I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see this headline: "Sex, drink and fashion. Is this the new face of American feminism?"*
After all, if there's anything the mainstream media loves, it's painting feminists - specifically young feminists - as vapid and sex-crazed. (See here, here, here, here and here.)
While I'm tempted to weigh in on this particular article and the many ways in which it got things wrong - especially since it touches on something I blogged about recently - I think there's a larger issue that's more important to get at. (Though damn it's hard not to say anything about the piece - especially the 6 bullet points at the end. Wow.)
There's a reason that the mainstream media continually covers young feminists in this way. Backlash is part of it, of course: framing feminism as a perpetual catfight or a watered down movement based on drinking and fucking is a great way to dismiss it. But it's also indicative of a media that has no interest in nuance or truthfulness when it comes to covering women.
When I read this latest article, I was reminded of something I wrote in The Purity Myth about the moral panic wackiness surrounding young women's sexuality:
The fact is, focusing on hyped-up problems that sell newspapers and titillate the imagination make it that much easier to ignore actual problems young women are facing, issues that take a lot more than a moral scolding to fix. For a young woman living in poverty, spring break isn't even an option, let alone a concern. For a young woman who has no health insurance, the "moral" debate over STIs won't do anything for her the next time she needs to see a doctor. And for a young single mother, hearing about herself as an unfortunate statistic isn't going to make her life any better or easier.
The same could be said about the media's feminism problem. Salacious headlines about feminists-gone-wild not only sell newspapers - they also make it that much easier for people to ignore actual feminist work that's being done. When was the last time you saw an article about youth organizations like the Pro-Choice Education Project, or feminist media like Shameless? Have you ever seen a mainstream media profile on any of the women here? Of course not. Because focusing on the truth of what feminists activists and media makers are up to would mean portraying women as thoughtful, socially engaged citizens. (Wouldn't that be ridiculous!) It just doesn't jibe with how America wants to see women, especially young women; they'd prefer to think we're all nekkid, drunk and stupid.
Now, I don't fool myself into thinking that this media narrative about feminists (or women) is going anywhere anytime soon. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. When you see an article that relies on bullshit stereotypes about feminism, inundate the reporter with links to profiles of young feminists and youth-led organizations. Show them what feminism really is.
*Full disclosure: The reporter who wrote this piece contacted me via email for an interview, I didn't have the time to respond. (And now I'm really glad that I didn't!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The media's feminism problem .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13797
What really grinds my gears is that the media equates being drunk and naked with being stupid in the first place. Feminism has helped me accept that it's okay for me to drink and have sex as much or as little as I'd like, or not at all. I think that's what the media is afraid of, more than the drinking and the sex, is that these young feminists are SMART and realize that their drinking and sex lives have nothing to do with their value as conscious, intelligent citizens. That's the problem for mainstream media. That feminists ARE drinking and having sex, and that they're not feeling bad about it, like good women should.
I completely agree. It is largely about shame. The shame we're supposed to be feeling.
exactly. i drink, have sex, and *gasp!*, don't feel bad about it! and i have a fiance, a wonderful daughter, a loving family, and i'm almost to my master's degrees. don't think know a slut like me is supposed to be sitting in the corner, feeling shitty about myself, with no accomplishments to speak of?
Absolutely.
you know what, though?
even if there was no pro-choice education project, or any of the other "feminist work being done", i think enabling a society in which women can enjoy their leisure time and their sexuality much in the way young men do is a laudable feminist goal.
i'm thoughtful, socially engaged, and i believe that being able to fuck without judgment is actually really important and cool. for me, it's an important part of "what feminism really is", jessica.
I agree, in fact I edited a book about it.
But when the media covers issues of drinking and sex as if they're the only thing feminists are doing/working on, it's seriously problematic - not because there's something wrong with valuing sex or leisure time, etc - but because it ignores the majority of feminist work being done.
word.
First, they told us that feminists are sexless prudes with hairy armpits and wear Birkenstock sandles. Now they tell us that feminists are horny sluts who love to drink and go shopping.
Don't you just love how stereotypes evolve over the years? *rolls eyes*
I know. People will throw insults at feminism for completely contradictory stereotypes, like, in the same sentence. I'm a man-hating ugly prude but also a whore & alcoholic. THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE. I'm either having WAY TOO much fun (a real lady wouldn't be having that much fun), or absolutely none at all & I have a stick up my ass.
Its because feminists are viewed as 'extremes,' caricatures, not people. If anyone took the time to actually talk to us, or listen to us, or just put in a little deeper thought, they couldn't dismiss us as easily. But I don't know when that will ever happen.
Ha!
And...and! What about horny sluts who drink AND have hairy armpits!
Or whatever mixmatch traits between the made-up dichotomies... there would be CHAOS!!
you said it.
i also feel that we can't be vocal about our beliefs unless we have a clean sexual and sober history!?!
be a strong woman and stand up to womanizing jerks, and they will dig up something from your past and call you an "ungrateful showgirl" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6289660.ece
I've nearly finished up The Purity Myth, and I believe, if the book could speak, it would sum up the article by saying,
"This article says these women aren't feminist because they're not pure!!"
Their "feminist history" bullet point lesson at the end only goes back to the 1960's. So, the eighty year fight for suffrage in America doesn't count as feminism, then?
Those bullet points are ridic! This is your next book, Jessica.
Weird thing about Linda Hirshman--I interviewed her last year about what she thought about young feminists, preparing to have a heated discussion. Instead, she was very respectful, thoughtful, and nuanced in her thinking about feminism and sex, drinking, families, babymaking, etc.
Then I read pieces like the Jezebel attack and I'm like, WTF? It makes me think that editors approach her and say "You want to write about drunk, irresponsible young feminists, right?" Or maybe she forgets her occasional conversation with one of the millions of young feminists who defy her caricatures. Either way, this inconsistency is totally bizarre, and reminds me how very powerful stereotypes and simplistic editors can be.
This issue is something that's been bothering me for quite a while. Getting up in arms over Jezebel's feminism is a waste of time, as the website is about pop culture. Yes, they're snarky and "edgy", but in no way does their masthead advertise feminism. Their claim to a new and modern feminist voice is nonexistent until they make the jump to publicly saying "we're feminist." To be sure, their content does touch on many important and relevant topics, and a lot of the editors are feminists but their site/community as a whole is not. So why herald it as a new wave of feminism? I have been turned off from Jezebel because I found it to be wanting in depth and a lot of the commenters to be unforgiving and sometimes sexist. It is not realistic to expect a pop culture website to appease all feminists- even if it slants towards feminism. But the way the media treats Jezebel makes sense since people have difficulties understanding what Jezebel is actually about, and since it's different than the mainstream media they have a hard time leaving the different opinions alone.
SORRY FOR THE LONG COMMENT! But I really have been thinking about this for a long time!
Good point, mikamana. Although, that's actually what I *like* about Jezebel -- it doesn't have to specifically be a "feminist" site. It's a pop culture website and -- how about that -- a lot of what it writes actually has a thoughtful feminist consciousness to it. You mean you can find that on just plain old, not-focusing-on-feminism, snarky, edgy pop culture blogs? *WOAH*
I mean, there are a lot of ways the Jezzies are imperfect. But to me, that their blog exists and is as successful as it is -- as a POP CULTURE BLOG -- is a really good thing for feminism overall.
Thanks for the link to Our Bodies Ourselves Health Heroes, Jessica. We've been working hard to get mainstream media coverage, but it's been rather difficult. We've reached out to many media outlets, so it hasn't been for lack of trying. It's a shame because all the nominees are amazing!
-Wendy
Our Bodies Ourselves
Hey Wendy, didn't mean to insinuate you all weren't doing a wonderful job getting media coverage! I think you all are the bees knees. :)
Jessica, I think the Guardian/Observer have had quite a bad track record in covering feminists recently -- I've been really disappointed by a lot of their articles.
I read their interview with you and I was very surprised to see them assert that you were depoliticising feminism -- I have to admit I haven't read your books, but I've never got the feel that Feministing is in any way about "depoliticising". Is that an accurate reflection of your views? I felt like it didn't follow necessarily from anything they actually quoted you as saying.
Thanks Leonie...yeah I wasn't really thrilled with how that interview was framed (which is why I didn't post it here). Sigh.
Sorry to hear that. :(
To be honest I think most of these feature writers are just quite ignorant and their writing is based on very little genuine understanding.
Why are you glad that you didn't respond for an interview? You mean because the article turned out to be full of crap in the end anyway? And probably they would have tried to use you as an example of their Common Naked-Breasted House Drunk. A member of the finch family.
One thing about the Hirshman article: I had no idea that Jezebel was a blog owned by some dude who owns a bunch of blogs . . . She made it sound like these women bloggers were some kind blog slaves and they have to keep making outrageous posts to attract readers. I don't know much about the biz of blogs, but I have a hard time believing her characterization is completely accurate. Mostly because her article, as a whole, sucked. And it's completely turned me off from that new Salon site for women. I just hope the feminists of today are better able to understand the feminists of the future. As for the media, I'm not holding my breath.
WTF. That article made me so pissed off. Thanks for continuing to bring these ridiculous articles to our attention, Jessica, and for providing the links to what actual feminists are doing. Also, I'm really looking forward to reading The Purity Myth. (I am on a waiting list for it from my local library - I can't afford to buy it right now, but I plan on buying it when I can.)
I sent The Observer an e-mail about this, outlining my four main problems with the article, some of which this article talks about. I ended the e-mail stating that I won't be reading The Observer anymore, I will be referring others to Feministing and its critiques of the media, and I demanded a full public apology for the misinformation and misogyny.
Summary of my four points (in no order):
1. Jezebel is not a feminist website.
2. Purity fetish, young women's sexuality as public property/commodity
3. Naomi Wolf, Double X, and their bullshit, inaccurately depicting and also marginalizing third-wave feminism
4. Six bullet points = FAIL
My additional requests: "How about interviewing actual young feminists and see what they have to say about it? How about interviewing women who are doing actual feminist work in America and the UK? How about treating feminism with the respect and intellectual depth that a human rights movement deserves?"
Also, check out: AllGirlArmy.org, their slogan is "Ovathrow the status quo!" I included the link in my e-mail, and four or five others, including a link to Feministing. :)
I am so sick of slut shaming, victim blaming, gender stereotypes, and this national purity fetish mainstream media and conservative fundamentalists seem to have. We need to constantly call people, the media, and public servants on this bullshit.
I'm really glad you sent them that! I read the Guardian/Observer for lack of anything better (and a lot of its foreign news coverage esp mid east is actually quite good) but I'm so frustrated that the only feminist they have on board seems to be Julie Bindel. She's so hugely out of touch with what young feminists are doing! I wish they would start showing what young feminists in the UK (and the world) are actually getting up to.