In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Pitchfork has more reviews written by guys named “Mark” than by women of any name

Jill

Yeah, seriously. Pitchfork, for the unfamiliar, is a music website that tends to cover just-short-of-mainstream artists — sort of an online version of Rolling Stone back when Rolling Stone was in its heyday, complete with the obnoxious over-writing and the massive egos. And it’s apparently full of dudes:

Our Intern Sheila checked genders on 10 business days of Pitchfork’s bylined reviews from each of the last two months, as well as from March, 2007 and from September, 2006. In each of those periods, reviews by men named Mark appeared at least twice as frequently than any reviews by women. The good news: Pitchfork appears to have doubled its contributions by women in the last year—their lady-numbers have jumped from 4% to 8% of all bylines! Wowza!

Just surveying Pitchfork’s front page bylines right now, I see one woman’s name, one name that I can’t identify as male or female, and 13 men’s names. Including two Marks.

I’m sure the problem is that women just aren’t interested in music.

And moved up from the comments because it’s hilarious: Pitchfork gives music 6.8. Perfect.

6 thoughts on Pitchfork has more reviews written by guys named “Mark” than by women of any name

  1. Well, everyone not blindered by politlcal correctness knows that guys named Mark have a natural aptitude for writing about music. But, really, this just means that women and guys named things other than Mark are SUPERIOR — they have better things to do than writing for an obsessive music site, like cleaning and nurturing.

    Many of you have probably seen this, but I think it’s worth a link: Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8.

  2. Pingback: Pandagon :: But women attract bears who will then EAT the records :: September :: 2007

  3. As a corollary, in one of their top 100 lists a few years ago, out of the top 100 bands/artists of the year, there were a total of three (I think) women represented.

    Ridiculous. Pitchfork is terrible for many reasons, but that is one of them.

  4. I have such a love/hate relationship with Pitchfork. On the one hand, they’re great for finding out about bands I wouldn’t otherwise have heard of, and sometimes getting sample mp3s of them (via Forkcast). On the other hand, they are incredibly pretentious, self-important, and very often seem to be critical for the sake of being critical. (Though that’s really a criticism of indie music cultural in general, which I also have a love/hate relationship with.)
    I have noticed a lack of female reviewers… they do profile/review a decent amount of female artists/bands that include women, but I’m sure there are plenty more out there that get ignored.

  5. My girlfriend mentioned the other day that she’s never seen a female guest on ‘The Daily Show’. A quick scan of Wickles quickly revealed that women feature less than 10% of the time as TDS guests- likewise for Colbert. I love the shows, but it’s starting to grate.

Comments are currently closed.