PLEASE... let her SPEAK!

Women deserve more say in discussions that shape society—and not just on topics of biology and caregiving.

I know that there are a great many things demanding your anxiety and attention today. And it may be that today this is just Too Much™. I get it, y’all. But getting this question sorted is essential to the bigger questions we have to ask and answer to right-size our society. Regardless of what happens today, this week, next month, or next year, we’ve got to figure out how to create space for more people to have voice. And that means certain people need to learn how to shut up and listen. Before the news cycle is swallowed whole by an America-sized Godzilla, I beg just a few minutes of your time…

The author, in her natural habitat, circa 2015

I apologize in advance — this is not so much an essay as a screed. But I appreciate you letting me get this off my chest. 

Ahem.

I am tired. Tired of listening to men spew their thoughts into the atmosphere in an aspergillum of inanity-riddled spittle. 

It’s not that there aren’t nice men, with good thoughts. There are. I was born to one, and am married to another. (I have ‘man’ friends!) 

But there are too many.

Perhaps more specifically, the ratio of “men who get to talk about anything” and “women who get to talk about anything” in public is, well, shall we say, out of whack.

Men are allowed to have thoughts about, well… everything. And women, who admittedly have only recently been permitted to think, are still supposed to only speak publicly about… womanly things. 

In the most reductive scenario, this means style and home economics. But the Best Editors™ now (gasp, clutch pearls) let women reach beyond the kitchen and their curling iron (huzzah!) to the highest realms of intellectual inquiry — childcare, parenting, and abortion! 

This inequality bothered me less when, for a time, I refused to consume the news altogether. It was a blissful time when I chose to ignore the alarming urgency pouring from every media outlet I encountered, and just… be. 

But then I realized that if I wasn’t consuming the news (aside from Jim Newell’s absolutely brilliant Slate roundup The Surge, which no inbox should be without) I might as well relegate myself to a low-information low-life, the kind of person who does unthinkable things like… refuse to vaccinate her kids or… refuse to serve her family peanut butter because of the embedded listening devices — (YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, PEOPLE). 

A few months ago, I also adopted a dog, one who requires twice-daily walks that are at least a mile long. These invigorating strolls offer the perfect opportunity to breathe fresh air, observe the patterns of the clouds, watch the sun rise and set, listen to the birds in the trees, and generally ponder life’s deep, philosophical questions. But I became anxious about this waste of leisure, and so I decided to convert these 25-minute moments of my day into “productivity” by way of podcasts. 

This is what this media genre is made for, no? The Busy Person™ who is not already doing enough who needs to add more doing to doing in order to better maximize her utility, effectively utilizing ears when eyes, hands, and feet are already otherwise occupied (yes… winning…). 

I am aware of my own implicit bias, and therefore understand that as an Elitist™, the only podcasts in the world of sufficiently laudable journalistic quality to be worthy of my ears are those produced by The New York Times.

The Daily, about as long as a dog walk, is a nice way to feel like I am adequately current on what Other People™ might be concerned about right now (this puts me In the Know™).

Ezra Klein’s interviews are often too long to finish in one walk, but they are in many ways more satisfying, in that they feel less like highly produced media segments and more like long and winding conversations I might have with another smart person… and I don’t have to listen to Michael Barbaro inject his inquisitive “hmm!” into conversation every time his guest decides to take a breath.

(I like Ezra, even as I am also unforgivably jealous of him. He graduated from college three years before me and I am envious of all the early career professional choices he made that I didn’t. Do I think I’m as smart as Ezra? Maybe! Am I as “lucky” as Ezra? No. I like that he shares his show’s email at the start of every episode like he actually checks it. I have yet to send him an email, but when I do, I remain hopeful someone will reply. Maybe even him!)

But as I listened to Michael Barbaro, sometimes Sabrina Tavernise, and Ezra Klein do their host thang, my brain started to tickle. 

Why are there so many men talking? I thought.

Is this just me? I wondered. 

I was the only child of a single mother. I am the byproduct of all-girls and all-women’s education. I have never had a male boss. I am a sucker for female authority. I believe in Women’s Equality™. I know that there are many times more men than women in Congress, the C-Suite, and just about every center of authority everywhere, except maybe the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives. I live for the possibility that women might achieve equal standing and influence in our society.

Somehow, I thought that the Smart People™ at the bleeping NY Times would have worked out that part of what ensures that men remain the gatekeepers of authority is the fact that they commandeer and dominate the channels of mass media that self-generate their power and influence. I thought that my “friends” at the Times might have realized that who they choose to elevate to these high and mighty platforms directly influences the power those people hold. 

And every time you interview a woman about parenting or abortion and you interview a man about the economy or foreign policy, you strengthen, rather than disrupt, these well-established patterns of authority. 

I do not listen to every episode of either The Daily or Ezra Klein’s show (who has time for that?) But in the last month, I have listened to nearly a dozen of each. 

In the month of September, three of Klein’s seven interviews were with women: Jia Tolentino, because of her New Yorker article about children’s media (parenting); Zadie Smith, a renowned Black woman writer; and Emily Jashinsky, a conservative reporter who hosts her own podcast. Two of seven interviews were women talking about something other than Women’s Business™.

In October, Klein did eight interviews and just one was with a woman: Maggie Haberman, psycho-analyzing Donald Trump. One point for Haberman addressing something unrelated to her X chromosomes, five demerits for episodes anchored by dudes! (One was with a Black man, Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose platforming I will regard as neutral in this general gender-media power squabble. One was an impressive 44 minute monologue about Donald Trump’s mental sanity, which I will allow, as a podcast host, Klein is entitled to…). 

In the month of October, just two episodes of The Daily featured a woman: Claire Cain Miller, talking about parents and parenting and Megan Twohey, talking about the challenges of legalizing marjuana. Lisa Lerer and Maggie Haberman each appeared on two election roundtable episodes. Rebecca Davis O’Brien appeared on one, alongside Lisa Lerer. I’m not trying to undermine the journalistic contributions of these women. I’m just pointing out that in THIRTY ONE EPISODES, only SIX of them effectively centered the authority of a woman. 

In his October 24 T-12 Days to the Election episode, Barbaro pointedly asks national politics reporter Lisa Lerer to comment on why Kamala Harris is courting anti-abortion female voters with Liz Cheney. (In Barbaro’s defense, Lerer had just published a piece about the role of gender in the election and was about to publish another on the influence of the abortion issue on the election, but really, this is just further making my case!!) Which is to say, two of these six opportunities for a woman to speak was “woman as abortion spokesperson” or “woman as parent authority.”

I will submit, perhaps controversially, that while we are striving for Gender Equality™, we should also acknowledge the persistent biological… imbalance we ladies are up against. I am the proud owner of a functioning human 3D printer. Those of you without a second X chromosome, sadly, are not. I understand that this miraculous capability means that, from a progressive standpoint, I might deserve to have more of a say about how my 3D printer is or isn’t used, or what the government can or cannot obligate me to print. You might prefer to have a 3D printer owner speak on behalf of other 3D printer owners (regardless of how or if she uses it) simply because not owning a 3D printer means you can’t fully relate to this miraculous 3D printing ability. It’s possible a 3D printer owner may be marginally more concerned about how the 3D objects she makes get treated after the fact. I understand the underlying positive intent here…

But let me just say: THE PRINTER ONLY WORKS IF YOU PUT SOMETHING IN IT. (Resin? Plastic? IDFK!) And Y’ALL ARE HOLDING THE RESIN GUNS. So, my dudes... YOU TOO, could have something to say about our national 3D printing and post-printing product management priorities. What’s more, my possession of a human 3D printer should not exempt me from also being invited to have an opinion about ANYTHING ELSE.

I recognize that someone inside The Times could read this screed and roll their eyes. Just Another Angry Bitch™ raging at the internet. I imagine that these people think they are Doing Their Best™ to represent a diverse array of identities in their reporting. 

Well, my friends, I need you to try harder.

(Thank you in advance btw. My subscriber dollars are Worth It™).

I understand that changing the editorial priorities of The New York Times is Hard Work™, harder than wiping my screaming toddler’s poop-laden ass, harder than figuring out what to make for dinner for my family of five, 365 days a year. Harder, maybe, even than balancing a checkbook. Likely harder than any of the paid and unpaid (emotional) labor most of the women in your life may or may not be performing so you don’t have to. But seriously, people. Please. Please find a woman who knows something about something other than parenting and abortion and let her talk about it for just a minute. Okay, maybe ten. I believe in you! You can do this! 

And no shade to Tavernise, or Jennifer Medina, or Jessica Cheung, but having a woman host a segment or an episode is not enough. This is a deceptive cover measure, the podcasting equivalent of “having Black friends” just to avoid the bad liberal optics of having All Men Talking All the Time. Yes, hosting and producing audio is a serious job that women can and should do. Having women host your segments and episodes is nice and good. I hope you continue to do more of this. But it is insufficient! I don’t just want to hear a woman ask the questions. I WANT TO HEAR HER ANSWER THEM.

Being a conduit for authority is not the same as HAVING IT.

I recognize this Titanic is not going to turn overnight. Men have a few centuries head start on women in just about every professional arena (midwives notwithstanding). And while we may be doing a mighty good job playing catch up, there remain more men of authority available to talk about just about anything than women. You might have to Google Harder™ to find a knowledgeable woman on your target topic. You might have to look beyond (gasp) the first five results in your search to find a woman with similar expertise. You might even have to decide, for a time, to proactively choose to seek out women experts instead of defaulting to the man who got the better book deal. 

Here is my dream:

In the month of March 2025 (that’s Women’s History month, yee-haw! and every episode of every NY Times podcast features only women. On March 8, I will accept that these women may need to recognize their chromosomes and “celebrate women.” But the other 30 days of the month, I just want these ladies to talk – no self-congratulatory BS about the “NYT Month of Women.” I want an editor to decide to challenge themselves to see how many woman-anchored episodes they can produce without ever calling attention to what they’re doing. Maybe all the NYT men can help out and strategically book their vacations in March so that the women get to “hold down the fort” and show that they are up for the task? (That’s four months from now, y’all. This is editorially possible…)

And here’s why:

We’re on the brink of a vital period of social change, one where who has a say in what happens next matters way more than it ever has. If women only ever get to talk about what they think is important between 12% to 40% of the time, and half of that time is relegated to abortion/parenting, it means men get to do 60% to 80% of the talking about everything else. And it can’t just be up to us to Lean In™ harder. Men have to learn how to keep their mouths shut sometimes. And when it comes to taking the mic some place as influential as the Times, a dude might need to (gasp) be passed over so that a woman can draw breath and speak her mind. 

But, I think we’re up for it. If we try. 

---

My favorite question these days is, who gets to decide who gets to decide. 

It’s highly relevant in today’s election, when American voters are not actually voting for their President but for some mysterious “elector” in a bizarre kind of kabuki theater politics charade. Women didn’t decide how our President gets picked. Dudes 250 years ago did that. And millions of Americans, rightly, think this process is totally bat-turd insano na-na balls crazy.

Last week, the Times shared a poll that shows that 45% of respondents think American democracy does not do a good job representing the people and SEVENTY SIX PERCENT (76%!) believe American democracy is under threat. Only 37% of Americans believe the election will be “honest and open.”

This is, to say the least, Not Good™.

Some of these people may be deceived by propaganda. The elections may in fact be “free and fair” under the law. But if the people don’t trust the outcomes of the mechanisms of their elective representation, that’s a good sign something in our democratic infrastructure is fundamentally broken and needs to be fixed.

(Maybe it’s finally time to re-embrace the Council of 500! Worked for Athens, it might work for us? Sure would put a hole in Washington’s lobbying operations and the “money in politics” problem…) 

I digress… The point is, we may soon be reaching a time when we need to redefine and reinvent how we form a government that truly represents the needs of the people, our planet, and our communities. There will surely be people with guns trying to bend these conversations to their will and a more backwards-looking view of the world. But to maximize our chances of success, we have to do more to reshape the old antiquated habits of who gets a say. We need to practice really listening to everyone if we want the next iteration of American democracy to be fundamentally different. And that starts, with the overachiever’s Daily podcast listen.

Thank you for coming to my TED-screed. If you agree, please like or share this post. 

And please, ladies… feel free to share your thoughts.