Lately I’ve been realizing that feminist discussions tend to go better in general when we all give each other the benefit of the doubt. Just look at that sex work discussion we have two days ago before about comment 125 (although I admit, I have NOT been getting laid enough lately), and you’ll see what I mean. I got a lot of emails about that post, largely from non-participants, saying they hadn’t seen such a hard discussion conducted in good faith before. We can have foundational, serious differences about issues in feminism and not rip each other to shreds, and when we don’t, moreover, we often learn some stuff.
Thus, although what I’m about to talk about may initially strike you as something you strongly disagree with, and about which you may feel some defensiveness, so please try to keep the other day’s spirit in mind.
If you read Feministing – and I do, because I find it an invaluable aggregator of feminist news even if I’m not in 100% agreement with all contributors at all times (hell, I’m not that here) – you may be aware that recently, there have been some disagreements between the Feministing writers, and more specifically, between Courtney Martin and some disability bloggers. I don’t think it’s necessary to get into the nitty gritty particularly – you can read a full backgrounder here – but suffice it to say that in general no one seems to have come out of the discussion feeling as though the issues (of Feministing’s inclusiveness towards the disabled) were properly resolved.
Courtney is currently up for something called the Washington Post’s Next Great American Pundit. Personally, I can think of no profession less attractive to me than that of “pundit” – imagine spending your life discussing feminism at Wolf Blitzer’s level of sophistication – but one can see what the appeal of such a prize is: a platform, through which Courtney can advocate for women and girls. And that’s showbiz. Fair enough.
Disability blogger abbyjean (and sometime Harpy reader, I think!) recently posted this about the nomination, and I think it is a point that really merits discussion:
i would NOT like courtney martin to have a washington post column, because she thinks about her issues in a way common to many mainstream internet feminists, which is through a lens of white middle-class college-educated women. frankly, i think there are sufficient representations of that kind of feminism in the mainstream media – valenti appears to be the nytimes’ new darling, with the coverage of her wedding and the recent interview with her in the times magazine – that elide or entirely erase issues of importance to women of color, trans women, women with disabilities, and other women who aren’t exactly like courtney and jessica.
when we have this discussion of whether “feminists” should engage with the mainstream media, we need to keep in mind that the women getting the book deals, getting the campus speaking tours, getting the nytimes interviews and WaPo column auditions, are usually representative of a single kind of feminism that not only fails to include but actively alienates wide swaths of women and feminists. it is, essentially, mainstream feminism engaging with the mainstream media, and feels wildly irrelevant if you’re in one of the groups not included in mainstream feminist discourse.
I don’t want to pick on Courtney, and I don’t think abbyjean particularly wants to, either. But I think abbyjean has a point – I don’t think Courtney is in bad faith by any means, but as I’ve said before, I do think she has a habit of “sidestepping a discussion about continued racism/classism/heterosexism in feminists answering to the dominant paradigmatic description (i.e. young, white, upper/middle-class).” And so I have to say, I kind of share abbyjean’s concern about overstating the importance of Courtney winning the contest.
It’s not like I don’t know why this sometimes happens. The media likes young, white, cisgendered ladies: just take a look at Hollywood. Moreover, the side effect of punditry, it seems to me, is that rhetoric (and economy of rhetoric) becomes far more important than careful, inclusive theorizing, and that’s just The Way Things Are. My concern, here, then, is systemic: I am concerned that the media continues to favour certain kinds of women over others, and I am concerned when I see other feminists sort of shrug their shoulders. I am not saying that compromise is not possible; what I am saying is that compromise, without acknowledging what you’re giving up, can look an awful lot like you don’t care.
The privileging of a certain kind of pundit-friendly feminism is a discussion people have been having in feminist circles for a long time, of course. Race/trans/LGBTQ feminisms are not particularly new – check out feminist tracts of the 70s and they’ll often look like the fights we have online. Abbyjean points to a good post at The Jaded Hippy, wherein writer whatsername contemplates why older feminists often tell us, “we were fighting about the same things 30 years ago!”:
At first I thought, “well, there’s always new people coming into the movement, they’re n00bs, they have to learn the ropes and they’re making mistakes because they’re n00bs and that’s what n00bs do”. *Dusts off hands* Done!But when I saw the quoted comment above today and that thought went through my head but another thought followed it: “But WHY DON’T the n00bs of today start off with more information? HASN’T all this good work been done and useful knowledge produced? WHY isn’t it sticking?”[...]
What are we saturated in, growing up? For the most part? The same old shit. That’s what. For as long as we (womanists, feminists, anti-racists, socialists, LGBTQ activists, dis/ability activists etc. etc.) have been doing this work, something is preventing our hard work from becoming part of the social fabric.
thanks for writing this. a few comments: 1) i am a regular harpyness reader! 2) you’re right that i don’t think this is about and don’t want to make it about courtney individually. thanks for framing this in a way that clarifies the broader issue.
i have a whole lot of conflicting feelings about MSM recognition of these kinds of feminists. i definitely agree that being white/cis/middle-class/etc makes a person more appealing to the MSM, and i don’t blame any individual for fitting into that framework and benefiting from that attention. i also do want to see feminists do well professionally, and be able to support themselves financially through doing feminist work.
but i think you’ve nailed it when you articulate the expectation, the requirement, to prioritize the inclusion of all women over just the individual feminist and her potential professional success. the MSM’s preference for white/cis/etc women means that those women are highlighted in significant part because they meet that mold, rather than because their thoughts on feminism are more valid or correct that women who do not meet that model.
i’m realizing that i’ve heard this discussion and these arguments raised in the context of the problematic artwork in amanda marcotte’s book with seal press, and the subsequent feelings of betrayal by non-white non-cis non-mainstream feminists that she hadn’t used her privileged position in the media to uplift all women and when confronted, reacted in protection of her own personal interests and career. so this is clearly a long running issue that is unlikely to be resolved in the context of the WaPo contest…
thanks for such a well considered post.
Punditry, in general, is counter-productive. It is often taken on by those who live in some form of political or socio-economic Eden, far removed from the world they claim to understand. They have a laundry list of talking points and tropes that they stick to with religious fervor, never straying very far from their comfort zone, and often pooh-poohing alternate points of view. The lack the flexibility to critically examine their own ideas and beliefs, in the light of new evidence, and therefore their views do not evolve as society evolves.
In essence, punditry is about “taking sides,” more than it is about discussion and discourse.
But assuming that a feminist “pundit” is inclusive and thoughtful about intersectionality, and willing to be called out on and publicly acknowledge the instances where she falls short of that standard, I don’t see why punditry isn’t possible or positive. The goal should be representing the broadest possible range of feminist voices, but I think that each individual voice has a duty to be inclusive and cognizant of intersections and other limiting -isms.
(This is why I roll my eyes when people say things like “you can’t tell me how to be a feminist” or “there’s no one definition of what it means to be a feminist”: while true in the most basic sense, these lines generally get trotted out to excuse not supporting disadvanted people and are pretty much the equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?” Don’t defend your position on the grounds that feminism can and should mean anything, show how your position is feminist. /digression)
I completely agree that I wish there was a broader spectrum of feminist voices out there in the MSM. It is frustrating that this problem has been stalled for decades. But as a white/hetero/cis/middle class/able-bodied feminist, if I was offered some kind of MSM platform, I sure as heck wouldn’t turn it down. I guess I would try to be a pundit in the model of Nick Kristof and use my position of privilege and power to draw attention and resources to those whose voice don’t ordinarily get heard. I think that option would be more effective than eschewing the MSM altogether.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the idea of a pundit.
When someone has identified themselves with a particular ideology (in this case feminist) that is activist and is involved in a project to better society, then as yvanehtnioj says it also requires that there is humility about how that person writes from their position, including privilege. Specifically recognising deficits and the difficulties in what and how they write.
PSoul, are really saying that you expect the MSM to act like it’s aware of anything or anyone outside the mainstream? All of the news outlets we used to depend on and trust are now owned by big conglomerates whose raison d’etre is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Yeah, that includes you, NYT.
People tend to be comfortable among their peers, so it’s no surprise that tv and print “journalism” is filled with white, well-educated, cisgendered etc etc men and women. And that’s why it’s a total waste of time. I mean, for Pete’s sake, there’s not even an out gay male doing tv news or commentary on a network show. If you really think it’s an honor to be labeled a pundit and included in that bunch of witless, self-important, self-referential windbags, then have a lovely time with it. The rest of us will look for real information from real people.
Thank goodness for the internet, that’s all I have to say. Otherwise we’d never know that humanity in all its glorious diversity exists.
@mischiefmanager – I take your point about the media (as a conglomerate), but I disagree when it comes to the individual people who are employed by the MSM to publicly commentate on public issues that require the indivudal to offer their own positions and opinions about those issues and who purport to be [insert label/trope/ideology].
The particular [label/trope/ideology] that the individual purports to influence them and their stance on issues/current affairs, I would hope especially if someone is publicly identified feminist, that she recognises she doesn’t speak for all, and that there is a spectrum of issues and perspectives that entail feminisms (as a theory, practice, praxis, and ideology).
This is going to be my most incoherent comment and I apologize but: I actually don’t think it’s possible, as a “pundit,” to offer cogent social analysis. Life is very complicated, it seems to me, and punditry demands an economy of expression that is ultimately totalizing. I mean, I know I’m the one who says generalities are necessary to communication, but I think that punditry in particular, in this age of soundbites and off-the-cuff blog posts – eh, too many opportunities for slip-ups.
@Mackey: Nefarious Newt is right on about this. The “pundits” who get on news shows get on because they’ve promised, in effect, to perform their narrow range of tricks over and over. If they step out of that pattern and try to be inclusive, the network will find someone else who won’t make the viewers uncomfortable. Really, if you want to be intellectually challenged, the MSM will disappoint you every time.
After the Bush “election” of 2000, it was crystal clear that the MSM had abdicated its responsibilities and had decided that being on the inside was better than being a reporter. It hardly even matters, since MSM as we know it will be gone in my lifetime. But when you get hired by a political talk show, you know the parameters-or you find another gig.
@Pilgrim Soul and mischiefmanager – I can see where you both of you are coming from, especially from what I understand of the US MSM (and I am assuming that is where you both are located, and to which you are referring to when you say MSM).
Maybe it can be a blessing or a curse living in the southern hemisphere [the land of cross media ownership restrictions, local content rules, and a somewhat well watched publicly funded broadcaster] where there are definately representations of the MSM pundits as you describe. There are also not those pundits as well – at least down here.
Yes, to be fair, Mackey, I am aware of other models, but bringing up Canada tends to get me in rather a lot of trouble.
ETA: For example, in Canada, the partisan problem is… not a problem. Pundits do tend to be more independent and less bound by party affiliations, though we have the other type too.
@Pilgrim Soul – in which case I won’t mention Australia
In terms of the US MSM model, then I definately agree with what NefariousNewt, mischiefmanager and yourself have said.
I feel like there are two questions here: 1) Can feminism writ-large gain full expression and accurately represent all of its many facets and intersections through the medium of punditry?, and 2) Would it be a positive development to have pundits that identify as feminists?
I think that the answer to #2 is yes, even if the answer to #1 is no. So long as there are talking heads and soundbite-fueled 24-hr news cycles, I’d like for a few of those people to be feminists. I’d be super excited if some of them were outspoken radical feminists. It might not topple the patriarchy by itself, and there might not be as deep analysis as we’d like of every issue, but I still think it’d be a step in the right direction. Hell, we have decent soundbites too.
I look at it like this: given the option between an Elizabeth Hasselbeck and a Pilgrim Soul on a Sunday morning news program, I’m voting PSoul all the way. Will it feel frustrating and truncated to try to have a reasoned discussion with some of the blockheads currently on TV? Sure. But one less blockhead is an improvement, IMO.
@yvanehtnioj: I see the question a little differently than how you phrased your number 2. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I saw the question PS was posing as: are we potentially doing more harm than good by giving this one available pundit spot to a “White Mainstream Feminist” to the extent that doing so necessarily means further marginalizing women who aren’t white, able-bodied, cis, upper-middle class?
As the post lays out, the media has preferences that are exclusionary. One could argue that it’s worth capitulating to these preferences (white, cis, able-bodied, middle-upper class) if that’s what has to be done in order to present at least some aspects of the feminist perspective to a wider mainstream audience.
The big problem with this argument is, of course, that by capitulating, we reinforce the belief that only certain faces, bodies, and voices are worth being seen and heard. In a sense, we ask certain women to sacrifice more for the ostensible benefit of the class as a whole, even though these are the same women who have been sacrificing more from day one. The question in my mind then becomes, is this sacrifice worth it? I mean, it’s my perception that the image of mainstream feminism is already largely white, cis, able-bodied, and middle-upper class; is this image working for women as a whole enough to somehow justify it’s further perpetuation if, in fact, doing so winds up keeping some women more invisible than others?
Anther potential issue I see is that, even if a “White Mainstream Feminist” pundit is uber-conscious and nearly flawless in her efforts to present an inclusive message that includes all women, will the message that the audience receives inevitably be narrowed by it’s perception of the messenger?
I think there would be less concern from folks like abby jean if we were talking about, say, putting together a panel of feminist pundits that represented a variety of backgrounds. But as things stand, I guess we’re just supposed to be grateful for at least having a shot at choosing one woman to explicitly represent feminism in the MSM.
Blerg
“…keeping some women more invisible than others…” There are no degrees of invisibility; you either are or you aren’t. Logic fail.
“…present an inclusive message that includes all women…” Redundancy fail.
It’s/Its errors throughout. Global editing fail.
“In a sense, we ask certain women to sacrifice more for the ostensible benefit of the class as a whole, even though these are the same women who have been sacrificing more from day one.”
yes, this, lots of this. especially as those women are actively fighting to be heard even in feminist created spaces.
and while i recognize and (mostly) agree that one mainstream feminist is better than no feminist at all*, even that should be coupled with an effort to amplify the voices of those women of various degrees of invisibility within the feminist movement. or at least a recognition or acknowledgment that having that mainstream feminism visible in the MSM has this exclusionary effect on some groups of women. but i don’t think there’s much or any of that going on.
*i don’t classify pilgrimsoul as a mainstream feminist of the type we’re discussing here, so i reject the hasselbeck/pilgrimsoul decision.
Tall – I agree that that’s what the post is about, but the comments seemed to have drifted to a different place, where punditry itself was being debated more than visibility in the movement of people who are very rarely given a platform. I agree with everything you said.
abby jean – Again, I agree with everything that you say here (the Psoul/Hasselbeck analogy was sloppy and mostly just for effect). In my previous post, “one mainstream feminist is better than no feminist at all” was my main point, because it seemed like the consensus was going against that point.
@abbyjean: I’m totally with you. My question is how we accomplish that given the restrictions of the MSM. Let’s not forget that tv is above all a visual medium, and people who book “talent” for news shows know (or believe they know, and it comes to the same thing) that viewers don’t want to see panelists who are old, fat, disabled, unattractive (which is a much broader spectrum of looks for men than for women, of course), dressed poorly and so forth. In other words, viewers want a mirror, not a window.
That’s why I think the wise thing is to reject the MSM game altogether and do what more and more out-groups are doing, which is to disseminate the message using the web and other non-traditional media. Those allow readers to focus on the message and not the messenger.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again now: mainstream feminism as represented by the Feminist Majority and NOW and NARAL is run by and for women who are precisely the ones we see on tv talk shows-white, straight, college-educated, slim and attractive, upper middle class. They occasionally look outside the bubble and remember that women who are poor, disabled, of color and so forth might have their own concerns, but those groups only work on such concerns as a way of furthering their own interests. If we wait politely for those groups to remember women who are different than they are, we’re wasting our time. We have to demand that we are part of the discussion-not sometimes, but every time.
@yvanehtnioj: I brought of the issue of punditry in general, because that’s the heart of the matter. It doesn’t matter what we’re talking about; punditry, as a “profession,” is being locked into a set of preconceived notions about a topic, with no room for flexibility. I think the idea that “one mainstream feminist is better than no feminist at all” is dangerous, from the standpoint that people will equate all feminists with that point-of-view, even if that point-of-view is not representative of all feminists.
In essence, a feminist pundit is being trotted out to “speak for feminism,” but feminism encompasses a wide range of views (as does any subject, really). By placing a significant portion of the public face of feminism in one person, who may or may not represent what is thought of as “feminism,” you run the risk of marginalizing it even more. Feminism, racism, pro-choice, et. al., cannot afford to be locked into narrow bands of tired rhetoric. They must appeal to new generations, who in some ways are more sophisticated, but in other ways ignorant, of these subjects.
Word, NN.
NN – “By placing a significant portion of the public face of feminism in one person, who may or may not represent what is thought of as “feminism,” you run the risk of marginalizing it even more.” But feminism can never be represented by a broad range of faces in the MSM if it isn’t represented by one first. I agree that having one person represent “feminism” is problematic, but I don’t agree that it’s more problematic than never hearing the word feminism in the MSM at all.
This post has been included in a linkspam at access-fandom. Thank you!
[...] The Pursuit of Harpyness: Is Feminist Punditry Really Possible? (Or Positive?) [...]