Why is "WomenTK.com" "wittily named"? Is there a pun or reference there somewhere I'm missing?

In copyediting lingo, "TK" means "to come," as in "yet to come." I wouldn't go so far as to extol the name's great wittiness, but there's a meaning behind the initials.

"Woman" is a noun. "Female" is an adjective. Every time I see the phrase "woman writer" it makes my blood boil. Whle you may have heard of a "male writer," I pretty sure you've never heard of a "man writer."

Good grammar costs nothing!

"Woman" is a noun. "Female" is an adjective. Every time I see the phrase "woman writer" it makes my blood boil.

While I'll admit the immediate reading of "women writer" is as someone who writes to women, the dictionaries I've just consulted all list "women" as an acceptable adjective meaning "female".

Boiling blood is not good for you. Getting upset over grammatical rules which can change, have changed, and will continue to change is an unhealthy habit.

Of course, this is coming from someone who deliberately misplaces the period when quoting because I think the correct punctuation is just bad.

They sure as fuck aren't on Salon.com. That's where all the hacks are, though.

...I guess it is witty; unfortunately it's also a pretty obscure insider joke :)

ronnie

I'd argue with your description of these literary, elitest, limited circulation East Coast magazines as those read by "Thought Leaders", particularly when not ONE of these magazine deals with technology. Don't bang your head against the walls of the old paradigm, waiting to be let in - join or start a new one: Salon, Wired, Digg, Slate, Koz. If Vanity Fair or Lewis Laptham feels that women and people of color have little to offer, then Vanity Fair and Harper's has little to offer, and if "thought leaders" limit themselves to such exlusionary and elitest magazines, then I have to question their very thoughts - much less the title of LEADER. In reality, this is an academic debate. Consider: Vanity Fair circulation: 1 million plus. Parade Magazine circulation: 32 million. When you consider that most magazines can barely stay afloat, this discussion loses much of its urgency.

Unfortunately, far too many women are content with writing "Chic Lit" or about chic issues and leave the business of politics and economics to men. Too bad...There really are women who have insightful ideas about the world we live in today. The death of Oriana Fallaci widens the depth of that hole considerably. To think that the best we have to look to for political commentary rests on the shoulders of a shrill, pig-headed, uninformed cross dresser named Ann Coulter!

But could how anyone write a story on this without finding out something about

a) how many males vs. how many females submit unsolicited articles -- and among these what are their acceptance rates?

and

b) how many males vs. how many females are solicited to write articles for these publications -- and among these (not alaready magazine staff members) what are the rates the writers agree to the assignment?

adn

c) among staff writers, what number are male and what number are female, and how does this compare to their numbers of applications for such jobs?

I recognize that collecting all this data is no mean feat -- but how is it that none whatsoever was collected?

One big reason (among, undoubtedly, many others) that men participate in certain activities in numbers that are disparate with those for women is simply that men and women (at least those raised in U.S. culture) are, statistically, not interested to the same degree in such things.

It's just reality that -- the way things are right now -- women are more interested than men -- statistically -- in activities that involve people (e.g., having conversations), and men are more interested than women -- statistically -- in activities that are more abstract, not involving people (e.g., chess).

Writing is notoriously a solitary occupation, so maybe women are less interested in it because it involves far less human contact than many other activities.

Of course, this is a mere guess. To answer this question, research needs to be done, like collecting the data mentioned at top.

But just laying out the bare numbers, and by innuendo implying that they are an indication of prejudice, is not good journalism.