The Cafe at On The Issues Online Magazine is deepening the conversations by continually adding the insights of progressive writers, thinkers and artists on the topics we address. Check back frequently for new commentary. If you wish to contribute to the Cafe, email [email protected].

We’re now taking comments in The CAFE! Join the discussion.


February 25, 2011

I began an Open Letter to The New York Times earlier this month with this alarmed question: "Shades of Rip van Winkle. Did Sam Tannenhaus, the editor of the book review, fall asleep in 1963 and wake up just in time to edit Late Style, a review of Lastingness The Art of Old Age by Nicholas Delbanco, in the January 23, 2011 issue of the review"

It seems no one at the review noticed that the 28 writers, painters, composers and literary scholars, alive or dead, mentioned in Brooke Allen's review are all males. That's 28 males and zero females. The book is about "creative achievement in old age." The opening line of the Times review, in large print, is a question: "Why do some artists mature early and run out of steam, while others gain momentum in old age" As I continued reading the review, I began to wonder which artists Delbanco included in his study. When I finished, I wondered if I had missed something. I reread it. Not one woman was named in the reviewing. Did the reviewer, Allen, herself, fail to include or choose to exclude women artists in her report Or did an editor delete her text about women It was not possible that Nicholas Delbanco would have omitted female artists in his study in this day and age.

Back in the 1960s and early '70s when everything began to change for women, there was a small number of very successful women who didn't see any need for feminist activities. Admitted to the upper realm in some important trade or profession, each one thought her upper realm perch showed that she was being treated as the equal of men in all ways. She thought the relevant men agreed. It was just her-and-the-guys. Feminists, then, had an enlightening and deflating response to these women, whom they called queen bees. They thought that if one woman could escape the devaluation of women, all women would want to escape the devaluation of women. Exceptions cannot be allowed in patriarchal societies.

The book review reminded me of that old time of the "bees." The lone female reviewer and the company of alpha males she cited seemed to show that she is keeping their privileged status safe.

Soon after Allen's exceptional book review appeared in the Times, a very informational article about women's fortunes in the occupational work of book reviewing appeared in The New Republic. In A Literary Glass Ceiling Why magazines aren't reviewing more female writers, an editor at the magazine, Ruth Franklin, begins by using statistics that VIDA A Woman's Literary Organization, published on its web page. The statistics show, "what appears to be gender bias in the book review sections of magazines and literary journals." An example: Harper's in 2010 had 27 book reviews by men and six by women, and about 69 percent of the books reviewed were written by male authors.

Ruth Franklin asked a key question about VIDA's statistics, a groundbreaking question: "What's the gender breakdown in books published last year" as compared to the number of books by each sex reviewed last year

With help from The New Republic staff, Franklin checked year 2010 catalogs from 13 publishers. Their results showed that "magazines are reviewing female authors in something close to the proportion of books by women published each year." Then, she said, "The question now becomes why more books by women are not getting published." Are publishers receiving less proposals and ideas from women If they receive unequal amounts of works submitted by the two sexes, then more backtracking might be done to find out why. The original source of the problem might be traced back to Composition Period in elementary school.

In his Introduction to Lastingness The Art of Old Age Nicholas Delbanco writes of "the men and women" he will discuss in his book. The reader expects that male and female writers, artists and composers will be characterized, as they are. Later, in Chapter Five, Delbanco writes, "The reader will have noticed that most of my subjects are male." Yes, now that you mention it. This is partly because, Delbanco explains, "it's simple statistical fact that the great bulk of recognized artists in our culture's history were men." No argument there.

There are arguments to be made for changing that statistical fact, beginning now. For one thing, other components of our culture -- political, academic, military, for example -- have moved on from the patriarchal social model. It's time for the literary world to catch up, and ask itself why it's been lagging behind the rest of the society. Why aren't female authors getting as much recognition as male authors Why are vestiges of long-disdained characters like queen bees still not able to see the value of other women's contribution to the world's artistic wealth When will the Western world be able to say that its "recognized artists" are representative of all the people