Update: Women in Publishing

I have written before about the fact that significantly less female than male authors have their work reviewed in major publications.Well, some number crunching has been done since I last posted about this topic and it seems like the disparity does not originate with the reviewers, but with the publishers.

...These numbers we found show that the magazines are reviewing female authors in something close to the proportion of books by women published each year. The question now becomes why more books by women are not getting published.

It is unclear why less women are getting published but it seems to have something to do with a possible bias in literary journals.

Of the new writing published in Tin House, Granta,and The Paris Review, around one-third of it was by women. For many fiction writers and poets, publishing in these journals is a first step to getting a book contract. Do women submit work to these magazines at a lower rate than men, or are men’s submissions more likely to get accepted? We can’t be sure. But, as Robin Romm writes in Double X, “The gatekeepers of literary culture—at least at magazines—are still primarily male.” If these gatekeepers are showing a gender bias, there’s not much room to make it up later.

While it is unfortunate to hear that female authors are not properly represented, I am happy to hear that people are trying to get to the bottom of the disparity.

Bad News from Somalia

A Somali town has banned women from working.

On Tuesday, the Al shabaab administration in southern Somalia's Kismayo town banned women from working — despite the imperative of providing for their families. Al shabab, the islamist insurgent group, has imposed a strict form of Sharia law over much of southern Somalia.

This is bad news not just for the women who are being oppressed by this, but for the Somalia economy in general. Giving women economic power is proven smart economics yet sexism has overridden both good ethics and good business strategy here. Here's hoping the town reverses this ridiculous ban soon.

Women Underrepresented in Management

According to a government report, the number of women in managing positions only increased a lousy one percent (from 39 to 40 percent) between 2000 and 2007. This is especially ridiculous considering that women are now the majority in colleges and universities and comprise 46.8% of the labor force.

Nanette Fondas at the Ms. Magazine blog has a fitting acronym to explain why: W.O.M.E.N.

W- "Work-family spillover"

O-"lack of Open, flexible work options"

M-"Masculine model of the 'ideal' worker"

E-"Evaluations of performance punish use of flexible work policies"

N-"No time for activism"

To learn more about the meaning behind the acronym, read Nanette's full post here.

The Latest in Sizeism

A nail salon reportedly charged a customer $5 more for her manicure because of her weight:

Michelle Fonville tells WSB.TV that the owners of Natural Nails in DeKalb County, Georgia charged her extra for her manicure, claiming that damage to salon chairs had been done by overweight patrons, and that the extra $5 was to cover the potential cost of a replacement chair. "I said, Ma'am, you can't charge me $5 more. That's discrimination because of my weight," Fonville says, noting that Kim Tran, the manager of the salon, brought up the broken chair issue in response: "Do you think that's fair when we take $24 [for manicure and pedicure] and we have to pay $2,500? Is that fair? No."

But the salon was seemingly set up to discriminate to begin with; the chairs they're so concerned over only have a weight capacity of 200 pounds, and claiming that anyone over 200 pounds is responsible for chair damage, after already inviting them to sit on said chairs, is a very shady means of getting an extra five dollars through completing the manicure and then slapping on the extra humiliation charge. If the salon is so concerned about its precious chairs, perhaps it should order some that accommodate all of its customers, instead of blaming the patrons for "breaking" chairs that were not designed to support their weight to begin with.

Trans Woman Denied Medical Treatment

Erin Vaught, a transsexual woman, went to an Indiana hospital coughing up blood. However, instead of being treated for her very scary symptom, she was dehumanized by the hospital staff and was refused treatment.

The first sign of discrimination occurred when Vaught was entered into the hospital computer system as male despite the fact that her ID said female. When Erin pointed out the error, a staff member laughed at her. Later, in the exam room, she was called “he-she,” “it,” and “transvestite.”

If all this humiliation weren’t enough to endure for a woman who was coughing up blood, she was then denied treatment because of her “condition.”

"I was confused," Vaught said. "I told them I didn't know my condition, that's why I was there. She said 'No, the transvestite thing.' She said I couldn't see a doctor until I came back with test orders from my doctor in Indy."

Advocacy groups have since filed complaints with the hospital and a spokesman for the hospital said the incident is being investigated.

Unfortunately, being treated poorly by the medical community is not that unusual for transgendered folks. Part of it is due to blatant bigotry, as was the case for Vaught. However, some of it is just ignorance of how to treat transgendered individuals. Joanne Herman recently wrote an article for The Huffington Post, detailing just some of areas of the health community that remain ignorant about trans issues. Therapists and surgeons, two groups that should be especially well equipped to deal with trans issues, are sadly ignorant of the needs of the trans community. Those who are experts in trans issues usually learn on the job since there is little training in school about trans needs.

The plight of Erin Vaught is yet another example of how trans people are overwhelmingly mistreated by the medical community. To tell the hospital that mistreated her that disrespecting patients because of their gender is not okay, use the contact information here.

Rape on College Campuses

In March, Jaclyn Friedman wrote a great piece for the Washington Post about how rape is handled on college campuses. I love what she doing with this piece, and think it is awesome that she is bringing more attention to an incredibly important issue. However, there are a few things about the article (such as her use of gendered language) that I think missed the mark a little.

First off, the awesome stuff Jaclyn said.

I love that Jaclyn brought attention to the fact that Title IX can be utilized to ensure not only equal athletic opportunities for women in educational settings, but to prohibit sex discrimination in general. This prohibition against sex discrimination in Title IX “specifically obligates schools to prevent and remedy sexual harassment and assault.” Too many young women do not realize the broad protections of Title IX gives them the right to call bullshit (legally and otherwise) when their school does not handle their sexual assault or harassment case appropriately. I also appreciate that Jaclyn, while bringing attention to how awesome Title IX is, acknowledges how hard it can be, emotionally and otherwise, to press charges against your institution for not treating your sexual harassment or assault case appropriately.

Also, Jaclyn brought up a really interesting statistic that I never knew before: Of the more than 400,000 rapes that will likely be committed on a U.S. college campus this year, “more than 90 percent …will be committed by repeat offenders who will rape, on average, six times during their academic careers.” As horrible as these numbers are, they are, in a weird way, encouraging. In Jaclyn’s words:

That rate of recidivism is actually a golden opportunity, if only schools and courts would take it. It means that all we need to do is get serious about punishing the tiny percentage of men who are committing the vast majority of assaults, and many, many fewer women will have to live through the trauma of sexual violation.

The overall message of Jaclyn’s article: that colleges and universities need to stop trying to make themselves look better by underreporting sexual assault crimes on their campus, is also a much-needed message. Jaclyn couples this message with advice to colleges to “eliminate the ‘miscommunication’ excuse that many rapists use by creating an on-campus standard that requires any party to a sexual interaction to make sure their partner is actively enthusiastic about what's happening -not just not objecting.” This was an overarching theme in the book Yes Means Yes that she and Jessica Valenti edited, and it is a point I don’t hear made often enough.

Okay- on to me nitpicking.

Throughout her article, Jaclyn refers to rapists as “he” and rape victims as “she.” I understand that it is more likely for a woman to be raped than a man and that women are most often raped by men. However, the persistent use of gendered language is why men are even less likely than their female counterparts to report that they have been raped. Also, gendered language further marginalizes those who have been assaulted by a member of the same gender.

Jaclyn says the fact that “Bucknell University is considering abandoning mediation as a way of adjudicating sexual assault cases” is a “small glimmer of hope that change is coming.” Obviously, mediation can be a horribly traumatic experience for a survivor to endure and the idea of an institution forcing a survivor to sit in a room with her or his rapist is disgusting. However, the term “‘abandoning’” seems to imply that it would not be an option for any survivor, even if she or he requested it. I do not know under what circumstances a survivor would want mediation, but I don’t think a school should bar a survivor from using any method she or he thinks she or he needs to help heal. I am doubtful many survivors would choose mediation, but in the event they do they should be able to control how their case is concluded in any way they see fit.

Anyway, all in all, Jaclyn wrote a fantastic article I suggest you all take a look at. If you get a chance to read it, let me know your thoughts in comments.

Inked: Where are the ladies? (Part one)

I am a big fan of tattoos. I love seeing them on other people, and I have three of my own. I have gotten all of my tattoos at the same tattoo parlor, which was recommended to me by a friend, and I have noticed some things about this particular place that I would like to discuss here.

Observation #1: Where are all the female tattoo artists?

The tattoo parlor that I have visited for all three of my tattoos doesn’t seem to have any female tattoo artists. There is one female employee that I know of who pierced my eyebrow, but most of the times when I have been there, I haven’t seen any female employees, and all of the artists who have done my tattoos have been male.

This is just an observation. It may be that I just haven’t met any of the female tattoo artists at this parlor, and I know that some very famous tattoo artists (I’m thinking of Kat Von D from LA Ink) are women, but I can’t help think that there might be a difference in the way that men and women are perceived when they have tattoos or when they are in this profession. When men have tattoos, it is often seen as a display of their masculinity, and unless they have a large tattoo that is not easily covered up, they will suffer relatively few negative consequences. Of course there is the stereotype of “the bad boy” who has tattoos, but he still gets to be a human being. The same thing can’t be said of women. When women get tattoos, they are often reduced to their sexuality, specifically that they must be sexually available. In this respect, I think that tattoos are not generally something women can be passionate about either wearing on their bodies or making a career out of without taking some risks that are not inherent to men. Because of this, it would make sense if women were not deciding in the same numbers as men to make careers out of tattooing. Now, I don’t have concrete numbers on this, but I am interested to hear stories from anyone who may or may not agree that women tattoo artists are harder to find than men.

Observation #2: Sexy ladies – they’re everywhere!

The female figure plays a large role in tattoo culture today. Female figures are often sexualized and objectified in tattoo art design (sometimes in variations of the original pin-up girl tattoo) and they are often employed to help promote modern tattoo parlors.

For example, when I got my last tattoo this past June I was given a full color business card for the tattoo parlor. It contains all the necessary information: The name of the tattoo parlor, its location, phone number, website, along with the services available there. However, on the left side of the card there is a picture of a woman wearing a bikini and not sporting a single visible piercing or tattoo. When the card is turned over, there is information advertising another branch of the same company, featuring three more pictures of women without visible piercings or tattoos. Utilizing female bodies to advertise this shop doesn’t surprise me, and it shouldn’t. It’s a much-too-common and very problematic tactic. But the more I started thinking about the differences between how men and women with tattoos are perceived, the more upset I was with the inclusion of this woman’s picture on this business card when she clearly was not able to advertise the services offered at this tattoo parlor. When it comes to tattoos, women who have them (or are used to promote a place that offers tattooing) are associated with sexual availability. And that is a topic I will be covering in part two of this series, so check back.

Hollywood and Pay Discrimination

Check out this brilliant breakdown of pay discrimination for Hollywood actresses by Stephanie at Bitch Flicks.

She looks at the top 15 actors and actresses, Oscar nominations and wins, box office grosses and Rotten Tomato rankings and finds that across the board, films with the top 15 actresses have higher critic ratings while grossing $735 million to the men's $746 million. Additionally, the actresses garnered more Oscar nominations and wins than the men, yet were paid collectively less than half of what the men made.

The top earning woman was Angelina Jolie (27 million) and the bottom earning woman was Kate Winslet (2 million). In comparison, the top earning man was Harrison Ford (65 million) and the bottom earning man was Vince Vaughan (14 million).

Stephanie writes, "Will someone please explain to me how this isn't blatant gender-based discrimination?"

While these are some of the highest paid women in the world, they are still victims of the pay discrimination that influences women everywhere. From the waitress working the third shift to Kate Winslet to Lilly Ledbetter, women experience pay discrimination, even the women American media idolizes. Every woman is at risk.

Let this list remind us of how sexism and the notion that women are somehow less than pervades our culture, seeps through its pores and infects everything we touch, even - especially - our paychecks.