There are some days when I don't see a lot of point continuing with this study, and today is one of them.
Today's topics:
Let's recap the theories put forward so far for why there are almost always far fewer letters published from women than from men:
1. Fewer women write letters to the editor in the first place.
This one seems the most likely (especially as the letters editor of the Times Higher Educational supplement said in January that 95%* of the letters written to the publication are by men), but it does open up the field for a load of sub-theories about why this should be the case.
2. Women do write letters to the editor, but only on a narrow range of topics.
These tend to be traditionally 'female' topics like domestic violence, abortion, anorexia and equal rights in the workplace.
3. Women do write letters to the editor, but are less likely to be selected for publication.
Precedence is granted to letters from public figures, who tend to be men. In the absence of a letter from a public figure, precedence is automatically granted to male correspondents because they are - consciously or subconsciously - assumed by the (male) letters editor to have more authority or higher social status.
4. Women do write letters to the editor on a broad range of topics, but are more likely to be selected for publication when they're writing about 'female' issues.
Women are seen to be authorities on typically female topics, but not on topics of more general interest (unless the letter-writer is also a public figure or a senior academic working in the subject area).
* We can assume this isn't a scientifically accurate figure, but rather a figure based on the letters editor's impression of the gender split among letter-writers.
3 comments:
If, as may be the case, fewer women write to the editor, the usual explanation is that they are conditioned not to express their opinions. Which may be the case, but it's not as straightforward as that:
• They may be wary of opposition (people writing in to disagree);
• They may be scared of 'failure' (the letter not being selected for publication);
• They may think the whole practice is rather silly;
• They may be utterly Stepforded and not have any opinions;
I'm not saying that any of these are the case - but they could be seen as reasonable inferences. And they lead to a new question... what about affirmative action on the part of letters editors?
Do you have a rough idea in your head when you might draw the data collection to an end and summarise your findings?
Tim: It srikes me that if it is the case that 95% of letters are from men, then the letters editor is doing a fine job of over-representing female correspondents, to the possible detriment of their male counterparts...
James: I was thinking I might let it run for a month and then write to the letters eds to find out what the actual situation is - but in the meantime I'm really enjoying all of the comments and suggestions and extra info that people are coming up with.
Post a Comment