Number of Washington Post op-eds by women in the past two days: 0.

[ensho]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/hiatt-women/


In recent days, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has come under intense criticism for allowing columnist George Will to spout lies about global warming science. Media Matters follows up today, noting that the editorial page has been especially biased toward conservatives in recent days:

Yesterday’s Washington Post featured op-eds by Henry Kissinger, David Broder, Bill Kristol, David Ignatius, and George Will. Today’s brings op-eds from George Will, Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kinsley, and Eugene Robinson.

That’s ten columns total. One is by a liberal (Robinson), one by a contrarian who may lean left (Kinsley), two by centrist Villagers (Broder and Ignatius - and remember, Village centrists are typically to the right of the actual center.) And six are by staunch conservatives - Will (twice), Krauthammer, former Nixon aide Kissinger, former Bush I aide Kristol, and former Bush II aide Gerson.

Atrios also points out that there hasn’t been a single woman writer. In fact, during the past week, there have been only four pieces written by women (Anne Applebaum, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Ruth Marcus, and Kathleen Parker).

UpdateJane Hamsher looks at one female Washington Post contributor from Sunday.
-----------------------------


and there you have it

[dem629]

1. There we have....what?

[ensho]

3. think on it, maybe it will come to you

nt

[dem629]

7. How many Irish-American writers?

[Cerridwen]

9. Meaning?

Why exactly are you avoiding an observation of gender bias in the media?

Do you do the same when the bias observed is anti-Democrat or anti-liberal?

[dem629]

10. I don't subscribe to conspiracies about "the media." (Is "the media" a monolith, by the way?)

It's akin to sports fans whining about the refs.

[Cerridwen]

13. See post #11. n/t

[dem629]

17. See post #16. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

82. This ain't sports, it's the Ruling Class. Check into it.

[tanngrisnir3]

19. Two days for one paper is an insufficient data sample to prove anything.

[Cerridwen]

20. See post #18. n/t

[tanngrisnir3]

29. Why? It does nothing to support your contention.

[Cerridwen]

30. Explain how it doesn't, please. n/t

[tanngrisnir3]

31. A 'snapshot' is not a quantifiable statistical term, and is representative...

of nothing in particular, i.e., it cannot be objectively, quantitatively defined.

IOW, it does nothing to support the contention that is a gender bias in the media. Perhaps there is one, perhaps not, but what you have submitted doesn't go towards proving that.

All it does is prove that for two days there were no female-penned op eds.

[Cerridwen]

32. Just as the threads on this board noting bias on the talk shows

and round tables are not "statistically...representative" of neo-con bias? True, and not my point.

My point is, when anti-liberal bias is noted it is accepted as fact. When anti-woman bias is noted, it is a hot topic for debate and held to a different standard of proof. And, that those who demand proof in the later rarely demand proof of the former.

A quick search shows, for example, that you've not posted your thoughts about the "statistically...representative of nothing in particular" in those threads noting neo-con bias. Though I don't think we can post to every thread about each and every topic, I do start to wonder which threads are of interest and why this particular one grabbed your interest to point out statistical insignificance when others, per your standards, carry the same statistical insignificance.

Just a trend I've noted of some on this board. It's of no statistical significance.

[tanngrisnir3]

33. I post to the threads I post to, and that has zero to do with what we're discussing

What is posted elsewhere, or not posted elsewhere, in other threads, is meaningless to what is being posted here.

My point is, when anti-liberal bias is noted it is accepted as fact. When anti-woman bias is noted, it is a hot topic for debate and held to a different standard of proof. And, that those who demand proof in the later rarely demand proof of the former.

The problem is with the data sample you've cited you have not 'noted' any anti-woman bias because you haven't proven that any is there with that sample.

If you can't understand that, then we have nothing left to talk about.

[Cerridwen]

38. It is but one example of a noted trend. To list all the examples of the trend

in order to provide proof would take far more space that a post on a message board. The article linked in the OP provides additional examples and discussion and additional links to additional examples and discussion. There are also many books, studies, and much research done in this area of which, the article linked in the OP, depicts but one example. I wasn't trying to prove gender bias. That has been done. I was making a comparison of the requirements of proof of two types of bias shown in the media.

You are *right* in several respects, however. One of them being we have nothing further to discuss. I've hinted at my points and I've stated my points. You have responded by doing the message board equivalent of nit-picking the punctuation in order to deny the thesises.

1 - there is neo-con bias in the media
2 - these is gender bias in the media

1a - some members of this board accept #1 as fact without "proof," or with a less rigid standard of "proof."
2a - some members of this board demand proof of #2 while at the same time accepting #1 as fact without additional "proof," that is, #2 is held to a more rigid standard as "proven."

You may or may not be one of those mentioned in #2a. It doesn't matter. Another reason I post on here is for those who lurk and read in the hopes they might learn something new or see something that they hadn't quite noticed before. Your responses have allowed me that opportunity.

Thank you.

[tanngrisnir3]

42. No one, myself included, is asking you to supply all examples....

and it is rather intellectually somewhat less-than-honest to imply or suggest that I would require that. I would never request that you do so, because it would be impossible.

There has been no nitpicking here; rather you have simply been asked to support your contention that this one instance (2 days at 1 paper) is proof of anti-female bias in the media. You have yet to do so.

While I don't doubt that there is, you have done nothing to show that with the data/examples provided.

Further, I haven't stated nor affirmed anything about neocon bias in the media, so I don't accept the application of your matrix.

[Cerridwen]

46. Noted.

Not *my* contention but one with which I agree based on, as previously posted, this and other sources.

The comparison I used was of double-standards required as proof.

The nit-picking I described was you and others using one example to derail the wider discussion. You "don't doubt that there is {anti-female} bias in the media" but you demand better proof than provided here. I chose to use this as but one example of the sliding scale known as double-standard.

It's called "compare and contrast."

Thanks again.

[Exilednight]

81. A two day snapshot does not support your hypothesis ..........

You're speaking as if facts on your side when you haven't supplied any, or what little you have supplied is more than insufficient.

I've worked as a reporter for more than a decade. I've several women who wrote op-ed pieces, but few who actually worked on the editorial boards. There are several reasons as to why this is.

1. I've known many women who have been offered the job as editorial director, but turned it down. There reasons vary, but one theme comes up more than often than not. Many like hard nose reporting and one on one contact with the subjects they are writing about.

2. Men out number women by about a margin of 6 to 1. Reasons for this may also vary, but I haven't seen any studies that delve deep into the subject as to why this is. I did notice immediately in journalism school that men outnumbered women by about a margin of 5 to 1.

3. Most newspapers are make an effort to have a female point of view, but you can't force someone to write something that they have no desire in writing. When you force someone to write something that have no interest in, it tends to be poorly written.

[Shakespeare]

34. While women are under-represented in the media, especially print media, that's not a valid sample.

And before you question MY creds--one, I think no one here will suggest that I'm a newbie and a freeper, and two, I'm both a women AND a former newspaper reporter.

You're not wrong; you're just using an insignificant non-sample to make your point. I believe that's what the other poster is taking issue with.

[Cerridwen]

40. See post #34. n/t

[noamnety]

47. A challenge for you:

Find any 2 day period in their entire history where they've had zero pieces by men.

Or take this: "In fact, during the past week, there have been only four pieces written by women "

Find any week in their history when they've only had four pieces written by men.

--------
Can't do it? Wouldn't even bother trying? I'm thinking there's a reason why - it's a foregone conclusion it can't be done.

[Shakespeare]

49. There's no challenge (and that's a false analogy, too).

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I agree that there's serious misrepresentation of my gender in the media--I used to work in that world, and experienced it first-hand.

What I, and the other poster, are pointing out is that the argument from emotion--and that's what it is, because a two-day sample from one newspaper is NOT a valid statistical sample--is a really, really poor position from which to argue. We're not disagreeing--we're just saying it should be approached from a more intellectually and statistically solid position. And I don't understand WHY people find that so offensive. I know this site is full of very bright people--but people fall back on emotional arguments far too often, and it's just lazy.

Debate on this site could be elevated exponentially if people kept this in mind.

[noamnety]

50. There's a lot of frustration

because a similar sample showing no liberal representation would be greeted as confirmation of what we know to be true, with discussions of why it's a problem, and possibly action to boycott or at least write letters.

This discussion, however, focuses on gender. So it is derailed, and rather than discuss the ISSUE - under-representation of women and what we can do to protest it, the responses range from:

1. STFU, you can't discuss gender disparity until we complete a full statistical study analyzing the last X months - anything less is an emotional response (aka stfu dumbasses, you aren't well versed enough in research methods to even discuss this issue), to:

2. STFU, just don't read that paper, to:

3. STFU, there also aren't any columnists who are Irish American during that time period, therefore sexism at the paper may not be discussed.

(For the record, I've taken research methods/statistics classes in grad school.)

[Shakespeare]

51. No. You're incorrectly making this an either/or, very (wrongheadedly) absolute argument.

And it isn't. And if we try to argue that way, and argue only from emotion, we will never make any inroads.

NOBODY is saying to STFU about anything. What I am saying is that the suggestion that a mere two-day sample from ONE newspaper should not be the substantive basis for one's point.

Your attempt to twist my words notwithstanding, I'll simply restate my previous point that the OP is a very good example of why argument from emotion is not very effective, and restate my suggestion that we can and should do a little better around here. We're really not helping ourselves in the real world otherwise.

And if you've studied research methods and statistics, this should all be rather obvious to you.

Again, I'm NOT disagreeing; I'm simply saying we should approach it a little differently.

[noamnety]

52. You're arguing from your emotions.

There. Now we've each made that condescending insult without substance against the other, hopefully we can each check that off our lists and move on from there.

Let's discuss gender disparity at the Post. Here's a larger data sample, it took me about 5 seconds to find this from May 2008.

"The 2008 numbers as of Wednesday: 654 op-ed pieces -- 575 by men, 79 by women and about 80 by minorities. The lack of diversity is partly a matter of tradition; The Post's longtime stable of regular columnists consists overwhelmingly of older white men. The op-ed page usually runs five pieces a day; four are from regular columnists."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302308.html

[Shakespeare]

53. I didn't accuse you of arguing from emotion, and I certainly didn't insult you.

That was a broad "you" as it pertains to this column.

Again, we don't disagree, and I don't know how many more times I have to say that before you'll stop positing your comments as if I do. I just prefer a more....solid (and defensible) argument. The sample you just provided is more like it--see how that helps? :thumbsup:

[noamnety]

54. I think it might have come across better

if you'd simply decided you wanted to discuss a larger data sample, found one, and posted it to begin with.

[Shakespeare]

56. Not my argument, not my search to do.

And that's rather my point.

[October]

71. Open your eyes

Count the number of men vs. women in the news, on the op-ed pages, etc., etc.

Proof is everywhere.

[femrap]

60. Do you work at being stupid?

Or does it just come naturally? Women are over half of the population and it gets tiring listening to men yak yak yak constantly.

In fact, it looks like men have caused this planet to be in the mess it is.

Now go away and yak at someone else.

[dem629]

66. I hope you get over your anger.

[October]

70. Your analogy was poor...

It's all men all the time on the talk shows, in the papers, etc., etc. Even the op-ed pieces are primarily written by males (chosen by males)...and it continues.

Women represent more than half the population. It has nothing to do with ethnicity/ancestry.

[dem629]

72. Just showing that people can find anything to whine about.

[October]

88. It's a discussion. You're the one posting pithy remarks.

I don't understand why you continue to attack everyone. This is obviously an issue for you or you wouldn't be taking it all so personally.

[femrap]

91. Anger is a good emotion...

it tells you there is injustice and oppression. Sure beats fear and greed.

[October]

69. Gender crosses all ethnicities. /nt

[dem629]

73. Now that's deep.

:crazy:

[October]

89. Yawn.

Well, it's obvious to most -- but seems too deep for your immature mind.

[Enrique]

84. Michael Kinsley

:shrug:

[Enrique]

85. David Broder

:shrug:

[Exilednight]

61. Ummmm, alright ............

maybe it is due to the fact that there are nearly three times the amount of men in print journalism as there is women.

I am not saying that women aren't under represented, but your picking the wrong argument and basing it solely on emotion.

My other question is: why pick on WaPo?

[wickerwoman]

48. Proof that most women have too much sense to write for the Washington Post?

It's a neo-con rag. I think it's encouraging that there aren't more Ann Coulters out there but maybe that makes me weird.

[onenote]

65. why would a 'neo con rag" endorse gore, kerry and obama?

just asking

[October]

68. Meaning we frequently only get the male perspective. Women = more than 50% of the population.

[dem629]

74. What is the female perspective on Gaza?

[October]

90. You'd know if they printed it...

Hillary Clinton is calling for a "durable Gaza truce," and is condemning rocket attacks on Israel.


She's calling for all sides in the Gaza conflict to work toward a ceasefire.

[Skittles]

86. fucking imbalance, that's what

[FreakinDJ]

2. Is it a full moon

There - I said some thing sexist to satisfy your paranoia

[ensho]

4. I didn't write the article - my paranoia is not satisfied

nt

[Cerridwen]

5. Observation of a noted gender bias is paranoia?

What do you call observation of a noted neo-con bias? Is that paranoia?

[dem629]

8. The WaPo editors sit around planning this stuff. I know it!

;)

[Cerridwen]

11. Hardly. But they do continue to keep their blinders on and not

move outside their little "boys' club" of predominantly male, neo-con writers.

[dem629]

16. The worst part is that we're forced to read it all.

:shrug:

If I don't like something I'm reading, I stop and find something more interesting and intelligent, whether I agree with it or not.

I know this can be difficult, as it involves extreme physical exertion such as turning pages or clicking, but with time it gets easier and you barely feel the pain.

edit: typo

[Cerridwen]

22. No. The worse part is, is that it is an example of a broader bias

away from liberal and women's views in favor of male views and neo-con bias and the amount of coverage each receive in creating national discussion.

[dem629]

23. This is as whiny and crazy as the right-wing's obsession with media bias.

Have at it.

[Cerridwen]

25. Do you say the same about the "whiny and crazy" complaints from

Democrats about media bias?

[dem629]

43. That's what I'm saying right now. The "media bias" myth is laughable.

No matter if it's coming from the right or left.

[Cerridwen]

44. Thank you for answering. I appreciate it. n/t

[Doctor_J]

63. What? During the budget debate Cons outnumbered Dems 8-1

This weekend in WaPo Cons outnumbered libs 9-1. A typical Repuke prez candidate gets 7 times as many newspaper endorsements as his opponents.

Big Media is far right. this is not a theory or conspiracy. It is a fact

[dem629]

67. Well, I guess if you put it in

BIG RED LETTERS it must be fact. Excellent work!

[onenote]

77. Can you to provide a link for your claim about newspaper endorsements

I know its just the internet and that no one should be surprised when someone just makes up stuff, but I'd expect you to pick something that isn't easily checked.

Obama got substantially more newspaper endorsements as McCain and even Kerry got more than Bush.

Bush got more than Kerry, but nowhere near seven times as many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Doctor_J]

79. Wow! Obama got more than McCain. I guess that Liberal Media Myth is true!

The last time before this that a Dem got more endorsements than his opponent was 1964. But I guess someone who cites Wikipedia as "fact" is probably immune to truth anyway.

FAIR did a long article about 10 years ago and the newspaper endorsements came out to more than 85% for Repukes.

Please post lots and lots of facts from Limpballs, Weiner, Sludge, Hannity, O'Reilly, Liddy, Fox "News", CRNC, and the rest of the liberal media

[onenote]

80. again, got a link?

Kerry got more than Bush

Bush got more than Gore, but not 7 times as much. That's what the data I linked to shows.

And my source is Editor & Publisher and links to lists of the papers by names.

Do you have facts or just insults?

[ensho]

6. around and around the mulberry bush the posters go

there are more women in the US then men

there are more women in the world then men

and there you have it

[devilgrrl]

12. Well at least there weren't any op-eds from Ann Coulter, Mona Charen, or Michelle Malikin!

eom

[Cerridwen]

15. True. Though there weren't many by liberal writers either...

of either sex.

Which was also pointed out in the article linked.

[ensho]

26. true!

now that you have said that, one or all three of them will be in tomorrow's paper. lol

[BlooInBloo]

14. It might help understanding if you bolded the part about 10 total cols.

[Cerridwen]

18. Why? It's a snapshot. Much like the threads this morning about

the heavy neo-con weighting of Sunday morning talk shows and roundtables.

[BlooInBloo]

21. (facepalm)

[Cerridwen]

24. Hi, ensho. My apologies. I seem to have infiltrated your thread.

:blush:

[ensho]

27. infiltrate away - you are always welcome

nt

[Cerridwen]

28. Thanks. (edited)

That seemed too abrupt.

Thank you.

:hi:

[noamnety]

37. I'm guessing you were the other person who rec'd this.

I'm surprised at the animosity in the responses to the OP. Apparently the only appropriate response to an obvious gender bias is to politely ignore it and look away. :)

That way, everyone is polite, nobody is uncomfortable. And isn't that what we all really want, when it comes to racism and sexism - for the people running the show to be comfortable?

[Cerridwen]

39. Yeppers, that'd be me.

I notice two responses. One, as you said, looking away and not making anyone uncomfortable. The other is to demand proof of a kind not required in other circumstances. A double-standard. There's a surprise. /end last sentence sarcasm I've seen the same with regards to racism, bigotry, homophobia, and other prejudices as compared to the fact of neo-con bias.

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

59. I'm confused.

What animosity?

Pointing out the need for a larger sample in order to "prove" (as much as statistics ever "really" prove anything) is not animosity. It's not even disagreement. All it is is a bit of constructive criticism of the wording of the post.

To wit: the wording suggests the uncovering of an ominous trend. Two days, however, does not a trend make. It makes a coincidence.

And, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm being animos (the property, possessing of which is defined as animosity. It may not be a real word, but it's close enough for my current purposes), I will hereby provide you with some anecdotal evidence to support your claim.

I am male. I hadn't really thought about male bias in the media, per se, until a month or two back when I began watching Rachel Maddow regularly. Until then, I'd been like Stephen Colbert... I didn't see gender. At some epiphanical (again, technically probably not a word, but I'm on kind of a roll...) moment, it dawned on me that Rachel's guests were proportionally far more female than those on other news shows, no matter how liberal or not-liberal. And, in tandem with that realization, came a realization that there wasn't just sane and not-sane points of view... that there was a genuinely new (to me) slant being propounded by the majority female interviewees.
It was fascinating to watch myself try to adjust and puzzle together the slightly different world view that was coming together from listening to those, often more pleasing to my male ear, voices. It was also very intriguing to see that I had had something of a blindspot to what I'll poetically call a "slightly askew point of view" -- askew in the sense of it being just slightly out-of-kilter from my usual point of view.

So, in the interest of a constructive criticism-esque suggestion... perhaps the OP should be tried again as a challenge to all who have access to MSNBC (or the internets) to watch Rachel Maddow consistently for, say two weeks, and see if they don't see for themselves what it's like to get news weightedly coming from the "other-gender".

I suspect many arguments that might arise to the gender bias issue might be from others with a blindspot that they're not even aware of... others who basically agree, but just haven't seen the "skew" with their own eyes/ears.

[noamnety]

75. I pasted this in another post

"The 2008 numbers as of Wednesday: 654 op-ed pieces -- 575 by men, 79 by women and about 80 by minorities. The lack of diversity is partly a matter of tradition; The Post's longtime stable of regular columnists consists overwhelmingly of older white men. The op-ed page usually runs five pieces a day; four are from regular columnists."

I'm tempted to respond more to the first part of your post, but I'm gonna refrain because it would contribute yet more to the derailment of the thread from "under-representation of women in media" to other things.

I appreciate your insight that watching male dominated media is so often viewed as "there's no gender here" - and when we see one news show dominated by women, our reaction is "why is this show about women?" Male dominated often does mean gender-neutral, and we expect shows by women (The View) to be for women. I'd love to get to the point where we could have a couple days of women-dominated Op-Eds in the post, and all women commentators and guests on a major cable news show without anyone noticing.

One of my friends at one point had been offered an hour long spot on a radio show, and he was toying with the idea of voluntarily handing over his hour of fame to a group of his women friends, each of us getting a ten minute slot to talk about whatever issue we felt was important - economics, the war, whatever. The point was that at the end of the hour, there would have been an entire show by women that wasn't about women's issues. It was a sad statement that it was viewed in an odd way as potentially groundbreaking.

[liberalsince1968]

35. How many female neocons are there?

[TahitiNut]

36. ...

:hide:

[Cerridwen]

41. Thanks. I'll use that the next time some DUer starts "whining"

about the neo-con bias in the media.

I think I'm allowed, seeing as how I'm an (un)official member of the "DU taliban" and all.

[Greyhound]

45. K&R.

I see the testosterone brigade has been called up to defend their picked on status.
:eyes:

[Cerridwen]

55. Well, ensho, it looks like your OP has been read and judged

not intellectually rigorous enough to meet the rigid academic standards as required of posters on a message board.

In the future, please provide no less than three citations to on-line, peer reviewed journals and/or studies supporting your thesis. You may use any of the citation styles as befits a message board of this type and a post of this nature.

You may, however, post other OPs as examples of media bias against Democrats and "other" liberals without meeting the above-mentioned requirements as that bias has been established as fact.

All other examples of bias, those other than anti-Democrat(ic) or anti-liberal bias, should adhere to the three citation rule as well.

Should you fail to do so, your "opinion" or "theory" of bias will not be accepted and may in fact, be deemed false because just one, un-cited example, does not in these instances, meet the more valid and rigorous standards as exhibited in OPs about anti-Democrat(ic) or anti-liberal bias.

Note also: any attempt to avoid these requirements may result in your OP being summarily dismissed as; just another example of "whining women/gays/poor/African-American/Blacks/Native American/'other - non Hispanic'/etc. playing the 'victim card'" and/or, it may be used as evidence of your attempt to enforce, through posting, your overly-PC views on a board that is explicitly provided* for "Democrats and other progressives."

You have been warned.


{insert appropriately PC smiley here}


_{*Some restrictions may apply. See the rules page for additional terms.}

[Shakespeare]

57. My, that's passive-aggressive of you.

Also completely misrepresents and flat-out misstates my point.

Regards,
Shakespeare, the former female reporter who knows quite well of the bias mentioned in the OP.

[Cerridwen]

58. I wasn't thinking of you. Why presume I was? (updated)

edit: Ah, now I see. I hadn't read your posts upthread as I wasn't involved in that part of the thread (dog's required attention and stomach required food); you'll notice I replied to only one of your posts. I'll leave the rest of my post here as stands so others can see the edit in context.


My sarcastic post (passive-aggresive works if that suits you better), was a comment on generally occuring themes on this board and other places in the real world. One paper I read called it "implicit bias."

"People who are worried about what others think (or say) of them would be sorely disappointed in how rarely they do."

My replies weren't all about you nor even about specific posters.

[ensho]

87. nought to worry, they don't scare me

nt

[Doctor_J]

62. What's surprising is that there's a liberal in there

Go, Eugene!

Only a 9-1 ratio of wingers vs. liberals. Broder a centrist? He was a Palin campaign organ last year.

[Jim Sagle]

83. He's a centrist because he eats with a knife and fork.

;)

[aikoaiko]

64. What is the correct baseline to judge this series of male only op-ed/syndicated writers

Clearly the ratio is not 10/0 (I know thats not a proper ratio, but its useful), but what is the baseline gender ratio for heavy hitter op ed pieces.

[noamnety]

76. Here:

The 2008 numbers as of Wednesday (May 2008): 654 op-ed pieces -- 575 by men, 79 by women and about 80 by minorities.

[Cerridwen]

78. Another example and how it may have effected the public discourse.

Two aspects of the biased media are discussed in the following article.

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and article titled Op-Ed Echo Chamber; Little space for dissent to the military line dated 11/02/01:

A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non-existent.

<snip>

In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of the 107 op-ed writers at the Post, only seven were women. Proportionally, the Times did slightly better, with eight female writers out of 79.

<snip>

There is also a little-acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about military action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender imbalance in Washington Post and New York Times op-eds. In the final two paragraphs of a 1,395-word story titled "Public Unyielding in War Against Terror " (9/29/01), the Washington Post pointed out that women "were significantly less likely to support a long and costly war." According to the Post, while 44 percent of women would support a broad military effort, "48 percent said they want a limited strike or no military action at all."

<snip>

Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee proportional representation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently pro-war and anti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators (e.g., Mona Charen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity-- Washington Times, 10/18/01). But given the gender differences suggested by polling, more women on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the conventional wisdom that all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for an open-ended war.

{emphasis in original} <more at link>