A few weeks ago when H_NGM_N #8 was released, contributor Julia Cohen noted on her blog that she was “happy to have [her] poetry amongst these great contributors, but was disheartened by the female to male ratio of work.”
The implication – which Julia might not have intended – is that this demonstrates a bias on my part. Curious, I ran some numbers:
#8 :: 54 contributors, 14 female for a total content of 26%
#7 :: 46 contributors, 16 female for a total content of 35%
#6 :: 45 contributors, 17 female for a total content of 38%
They call me LL Cool H
Looking at these numbers, #8 does have a lower female content percentage than past issues of H_NGM_N - & it does seem to be sort of embarrassingly low as a rule.
COMBATIVES :: Vol. 1 & 2 :: 12 contributors, 8 female for a total content of 67%
H_NGM_N Chapbooks :: 11 contributors, 4 female for a total content of 36%
These are two areas of H_NGM_N that are the result of direct solicitation - & the numbers are troublingly inadequate for making a conclusion. The chapbook numbers seem in line with H_NGM_N the journal, but the COMBATIVES series is…uncharacteristically high.
And deeper still I took a look at the H_NGM_N submissions still to read through, sitting on my computer. 67 total of which 25 were female for a total of 37%.
So I’m left with questions. I too am disheartened but, in a non-scientific scientific way, the magazine is adequately representing what’s submitted to it. How do I raise the number of submissions from females? Is this, in some ways, silly?
Failed strategies #34
I’ll admit my initial reaction was to say that H_NGM_N publishes the best of what’s submitted - & I can’t control what’s submitted. I would love to hear what other editors/writers think about this. Email me here – editor [at] h-ngm-n.com. Let me know in your note if it’s ok to reproduce it on the blog – in fact, I’d be happy to give this space over to someone else’s thoughts!