Are women dealing themselves out?

I was chatting with a longtime queer volunteer who noted that many homo community groups -- even if offering important and essential services to all -- are overwhelmingly male-run.

Getting women involved is an uphill battle. Why is that? And is it always for the same reasons (or because of the same perceptions)?

A reader's angry letter in the current (November-December) issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review suggested the magazine be renamed "The Gay Male Review," or "The Gay & Token Lesbian Review." "I was stunned and insulted by the lack of any real discussion of poetry by gay women in something calling itself 'The Poetry Issue.' One piece on one lesbian poet out of seven articles, and one consideration of a 19th century woman actor's memoir among nine book reviews (six written by men) is even less inclusive than the abysmal record of 'The New York Times Book Review'.... I think you've topped them in unfairness. What could you have been thinking?"

Male editor-in-chief Richard Schneider, Jr., had a go at answering: "Sigh. Where to begin? ... Your letter implies that there was somehow a deliberate policy to exclude women, which is far from the case. What it reflects is the situation that I've faced from day one: a large number of enthusiastic men competing to have their work published, and very few women coming forth save those that I proactively contact, invite, cajole, or whatever it takes.

"But also, the fact is that the Review has been publishing for 12 years now, so it's not as if people don't know we're here. For years I've been announcing forthcoming themes in our Bulletin Board, and I began to announce the poetry issue last winter. So why don't more women submit articles and proposals? I've asked some women this question, and they usually say it's because they see the Review as predominantly a male publication, while they're looking for a female readership. At which point we're caught in an old vicious circle that comes to no good end. (For the record, women comprise about 22 percent of our subscribers.)

"You gave us a pass on the poetry we publish in each issue, which I hope is merited. We receive eight to 10 times as much poetry from men as from women. [Our poetry editor] does a fine job of selecting worthy poems by women, and most issues have one in three works by a female poet -- which means that women who do submit poetry have much better odds of being published than do men."

Schneider continued to touch on the issue in the same edition's regularly appearing note to readers. "The 'youth issue' comes as close as I like to cordoning off a demographic group for special attention. Over the years people have proposed that we do a women's issue, a race issue, a transgender issue, a bear issue, and so on, and I've always resisted the suggestion. I suppose the reason is that it implies a ghettoization of what we like to call the gay 'community', and risks alienating some readers while catering to others." (The magazine does consider race or fill-in-the-blank; one of this month's features is titled "What we can learn from the black activism of the 50's and 60's.")

Wrote Schneider: "I've especially resisted the idea of applying any sort of quota system such that x percent of contributors have to be female or minority or under 30 or West Coast-dwelling. There are just too many squares to fill; instead, my approach has been to develop themes and select articles that would potentially appeal to any one of our readers. Of course, I've also strived and at times struggled to achieve diversity, and have worked especially hard to find a balance between men and women, with mixed success over the years....

"But this is the youth issue, and targets a group that seems relatively immune from this kind of tribalism... perhaps because it's such an ephemeral state, not one you're born with or one you keep for long."

I'm also reminded of American journalist Jeff Epperly, disliked by some for his news priorities back when he edited Boston's Bay Windows many years ago. At the time, Epperly thought "precious space and time were better used covering issues that affected everyone with an interest in sexual orientation topics," and listed violence, discrimination, and government as issues that bring all readers together. As such, the paper didn't cover bears or the gay party circuit, either.

"Of course, everyone wants to see themselves reflected very specifically in a paper, and if they are not they tend to see it as exclusionary. I saw it as covering topics in a broad enough manner so as to include everyone."

Thoughts?