Sexism in Publishing: It’s About More Than Just Numbers

Inequality in publishing is finally getting its due attention. About a month ago VIDA released The Count, which compared the percentages of female and male bylines in literary and commercial magazines, revealing devastating data. Recently numerous writers have published related articles on many high-profile sites, including Slate,PBS, Ms. Magazine, Bitch Magazine, Jezebel, The New Republic, The New York Times, and countless others. All over the Internet, writers are compiling lists of articles about sexism, bloggers are commenting, and editors are coming forward to talk about their publishing practices.

It’s an exciting time. Writers are asking important questions: Does my voice count? Am I and are writers like me getting fair representation in the public realm? Have I been held back and/or holding myself back? If I have been held back, why?

Similarly, editors of small journals and larger glossies are taking time to assess the history of their publications, asking themselves difficult questions: Do I fairly represent all voices? Are my reading preferences biased, and is that bias based on gender? Can I do more as an editor to ensure that everyone gets fairly heard? What is my role here, and how can my magazine become more diverse?

Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a tangible wave sweeping through publishing. Dare I say, it’s a veritable movement.

All this makes me happy.

And yet, critic that I am, I’d like to pause for just one moment, lest we lose sight of something important: Content.

In the fever over which authors get adequately represented in bookstores, on shelves, in magazines, and in the pages of small journals, it is important that we also consider which characters get depicted within literary works themselves. Which heroes and which heroines? Fighting for which causes? Using which methods? And with what end results?

Editors who have not simply focused on numbers but also genuinely sought engaged subject matter and varied literary styles among submissions have observed that an equal gender balance arises naturally. This phenomenon was commented upon by Jeanne Leiby of Southern Review, Rebecca Morgan Frank of Memorious, and Joanne Merriam of 7x20, among others. Such editors work hard to produce journals that are not merely of a high quality, but which also display diverse characters in a range of milieus, stories narrated from various perspectives, and poetry in a range of styles. When diversity in content is sought, greater equality appears to be organically attained.

Similarly, writers interested in issues of social justice may begin by asking certain questions of their work: How do my characters define themselves? What gives their lives meaning? Do their struggles exist in isolation, or is society somehow taken into account? Are the characters fully-dimensional, with virtues as well as flaws, or are they composites of familiar stereotypes? Does the story’s end offer hope for change? Does the ending condemn the characters' choices in some way? If you are writing outside your comfort zone, you may want to consider having people unlike yourself read your work and give you feedback.

This is not a prescription for all writers. Certainly one should primarily seek the stories that matter to him or her. But if you are a writer who wishes to convey socio-political themes in your work, or if your literary ambitions go beyond mere entertainment, the above questions may serve as a guide.

Ultimately, determining the message of a particular work is a much more subjective and nebulous venture than tracking numerical data. In many cases, the more entertaining a work of art, the more difficult to unpack its meaning. Throughout history, the most oppressive political systems have found ways to disseminate ideology through the most beautiful works of art.

It makes sense that questions of fairness would begin with inquiries into how many women versus men are getting published. I do believe this is a start. The numbers revealed by VIDA have been absolutely appalling.

But this cannot be the end of the discussion.