[krapp]

>But most writers and journalists tend to be on the feminine side of the spectrum because that correlates with verbal ability.

Most writers and journalists have traditionally been men, because men have traditionally been considered more trustworthy and intelligent. The cultural stigma against female authorship has been strong enough that they have tended to either publish under male pseudonyms or neutral identities (such as J.K. Rowling) lest their feminine identity harm their earning potential.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Do you really think JK Rowling's gender has harmed her earning potential? She was outed - if that's the word - as a woman - almost as soon as the books began selling and no one seemed particularly bothered.

It seems odd to pick a woman who is a billionaire as evidence of poor earning potential.

[krapp]

J.K. Rowling's publisher suggested she use those initials rather than her real name because it was believed that a fantasy authored by a woman would not be read by boys, and thus would have less earning potential[0].

Her success is evidence that the prejudice is unwarranted, and culturally waning, not that it doesn't exist, and certainly not that it never existed.

And there's a long history of women authors publishing under male names for similar reasons, the Bronte sisters being famous examples[1,2]. Although obviously in their cases, the stigma against women authors was much worse than in modern times.

Also, data shows that authorship still favors men considerably[3, 4], although women do sometimes dominate certain genres.

[0]https://www.capitalfm.com/news/jk-rowling-full-name/

[1]https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/12-fem...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bront%C3%AB

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-...

[4]https://pudding.cool/2017/06/best-sellers/

[fanf2]

She used her initials rather than her given name to get past the hurdle of being published in the first place, while she was a single mum living on government benefits.