In all likelihood, I will never become a world-renowned columnist. Tragic, I know. But please try not to sob openly.
I say this believing that I'm a good writer with an excellent grasp of current events who can occasionally be mildly witty. But my personality makes it very difficult for me to achieve my goal. You see, no amount of friends in Wharton or time spent in Huntsman Hall can make up for the fact that I have an acute aversion to self-promotion.
In other words, I'm kind of a girl.
This is, at least, what I am led to believe by the way the debate over the role of women on opinion pages has taken shape. This issue has received recent attention after a dispute between Susan Estrich, a University of Southern California professor, and Michael Kinsley, the opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, over whether Kinsley would publish Estrich specifically and more women generally (very much in that order). The majority of the commentary around this issue basically boils down to two generalizations: Women are insightful but timid and need to be "nurtured" out of the woodwork and into the scary realm of the editorial page. Men, on the other hand, are snarling attack dogs, confident but close-minded in their analyses.
So I'm not really sure where I fit in. For me, the most torturous aspect of applying to college waswriting an essay, not because of a lack of confidence or assertiveness, but because I'm not comfortable talking about how great I am. Judging by most of my classmates, this didn't really bother them (their challenge was more on the order of, 'how do I cram all my accolades onto one page? Oh, the humanity!')
Knowing this about myself, I've recently made a very half-hearted attempt at correcting it. Sometimes when I'm feeling time's winged chariot chasing me toward graduation and unemployment, I randomly send a column I've written to someone in real journalism, usually without an explanation. Realizing that this might lead to some confusion on their part, I sometimes put in really awkward lines like "here, read this" or "I liked your column last week. Try this one." Then I hit the send button, cringe and frantically play guitar until I've managed to forget about it.
I might have been able to make a greater impact. I have, after all, held this gig for three years. I could have been e-mailing Philadelphia blogger Atrios every week with a "Duncan, baby, love the cats. Link this column, it's great, it's snappy, it's money. It's got pep, I mean serious oomph, your readers will dig, gravy." I could have e-mailed Chris Satullo, editorial page editor of the Inquirer, and written, "As a mildly articulate 22-year-old with the ability to see past his own navel, I officially crown myself speaker for my generation. Count on me to pop up with a guest column every time someone under the age of 30 does something wacky." But they probably didn't want to be bothered.
Of course, my professional timidity is little consolation to the many qualified female writers who are kept out of the fold. If I were more manly I might point out, rather loudly and without any concern for the feelings of others, that in my tenure as editorial page editor at this paper there was a pretty good balance between male and female commentators. But that probably wouldn't help much either.
Whether Susan Estrich's behavior is improving the situation for women is a tough question. But Estrich has long championed women's rights: It was no doubt her desire to eliminate gender stereotypes that led her to pen the 1998 classic Making the Case for Yourself: A Diet Book for Smart Women.
In taking up her call, some commentators have overlooked the fact that Estrich's temper tantrum was glaringly self-motivated, having less to do with a lack of female representation than with a lack of Estrich representation (a malevolent Dogberry, in her e-mails she points out repeatedly, almost pathologically, that her syndicated column is published "twice a week"). They do this because, were it not for her bad manners, far fewer people would be talking about women in the media.
Without a doubt, the lack of women in opinion writing is alarming. Kinsley has acknowledged this, as have other editors. Eventually it will change, especially if the current trend of women outnumbering men in higher education continues. But in trying to explain this dynamic as it stands now, many commentators, both male and female, have tossed around gender generalizations rash enough to make Larry Summers blush.
I point this out partly because I don't fall into the definition of male opinion writer as hunter-and-gatherer. But the more important point is that there are many qualified women who write well and can thrive on the argumentative, parry-and-thrust nature of opinion writing and who don't need to be told that they must overcome their inherent temperance to be good at their job. And if I were a gambling man, I'd say this extends beyond the rather isolated realm of political commentary.
Eliot Sherman is a senior English major from Philadelphia and former editorial page editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. Diary of a Madman normally appears on Tuesdays.
