The VIDA Count 2013 -- where they: "manually, painstakingly tally the gender disparity in major literary publications and book reviews" -- is now out.
They look at the number of book reviews that are written by women/men, the sex of authors of those reviewed books, and other applicable indicators (bylines, for example) -- and the picture often isn't pretty.
Faring as consistently poorly as ever are leading periodicals such as The New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review of Books, and The New Republic. Among the arguments they have explaining the disparity -- at least regarding the authors of books reviewed being predominantly male -- is that more books are published by men; see, for example, Ruth Franklin's A Literary Glass Ceiling ? from two years ago. This is certainly (and disappointingly) an issue with regards to books-in-translation (see my discussion of this from last year).
(As I note each year, the complete review remains shamefully, overwhelmingly sexist: in 2013 84.88% of the 205 titles reviewed were authored by men. I like to think that the remarkable consistency in the ridiculously low percentage of female-authored titles getting reviewed (I've been aware of and wondering about it for well over a decade) suggests a 'natural' sort of level, determined by the types of books (mainly in translation; scholarly books in a limited number of fields, etc.) I cover. But I'm probably deluding myself. Still, just as I consciously would never read a book 'just' because it is written by a man, I can't bring myself to read books 'just' because they're by women, to improve the statistics. [I do note that a quick, rough check of the books I've received as review copies so far in 2014 -- of which only about 20% were explicitly requested by me -- the percentage written by men appears to be over 90%.].)
Faring as consistently poorly as ever are leading periodicals such as The New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review of Books, and The New Republic. Among the arguments they have explaining the disparity -- at least regarding the authors of books reviewed being predominantly male -- is that more books are published by men; see, for example, Ruth Franklin's A Literary Glass Ceiling ? from two years ago. This is certainly (and disappointingly) an issue with regards to books-in-translation (see my discussion of this from last year).
(As I note each year, the complete review remains shamefully, overwhelmingly sexist: in 2013 84.88% of the 205 titles reviewed were authored by men. I like to think that the remarkable consistency in the ridiculously low percentage of female-authored titles getting reviewed (I've been aware of and wondering about it for well over a decade) suggests a 'natural' sort of level, determined by the types of books (mainly in translation; scholarly books in a limited number of fields, etc.) I cover. But I'm probably deluding myself. Still, just as I consciously would never read a book 'just' because it is written by a man, I can't bring myself to read books 'just' because they're by women, to improve the statistics. [I do note that a quick, rough check of the books I've received as review copies so far in 2014 -- of which only about 20% were explicitly requested by me -- the percentage written by men appears to be over 90%.].)