QUILLBLOG

Does publishing have a gender bias?

Is there a female bias in book publishing? According to Jason Pinter, a U.S. thriller writer and former editor at several major publishing houses, feminine tastes not only set the editorial agenda at most publishing houses but also make it extremely difficult for projects directed exclusively at men to get green-lighted. Writing for The Huffington Post, Pinter argues that the gender imbalance has alienated half the book-buying public, fuelling the assumption that “men don’t read.”

According to Pinter, the root of the problem is that too few men are drawn to the profession:

Nobody can deny the fact that most editorial meetings tend to be dominated by women. Saying the ratio is 75/25 is not overstating things. So needless to say when a male editor pitches a book aimed at men, there are perilously few men to read it and give their opinions.

Pinter blames the problem more on existing institutions than on the individuals working within them (he is careful to point out that there are “many, many brilliant women in publishing”). Writing at Salon.com, Laura Miller goes one step further, arguing that publishing’s “pink-collar ghetto” is the result of low pay, long hours, and a lack of respect – a combination that presumably repels ego-driven males. As Miller points out, “Apart from a handful of celebrated figures, it’s the rare editor who gets paid more than a secondary school teacher in a middle-class district.” She goes on:

Book editing … increasingly resembles those “caring professions,” nursing and teaching, where the joy of laboring selflessly on behalf of a noble cause – in this case, literature – is supposed to make up for the lack of profits and respect. And we all know who does that kind of job, don’t we?

Which raises the question: is the presumed female bias in publishing the result of nature or nurture? Does publishing attract a disproportionate number of women because women make up the bulk of readers, or is it simply the case that more women are willing to accept the profession’s spiritually – but not materially – rewarding career prospects? Pinter, for one, says his decision to leave publishing had everything to do with money. In a response to Miller’s essay, he writes:

I chose writing for the simple reason that, having a family to look out and provide for, writing was a more lucrative endeavor. This might tie into [Miller's] point about the awfully low salaries in publishing – it would have taken 10 to 15 years employment to even approach that level. Yet there’s not a day that goes by where I don’t miss editing and especially my colleagues.