From Liesl Schillinger’s New York Times Book Review of Rivka Glachen’s Atmospheric Disturbances:

Leo hops a plane to Argentina to find out, using Gal-Chen’s research on retrieving "thermodynamic variables from within deep convective clouds" to guide his own blundering "attempts at retrieval" of the "real" Rema. No, this is not chick lit.

It’s unusual — in fact (why be coy?), it’s extremely rare — to come across a first novel by a woman writer that concerns itself with such quirky, philosophical, didactic explorations; a novel in which the heart and the brain vie for the role of protagonist, and the brain wins. While the voice and mood of the novel are masculine, clinical and objective (Leo registers Rema’s distress with detachment, recording it but not feeling it), the book’s descriptions of colors, smells, clothing and bodies show feminine perception: Rema’s hair has the "smell of grass"; a woman has "wet cement eyes"; a ’70s shirt with a butterfly collar has "pearline" fasteners.

I’m struck that Liesl Schillinger, a female book critic, is so carelessly offensive as to say that first time female-authored novels are extremely rarely quirky, philosophical, didactic explorations, in which the brain wins over the heart. Has she read The Bluest Eye? We The Living? To Kill A Mockingbird??

In 2006, when the New York Times‘ Sam Tanenhaus compiled a list best American fiction from the past 25 years, only one of the top five was written by a female author, and that was Toni Morrison’s Beloved and only two authors on the entire list were women writers. Women writers often get short-changed on these catalogs and in reviews, just as their books are unrelentingly referred to as "Chick lit," no matter how much criticism the phrase garners.

I always assumed this was because it is disproportionately men that decide what fiction is good. You may recall that on the Times list more than 70% of the judges were male. But Schillinger is a female judge of fiction and thus should know better than to imply that first time female writers are particularly bad at being quirky, philosophical and rational. Even focusing on the fact that Glachen is a "woman writer" instead of just a "writer" frames women’s fiction in unnecessary separate-but-equal terms.

thepanelist.net normally deals with socially conscious investing, but Schillinger’s is a socially irresponsible book review.