Of course, just because Katrina's editor and publisher doesn't mean all the blame should be laid at her door. There are numerous women in management, numerous!
So insisted The Nation when FAIR tipped them off that we were about to run: "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis."
We'd been tracking the number of women and men published by The Nation throughout the first half of 2007 and publishing the totals at least bi-weekly. We'd been asked to track it by a number of women writers. And The Nation was certainly aware we'd been tracking it judging by their many e-mails during the first months of 2007. But when FAIR tipped them off that we were planning something more than "Nation Stats," that we were planning an article, all the sudden it was time for The Nation to rush in with an attempted end run around our article.
At the end of 2007, we'd publish "The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?" Answer: 149.
They would have been better off attempting to fix their problems instead of attempting to hijack our article.
Back then, they informed us that they were aware of an imbalance but were already addressing it. And they promised we'd see it. We didn't. We didn't in the second half of 2007 and we didn't in 2008 and we haven't in 2009. (We'll get to 2009 in a moment.)
Now they did farm out some bad online writing to Baby Jess and the Mud Flap Gals of Feministing. They showed up at The Nation -- a political journal -- to write in their usual lame ass manner about lame ass topics that were more Oprah than public affairs. On the one hand, we were glad that at least some women were appearing online, on the other, we felt like the weakest minds possible had been chosen precisely to make the argument that women really couldn't cover politics.
And it was online.
Our study had always been of the magazine.
Because being published in the magazine carries more prestige than an 'online exclusive' and also pays more.
It is now officially two years since The Nation rushed out their e-mail promising they knew about the problem, promising they were addressing it, explaining that mean old Ava and C.I. actually made it harder for The Nation to publish women. Did you know the entire magazine trembled at the thought of Ava and C.I.? Oh, the power, oh, the responsibility.
In fact to read that laughable e-mail, the fact that the magazine published so very few women was the fault of everyone except . . . the people running the magazine.
The same staff that preaches the need for accountability when it comes to others refuses to take accountability for themselves.
Which is how the women run (we wouldn't say "feminist run" -- for obvious reasons) Nation magazine just finished the first six months of the year and managed to feature 399 bylines. The breakdown isn't good but what is it?
Before we get to that, let's note that we did not count the crossword puzzle. We never have. We tossed that out to readers of this site early in 2007 and they didn't feel it should be counted. If it were counted, it should be noted that the weekly crossword is always done by the same man.
We also took a pass on illustrations and that benefited the magazine as well because no one at the magazine ever met a female artist apparently.
Now for the numbers. Of the 399 bylines, 109 were women and 290 were men.
A little under one-third of all bylines were female.
Since we last checked in on The Nation, they've added "Noted" which is a series of briefs. Sometimes signed. Were it not for that feature offering very little writing, women would have even less bylines. In addition, Christine Smallwood being given an arts beat (where she covers such 'important' topics as Mariah Carey) accounted for more bylines than any other female -- more than columnists Katha Pollitt, Patricia J. Williams or Naomi Klein. It's a shame she's left to cover unimportant topics in an unimportant way.
Did someone say "wasting your time and everyone else's"?
To JoAnn Wypijewski, Ava and C.I. say, "Hugs and kisses Bitchy-poo. We still haven't forgotten the war you conducted on Hillary at CounterPunch . . . in the name of 'sisterhood,' of course. Might we suggest that a grown woman that's wasting everyone's time writing about American Idol after the finale -- excuse us, slobbering over American Idol, writing about texting ('sexting'), should just take a razor to her wrist already because she's an embarrassment to herself and others. Little pith-less pieces like 'The Only Way To Fight The Clintons' during the Democratic Party primary neglected to inform readers that you weren't a Democrat. So you're not only an embarrassment, you're also a damn liar. Right now, we're toying with you like a cat does a rat. Right now."
While JoAnn seemed to exist to demonstrate how useless one woman could be, women with brains really weren't prized at the magazine. You had the asinine female columnists with their non-stop bad writing (Eric Alterman can be repetitive but, pay attention, ladies, he does tackle issues). But when it came time to writing on the big issues of the day, if your own initials weren't KvH, you rarely popped up with what could be considered a report.
We don't think that's due to the fact that women can't write hard hitting reports. In fact, the magazine only printed one such article by Liza Featherstone throughout the first six months and we're having a real hard time believing that one such article taxed Liza to the point of no return. We're having a real hard time believing Liza had to take the rest cure after one article.
Was Liza the only grown up at the table? It certainly reads as if she was. Here's a hint for women writing for The Nation, especially their columnists and JoAnn, if you're writing is of such weak calibre that it's going to make Ellen Goodman come off like Susan Sontag by comparison, you need to either put more time into it or stop inflicting your bad writing on the rest of us.
And we'd be remiss if we didn't single out one of the worst writer at the magazine, Katha Pollitt, the Charlotte Rae den mother to push-up bra set of do-me-'feminism.' Katha, quit hiding. You're more than happy to call out the bad, bad record The Nation has on publishing women in private. Why don't you step up to the plate, Big Girl. Why don't you go public. If you don't, never bore us with another one of your bad columns on how the MSM doesn't publish enough women. Less than a third of the bylines in the first six month were women. If you can't call that out there's really not much point in your continuing to churn out your bad columns.
