Today, 05:40 AM
I'm surprised the difference in acceptance rates (between presented genders) is so small - I'd have expected the women's acceptance rate to be higher on the presumption that editors are likely to be female (and feminist, that ideology permitting bias). That may be reflected more strongly in the gender of the two most acclaimed published authors, though.
We should not, however, ignore the possibility that women, as a rule, write somewhat better poetry - by 20%, perhaps. It may be a long-tail (of the distribution) phenomenon, a mirror image of really genius physicists being mostly male when the advantage in whatever quality or talent causes it being only 20% (for example) better there.
These qualities being impossible to reduce to numbers anyway, of course. Even publication statistics can be a little screwy, as can social media followings.
We should not, however, ignore the possibility that women, as a rule, write somewhat better poetry - by 20%, perhaps. It may be a long-tail (of the distribution) phenomenon, a mirror image of really genius physicists being mostly male when the advantage in whatever quality or talent causes it being only 20% (for example) better there.
These qualities being impossible to reduce to numbers anyway, of course. Even publication statistics can be a little screwy, as can social media followings.
Non-practicing atheist