Women's Obituaries Again
According to Female Science Professor (click here to read), The New York Times received a letter to the editor complaining that there are about eight times as many obituaries for men as for women. I can verify this finding since for the past three years, I've collected and analyzed all the obits for January and women are 12-14 percent of the total. The editor responded that today's obituaries are for those who grew up in the 1920's and 1930's, "when most important jobs were done by men." However, the FSP went on to say that "The "public editor" (ombudsman) for The New York Times added his own comment, saying that he thought the Times could do a better job of finding information about remarkable women and non-white men; the Times researchers should try to find 'a greater variety of subjects'".
Do you agree? What kinds of occupations (other than, as NYT would put it, occupations of national or international interest) should they cover, that would enable them to print more obituaries for women?
What do you think?
A They are right; with time, women ambassadors, CEOs, sports figures will increase.
B They should do what the ombudsman suggests; leaders of NGOs for example should be included, and outstanding teachers.
C I don't think parity will be achieved because there aren't equal numbers of male and female CEOs. They should recognize women in their arenas of importance, and minorities in theirs as well.
Dear friends,
We seem just a tad morbid here, but the bottom line is, it's good to have friends and family, which is a great message to keep to the forefront.
I do like the idea of broadening the categories to include ones with more women and people of color, and I think right now would be a great time to do that!
cheers,
Laura
B. You can't wait for the impossible..or rather you can but will be sorely disappointed. At a minimum you can fairly include women who have made an impact in areas people are already comfortable with.
And I agree with FBP, definitely have someone besides your publications to appreciate you in the end. One of the saddest stories I experienced in my postdoc was the suicide (at a conference) by a famous and well respected male professor. He took some cyanide out at the lunch table. People initially thought he was napping...turns out he'd been diagnosed with cancer and wanted to die around the people who had meant the most to him...his colleagues...who then did not even write up his obit because the suicide was "embarassing" for the conference organizers. Yeah...makes me want to hug my kid too.
How depressing. First your papers are not cited by your male colleagues, then even when you die, no one will notice. Well, that's a good argument for having a family or some loved ones. They will care when you're gone. Sorry to get so morbid. FBP
Well computer scientists haven't been dying and getting lauded in NYT, but if they did, guess what? Not very many women who have made their mark. Likewise engineers, physicists. So I think B is right. And as Sonia implied, a category to bump up in the priorities is famous feminists!
Thanks, Sonia, that's very interesting. I didn't realize this has been a well-documented phenomenon. Kind of like the Yale Alum Magazine's article last month about how Anonymous (as in who said that?) was a woman. The author said his thesis was already well established, but people forget it over time.
cheers,
Laura
This form of gender discrimination has been researched and confirmed. One article about such studies is here: http://www.deathreference.com/En-Gh/Gender-Discrimination-after-Death.html It concludes that consistently, fewer obits are written about women, fewer obit lines note the accomplishments of women, and fewer pictures of women appear on the obit page. When women are recognized, usually it is for domestic or caregiving roles, or for their relationship to a famous man.
I, myself, experienced this when Elizabeth Chittick, whom I knew and who lived in Florida at the time of her death, died a few years ago. She was about a hundred years old when she died, had been president of the National Woman's Party for years, and was a prominent feminist. I and others contacted the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Miami Herald, and the newspaper in the locality where she died. We could not get a single obit published about her.
How about C? Unless you think women have equal access to the top jobs today (which I think they do not) then you can't expect time to fix the situation.
Hi Laura,
Well, B because the LA Times includes a lot more women, not half, but more than NYT. I think LAT covers a lot more women in entertainment (being so close to Hollywood maybe?). NYT often has NO women or includes a woman philanthropist. I have no interest in that, generally she didn't even make the money that she's giving away herself. I like the idea of NGO leaders, trying to help others.
OK, I pick A this time. I do think this issue will go away with enough time.
