Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Stacey May Fowles on CNQ's systemic sexism

....and a few other things. I've responded, because I think the criticism of CNQ is uninformed. In discussions with other editors and the publisher of the magazine, no single non-content-question has come up more often than the rather lad-heavy list of contributors. It isn't something we want, but as I say in my comments on Stacey's post, it's something of an uphill slog trying to get women to contribute to the magazine. I think most reviews editors, particularly ones working for low-paying venues, could tell you the same story. We're a magazine that solicits most of our content; I expect magazines that rely on a passive slush-pile model have no trouble, since there are probably at least as many female as male writers out there submitting fiction and poetry to journals. And I know from my work at a more mainstream magazine that there are loads of gung-ho female freelancers out there looking for work--work that pays well, at least. Book reviewing and literary criticism is a ghetto. Maybe it's just that women are fed up with doing hard work for lousy pay, eh.

4 comments:

Carmine Starnino said...

It's funny to see Fowles' rant on the Walrus blog, a magazine that has had its own well-publicized problems attracting female contributors.

NigelBeale said...

Clearly they're smarter than we are

Pearl said...

*sigh* calling it a rant and complaining that she talked there will no doubt encourage women to feel welcome at CNQ.

"they" being those at the Walrus or women?

Jesse Eckerlin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.