Marketers live in a different world. Unfortunately, they steer audiences into that same world of pigeonholing and bias, thereby creating a vicious (and profitable for some) cycle.

I had an eye-opening experience in 1985, when Out of Africa was released in theaters. Meryl Streep clearly had the largest role in that film. In comparison, Robert Redford's role was fairly small. Not only did Redford's name get top billing on the theater marquee where I saw the film, but Streep's name wasn't up there at all.

I was incensed and spoke to the theater manager, who couldn't be bothered, while a ticket taker admitted the marquee was pretty sexist by omitting Streep's name.

I worked in the Harvard Business School's News and Information Office then, and related the incident to my coworkers. One said, "I know that women are the main determiners of theater attendance."

My first reaction was that this meant my argument for Streep was supported -- i.e., women as role models.

My coworker added, "They want to see Redford, so they drag their husbands in with them to see the film."

I wrote in my journal then, "I wonder if it isn't a question of the tail wagging the dog. As in: does the marquee contribute to a condition whereby role models are bypassed for beaus regardless of the film's actual content?" In light of the film's emphasis, I found the marquee and the argument behind it profoundly disturbing.

With respect to how literature is misfiled and pigeonholed, I wish I knew how much ignorance and narrow-mindedness (not to mention low self-esteem) marketers have created, and how much they respond to.