pieces and pitches to me (and they’ve submitted more of them) than women have — even when I actively solicited reviews from previous contributors. Why this has been so is something I don’t really have an answer for, lots of hypotheses but few facts.
All I’m saying is: I’ve been trying, but the submission pool has not really been supporting my aims. Luckily the women who HAVE submitted to the section have almost all written fantastic, smart pieces — I’ve turned away many more pieces by men, I know that for a fact.
As to the actual number of pieces written by men as opposed to those by women, in 2010 the situation has been like this: a few guys who contribute prolifically, a few gals who contribute sporadically, and a good number of contributors of both genders who have written one or a couple things and then I never hear from them again.
I do actually know why 2010 has been like this in terms of the raw number of pieces by men vs. those by women: the men I mentioned who have contributed a lot, as far as I understand they are older and have settled lives, whereas the women who have been contributing are much younger and consequently have more life disruptions to deal with, and that review they were going to write for the Rumpus is (understandably) at the very bottom of their list of worries.
Are there more female commentors?
Several people above have noted fewer submission from women as one reason why women aren’t as published. In case anybody is interested, I did a breakdown of the submission stats for my twitterzine Seven by Twenty:
http://www.joannemerriam.com/2011/02/08/gender-parity-at-seven-by-twenty-take-two/
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.