Content-Type: text/html
FROM PRETTY BLONDES AND PERKY GIRLS
TO COMPETENT JOURNALISTS:
EDITOR & PUBLISHER'S EVOLVING DEPICTION OF WOMEN
FROM 1967 TO 1974
by
Joey Senat
Doctoral Student
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1849 Stratford Road
Burlington, NC 27217
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to
Commission on the Status of Women, AEJMC National Convention
Chicago: July 30-Aug. 2 1997
From Pretty Blondes and Perky Girls to Competent Journalists:
Editor & Publisher's Evolving Depiction of Women From 1967 to 1974
Joey Senat, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Submitted to the Commission on the Status of Women,
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National
Conference, Chicago, July 30-Aug.2, 1997.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the lexicon used by Editor & Publisher
in describing women from 1967 to 1974. This paper concludes that Editor &
Publisher contained much of the sexist lexicon feminists were criticizing
newspapers for at that time. E & P, though, may have been more than a reflection
of newspaper norms. At a time when newspapers were being called upon to
recognize and avoid language that trivialized women, E & P's steadfast
practices of calling attention to women's looks and calling them "girls" may
have implicitly conveyed to some in the industry that such complaints themselves
were trivial and that such language was appropriate.
Pretty Blondes and Perky Girls
FROM PRETTY BLONDES AND PERKY GIRLS
TO COMPETENT JOURNALISTS:
EDITOR & PUBLISHER'S EVOLVING DEPICTION OF WOMEN
FROM 1967 TO 1974
In July 1971, an Editor & Publisher article about an award-winning feature
writer's interviewing skills led by saying that though she was 35, she looked
25, and by observing that her "high-breasted figure" was "poured into a
turquoise knit dress" and that her "well-shaped legs" were tucked under her.[1]
Two months later, an E & P article on classified advertising technology
repeatedly referred to the female newspaper employees in the article as "girls,"
even though the women in the accompanying photograph were clearly adults.[2]
While such labels and descriptions were not used in every Editor & Publisher
article about women in that time period, they were commonplace. Women reporters
and editors were often referred to as "girls," with articles highlighting their
appearances as much as their journalistic talents.
However, the language in the two 1971 articles didn't go unchallenged. In
August, two readers complained in separate letters to the editor that the first
article was indicative of the "offensive way newspapers and magazines write
about women"[3] and "reinforce the prejudice that talented women must also be
attractive."[4] Wrote one of them, "Women's lib is mad at the media and I don't
blame them."[5]
These arguments were representative of complaints being lodged in general
against the media's portrayal of women in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
National Organization for Women leaders criticized newspapers for their
"condescending portrayal of women" and urged editors to, among several
suggestions, use the term Ms. and avoid the term "girl" except for female
children.[6]
Feminists view the media's choice of words in reporting on women as important
not only because the media transmit information, but because, as one author
said, the media "are also very powerful in framing attitudes and forming
opinions. In a word, media teach, and they teach not only with what they say but
also with how they say it."[7] Just as ideas shape the language, the language
shapes the ideas.[8] Observed Beasley and Gibbons: "Language subtly confers
acceptance on people; it can empower them or diminish them, depending on how it
is used. It can also render them invisible."[9] From the feminists' viewpoint,
the language used in the media can reinforce existing stereotypes of women and
men.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the lexicon used by Editor & Publisher
in describing women from 1967 to 1974, a time in which women sought changes in
the terms used to depict them in the media. Editor & Publisher was chosen
because it serves as a weekly chronicle of events in the journalism industry and
as a popular forum for the critical discussion of issues affecting journalists.
The publication was gleaned for articles, headlines, editorials and photo
captions containing identifiers for women and for letters to the editor related
to the subject. The research focused on the language used by E & P's editors
and writers and the published reactions of readers.
1967 was chosen as the starting point because even though that was the first
year in which "women's liberation" groups were formed, their influence on the
media's lexicon would have been negligible. The years 1968 to 1974 were chosen
because in those years N.O.W. leaders challenged sexist language in the media
and urged other women to do the same.
Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: 1) What
lexicon did E & P use in those years to describe women and how did that
vocabulary change? (2) What discussion occurred in E & P's pages about the
media's use of sexist language?
While other studies have focused on the language used by the media, none has
focused on the language used by a journalism trade publication. Given the
feminists' accusations of media sexism, it is relevant and important to document
and analyze the words and labels being used by a publication that conveys ideas
within the journalism industry. Noting such a publication's past lexicon may
remind journalists to be more conscious of how language might shape the images
of groups and individuals in the future.
Sexist Language in the Media
"No institution of American life came under greater criticism during the
women's liberation movement of the 1960s and the 1970s than the mass media."[10]
Movement leaders recognized the media as central to their "efforts to liberate
women from traditional roles that made them inferior to men."[11] Feminists have
accused the media of using sexist language, which expresses stereotyped
attitudes or expectations, or assumes the inherent superiority of one sex over
the other.[12] The print media have long "described women on the basis of looks,
marital status, or even motherhood, even when the information was clearly
irrelevant to the story."[13] Such a lexicon defines the woman in terms of her
parenthood or sex, distracting the reader from her professional capacity.[14]
While in contrast, men "are rarely described as doughty grandfathers or as the
blond, vivacious, father of three."[15]
In a 1973 Editor & Publisher article, Gena Corea wrote that "newspapers help
keep women in their place."[16] Explained Corea:
When a woman makes a serious and newsworthy achievement, she is
still often reduced to sex object status by the words used to describe
her.
For example, the New York Times described a female candidate for the
Supreme
Court as having a 'beauty queen figure,' though it wrote nothing about
the
figures of the male candidates.
Special adjectives like 'perky,' 'dimpled,' 'vivacious,' and
'attractive' are reserved for women of accomplishment to make those
accomplishments seem cute and to remind everyone that first and
foremost, it's
how a woman looks that is important.
Another way to keep a woman of achievement in her place is to
identify her by the roles she is 'supposed' to be filling -- the roles
of wife
and mother.[17]
In 1974, N.O.W. "criticized newspapers for their condescending portrayal of
women" and called on women "to monitor their local newspapers and confront
editors and publishers with examples of sexism."[18] "In time," N.O.W. official
Midge Kovacs said, "the answer lies in having women editors, publishers, and in
their rewriting style books so eventually sexism will be written out of our
newspapers."[19]
Among the changes in language usage advocated by feminists was "the replacement
of the term girl with the term woman when addressing or speaking about adult
females."[20] Calling a woman a "girl" implies her immaturity and her
unimportance relative to men.[21] Linguists Francine Frank and Frank Anshen
contended: "As women have been taught to value youthfulness, many take the term
girl as a compliment. But the price of being eternally youthful is to never
grow up, and these women may be acquiescing in their own powerlessness."[22]
Feminists also proposed replacing Miss and Mrs., which indicate marital
status, with the term Ms., which is as neutral about the woman's marital status
as Mr. is for men.[23] The print media, however, were slow to change their
policies regarding courtesy titles.[24] For example, the New York Times refused
until June 1986 to use the title Ms., except in quoted material.[25] Perhaps one
reason editors were slow to adopt a new lexicon for women was because, as one
scholar noted, "The first step toward changing language is being aware that the
current usage is sexist."[26]
Women In The Media
Though the National Organization for Women was founded in 1966, the stirrings
of the "women's liberation" movement came in 1967 with the formation of a
"women's liberation" group first in Chicago and then other cities.[27] Though
initially focused on analyzing women's subservient status in society, some
groups tried to help women liberate themselves from restricting inferior
roles.[28]
By the end of the 1960s, wrote historian William H. Chafe, a foundation had
been created for challenging "traditional attitudes and values regarding sex
roles in America." The issues ranged from equal pay and opportunities to
"abolishing sexist language like 'chick' or 'girl.' "[29] By 1972, women
journalists had challenged the sexist assumptions of traditional journals by
conducting a sit-in at Ladies' Home Journal and had sued Time and Newsweek
"for not recognizing adequately women's issues and their professional status as
reporters."[30] Women staffers of the Washington Post and the Washington
Evening Star had won from management promises not to use adjectives such as
"pert," "vivacious," "leggy blonde," and "attractive brunette" to describe women
in newstories and to avoid other descriptive words such as divorcee unless they
would have also been applied to a man.[31]
The women's movement focused on the language and images used by the media
because "the power of language is such that it can distort reality to its own
image."[32] Noted Sheila Ruth, the author of a textbook on feminist issues:
Girls and young women, constantly bombarded with certain images of
beauty, are being taught that those images are beauty, that they
should and
must have it. Women who see themselves portrayed only as homemakers
(happy or
otherwise) or hip, sexy bombshells like the women of the soaps are
being
taught that women really are such things and are anomalous in any
other guise.[33]
Even the woman who does not fit the images believes them because she receives
those images "with the unconscious working assumption that the media offer true
representations of reality. She must either accept herself as anomaly . . . or
change to conform."[34]
Feminist Francine
That sexist stereotypes existed in Editor & Publisher's pages and that such
representations of women were offensive to some readers were made clear in 1967.
As a regular contributor to E & P Associate Editor Ray Erwin's weekly column of
anecdotes and observations on journalism, Harold Winerip of the Boston Traveler
would skewer what he considered to be newsroom stereotypes. On March 4, 1967,
Winerip included "Feminist Francine" in his cast of "City Room Characters."[35]
She believes, wrote Winerip, that "women are just as good newspapermen as men.
'No reason,' she argues, 'that a woman can't hold any newspaper job -- copy
editor, sports writer, city hall reporter, police reporter -- anything.' So the
city editor sends her out to cover a tenement fire at 3 a.m., with the
temperature at seven below zero. One week later she resigns to get married."[36]
Winerip's commentary prompted a running battle between him and readers of both
sexes.[37] The first complaint, which was representative of those to follow, was
published two weeks later in a letter to the editor from the chairman of New
York University's journalism department.[38] M.L. Stein wrote that Winerip's
"unflattering references to newswomen" indicated that he "seems to know exactly
how to go about discouraging qualified women journalism graduates from going
into the newspaper business." Stein defended the women reporters he had worked
with during seventeen years of newspapering. "They could and did cover tenement
fires at 3 AM, murders, picket-line violence, City Hall and the courts; and they
stayed in the newspaper business. I've met some women who probably were
misplaced on a newspaper, but that's also true of some men."
The war of words over Winerip's comments not only highlighted some male
opinions of women journalists, but also demonstrated that women and men were
willing to challenge biases against women. The episode also made it clear that
everyone might not comprehend their objections.
Pretty Blondes and Perky Girls
Editor & Publisher' s articles and photo captions frequently commented on the
physical appearances of the women being written about or photographed.
Adjectives such as "beautiful,"[39] "attractive,"[40] "vivacious"[41] and
"pretty"[42] were often used to describe women. On the other hand, though,
physical descriptions were not routinely included in articles or photo captions
about men. E & P's captions and articles about women also sometimes used
identifiers that arguably could be considered belittling to them as
professionals, including "Dixie darling,"[43] "newshens"[44] and "matron."[45]
Meanwhile, E & P routinely used the term "girl" to refer to adult women in the
journalism industry, while not using the term "boy" to describe men.
Women's appearances were often emphasized as much as their accomplishments. For
example, the caption for a photograph of an all-female press club board of
governors said, "The Press Club of Akron, Ohio, lays claim to having the most
attractive Board of Governors of any press club. President Jerry Healey of WAKR
said the four governors were selected for their abilities; beauty was a
bonus."[46] In another article, the looks and sex of a "tall, ash blonde" and
"beautiful" female AP correspondent in Vietnam were a central theme.[47] The
author concluded that she had "won over her colleagues by being a reporter
first, a beauty second, and a woman all the time." When the Associated Press
introduced a new team of reporters to cover "youth" issues, E & P described one
of the women as "a strawberry blonde with a nice figure."[48] And an AP female
sports writer was described as a "pretty, young blonde."[49]
Even when women's actions as journalists were being spotlighted, their
appearances were still noted. For example, Editor & Publisher reported when a
22-year-old French photographer, the only woman to join the 173rd Airborne
Brigade in the first combat parachute jump of the Vietnam War, was wounded in
combat. Still, she was described as "a petite girl photographer in ash-blonde
pig tails."[50] In contrast, a feature article about a United Press
International photographer being wounded in Vietnam contained no physical
description of him.[51]
Even the same writers usually gave different treatment to women's and men's
looks. For example, Ray Erwin described syndicated columnist Harriet Van Horne
as "a dainty, blue-eyed blonde with a sweet-voiced feminine manner -- and a
harpoon in her typewriter."[52] A week later, however, his feature article about
cartoonist Mort Walker did not describe Walker to readers.[53]
At the same time that Editor & Publisher was noting women's good looks, it
was routinely calling them "girls." Among the women journalists specifically
referred to as a "girl" were a federal courthouse reporter,[54] an assistant
managing editor[55] and an award-winning feature writer.[56] In contrast, E & P
did not call men "boys."
The difference in treatment can be seen clearly in a comparison of the
magazine's coverage of college journalists. Female college award-winners and
editors of student newspapers were nearly always referred to as "girls," even
when they were older than eighteen. For example, when a 22-year-old St.
Bonaventure University senior won an award, the headline was "Girl Will Receive
Hellinger Award."[57] And when a 20-year-old Kansas State junior won first
place in the investigative reporting division of the William Randolph Hearst
Foundation competition, the headline was "Girl Wins Scholarship for Abortion
Report."[58] However, no instance could be found of a male college student being
called a "boy." Headlines, instead, emphasized only the male students'
accomplishments. For example, when a University of Texas senior won first place
in the general news division of the Hearst competition, the headline was
"Scholarship Given for Marijuana Report."[59]
Ironically, women journalists were called "girls" in articles pointing out that
they wanted to be treated the same as their male co-workers. For example, when
four women won membership to the previously all-male National Press Club in
January 1971, they were referred to as "girls" throughout E & P's article.[60]
The same was true when women on a Pennsylvania journalism conference panel
complained about being treated as the weaker sex by their colleagues and news
sources.[61] And in reporting on a survey in which women newspaper journalists
said they were discriminated against in pay and promotion decisions, E & P's
article said, "More than half the girls emphasized that they want to be treated
like men, given no favors or special considerations."[62]
Mrs. John Doe, Mother of Two: Editor & Publisher often described women in
relationship to their husbands or children, even if it was irrelevant to the
story. For men, though, information about marital status or parenthood was
rarely included. On occasion, marital status for a woman was indicated by using
"wife" to describe her.
In E & P's headlines and articles, women were sometimes portrayed in terms of
their motherhood. For example, when Helen Emmerich was sent to report on Vietnam
for a chain of California newspapers, E & P's article noted that, in addition
to being "attractive" and 105 pounds, she was a former World War II Air Force
sergeant and a police and City Hall reporter.[63] Yet, the headline emphasized
that the newspapers would get a "Mother's View of War." And when photographers
at a national convention were taught how to take better photos of
confrontations, E & P's staff writer identified the two social scientists
conducting the session as "43-year-old Dr. Irving Goldaber" and "Mrs. Holly G.
Porter, a 33-year-old mother of four."[64] Nothing in the article indicated
Goldaber's status as spouse or parent. Nor was there any indication of why
Porter's status as a mother was relevant to the story.
Women also were often depicted in the context of marriage. For example, when a
couple retired from an Illinois newspaper, the headline read "Hal Nelson and
wife will continue columns," even though the story noted that his "wife" had
joined the newspaper a year before he had.[65] "Wife" was used in headlines and
articles, even when other information seemed more pertinent. For example, when
Pat Hunter, an investigative reporter in the Honolulu Advertiser's women's
department, won for the second time a journalism award from the University of
Missouri, the story ran under the headline "Doctor's Wife Takes 'Trip' and Wins
Prize."[66] The article said Hunter had researched her series on the perils of
LSD by taking the drug. However, the article did not say if her doctor-husband
had obtained the drug for her or had monitored her "trip."
Objections to E & P's Language
In 1970, Editor & Publisher had reported that the Washington Post and the
Washington Evening Star would no longer use adjectives such as "cute" and
"dimpled" in writing about women and would avoid other descriptive words that
would not have been used if men were involved.[67] Post Managing Editor Ben
Bradlee said, "Words like vivacious, pert, dimpled, or cute have long since
become clich s and are droppable on that account alone, without hampering our
efforts to get good descriptions into the paper."[68] Star Managing Editor
Charles Seib said descriptions like "leggy blonde" and "attractive brunette"
"date back to the days when it was considered titillating to print even a hint
that there were two sexes. These stereotype physical descriptions --
'miniskirted' is another -- now serve no purpose if they ever did."[69]
Editor & Publisher, however, continued to use such a lexicon for women. In
mid-1971, though, readers began to complain about the way in which E & P
depicted women, criticizing the magazine's practices of calling attention to
women's appearances and of calling them "girls." The first article to come under
fire focused on Betty Garrett, an award-winning feature writer for the Columbus
Citizen-Journal.[70] Writer Cornelia M. Parkinson's July 17 article began:
Betty Garrett is 35, looks about 25, and sitting like 16, her
high-breasted figure poured into a turquoise knit dress, one
well-shaped leg
tucked under her. She seems at ease, but a quick smile, a graceful
gesture,
reveal that here is tremendous vitality under firm control. Her vivid
blue
almond-shaped eyes watch you alertly. She is the one being
interviewed, but
her journalist's mind stays right on the job and you, the interviewer,
are
getting catalogued.[71]
On Aug. 7, two letters to the editor complained about the lead. Virginia Curtis
said the article was "a perfect example of the way newspapers and magazines
write about women. The old 'who, what, when, where, and why' seems to be thrown
to the wind when you write about a 'broad.' "[72] Curtis continued:
[I]t was hard as hell getting past that first paragraph. If you want
to tell your readers about a reporter, I don't think it is necessary
to
describe them in such demeaning terms.
When you dealt with Mark B. Bollman in your 'News--People in the
News,' it seemed to be rather straight forward. [Y]ou didn't bother to
let me
know if he was 'vested,' or a 'six-footer,' or whether he had a
'winning
smile.' Just give it to us straight -- for both men and women. We are
all
journalists.[73]
An editor's note below Curtis's letter pointed out that the article had been
written by a woman.
In a separate letter Aug. 7, Jim Hyatt asked:
[W]hy should such a talented reporter be forced into the usual mold
of stories about women with the lead describing her 'high-breasted
figure
poured into a turquoise knit dress, one well-shaped leg tucked under
her'?
E&P, after all, doesn't tell us about the new managing editor at XYZ
papers,
paunchy from lack of exercise and looking 50 at age 40 due to
premature grey
in his hair. References such as this, particularly as a lead,
reinforce the
prejudice that talented women must also be attractive. What if the
subject had
been a dumpy figure wearing dresses down to her ankle? I doubt we'd
have been
given such a lead.[74]
On Aug. 28, though, Garrett wrote in a letter to the editor that she was sorry
that some people found the profile of her "offensive and demeaning to women
journalists, because of the references to my appearances."[75] Garrett said she
"was not personally offended" by the "descriptions of my assets -- only
chagrined that I can't live up to that. If it will make anyone feel better, they
may rest assured that I somewhat resemble London Bridge: things are falling down
all over." In the area that counted most to her -- her work -- Garrett said the
writer had used "extensive quotes and was certainly honest and accurate."
Garrett thanked the author and E & P for the article; "This newspaper 'broad'
considered it a high honor to be interviewed for Editor & Publisher."
The next article criticized by a reader dealt with classified advertising
employees, whom E & P habitually called "girls."[76] The Sept. 11 article was
accompanied by a photograph of women who clearly were older than eighteen. In a
letter to the editor published Oct. 9, Ina Meyers, city editor of the Daily
Times in Mamaroneck, N.Y., said the repeated use of "girls" was incorrect and
offensive.[77] "These are women or operators or employees," wrote Meyers.
"Calling them 'girls' is about as appropriate as calling grown men 'boys' just
because their skin happens to be dark. Either the writer or the editor or both
appear to have been either thoughtless or careless."[78]
Editor & Publisher's occasional references to woman by their husbands' names
also brought complaints. When E & P Associate Editor Craig Tomkinson referred
to the editor of a weekly newspaper as "Mrs. Hamilton (Jo) Brosious,"[79] a
reader expressed her "dismay" over "the very fact that Jo only appeared in
parenthesis."[80] In a letter to the editor, Kathy Russeth, associate editor of
Overseas Media Corp., wrote:
When are newspapers ever going to learn that when you write an
article about the achievements of any human being you refer to them by
their
name. Why must Jo Brosious be referred to by her husband's name? Is he
the one
responsible for where she is today? I seriously doubt if that fact
could
possibly be true.[81]
Russeth said she was a member of National Organization of Women and that N.O.W.
was constantly battling "such slips." She wrote:
I realize it is a small matter but to one who has known oppression
by the male publishing world for so long it is very important. I'm
sure I am
not the only woman in journalism who objects to her identity being
only
through the man in her life.
With any luck men will begin to realize that women are people. Then
maybe we will be accorded equality in the pages of your magazine.[82]
Russeth got no understanding, however, from George Partis, president of United
States Divorce Reform Inc. In a letter to the editor, he said Russeth "leaves
me wondering what the complaint is all about."[83] The article had included a
photograph of "Jo Brosious" and "didn't give me the idea that 'her identity' was
only through the man in her life," Partis wrote.
In 1974, though, a Human Rights Commission in Rochester, Minn., ruled that the
local newspaper's practice of identifying women by their husbands' names
violated the city's anti-discrimination ordinance.[84] In a lead editorial,
Editor & Publisher said the thinking behind the National Organization of
Women's complaint and the reasoning of the commission "should be of concern to
all editors."[85] Wrote E & P: "The women's lib group obviously disagrees with
us, but isn't a name for identification purposes only? Isn't it the
responsibility of a newspaper to use the name that most completely identifies a
person to the readers?"
More serious, though, was the "broad constitutional issue" being ignored "by
woman's lib and anti-discrimination groups," the editorial said. The
commission's decision "places the government body and the courts squarely behind
the editor's chair telling him or her how to edit the paper."
If one government agency can tell an editor what he must do or not
do, then why not other government agencies? That is called censorship.
If newspaper editors are allegedly guilty of long-standing
practices now believed by some to be discriminatory, it would be
better to
argue the cases in the city rooms and the editors' offices rather than
in the
courts.[86]
Editor & Publisher Stays The Course
The criticism leveled directly at Editor & Publisher's manner of describing
women had no apparent influence on its usage of "girls" to describe adult women.
Three weeks after Meyers' letter, E & P reported that a "girl reporter" for the
Cleveland Plain Dealer had been expelled from the sidelines of a Cleveland
Browns football game for the sole reason that she was a woman.[87] The headline
was "Plain Dealer girl gets the rush act," even though an accompanying mugshot
clearly shows that the woman was older than eighteen. Two weeks later, "girls"
was used to describe two publishers of a North Carolina weekly newspaper, even
though the writer also noted that one of them had married in 1944.[88]
Editor & Publisher also continued to use other identifiers that reasonably
could be considered demeaning to women. For the photograph of a religion editor
looking at a newspaper, the caption read, "LOOKING LIKE AN ANGEL HERSELF . .
."[89] And for an award-winning photograph of a woman in a miniskirt standing
on
tiptoes with her back to the camera, the caption read, "FILLIES at the rail and
on the track at Belmont Park . . ."[90]
E & P also continued its practice of routinely describing how women, but not
men, looked. An article on a Chicago Today sports reporter being thrown out of
the White Sox press box for being a woman noted that her ejection was not by
decree of the other sportswriters, "who always felt the green-eyed, curvaceous
Lynda lent a lot of class to any sports occasion."[91]
E & P's pages also included photos of scantily clad non-journalist women
surrounded by male editors or newspaper executives, with the captions
emphasizing the women's looks, not the reasons for the photos. Just weeks after
readers had complained that mentioning Betty Garrett's "high-breasted figure"
was inappropriate, E & P ran a photograph of two men crowning a beauty queen
wearing a one-piece bathing suit.[92] The caption read, "George Cannon and Cris
Kurich enjoy the scenery at the Heavenly Valley Snow Queen festival." The
photograph accompanied an article on ski columnists; however, neither man was
mentioned in the article.
That photographs of women in swimsuits might be offensive was pointed out to
Editor & Publisher in 1972. In September, an E & P feature on a Vancouver Sun
photographer included a photo of a woman in a bikini walking under a "Body Shop"
sign.[93] In an October letter to the editor, the president of New Jersey Daily
Newspaperwomen Inc. said the photo was an example of "what's wrong with most
photographers today. If they can't find or invent a good picture or are simply
too lazy, they come up with some variation of the exposed bosom and
buttocks."[94] Patricia Ferrara said her group was protesting "this practice
which continues the non-violent rape of women. Such timid imitations of the
girlie-magazine type of exposure of the female body does nothing to enhance the
professional appearance of any good newspaper. Furthermore, as an organ of the
industry, we feel Editor & Publisher should agree with us in condemning such
exploitation."[95]
Not only did E & P's editors not join in condemning such photographs, but in
November, they ran a photograph of a bikini-clad woman standing on a pool ladder
and surrounded by newspaper ad executives wearing sweaters and sports coats.[96]
The caption read, "LINAGE IS BEAUTIFUL topic for members of the Pacific
Northwest Newspaper Advertising Executives Association who gathered recently in
balmy Pasco, Wash."
In spring 1973, some seven months later, Ms. Magazine editor Gloria Steinem
criticized newspapers for "using descriptive adjectives in their stories about
women while never using the same technique for men."[97] An E & P editorial
acknowledging that she had made the criticism described Steinem as "slim,
attractive."[98] Continued the editorial:
She wore a bright, flowered shirt over a navy turtle-neck sweater
with pants of matching color and grey wedgies. Her tinted glasses had
lavender
frames and her fair hair, parted in the middle fell freely to her
shoulders.
Handsome, portly Alex De Bakcsy of the San Diego Union and Tribune
, who introduced her, wore his hair in a classic pompadour. His grey,
double-knit suit was set off by a black and red tie over a white
button-down
shirt. His shoes were conservative black.[99]
Two week later, the editor of The Times in Gainsville, Ga., wrote a letter to
the editor agreeing with Steinem's position, noting that his newspaper had been
publishing in wedding stories descriptions of the groom and the best men.[100]
"We aren't making a conscious effort to please Ms. Steinem, but we agree with
her that men and women deserve equal treatment in the news columns," wrote
editor Robert F. Campbell.
By 1974, however, men and women were getting more equal treatment in Editor &
Publisher. For example, in profiles of women editors and a woman cartoonist, the
kind of articles in which E & P had been routinely including physical
descriptions, observations about their appearances were absent.[101] In an
article about Joan Rivers as a syndicated columnist, the magazine did include a
physical description, calling her a "wee (5-2) bundle of energy" and "a
sparkling-eyed comedienne."[102]
Only once that year did Editor & Publisher use "girls" to describe women -- in
an article about women journalists staging a counter-gridiron in Washington,
D.C.[103] A reader quickly took E & P to task. In a letter to the editor, Elsie
Carper, assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, asked, "Isn't it time
that Editor & Publisher stopped being 'cutesy' by referring to women reporters
and editors as girls?"[104]
Though its portrayals of women had changed significantly in 1974, Editor &
Publisher gave no indication in its editorials that the new lexion was
purposeful, and if was, how and why the decision had been made.
Mrs., Miss or Ms.?
The most widely used, and debated, indicators of a woman's relationship to a
man were the courtesy titles Mrs., Miss and Ms. Editor & Publisher reported
extensively on wire services and newspapers deciding whether to replace Mrs. and
Miss with Ms., or to drop courtesy titles altogether. Roy Copperud, in his
regular E & P column on word usage and editing, was non-committal. E & P
readers, though, frequently and heatedly debated the subject on the letters to
the editor page. They praised and criticized E & P after the magazine in
December 1972 used Ms. when announcing a woman's appointment as an assistant
woman's editor.
The issue of using courtesy titles that indicated marital status for women was
touched on by Copperud in May 1968, but only to note that some newspapers were
dropping Miss for unmarried women "in trouble with the law."[105] The subject
was not raised in E & P again until February 1971, when the magazine reported
that the Dallas Times-Herald had gradually dropped the routine use of Miss or
Mrs., as well as the use of the husband's first name or initials with Mrs.,
where marital status was not pertinent to the story.[106] In 1972, E & P ran
five more articles on the use of courtesy titles.[107] According to those
stories, while many collegiate newspapers were adopting Ms. or dropping courtesy
titles altogether, the wire services and most of the commercial press were
reluctant to do so, partially because of strong sentiment among women for the
continued use of the traditional titles.
Copperud discussed the controversy in his column in December 1971 and twice in
1972. He noted that Ms. was being "advocated by women's lib spokesmen and
intended to conceal a woman's marital status. The argument runs that there is no
more reason to indicate whether a woman is married than there is to give the
same information about a man."[108] Other than questioning the pronunciation of
Ms. and offering some guidelines for publications using it, Copperud was
non-committal on its merits.
E & P readers, however, were not so neutral. From March 1971 to July 1973, the
magazine published sixteen letters to the editors on the issue of using Ms. The
letters in 1973 were sparked by Editor & Publisher 's use of Ms. when
announcing a woman editor's appointment.[109] E & P was both "commended for
using the non-sexist Ms."[110] and condemned for setting "a bad example for
newspapers."[111] Opponents of Ms. complained about its pronunciation and that
it obscured women's marital status. Proponents defended its pronunciation and
applauded its vagueness in indicating marriage.
One reader wrote that Ms. "doesn't roll easily on the tongue. It either comes
out 'Miss' (horrors, cry the women's libbers) or 'Mizz' which in the boondocks
was a lip-lazy way of saying Mrs."[112] Another letter writer said he favored
"the Miss/Mrs. designation because it tells the reader whether or not a woman in
the news is married or not. [M]any news readers want to know whether a woman is
married or not; and I don't see the reporting of a woman's marital status -- or
a man's -- as any invasion of privacy."[113] Another opponent said readers were
"entitled to know" a woman's marital status.[114] The use of Ms., he said, "is
an ignoble disguise of marital status."[115]
Countered a proponent of Ms., "Indeed, that is its purpose."[116] Wrote
another, "It is obvious that you are sexist when you write that marital titles
'tell readers something they like to know, and something they are entitled to
know,' because you do not advocate indicating a male's marital status."[117] As
for its pronunciation, one reader questioned what the fuss was about. "Most
southerners I know slur Miss and Mrs. into Mizz anyway," she wrote.[118]
By mid-1974, Copperud contended in his column that many newspapers had "adopted
Ms., only to discover, when they polled their readers that most women prefer
Miss. or Mrs. The consensus now appears to be that Ms. is suitable only when the
woman referred to prefers it."[119] Editor & Publisher that year routinely used
Ms., and did so without receiving compliments or condemnations from its
readers.[120]
Conclusion
From 1967 to 1973, Editor & Publisher contained much of the sexist lexicon
feminists were criticizing newspapers for at that time. Physical descriptions
such as "pretty," "vivacious," and "attractive blonde" were commonplace in E &
P's articles about women journalists, though similar adjectives were not
routinely used for men. E & P occasionally used such labels as "newshen" and
"Dixie darling," which are arguably belittling to professional women. E & P
often pointed out the woman's status as spouse or mother, sometimes by calling
her a wife or noting the number of her children, even when such information
seemed irrelevant and even though similar details were rarely given about men. E
& P used "cheese-cake" photographs in which male newspaper industry executives
ogled bikini-clad women. E & P also frequently referred to women as "girls," no
matter their ages or professional experiences.
Only in 1974 did the magazine markedly change its vocabulary in describing
women, dropping the emphasis on their appearance and their relationship to men
when the information was not pertinent to the story. Instead of using language
that feminists believed degraded and devalued women as professionals, it began
to treat them the same as it treated men -- as competent reporters and editors.
E & P's editors, though, remained silent on why the change occurred.
Editor & Publisher may have been more than just a reflection of newspaper
norms in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Unlike the Washington Post and
Washington Evening Star editors who attempted to reduce inherently sexist
language in their newspapers after complaints from women staffers, Editor &
Publisher did not immediately alter its lexicon when faced with direct
criticism by readers. Even after being called upon as an organ of the journalism
industry to show more sensitivity to women, E & P continued the same treatment
of women that some readers objected to as sexist.
If then, as feminists contend, language shapes the ideas in a society, perhaps
Editor & Publisher's lingering use of an arguably sexist lexicon for women
reinforced such language usage among some journalists, particularly those in the
newspaper industry. At a time when newspapers were being called upon to
recognize and avoid language that trivialized women, E & P's steadfast
practices of calling attention to women's looks and calling them "girls" may
have implicitly conveyed to some in the industry that such complaints themselves
were trivial and that such language was appropriate.
[1] Cornelia M. Parkinson, "She aims for the gut," Editor & Publisher (17 July
1971): 11.
[2]
Gerald B. Healey, "Want ad business picks up as phone room goes modern," Editor
& Publisher (11 September 1971): 38.
[3] Virginia Curtis, "About Women," Editor & Publisher (7 August 1971): 5.
[4] Jim Hyatt, "More About Women," Editor & Publisher (7 August 1971): 5.
[5] Curtis.
[6] Mashinka Good, "Feminists urge liberation of news media from sexism,"
Editor & Publisher (1 June 1974): 29.
[7]
Sheila Ruth, Issues in Feminism: An Introduction to Women's Studies (Mountain
View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1990) 375.
[8] According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language not only carries ideas,
but the grammatical structure and lexicon of a language shape the ideas being
conveyed. See Carol, John B. (ed.) Language, Thought and Reality: Selected
Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976); and Whorf,
Benjamin Lee, Language, thought and reality (New York: Wiley, 1956).
[9]
Maurine H. Beasley and Sheila J. Gibbons, Taking Their Place: A Documentary
History of Women and Journalism (Washington D.C.:The American University Press,
1993) 289.
[10]
Ibid., 1.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Casey Miller and Kate Swift, Words & Women: New Language in New Times (New
York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1991) 180.
[13] Elizabeth J. Tarnove, "Effects of Sexist Language on the Status and
Self-Concept of Women," Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2-5 July 1988,
12, ERIC ED 295262, microfiche.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Gena Corea, "Writer says papers biased in covering news of women," Editor
& Publisher (21 April 1973): 62.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Mashinka Good, "Feminists urge liberation of news media from sexism,"
Editor & Publisher (1 June 1974): 29.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Francine Frank & Frank Anshen, Language and the Sexes (Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York Press, 1983) 83.
[21] Ibid., 112.
[22] Ibid., 53.
[23]
Ibid., 83.
[24]
Tarnove, 12.
[25]
Wade, B. "A triumph of reason: The men at the 'Times' catch up with the times,"
Ms., September 1986, p. 96.
[26] Tarnove, 19.
[27] William H. Chafe, The Road to Equality: American Women Since 1962 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 136; and Ruth, 437.
[28] Ruth.
[29] Chafe, 62.
[30] Ibid., 94.
[31] "Adjectives re-styled for women in news," Editor & Publisher (25 July
1970): 13. The article said the women were "involved in or sympathetic to the
women's liberation movement."
[32] Ruth, 376.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Harold Winerip, "City Room Characters," Editor & Publisher (4 March
1967): 4.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Mary McGrath, "Women: Witty & Winsome," Editor & Publisher (10 June
1967): 4; Winerip, "City Room Characters," Editor & Publisher (19 August 1967):
4; and "Distaff Disagreement," Editor & Publisher (2 September 1967): 48.
[38] M.L. Stein, "Tired Old Jokes," Editor & Publisher (18 March 1967): 7.
[39] Peter Arnett, "AP's Tall Blonde Cheers Viet Scene," Editor & Publisher (28
October 1967): 57.
[40] "California Papers Get Mother's View of War," Editor & Publisher (27 May
1967): 26.
[41] "Girl photographer gains acceptance in fraternity," Editor & Publisher (12
April 1969): 50.
[42] Gib Clark, "Co-ed editor takes Wildcat by the tail," Editor & Publisher
(17 April 1971): 36.
[43] George Witt, "Pat LaHatte, INPA's 'Madame President,' " Editor & Publisher
(10 May 1969): 69.
[44] "If Women Were Editors Changes Would Be Made," Editor & Publisher (1 April
1967): 56.
[45]
"Betty Yarmon Helps Women With Finances," Editor & Publisher (7 October 1967):
46.
[46]
"AKRON'S CHALLENGE," Editor & Publisher (3 April 1971): 23.
[47]
Peter Arnett, "AP's Tall Blonde Cheers Viet Scene," Editor & Publisher (28
October 1967): 57.
[48]
"AP's new youth team leaps into spotlight," Editor & Publisher (25 April 1970):
17.
[49] Lenora Williamson, "Girl sports writer vows: no jargon," Editor &
Publisher (23 May 1970): 15.
[50]
Rick Friedman, "Catherine Leroy Hurt In Vietnam Battle," Editor & Publisher (27
May 1967): 42, 44.
[51] Arthur Ciervo, "Photographer Recounts War Experience," Editor & Publisher
(9 March 1968): 42, 44.
[52]
Ray Erwin, "Harriet Van Horne Writes With Wit," Editor & Publisher (13 January
1968): 64.
[53]
Erwin, "Mort Walker Begins Third Comic Strip," Editor & Publisher (20 January
1968): 42.
[54]
"If Women Were Editors Changes Would Be Made."
[55]
Ibid.
[56]
"Girl's travel experiences turned into Sunday column," Editor & Publisher (25
March 1969): 44.
[57]
"Girl Will Receive Hellinger Award," Editor & Publisher (15 April 1967): 33.
Her age was given in a photo caption on 3 June, page 33.
[58]
"Girl Wins Scholarship for Abortion Report," Editor & Publisher (4 March
1967): 36.
[59]
"Scholarship Given for Marijuana Report," Editor & Publisher (22 April 1967):
44.
[60]
"Press club barriers down; gals' feet on brass rail," Editor & Publisher (23
January 1971): 38.
[61]
Lenore Brown, "Women Are Unhappy With 'Avis' Status," Editor & Publisher (1
June 1968): 24.
[62]
"Gals Want To Be Treated Like Men," Editor & Publisher (23 September 1967): 24.
[63]
"California Papers Get Mother's View of War," Editor & Publisher (27 May 1967):
26.
[64] Don Maley, "Photographers urged to shoot in-depth conflict pictures,"
Editor & Publisher (26 July 1969): 17.
[65] "Hal Nelson and wife will continue columns," Editor & Publisher (6 June
1970): 49.
[66] "Doctor's Wife Takes 'Trip' and Wins Prize," Editor & Publisher (30
December 1967): 36.
[67]
"Adjectives re-styled for women in news."
[68]
Ibid.
[69]
Ibid. Seib also said "newshen" would be dropped forever because it "was a poor
word when it was coined; now it is hopelessly hackneyed as well."
[70]
Parkinson.
[71]
Ibid.
[72]
Curtis.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Hyatt.
[75] Betty Garrett, "Honored," Editor & Publisher (28 August 1971): 7.
[76]
Healey.
[77]
Ina Meyers, "Not Girls," Editor & Publisher (9 October 1971): 5.
[78] Ibid.
[79]
Craig Tomkinson, "Tables Turned," Editor & Publisher (4 December 1971): 13.
[80]
Kathy Russeth, "WOMAN'S NAME," Editor & Publisher (15 January 1972): 7.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid.
[83]
George Partis, "JO," Editor & Publisher (5 February 1972): 7.
[84]
"Printed use of women's married name prohibited by city's sex bias rule,"
Editor & Publisher (8 June 1974): 18.
[85]
"For identification only," Editor & Publisher (8 June 1974): 6.
[86] Ibid.
[87] "Plain Dealer girl gets the rush act," Editor & Publisher (30 October
1971): 15.
[88]
Nell Joslin Styron, "TWO WOMEN'S DREAM," Editor & Publisher (13 November 1971):
48.
[89] "LOOKING LIKE AN ANGEL HERSELF," Editor & Publisher (11 December 1971):
17.
[90]
"FILLIES," Editor & Publisher (23 December 1972): 14. The photo included a
racehorse cantering on the track. The caption noted that the photograph had
"captured a prize in the photo journalism contest of the New York Racing
Association."
[91] Healey, "White Sox give press box gate to lady sportswriter," Editor &
Publisher (27 May 1972): 17.
[92]
Jim Scott, "It's time for the slopes -- ski buffs have typewriters," Editor &
Publisher (11 September 1971): 15.
[93]
Lenora Williamson, "Funny Pictures take some serious thought," Editor &
Publisher (26 August 1972): 24, 25.
[94] Patricia Ferrara, "PHOTO UPSETS," Editor & Publisher (7 October 1972): 7.
[95]
Ibid.
[96]
"LINAGE IS BEAUTIFUL," Editor & Publisher (18 November 1972): 36.
[97]
"Descriptive Language," Editor & Publisher (5 May 1973): 4.
[98]
Ibid.
[99] Ibid.
[100] Robert F. Campbell, "WEDDING ATTIRE," Editor & Publisher (19 May 1973):
5.
[101]
Jane Levere, "Woman publisher-editor appointed by Gannett," Editor & Publisher
(20 April 1974): 72; Carla Marie Rupp, "News quiz: Name a city with 2 women city
editors," Editor & Publisher (5 October 1974): 16; and Lenora Williamson, "Woman
cartoonist begins new comic," Editor & Publisher (14 September 1974): 70.
[102]
Jim Scott, "Joan Rivers thoroughly enjoys role as syndicated columnist," Editor
& Publisher (23 March 1974): 27.
[103]
"Women journalists stage 'counter gridiron,' " Editor & Publisher (27 April
1974): 40.
[104]
Elsie Carper, "Time to Stop," Editor & Publisher (25 May 1974): 7.
[105]
Roy Copperud, "Wayward Words," Editor & Publisher (25 May 1968): 38. Copperud
wrote: "This is clearly an aspersion, like withholding Mr. when it is otherwise
regularly conferred. But Miss simply indicates that the woman . . . is not
married; Mr., on the other hand, is nothing more than an honorific, expressing
courtesy or respect."
[106] Mary Ficklen, "Dallas Times-Herald liberates Mrs., Miss," Editor &
Publisher (27 February 1971): 33.
[107]
Lenora Williamson, "Who'll have the last word for style: Mr/Miss/Ms?" Editor &
Publisher (8 January 1972): 11; Glenn A. Himebaugh, "Women's Lib makes headway
on many college newspapers," and "Paper divorces Ms," Editor & Publisher (17
June 1972): 18; "Local women become Ms. in Conn. daily," Editor & Publisher (4
March 1972): 30; and "Press Woman's editor decrees 'Ms.' is taboo," Editor &
Publisher (25 March 1972): 71.
[108]
Copperud, "Is a Ms. as Good as a Mlle.?" Editor & Publisher (18 December
1971): 35.
[109]
"Kay Metzcher," Editor & Publisher (23 December 1972): 24.
[110]
Maureen Taylor, "ON MRS., MISS, OR MS." Editor & Publisher (10 February 1973):
7.
[111]
E. Walton Opie, "Bad Example," Editor & Publisher (20 January 1973): 7.
[112]
Karl L. Monroe, "Howdy, Mist!" Editor & Publisher (15 April 1972): 5.
[113]
John De Mott, "Marital Status," Editor & Publisher (20 May 1972): 7.
[114]
Opie.
[115]
Ibid.
[116] Taylor.
[117]
Marilyn Stachler, ""ON MRS., MISS, OR MS." Editor & Publisher (10 February
1973): 7.
[118]
J. Showalter, ""ON MRS., MISS, OR MS." Editor & Publisher (10 February 1973):
7.
[119] Copperud, "Dear Sir or Madam," Editor & Publisher (8 June 1974): 32.
[120]
"National press work described by 2 women," Editor & Publisher (2 February
1974): 19; "No women -- no booze," Editor & Publisher (30 March 1974): 79; and
"Consumer columnist debuts in California," Editor & Publisher (4 May 1974): 15.