The fact that women speak less in opinion space is “a straightforward question of access,” says Eleanor Townsley, sociologist and co-author of The Space of Opinion: Media Intellectuals and the Public Sphere.
Access is one of the stock explanations for the media gender gap, and it’s a compelling one, when you look at the relatively few women who are given positions as columnists or television commentators. After all, there is no shortage of females who can write and who have opinions. Ann Friedman, the executive editor at Good magazine makes this case everyday on her Lady Journos! website, which features a running blog of writing from women and argues that closing the byline gap could be swiftly achieved by some basic behavioral changes from a handful of key editorial gatekeepers (and more women in those gatekeeper positions).
But access is only part of the problem when it comes to understanding the gender gap on op-ed pages, where contributions come increasingly from a wide range of experts.
Op-ed editors I spoke with—the majority of whom were women—all said that demographic diversity is a goal and, in many cases, something that they strive for as they solicit pieces for their section. But they also told me they receive far fewer submissions from women. In 2008, The Washington Post’s op-ed editor, Autumn Brewington, estimated the rate was nine to one.
Meanwhile, something more interesting may be going on. Horton says, anecdotally, 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. Editors shared similar stories about why solicitation efforts sometimes fail: Brewington and Horton both say women are more likely to turn down requests for a solicited piece, often because they are too busy to do it well. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to accept the invitation without hesitation.
Such anecdotes bear resemblances to the “productivity puzzle” that baffled scientists for decades. Until recently, women scientists were found to publish scholarly articles less frequently than men, but when they did publish, their articles were more frequently cited. In the past decade, the productivity gender gap has disappeared; women and men publish more or less at the same frequency (mothers and non-mothers do not).
Explanations for these patterns have changed over the years. In the 1970s, some thinkers labeled argumentative writing an oppressive and “masculine” art; feminist Sally Gearhart even argued that persuasion was “an act of violence.” Women were seen as inclined to discursive rhetoric that considered other points of view and encouraged readers to draw their own conclusions.
But these efforts to define female ways of thought and expression came to be seen themselves as reinforcing gender stereotypes. “That scholarship reached a stopping point,” says Susan C. Jarratt, a professor of comparative literature at the University of California-Irvine. “Where we ended up was that it’s good to have lots of different styles in your repertoire and to recognize their rhetorical usefulness.”
In vogue now is the notion that we express ourselves according to our individual backgrounds and social conditioning. In other words, white men, with history on their side, may be better conditioned to contributing to professional opinion spaces, though they are not more biologically suited to it. This “historical hangover” is the inspiration for a panel discussion “Throw Like a Girl: Pitching the Hell out of Your Stories” that will be hosted in Brooklyn tonight by the organization Her Girl Friday.
Closing gaps on the new frontier?
So one might expect that as new media and new generations—both less bound by this history—come to the fore, opinion writing will become less and less a white man’s turf. And there are, in fact, some signs of approaching balance. The OpEd Project’s byline survey found that women contributed 38 percent of opinion pieces in surveyed college media, and 33 percent at web-native outlets The Huffington Post and Salon during the same 12-week period.


Take a look at the list of Opionmakers for the Orlando Sentinel. The top person
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/orlando_opinionators/about is Jenna Toth who became CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Florida on March 1. She with the other two women make up 1/3 of the paper's Opinionators!
My hunch is there will be more women before the year is out!
#1 Posted by MaryElizabeth McIlvane, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 01:48 PM
"the calculus rarely strikes the ideal demographic balance.
EXCUSE ME?!
What precisely is the "ideal demographic balance" in consideration of editorial import?
Sweet Jeebus, the liberals are doing their level best to destroy every institution they can find, aren't they?
We have Thimbles here advocating his insane racist stance that journalists should be held to different standards in the expression of their political opinions on the basis of the color of their skin.
And now we have Erika informing us that there is some "ideal demographic balance" to be had in journalism.
Who, precisely, decides which op/ed gender contribution ratio is "ideal"? Who, exactly, says that the current contribution ration isn't ideal? HUH?
The NERVE to presume the authority to demarcate the "ideal balance" for all of society!
What a crock of politically correct leftist crapola!
So now we'll take crappier op/eds from women, and reject better ones from men, in order to strike the "ideal demographic balance"?
Dumbing down for the purported common good... It's the liberal way!
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 02:31 PM
My colleagues in the Association of Opinion Journalists, formerly National Conference of Editorial Writers, had an interesting private discussion of this when we alerted the members' discussion list to Erika Fry's initial query. Views ranged widely, especially among those whose jobs include soliciting-choosing-editing op-eds. I understand that several contacted her by email, and am pleased that AOJ's diversity chair, Richard Prince, is among the thoughtful practitioners quoted here.
--John McClelland, emeritus faculty
Roosevelt University, Chicago
editing The Masthead for AOJ
http://opinionjournalists.org/masthead
#3 Posted by John McClelland, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 04:56 PM
It's truly strange how media liberal orthodoxy works. Men of white offer one kind of liberal opinion they think is superior; women of white offer a better kind of liberal opinion but they've been trampled on. Women of color offer yet another liberal opinion, but not superior to women of white, and men of color remain invisible. But we won't talk about them, will we?
#4 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 05:15 PM
Women v men. White v black. Us v them.
The violent, backward, ugly face of collectivism.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 02:02 AM
Gosh, this is SO frustrating. There are all these fantastic women columnists out there, but every time they apply for a job, the crusty old cigar-chomping white male editor chortles, "Look here little lady, column writing is for MEN!".
And then all the old boys in the newsroom guffaw and slap their knees. A WOMAN? Writing for a NEWSPAPER? THAT'LL be the day!
Oh wait... that's not how things are at all. That's just a comically anachronistic caricature. Just like this article.
#6 Posted by Julie P, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:26 AM
The frustrated editorialists of the fairer sex need help. This calls for a federal program.
#7 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:57 AM
I've been hearing some version of "we're just looking for the best" as to why women are not hired, not published, not cited for 20 years. It cannot possibly be true, it is statistically impossible for it to be true that well-educated, interesting women writers have just not submitted enough copy, not written well enough or on non "pink" topics or done bad research. It's misogyny, plain and simple. I can prove it:
David Brooks & Thomas Friedman.
Neither of these men has had an original idea, ever. They are consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong in their conclusions, have no interests in facts or evidence, their writing is bland and yet, they have jobs writing for a major news service and even PBS News Hour applauds their inanities. Name one woman with their degree of placement.
It is much more likely that the frat buddy mentality of men hiring men is so pervasive that women aren't even invited to participate. it is also likely, as keeps getting demonstrated in the art world by women who adopt a male pseudonym, that simply having a woman's name means the work is less valued. Much as realtors rename districts for maximum financial gain, "pink" topis are a marketer's device to sell stuff, mostly yogurt.
#8 Posted by Mary McFadden, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 12:51 PM
@Mary McFadden
You claim that David Brooks is "consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong", yet in a review of accuracy in political prognostication he was rated 7th of 25, which does not seem so bad to me (see paper)! I find your 'proof' of misogyny lacking.
#9 Posted by Jreckx, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:12 PM
Only 9% of Wikipedia contributors --an activity similar in nature to journalism-- are female and there are extremely minimal barriers to entry there, so the thesis of this article that it is "a straightforward question of access" seems unlikely.
#10 Posted by Jreckx , CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:21 PM
@ Mary
Maybe it's a vast postal conspiracy.
The mailmen (chauvinist bastards that we all know they are) are ripping up all the op/ed submissions in pink or scented envelopes.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 10:12 PM
The pursuit of women's human rights have led to the dearth of female intellectuals? Is there nothing that the apologists (including the morons in this comment thread) will stop at to deny that there is still discrimination? Shut up with your smug opining from your position of privalege. SHUT UP.
#12 Posted by belowthelineguffagain, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 04:27 PM
YES! SHUT UP MEN WITH YOUR PRIVALEGE!
I don't care about the wikipedia example - this is clearly the patriarchy at work - fiddling the database and rejecting female submissions with their mysterious device - the online gender detector.
For the last time MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION! WOMEN ONLY! WE ARE THE UNDERDOG!!!1111one
#13 Posted by Sackcloth Queen, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 04:23 PM
Honestly, most of the female columnists I see today write sexist crap, mommy war drama or inflammatory posts about rape for SEO clicks, so I don't see why as a woman I should support them.
In fact, I read an opinion column by a woman in the New Yorker about the tv show 'Girls' that included the words: horney, provocative, sex, fucking, orgasms, kinkiness, raw, spanking, humiliation, masturbation, dominatrix - all in the first few paragraphs. Yes, it's so sad we don't have more female columnists who can enlighten us about what women think about the major issues of today (sarcasm).
The TRUTH is that today most female columnists pander to horney men, bottom feeders, outraged mommies and "sex-positive" internet feminists because that is what SEO demands - and as a intelligent woman, I won't support that crap. I'd rather read a man's opinion than a woman trying to get men's attention by spamming her opinion pieces with porn keywords any day.
#14 Posted by I expect better, CJR on Wed 6 Feb 2013 at 11:01 AM