There are simply not enough women being featured in the nation’s op-ed pages, which is why something like Charlotte Allen's crappy op-ed has such reverberations.
That isn’t news to those that remember the shake up at The Los Angeles Times following Susan Estrich’s defiance in 2005. Estrich, a political pundit, had her law students at USC analyze the gender imbalance on the op-ed pages for a period of three years and found wide discrepancies, including 24 men and one woman in a three day period, 13 men and no women as authors of pieces on Iraq etc. An op-ed writer for the paper herself, Estrich attacked editor-in-chief Michael Kinsley for alleged discrimination.
In fact, The Los Angeles Times has a far better percentage of women—20—than did The Washington Post (10.4 percent) and The New York Times (16.9 percent).
These statistics are not looking much better three years later.
Never fear. The amazing and brilliant Katie Orenstein is here. She has started The Op-ed Project, which is:
an initiative to target and train women experts across the nation to project their voices on the op-ed pages of major newspapers and other key forums of public discourse, which are currently overwhelmingly dominated by male voices, and to connect them with the editors who need them. This is a media democracy project, designed to promote diversity on the op-ed pages and beyond. The premise of this project is not “women’s affirmative action� — in fact, it is not a “women� project at all: It’s an everyone project. The lack of diversity on the op-ed pages deprives the public of robust, democratic debate, especially important in this space, which is intended to showcase divergent opinions.
I love her intersectional approach and that she got major press in The New York Times (the very institution that she's, in part, targeting).
I've also taken her workshop and it's transformative. If you're in the Bay Area, seize the day this weekend:
Date: Saturday,March 15, 2008 (In San Francisco)
Time: 10AM to 5PM (with one hour for lunch and two half hour breaks)
Say you're from the feministing community and get a $50 discount!
Register here.
Thank you to Katie for her amazing work in the world. She is providing a fundamental answer to the problem of anemic public debate and making the whole dang world better in the process.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Thank You Thursdays: The Op-Ed Project.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7044
While this sounds like a great project, I was a disturbed by the pitch you excerpt above:
"The premise of this project is not “women’s affirmative action� — in fact, it is not a “women� project at all: It’s an everyone project. The lack of diversity on the op-ed pages deprives the public of robust, democratic debate, especially important in this space, which is intended to showcase divergent opinions."
First of all, women are the chief beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. So "women's affirmative action" is redundant, and reinforces the stereotype that it's always a black man benefiting from such programs--a stereotype mostly lately evidenced by our friend Geraldine Ferraro.
Moreover, to define a program whose objectives are PRECISELY THE SAME as affirmative action as something other than and, presumably, better than, affirmative action is counterproductive. Affirmative action is for everyone to, because everyone reeps the benefits of diversity. Make no mistake: the Op-Ed Project is an affirmative action program. And Katie Orenstein should be proud of it, not embarassed.
This is precisely the same as saying "I'm not a feminist, but..." before defending a central tenet of feminism. "It's not an affirmative action program, but..." it does everything an affirmative action program is supposed to do.
We need to take more pride in the remaining vestiges of liberal social policy, and not disavow them for fear of being branded lefties. Be proud of affirmative action!
Fuckin' awesome!!!!
Why can't anything ever be for women?
I understand why many young women have no loyalty to the feminist movement but I find myself more and more angry at them every day. "It's not just women, it's a people project!" That's just great, why we can have just women AND people writing for newspapers.
When I started at my undergraduate university the student paper had been dormant for 10 years. I renamed it, recruited students, and basically carried that paper into life for its first years. A professor of mine (the one responsible for my feminism) sent me a copy of it this month, and most of the staff is female (although when I was there, it was pretty even).
Needless to say, I find this study fascinating, and the action being taken is phenomenal.
Blake, you make a really good point. We shouldn't have to apologize for the equality we deserve. And though it sucks, people hate to hear the words 'affirmative action.' It puts them in mind of black people overtaking the country. The absurdity of that is too much to even go there, but I can understand why she uses that terminology.
I'd like to think I would take a hard line when advocating for female op-ed writers, but I'm torn. Is it always best to just tell people to deal with their prejudices, or should we sometimes soften the language so people won't immediately pull back?
I just like the idea of a sneak attack: ha! I made you a feminist and you didn't even see it coming! : )
That looks like a great workshop, but ... damn, it's expensive.
T-Monster, you say: "Is it always best to just tell people to deal with their prejudices, or should we sometimes soften the language so people won't immediately pull back?"
The danger of this is that Orenstein is unconsciously defining the value of the Op-ed Project against the value of affirmative action. Worse, when she says it's not "women's affirmative action" the obviously implication is it's not the women's version of (black) affirmative action. So she's running from affirmative action because it has a racial aspect that makes it unappealing to racists. But appealing to racist should not be our business.
Blake-
I'm not suggesting we should appeal to racists... sorry if it sounded that way. My point is that certain language- the word feminist is a prime example- causes a knee jerk reaction in people. I understand your point, and don't necessarily disagree with it, but I don't find her language and implications as detrimental as I think you do. That doesn't mean we should make everything easy on people who don't like to hear what we stand for, but it's not always wise to push. Choose your battles, in a sense. I'm implying the audience we are appealing to is intrinsically sexist (to which racism goes hand in hand, especially given the language). Maybe I'm jaded.
I also think everyone is basically prejudiced, and more than they're comfortable confronting- even the enlightened who try their hardest not to judge, which is all we can do in this melting pot.
I've just finished a post on my blog on this topic (my first in a while), if T-monster or anyone else is interested. I'd appreciate feedback:
www.radicalnegative.blogspot.com
T-Monster,
It's tough because I like the idea so much and dislike the way its phrased so much. Obviously she didn't write it so that it would be more appealing to racists. But when you ask yourself why she felt the need to dissociate the project from affirmative action, when it's exactly like affirmative action, the question of race has to be raised.