I've been brooding on something for a while, hesitant to write about it. But it's a quiet Sunday afternoon, so here goes.
Recently our magazine (more specifically, one of its most popular bloggers) was criticized for an anti-female bias. What sparked the criticism was the blogger's post listing the year's most "shocking" quotations about the future. What shocked some readers was the fact that all the individuals quoted were male. The inference from this omission was that the blogger--and hence the World Future Society--was telling women to shut up.
My response, from an editor's point of view, is that it's more appropriate to judge the content of a post than the gender of its author. I extend that courtesy to the author of the blog post, who was excited by the ideas of the people he quoted, all of whom happened to be male.
Yet, the truth is, most of our articles are written by men. (They're also mostly written by Americans. And by people over the age of 50.) Why? Women have the exact same opportunity to contribute to our publications and our conferences as men do. We demand three things:
1. The article must have something interesting, useful, and important to say about the future.
2. The article must be based on facts, even if it is largely an opinion piece. I have no interest in wasting readers' time with material submitted by the Dean of the Department of Making Stuff Up.
3. It must be written in English. Sadly, I have retained little of the Spanish and French I learned in college, and machine translation is yet unsatisfactory.
I'm going to speculate a little here. I think the differences in the way men and women think and communicate parallel our reproductive roles.
Men: Have a lot of ideas, send all of them out into the world, hope as many as possible take seed and grow to maturity, if not immortality.
Women: The gestation of the idea to its birth requires investment of time and emotion. Nurturing a brainchild to maturity needs a supportive environment.
This analogy is certainly oversimplified, but it might explain why fewer women actually submit articles to us. Maybe there is a greater need for reassurance that the outcome of a tenderly gestated idea will ultimately be accepted. Maybe the expectation is that we will provide more collaboration in the development process--an expectation that we don't always have time to meet.
I believe that our magazine's content is, if not "gender neutral," then at least equally of interest and importance to men and women. I find it interesting, anyway. (Pardon my anecdotal evidence.)
Take Lester Brown's article in the current issue, for example: "Food, Fuel, and the Global Land Grab," describing the trend of wealthier nations investing in agricultural production in poorer nations as a way to ensure future food supplies for their own populations.
The article, which is an excerpt from Brown's latest book, Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity (W. W. Norton & Company, 2012), certainly met our criteria of being future-oriented, interesting, and important. The gender of the author was immaterial to me as the editor who selected it to present to our readers.
And yet, I certainly recognize that the story Brown told could have been told differently, were it told by a female. And differently, again, if told by a non-American. My question then becomes, would these be stories that our readers would read?
Or maybe a better question is, what stories would our future readers read?
As we continue brooding on these questions, our doors remain as open as they can possibly be:
- Check out the Writers Guidelines for THE FUTURIST here.
- Editorial guidelines for World Future Review are here.
- WorldFuture 2013 Poster Session guidelines (final submission deadline March 1) here.
- WorldFuture 2013 video contest guidelines (deadline March 18) here.
Please let us hear your voice.
Cynthia G. Wagner is editor of THE FUTURIST.
Essays and comments posted in World Future Society and THE FUTURIST magazine blog portion of this site are the intellectual property of the authors, who retain full responsibility for and rights to their content. For permission to publish, distribute copies, use excerpts, etc., please contact the author. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Future Society takes no stand on what the future will or should be like.
KEEP UP WITH WFS NEWS & UPCOMING EVENTS
July 2, 2015 - The United Nations has received commitments from 44 countries and the European Union (28 countries) so far in advance of the Paris climate change conference planned for December 2015. China, Brazil, South Korea, Iceland and Serbia are the latest to announce plans to decarbonize their economies over time.
July 2, 2015 - Today's guest blogger is Roy Rasmussen, co-author of the book, Publishing for Publicity. Roy is a freelance copywriter who focuses on ways to help small business get more customers through focused messaging.
July 2, 2015 - A mere two days before the United States celebrates its Independence Day, the Republicans now have 14 definite candidates and 2 to 6 probables who want to be the next President of the country. Of these one, although not a scientist, has stated that global warming is a human problem. That's Senator Lindsey Graham.
July 1, 2015 - It is Canada Day here north of the 49th parallel, the 148th year of the nation's birth. So today I went to watch my Toronto Blue Jays in action and have just returned to post the first of its kind blog here at 21st Century Tech. The collaboration is with Jessica Oaks, who has been a regular guest contributor.
June 30, 2015 - Just in case you were worried that we didn't have enough data traveling through fiber optic cables, engineers at
June 28, 2015 - In his latest email blast Peter Diamandis talks about four revolutions in transportation that he expects will take place within this decade.
June 27, 2015 - One of my readers constantly points out when I write about climate change that atmospheric carbon isn't the problem. Instead it is the continuing hockey stick graph of human population growth which closely resembles the rise in CO2.