Quick Hit: The Trouble with Double X According to Ann
Check out Ann's piece over at TAP. An excerpt:
The proliferation of woman-centric sites raises the sorts of questions that keep a feminist editor up at night. If Slate saw a demand for more content about women, why didn't it start publishing more articles for and by women on its main site? The decision to devote micro-sites to groups that aren't white men -- The Root for black readers, Double X for women readers -- implies that Slate recognizes the need for more coverage that caters to women and people of color. But it doesn't want that coverage mucking up its main product....When publishers create separate sites dedicated to women or to black people, they are signaling that they don't see a need to have their main site serve these people as core readers. They are, in essence, saying, "We want the ad revenue associated with your readership, but we don't create our homepage with you in mind."
Jess wrote on this earlier in the week.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: The Trouble with Double X According to Ann.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13729
One by one, publishers retitled these sections: Features, Style, Life.
So that's why the NYT online always puts stories about women in the style section.
Another question I have about XX is why, the last time I looked at it yesterday, were there something like 4-5 pieces specifically bashing feminism? Why do they assume that's what women want to read and who's REALLY pulling the strings at this site?
I think Ann is right on in this critique, which was my concern when Slate announced its launch. I don't always agree with what Slate publishes, but generally consider myself a fan, but I feel alienated by this ghettoization of women. Thanks for linking it!
yeah, I have to agree with you and Ann. calling it the "ghettoization of women" is right on.
Looks like Double X has replied to Ann without really addressing what she said: "Do We Need Another Women's Magazine"
Apparently their reason for creating Double X is that
"Women have never had a great public interest magazine. We've had magazines with a very narrow understanding of what women are interested in. We've had magazines for the feminist movement. But we've never had a magazine written mainly by women that accurately reflects the range of subjects we think and talk about."
So... it's a magazine for women by women, with a broad range of subject matter, but don't worry it's not a feminist magazine? Really? They went there?
And are they implying that feminist magazines don't (or can't) accurately reflect the "range of subjects [women] think and talk about"?
I heartily agree with Ann. I have been thinking about this for the past couple days as well. Slate doesn't want girl cooties all over the main site, so they carved out a little playground for the women (one that happens to be a minefield of dog crap and baby vomit).
Rhowan, feminist magazines don't include articles about why Kate Gosselin's haircut is ugly or why Michelle Obama should wear pantyhose.
"feminist magazines don't include articles about why Kate Gosselin's haircut is ugly or why Michelle Obama should wear pantyhose"
Yeah, exactly. And they're actively trying to distance themselves from feminism, in word and deed, in a rather disturbing fashion. Worse, they're openly disparaging of feminists and things deemed feminist in the process. There's even an article claiming that the tv show Battlestar Galactica isn't actually feminist, but rather misogynistic - the author used some rather blatant misrepresentations (or if I'm generous gross misinterpretations) of plot to prove her point.
Umm...it's because sites/businesses/channels/magazines/newspaper/etc. ate still racist and sexist...they just don't realize it and believe that "separate but equal" is somehow "progressive".
Ironic, right?
Umm...it's because sites/businesses/channels/magazines/newspaper/etc. ate still racist and sexist...they just don't realize it and believe that "separate but equal" is somehow "progressive".
Ironic, right?
DoubleX doesn't thrill me, but I have to say that the idea of having a separate women's magazine may not so much reflect the impulse to ghettoize women as to double profits. If you can take one demographic, posit it as two, and get members of it to identify with both, you can sell to that single demographic twice. It's not like the men and women clicking on DoubleX links are going to stop reading Slate.
If the purpose is to double profits, then they can do that quite easily by enlarging the number of articles produced under the main Slate brand.
So no, "increasing revenue" is not the purpose. It does however fit the definition of "plausible deniablity" for a more nefarious purpose -- which is to shove everybody but the default white male off into the corner.
Hmm, I don't know what to think about this. I think it is a very good point, but I'm also an avid reader of Jezebel and I'm quite happy with the way it is. I read it for being Jezebel and to be honest I don't even know what Gawker covers, because I was introduced to Jezebel independently. For me it fulfils the function of generally being light reading like women's magazines except without being offensive -- it's a female-dominated space with entertaining content that generally has a pretty feminist framework and isn't afraid that it's going to scare people off by using the F word occasionally, even if it's not a "feminist" blog. And the commenters are wicked funny. I appreciate it in the way that I appreciate hanging out socially with the girls from my university feminist campaign group -- where Feministing is the online equivalent of that.
So that's in defence of Jezebel ... but perhaps Double X is meant to appeal to a demographic that the Slate people imagine Jezebel alienates -- women who don't like the F word? It does seem like it's setting out to compete. And it's framing itself straight away as anti-feminist. But in terms of content, as I read neither Gawker nor Slate I don't know how Jezebel and Double X relate respectively to Gawker and Slate. All I know is that I won't touch anything that sets out to repudiate feminism.
I knew something was bothering me about Double X but I thought it was the article about how Michelle Obama should wear pantyhose. Other than Linda Hirshman, who I just love, the content seems fluffy. Pantyhose? Really? This is what they want to put on their "women's site"? I'll keep checking it to see if it gets more substantive, but if they keep up with the heavy rotation of "lifestyle" and parenting articles....I'll just read Dear Prudence and call it a day.