Leave a comment

Comments 10

romp March 5 2013, 23:46:18 UTC
I've seen one or two of these but don't recall seeing them all together. Very interesting!

Reply


apostle_of_eris March 6 2013, 00:31:58 UTC
Sorry, but this doesn't tell me anything. The real question is whether a submission by a man is more likely to be bought than a submission by a woman.
If a magazine publishes twice as many men as women and gets twice as many submissions from men as from women, they're on the level.

I am definitely not denying there is a problem. I deny that these numbers, in isolation, show the problem.

Reply

moonshaz March 6 2013, 07:10:12 UTC
This.

Reply


aviv_b March 6 2013, 00:33:19 UTC
I'm a little confused. Is the the percentage of reviewers or percentage of authors? The article seems to imply both.

Reply


wldrose March 6 2013, 02:20:43 UTC
Those publications arnt even in the same league as The New Yorker.

But to the submitter I promise that when it comes to the magazines slush pile it is very much blind in regard to sex. But very few peices get picked from the pile regardless of sex. (my mum and step father worked there from the 30s till the late 90s and I still have friends there)

Reply

ms_mmelissa March 6 2013, 02:26:35 UTC
Uhhh, I think it's worse if publications are actually soliciting pieces and not pulling from the slush pile. What excuse do they have then for the obvious gender imbalance? Shouldn't they be trying to solicit more women authors?

Reply

wldrose March 6 2013, 02:43:38 UTC
Why? they are happy with the way things are and so are their subscribers. It is meant to follow a given artistic or business vision why should they change it to make things fairer?

Reply

happythree March 6 2013, 14:20:52 UTC
lol what vision is this?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up