Slate has lots of good content. It would be nice to see this clutter cleaned up. I keep getting tempted by nice headlines only to click through to vapid fluff. The comments from readers are often more entertaining and better informed, and yet what do they comment on? Not the issues, but instead the derivitave of women's (or at least these representatives of womanhood who have assumed the mantle of all females in the title of the column) take on the issues.

There is political coverage, then XX's political coverage; we have science articles, then XX's impression of science; we have books, which of course ought to be monopolized by an all-feminine writing authority.

Special-interest topics are fine and I'm not opposed to women-only blogs or perspectives. There is great value in sharing common interests with peers. The same could be said of a black-only blog column, or one for students, or hispanics, or members of the military, or any combination of folks with special interests. (Men, perhaps, where they discuss how the consumer spending gap between men and women?...) However, their appearance in a mainstream general news source smacks of nothing less than discrimination in favor of the 52% minority.

Could Slate's editorial board perhaps select writers based on merit instead of gender?

P.S. People who celebrate the McCarthy-styled blackballing of Larry Summers are not who you want to front your paper.

I was under the impression that the XX column was all about Slate getting a group of women to heap criticism on Hillary Clinton, so it didn't seem so sexist. It came out about the same time as the video comparing Clinton to Tracy Flick started it's 3 month residence on the front page.

Mr. A,

Why do you care if there are extra features, eps if you dont like them anyhow? XX Factor articles are clearly indicated as such, and if you know it will jsut be tripe anyhow, you dont need to even go look. So how does this take away from anything you want? Less content in which you are interested, or fewer writers you like to read, or maybe something else?

As far as 'hearing only from women and discriminating against men' goes, I made a quick count of the articles listed on the Fray homepage for the last three days (as of right now):

links with male bylines: 30

links with male bylines: 9

links with both: 2

links where i couldnt tell: 2

links with no attibution: several

So how does this fit with your complaint? And what is the complaint behind the complaint, which there seems to be...

Sincerely,

Carolle

oops...

male: 30

female: 9

Carolle

oh, i thought it was all about promoting misandry...

my mistake!

"People who celebrate the McCarthy-styled blackballing of Larry Summers are not who you want to front your paper."

I couldn't agree more with your PS. This sort of double standard with regard to the free expression of opinions is exactly why I quit attending Unitarian-Uiversalist services and generally steer clear of most liberal organizations despite my contempt for Republicans.

don't eliminate it, i find it very illuminating on how the feminist view males in general...it needs to be here...

I think the question becomes if you don't like it, then why the heck are you even here?

Also regarding Larry Summers, he's a criminal with warrants out for his arrest in Nevada (or a state out West) where he's wanted for larceny. I think if he offered a serious opinion, then people would listen, but even the Republicans want him to shut up and go away. He's not trying to add to the political discourse, he's looking for attention. I don't begrudge his right to voice his opinion at the National Press Club, or at the top of his lungs on the steps of the Capitol, but by doing so, he opens himself up to critique.

Correct that, not Summers, Sinclair.

merliecat,

I started to respond to the Larry Summers thing, and passed, but since you made a great intro, I say something.

I am assuming that the posters above feel that if a female head of Harvard had made disparaging sex-related comments about boys/men, then she would not be questioned b/c the feminazis could cry 'sexism!" and that she would keep her job.

I feel tho, that if a female head did such a thing, the outcry would be large and loud and used as proof that the feminazis are out to get men and can say whatever they want, and that the overall faculty would demand that she go as president of Harvard.

I feel that the outcome would have been somewhat different for Larry Summer if had just been a professor, rather than President. He would have been pilloried by certain groups, including a lot of the faculty, but would have a much, much different role as an indepenent thinker than as the person representing and setting policy for all of the Harvard community and constituencies. I feel that is why extreme feminists (to me, at least) get away with really outrageous things, and Larry Summers didnt.

Others may not agree!

What do *you* think?

Sincerely,

Carolle :)

PS: I am not quite sure how his character relates to his right to have opinions, no matter how much we may disagree with them?

My mistake, folks ;-)

I had just finished reading the write up about Larry Sinclair and his right to free speech at the national press club.

Thank you Carolle ;-) I had forgotten about Larry Summers and had not read the science post yet. That's what happens when I get ahead of myself. ;-)

My complaint is not about the byline ratio, and it isn't about the writers, their gender, or even the pieces themselves. It's really about how Slate defines itself. Even though it isn't usually my cup of tea, XX is not especially awful. And I do read it less than when it started.

I saw some general political relevance to commenting on how gender played into the primary fight. On that note, it is a gaping imbalance that there was no corresponding commentary for African-Americans, although as a campaign issue it was equally relevant. No obvious catchy title presents itself for that running commentary, should it ever materialize (and its potential relevance is on the uptick now, too).

I just don't see the point of framing every (or any random) issue, particularly gender-neutral issues, in a "from the womens' point of view" lens, unless the publication is primarily for women. Many issues discussed in the XX Factor are gender-neutral, so do not require any gender-specific treatment. The column about "Are Boys Better in Math?" is a case in point: a topic that should be covered with a social science write-up, not a "let's hear from the ladies' corner" about it. If the individual writers have a social science analysis, let them write it. The study either deserves to be taken seriously, or does not. A snyde "Take that, Larry Summers!" is a step down for Slate, if it wants to be taken seriously.

That decision belongs to Slate. Where to take my eyeballs and spend my clicks are mine. But before giving up on Slate, I'll take the time to mention that the "XX Factor" seems like non-news and water-cooler chats on what I thought was a source for news and analysis.

What do you say, Slate?

(And for the record, I do think it is misandrist in a mild sort of way, if only because Slate would never have had the guts to start up a similar "Y Factor" instead, which shows a decided lack of equal treatment/consideration, if true.

lol, merliecat, I dont even know who Larry Sinclair is!

I *definitely* remember Larry Summers, tho! He is the ex-Harvard President who attibuted (in my understanding) the dearth of women in upper-level science and math as due to women not wanting to work 80-hours weeks b/c they wanted to have children, innate differences that made them less able to this type of workd, and discrimination.

He loves to be controversial and shake things up, and to me has a right to his opinion, but then Harvard has a right as to sho it wants as president, too..

Carolle :)

Slate did a piece about it here:

<link>

And here's more from today... So, I got a little confused! ;-)

<link>