I do not like the new editor of Harper's magazine and he does not like me, something we have made clear to each other via e-mail.

He does not like me because I am an angry female subscriber.

I do not like him because he does not like angry female subscribers.

I also dislike him because he is a Tennessee-educated insular boor who has made this well-intentioned American magazine even more boring than it used to be, which is a trick and a half. Read it nowadays and sink into an ennui with knobs on. My other problem with Roger D. Hodge is that he's not an inch as bright as former editor Lewis Lapham. If Hodge had another brain, he'd have just the one. Plus, his magazine radiates misogyny. Only an editor with a mission to fail would be so insulting to the women who are a third of his subscribers.

Women writers have for years been vanishing from American magazines (pleasingly, this is less true of Canadian magazines). It's odd to flip through a magazine passing itself off as general interest and see only male bylines. I don't like single-sex publications, especially when they pretend to be otherwise, as Harper's does. Single-sex institutions seem retrograde and creepy in 2007, like Grade 9 gym class, or women's book clubs that end in bickering, or pale sweaty men not eying each other's genitals in the locker room.

Women like men who like women. Men like women who like men. Unfortunately, fair-minded people don't run the world.

Last year, an American website, www.WomenTK.com, began tracking the ratio of male to female writers in Harper's, The Atlantic, The NYT Magazine, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. Arguably, the ratio should be more or less one to one because that's what life is like. As it turned out:

• Vanity Fair 2.7:1.
• The New Yorker 4.1:1.
• The Atlantic 3.6:1.
• Harper's 6.9:1 (118 male bylines, only 17 female). Fully six of its 12 issues from September '05 to August '06 had one or no female writers.

The numbers, as Ruth Davis Konigsberg of WomenTK writes, prove Ursula K. Le Guin's remark that "when women speak more than 30 per cent of the time, men perceive them as dominating the conversation."

Blogger Dennis Loy Johnson of MobyLives.com wrote scathingly in 2002 (so no change there then) of the catastrophically single-sex New Yorker. He then reported that women and men had reacted in different ways. Women wrote to thank him for noticing what they had seen for years. Men became angry and defensive. "Hey, The Atlantic is just as bad!" they'd say. There were other excuses. Shouldn't it come down to the best writing, male editors would ask. Yes, wrote Johnson, but why should 80% of the best writing be male?

Weirdly, five years later, Hodge says the same thing. When I emailed him this week to ask him how the March issue of Harper's came to be all-male, he said a number of things in response to my "intemperate" letter. (What nonsense. My letter positively seethed and rightly so.) "In fairness," he wrote, "you have to admit that the days when Harper's would go months without a female contributor have been over for a long time." Hodge is utterly wrong, as the figures show.

He then described how he edits. "I had plenty of pieces by women on hand, in various states in the editorial process, but most of them didn't quite fit together thematically. I did have one originally scheduled for the March issue but we had to hold it for one reason or another, completely unrelated to the fact that she can give birth."

What an extraordinary way to describe the postponement — purely by chance — of all extant pieces by prominent, professional women writers, and then make a weird reference to childbirth. I don't know if this last writer unfortunate enough to have Hodge for an editor is fertile. I guess he takes notice of things like that in his freelancers.

And then we come to the crucial bit. "You don't read Harper's because of the sex or race or the regional background or ethnicity of the contributors." That's what women are to Hodge. We are a minority group, even though we are half the human population. The fact that we make most household purchasing decisions or that more women read magazines than men means nothing. Just another pushy interest group of three billion.

Thanks to the internet, magazines have to work harder for readers now. I read Salon.com daily and I adore New York Magazine's online Daily Intelligencer for its wit and slouching, self-ridiculing attitude. Harper's I feel sorry for, but that's because I loved it for so long.

Never buy things out of pity. I say this knowing I will continue to buy things out of pity.

Decades ago, Harper's was great. But then so was Rolling Stone and so were a lot of things that are now a lurking pale shadow. Now it is humorless and unrelentingly grim. It's an Ambien, a rock dropping in the water without ripples, a dead hand.

But the magazine sends pleading letters about the lack of intelligent commentary in a pop culture world, so I subscribe for three more years, and then I discover that the editor does not like me and my type. You know, the birth-givers.

Then the PR person at Harper's helpfully e-mails me its circulation figures, which are astounding and sad. This supposedly influential magazine sells 231,000 copies (including to a substantial group of Canadian readers) in a nation of 300 million people. It reaches only .076% of the U.S. population. Hodge doesn't mind alienating female readers because the magazine, owned by the MacArthur Foundation, doesn't have to scramble for profit anyway.

For once I do see the purpose and power of "market forces." If it weren't for the owners, Harper's would go under.

I'm a woman. I wouldn't miss it and apparently, they wouldn't miss me. Was that intemperate of me to say?

This Week

My favourite restaurant in Toronto, Allen's, on the Danforth, held what they called a Steak Festival and what I called Meat Matters (after a hilarious column on butchery for the layman that used to run in the Toronto Star). What be these loins and eye of rib? It was heaven on a plate, the unpretentious meal of a lifetime.

Two nights later, I went to the new restaurant down from them and chased bits of bloody caribou in blueberry cocoa sauce around a platter. And foam. The foam trend began with carrots at El Bulli in Spain. I had tomato foam in Paris two years ago, after a 4-km hike on a hot day, and I remember it with a shudder. How expensively unsatisfying is foam. Now foam is foaming. Some things shouldn't be foamed — mustard, beetroot, leotards, kraft paper envelopes. I've had it with foam. Cease this.

---

LETTERS:

I am a professional student and a reader of Harper's.

Like most professional programs, mine averages approximately 1.4:1, female to male ratio at the moment and has done so for the past two decades. We like to think that the admissions committee selects based on the quality of the applicant. However, if your reasoning is correct, they can only succeed at selecting the best if a 1:1 ratio is reached. I believe that most people would find that notion absurd.

As a male, I have no problem being in a school dominated by females and I do not immediately attribute this to sexism. You seem very quick to point that finger.

If you wished to come off as jaded, you have succeeded and it makes your credibility negligible. For an educated person writing a so-called critical news-piece to base an argument upon the opinion that another is a "Tennessee-educated insular boor" is shameful. It is definitely a critical opinion but at no point does it seem educated!

—Nathan Lamond | Halifax

Am I the only person who has noticed that everyone who agrees with Heather is female and that the vast majority who disagree with Heather are men?

Why is it that when men read a commentary about a dearth of female writers they immediately think "sex wars"? This is not an attack. This is a suggestion on how to cater to a diverse readership.

It is far too easy to say "sour grapes" when you are of the male, hetero, white, able-bodied population. If nothing else, at least recognize your privilege and think about the benefits of membership.

It's not meant to be a war, we have more than enough of that already.

—Vanessa Janes | Toronto

Heather Mallick writes: "I don't like single-sex publications, especially when they pretend to be otherwise, as Harper's does. Single-sex institutions seem retrograde and creepy in 2007, like Grade 9 gym class, or women's book clubs that end in bickering, or pale sweaty men not eying each other's genitals in the locker room."

Does the word "pale" need to be in there for H.M. to make her point? If so, what is that point, other than that H.M. thinks it important to include her opinion that "pale" men are "creepy" (smuggled in with a point supposedly about single-sex publications)?

(BTW, I'm not sure where she's going with the "not eying each other's genitals in the locker room," so I won't comment on it, but will ask, again, what does this have to do with the point about the disadvantages of so-called single-sex publishing?)

—Fred M | St. John's Nld

Thank you Heather Mallick, for unabashedly standing up for women. We need more like you.

I'd like to add that it doesn't end with Harper's or magazines, although it's a good example. I've taken an interest in watching how many of The Daily Show's guests are female, and the answer is not many.

One quick browse through the website's list of recent guests reveals only a couple female guests, and even then they are often from the world of entertainment, not politics. It's quite disappointing as I love Jon Stewart's show for obvious political reasons.

It takes a tiny amount of forethought to find the clearly talented women in politics and public service, but it's necessary to put forward views and skills that are equal to any man's.

—Samantha Power | Edmonton

The hyper defensive male response here only bolsters the claims Heather Mallick makes. Who is really whining and crying into their pillows? It's scathing reactions such as these that likely led to the scarcity of female contributions.

Ratios and regular readership should be enough quantitative input to make a case in a journalistic aritcle. The fact is none of the comments here can directly dispute what is being written, and amount to little more than diatribes of the dispossesed.

Listen boys, we know it's hard to give up your monopoly on dialogue [other than in Cosmo, that is]. But while some editorials may tend towards gender specificity, the political domain is game for everyone and should reflect that.

—N.Marie | Vancouver

Over the past few years I have found myself reading some new, to me, exceptionally talented women writers. I wish they were more ambitious. Or is their work being rejected by editors both male and female?

For some people a little rejection can go a long way, and we, the readers, are the losers. But I have faith, and for this reason I expect that more women writers will quickly come to the fore in major magazines and newspapers, and not because they are women but because the quality of their ideas and work will resonate with readers.

And where a profit is needed to keep a publication viable, these new, young, women writers will not be denied.

—Don Meuse | Halifax

As a Harper's subscriber I've been having a hard time adjusting to the departure of Lewis Lapham. Following him is a bit like coming on after Jerry Lee Lewis.

On the other hand, I don't agree with Heather Mallick about the lack of work by women under the new editor. In the February issue, the Notebook, essentially the Harper's editorial, is by Barbara Ehrenreich. There's also a major non-fiction piece by Joy Garnett and Susan Meisalas, a story by Alice Munro. The feature book review is about Susan Sontag and the first of the shorter reviews is about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "mesmerizing memoir" of growing up female in Somalia.

It doesn't appear to me that the editor is ignoring the writings of women in this issue.

Enjoy your column, keep up the good work.

—Al Maki | Burnaby, B.C.

Although one would like to see a fairly equal proportion of female to male writers, particularly in the "thought leader" publications, Ms. Mallick would do well to turn her attention to the mastheads of today's consumer publications, particularly the larger circulation magazines.

The staffs of most women's magazines are skewed so heavily female their embarrassingly lopsided staffs look almost conspiratorial in their exclusion of men (that goes for the business and the editorial sides of the aisle).

In addition, the staffs of magazines with readerships that skew somewhat female, are still dominated by women, and even men's magazines often favor women at all levels. No complaint here.

The progress women have made from the days not that long ago of men editing magazines like Better Homes and Gardens is nothing short of breathtaking. However, I might suggest to Ms. Malick that she encourage the people "in charge" of many of this country's largest publications to help foster more opportunities for women writers among all publications.

—Bill Hogue | New York, New York, USA

I'm a man and I say you're absolutely right: men are defending a world situation in which they are in power, just as some ethnic groups support a national situation in which they remain in power.

In my view, they are comfortable with it. They view it as somehow divinely mandated. And it will only take protests such as yours to, one, raise it to their awareness; two, overcome their lame excuses for leaving the situation as it is; and, three, see real change occur.

As a male, I can see my own preference for male dominance in myself. I watch it arise. I see I am happy to be among the privileged group. Left to my own devices and without protests from women, I would probably do nothing about the situation.

I have to consciously reject these sentiments and remember what is right and fair or I would languish in them.

Your words of protest are the only remedy. So please keep writing on the subject.

—Steve Beckow | Vancouver

There must be great comfort in playing the part of the victim. Virtually every minority, whether they are identified by their race, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities have cried "whoe is us" to the point of nausea.

I thought that we were through with women falling into this same trap and crying in their pillows but Heather seems to be bound to promote her fellow females re-joining the "no fair club".

From my observations, when people stop thinking like victims and start acting like winners they actually become winners. As long as you play the victim card you'll continue to get what victims always get - sympathy and crumbs.

—B. Kelley | Brantford, Ont.

I'm laughing here because the letters from the 'male' 50 percent of the population continue to sound like the Harpers editor ... "just another pushy woman..oh bother!"

Gentlemen, tell this to your wives, daughters and mothers. I'd like to know how they respond to your views. Although on further thought I may already know.

I've got all three of the other 50 percent in my life. I don't want to see my daughter held back by the likes of you dinosaurs.

—Jan Normandale | Toronto

Interesting article, but I have to say your statistics are unconvincing at best.

To support your case, you need to present statistics on the number of female authors who have had good stories (ones quickly published elsewhere) rejected by Harper's, or who have been denied article assignments by the editors.

An equally plausible explanation for your statistics is simple and more plausible: like you, female authors are turned off by the incessantly depressing writing in Harper's and by the lack of female role models publishing in the magazine, and choose to take their writing elsewhere. This sort of thing can easily become self-perpetuating.

In the sciences, we have a catchphrase worth bearing in mind: "correlation does not imply causality". Your assertion may well be correct, but you'll need to provide real evidence to support it, not just a headcount of published articles.

—Geoff Hart

Sure, there are some magazines out there crammed with male writers. There are also, apparently, female readers, like Mallick, counting the number of writers who are not female and complaining about it. Conversely, there are also oodles of magazines out there crammed with female writers.

Oddly, though, there doesn’t seem to be too many petulant, whining men readers counting the number of writers who are not male and sending pithy letters to the editor agonizing over it.

If Mallick doesn’t like having females treated like minorities, my suggestion to her would be to stop acting like one and stop trotting out the ‘all females are victims of misogyny’ schtick.

—Ron Laffin | Toronto

Thank you, Heather Mallick, for letting Mr. Hodge know your views and feelings on the absence of women's bylines in Harper's.

After subscribing for years, I dropped the subscription a few years ago, mainly because I was getting sick of the brilliant Mr. Lapham's ego trips, but also because there were no female voices.

I agree with you that single sex magazines are boring. Women's magazines have become anthologies of lists and catalog entries, reflecting an obsession with weight loss and chocolate cake.

Occasionally, I'll peek into a men's magazine simply because they'll have an article about something. Imagine that. An article with non-trivial subject matter!

All the best to you. —Sheilagh Casey | New Jersey, USA

You are so right about the lack of female writers and the (subsequent?) unfortunate, creaking demise of Harper's magazine. I keep subscribing, however, because of Harper's honourable history and because I still nourish the hope that Lewis Lapham will miraculously reappear, long may he live.

Me, I'm getting very tired of the awful sameness of the magazine's male writing and, unless things change pretty radically pretty soon, will not be re-subscribing.

—Ruth Nicol | Rosedale, B.C.

Irony, like many other splendid things, was a male invention.

Pity Ms. Mallick would sooner cut off her nose to spite her face than to avail herself of its sobering qualities to temper her tempestuous disposition.

Meanwhile, she traipses across our computer screens like a wannabe intellectual empress without any clothes (as distinct from a wannabe naked female without any intellect).

Ah, yes. Harper´s in the recent good old Lapham days. When it used to publish spacious and specious feminist tracts by the likes of Barbara Erenreich. Prompting me to cancel MY subscription. When such gestures meant something -- after all.

Care for another grape, Ms. Mallick?

—Tom Thomas | Gabriola Island, B.C.

Bravissima!!

Hear, hear! I just let my subscription to The New Yorker lapse cuz i can't take how mad the table of contents makes me each week. Thanks for your wonderful Harper's slapdown.

—Immy Humes | NY, NY

If Ms. Mallick is upset about the ratio of male to female writers used in the publication of those magazines she can simply stop subscribing to them or gather a group of like minded readers (both male and female) to protest these publications or to strike a campaign of gender fairness when it comes to the submissions of female writers to these magazines.

I wonder what the gender breakdown is for mags like Cosmopolitan, Redbook, and other female dominated publications, with respect to the writers who submit and then are accepted.

If Ms. Mallick wishes to balance the scales of women writers versus males when it comes to the magazine trade, then she should put together her own magazine and allow only the best of writing regardless of gender. Then she can favour one group over another for as long as her revenues hold out.

Who knows she may just tap into a previously undiscovered area of publishing success.

—Carl Burns | Halifax