Jessica on CNN!
Check Jessica out on CNN talking about whether feminism is obsolete! (Can you guess what her answer is?)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jessica on CNN! .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14478
Just to clarify, the video seems to be about whether or not the term "feminism" is obsolete, not the movement.
I would be interested in a Jessica/Courtney debate about this. Jessica's premise that all women embody feminism in some way seems to be at odds with Courtney's assertion that Palin is definitely not a feminist.
I also think Palin isn't a feminist - no way! I actually didn't say that all women embody feminism in some way...just to clarify. That answer was in response to a question about feminist iconography and whether the feminist movement needs a leader or a present day Gloria Steinem to be relevant. My answer was no, that I think feminists doing the work demonstrate how we can all be feminist icons, etc.
Is anyone else tired of this line of questioning? It seems like this question is only asked by those who WISH feminism were obsolete.
The argument about the word feminism being obsolete seems to be popping up everywhere these days, with scarce recognition to the rich history of such a word.
I call myself a feminist because even though I may be struggling for different rights and recognition than my mother, grandmother and the women before them, I'm paying homage to their power and success (and tired failures, too) by using that word.
What I thought was interesting was the comment that 70's feminism was about being able to choose the life you want. I think that the biggest problem with conservatives like Sarah Palin is that they want to take away those rights. So, if she thinks that is the definition, then many conservative women are not feminists. Just saying.
Exactly. Its fine if you want to live your life as a woman a certain way. You cross the line when you start dictating how other women live theirs. Offering a choice of lifestyles isn't dictation its options, which is not what many of the "former-feminists" want to take away.
Considering how much time a 24-hour news channel like CNN has to fill, it's really a shame they couldn't delve a little deeper into the problem of Sarah Palin v. "Feminist"
Mary Matalin and Sarah Palin and other right wing women in power have certainly benefited from Feminism's work. Whether or not they call themselves feminist is beside the point: If you're a woman in power today, you owe feminism a debt of gratitude for helping you get there. Sarah Palin, especially, is the queen of using feminist language and gains to her own end: every time someone calls her out on her bullshit or points out that she might not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, she starts quacking "sexism!" like she was a NOW founder.
The point isn't that feminists have to "sign on" to some lifestyle. We don't have policies about whether or not you have to be a SAHM or a childless workaholic, we don't have quotas for how many abortions you need to have or how long your leghair must be or what your relationship to men should be. Even personally, if you chose to perform every single beauty maintenance in the world, marry a man, take his last name, throw up you lunch, and stay at home making babies for The Lord, you could absolutely still be a feminist so long as you supported the rights of women to choose a path other than your own.
In fact, you could say that Palin and Matalin are "reverse feminists" because they believe more in their own self-aggrandizement than they do in supporting the liberation and rights of women. I suppose the word "narcissist" could have done nicely, as well.
Not that I expect CNN to point that out, but it's not like they're so crammed for time they had to just give the issue a quick gloss and then be done with it.
I completely agree. I've seen many "feminists" even on this site, saying if a woman isn't perfect or doesn't live a certain way, she is not a feminist or even anti-feminist. Like, I'm not as psychially strong as most men I know then I'm anti-feminist or because I dye my hair instead of having my natural color I'm supposely anti-feminist. There's a million more examples but you get the point.
Mary Matalin feeling that feminism has been "perverted" into an "exclusive club" is hilariously ironic. I imagine the "feminism" she ascribed to is the one where rich, white, heteronormative women get to live their lives however they choose and it's mission accomplished. Nevermind everyone else and don't ever consider the concept that a movement can evolve over time. That's pure poppycock!
It would have taken CNN negative three seconds to find out that Palin's policies on abortion, sex education, and teen moms preclude her from being a feminist. It has nothing to do with her being a conservative, at least it wouldn't if the so-called small government Republican Party wasn't so concerned with what's going on between my legs.
I think the point that is being made here is one which we would do well to consider, which is that the feminist movement often tends to paint itself in a corner and get marginalized due to it's orthodoxy. It's not an uncommonly held belief that feminism serves it's purpose merely as tool used by the left wing to promote left-wing agendas. Matalin is for the most part correct when she states that, "No conservative woman would choose to call herself a feminist as it's described by liberals today."
The orthodoxy of political views among self-described feminists is not easily overlooked. Jessica helped illustrate this point a few days ago by holding that the because of certain view that she doesn't hold, Independent Women's Forum are "bad for women", and therefore, not good role models. I strongly disagree. I would be thrilled if my daughter grew up to be someone like Michelle Bernard.
Personally, I'd love to see a public health care plan passed, and I cringe every day when I see Republicans, physicians, and moderate Democrats stand in it's way, apparently because of greed and self-serving motives. That said, it's de rigueur in this community to bash Catholics and other Christians while not taking the time to acknowledge the great work that these institutions and people do for women and children throughout the world. Are there criticisms to be made? Yes. But how many times do we see postings reporting the good that these very people do.
Until more work is done to tone down the divisiveness and subsequent self-marginalization that occurs in our community every day, we can expect to see more "reports" on the "demise" of feminism. When I witnessed the piling-on that occurred by the left, MSNBC, and feminists alike resulting in the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who I strongly supported, I moved more to the right. I certainly wasn't the only one. The number-one reason Hillary Clinton wasn't elected is because of sexism. It should be a scandal. But it's not. The fact that Florida (my vote) and Michigan weren't counted is scandalous. The number of vitriolic lies I've heard about Sarah Palin is outrageous. I'm thoroughly convinced it is deeply rooted in sexism and not because of her "positions on abortion, sex education, and teen moms." Are her positions problematic? Of course. But this doesn't explain the staggering number of hateful things I hear about her on a weekly basis. See, that's sexism in action. Even around here.
Good work, Jessica! I really like how you tied it up there, very concisely. I think the key to the argument is making it about who is supporting rights for women, not who is a "feminist." The word is loose and it has been used many different ways, but in the end it is a reference to fight for rights for women. Good work.
Is this really what everyone took away from this little montage? Am I the only one that noticed that a supposedly feminist conversation included no trans women, WOC, lesbian women, disabled women or poor women. How is it that we should be concerned whether or not women like Palin are feminist while daily marginalized women are ERASED from feminist discourse. Nice call out on the erasure Jessica but hey gotta love that 15 secs of fame.
Renee, you were not the only person to notice this erasure. It is a dynamic that we are consistently talking about at feministing--both on and offline.
I feel like it's important to look at all of the levels at work here:
#1 The producers at mainstream media outlets like CNN, indeed, go to certain feminist voices over and over again. Jessica is actually a step up from their usual--which is to just call Gloria Steinem or another older, white feminist. At feministing, we've spoken a lot about how to leverage their interest in Jessica to get other voices on, and sometimes we are successful with this strategy. Sometimes they're dead set on getting the "celebrity" voice.
#2 As someone who has done these kinds of interviews I can assure you that you have zero control over what questions are asked and, even when you do your damndest to bridge to the real issues, zero control over what snippets they use. I consistently find that the most inane thing I say is used. I don't know what Jess tried to say RE who makes up the feminist movement or the history of invisibilizing various women. But I can assure you that the smallest bit of what the editors/producers see as "nuance" often ends up on the cutting room floor, even if the speaker sees it as the central point to be discussed.
We continue to think--individually and as a group--about whether it's even worth doing mainstream media (and more specifically, when and how) given that we have so little influence over what pieces of our commentary get used or how the issue is framed.
I wish that instead of mocking Jessica for speaking ("15 secs of fame"), you would congratulate her for her courage (this shit isn't easy) and criticize the media that takes smart, nuanced voices like hers and boils them down into soundbites on segments that are mostly distraction from the real issues.
If Renee was not the only person to notice the multiple erasures which occured in that CNN segment, why wasn't that discussion a part of the post? Seems like this post was meant in whole-hearted congratulations -- no critique necessary, right?
And why on earth should Renee congratulate Jessica Valenti for her "courage" in maintaining the status quo? Because if you're talking about feminism as it relates only to white, heterosexual, able-bodied cisgendered women like Sarah Palin, that's *exactly* what's happening.
Allison, we never, and I mean NEVER, have time to write all of our critiques. And with regard to your other question, I repeat, Jess can do her best to make comments that disrupt the status quo, but she has no control over whether they end up in the piece or not.
Her only control is over doing the segment or not doing the segment at all.
Seeing as those of us not included in the offline conversations are also not mind-readers, how are we to know those discussions about inclusion (or lack thereof) take place? If all readers have to go on is the post, would it not be reasonable to assume that the multiple erasures Renee mentions were not considered?
While it would be tremendous if Jessica made comments that highlighted these erasures (and if these comments were included in the segment itself), it's really not fair to claim that Renee is being hostile or unreasonable in her critique of this post's lack of discussion on how this CNN segment defines "feminism" in relation to all women.
No need to mind read: http://www.feministing.com/archives/014398.html
I'm sure others on this blog have written similar things over the years. This is just what I've written most recently on the subject.
It seems like you keep pressing the point that CNN media appearances are beyond the speaker's (in this case, Jessica Valenti) control, but what about here at Feministing?
If those conversations you wrote about -- ones "about ways in which we can share our privilege -- both earned and unearned -- with those that the national networks don't see" -- still translate into blog posts where the promotion of a white feminist's media appearance trumps having a critical discussion on how feminism is framed and defined, how does this effect change?
Where is the sharing of privilege? Why is Renee berated for not congratulating Jessica Valenti and instead daring to criticize the segment's erasure of women who don't look like Sarah Palin/Angelina Jolie? I'm not expecting you to have the answers to these questions, but I do think it's wrong to imply that, "Well, we talk about issues of inclusion, so don't complain when we promote our own work without critique of how this might minimize, damage, and erase others."
What is this privilege on crack? Seriously, I should congratulate her for posting a video which promotes her but at the same time manages to erase so many women. I don't even buy the whole we didn't have time to make a critique as feministing is queen of minimizing important issues with its use of the "quick hit" phenomenon. That's right, I have not forgotten the great effort that went into announcing the verdict at the Zappata trial.
As a blogger, I am more than aware that not every issue can be covered in-depth but when you don't even try and balk about being called out, it speaks loudly once again as to which voices are valued. Would it really have been that hard to point out the erasure? A simple sentence though not comprehensive would at least have acknowledged that feminism is made up of women from different groups. But I guess the point was not about solidarity it was about white, heterosexual, cisgendered, able bodied feminists. We'll just call it business as usual.
Oh and when Jessica can actually get off her high horse and answer her critics, then perhaps a dialogue can happen. Whether you ignore them here, or on other sites where you manage to sell your work, the continued aversion to answering the critiques of women of color when we take the time to point out the ways in which your arguments are either laced with privilege or erasure only creates a wider gulf. You're all about women, as long as we all agree that you speaking on our behalf is a good thing.
*crickets*
Perhaps Jessica could take classes to improve her media effectiveness. I've seen her numerous times, and heard her on the radio, and her opinion usually gets bowled over (e.g. Her appearance on the Today show with Kathy Lee, or a few weeks ago on Laura Ingraham's show). Courtney seems to be a more effective voice on television and radio. She certainly held her own with Bill O'Reilly, which is no easy task.
Don't get me wrong. Jessica is clearly bright and well-spoken. It's just that there are ways to not end up on the cutting-room floor.
I especially love the intro your clip got, Jessica. "And then there's this.." I was like, seriously? Haha. And also, feminism is a secret club? Wow, I don't remember signing any forms or getting any manuals. I did drink some of that kool-aid though.. Anyways, if people want to talk about 15 minutes (or seconds) of fame, let's talk about Sarah Palin, because her time is almost up. I thought that Letterman joke was over by now..
I don't understand why people are so hateful in these comments. Aren't we all in this for the same cause? Jessica shouldn't be blamed for the media's editing job.
uh, whoa. I am really offended by you calling people who are feeling marginalised by the perpetuation of the [deeply problematic and harmful wealthy-white-cisgendered-hetero-able-female] dominant mainstream feminist perspective hateful, then implying that they aren't "down for the cause" (What the hell cause is that?! White supremacy feminism, again?!).
Anywho, that's a pretty common de-railing tactic often (ab)used by more privileged groups to subordinate the voices of less privileged groups, and I don't think ya'll who are employing this tactic are fooling many people with your defensiveness.
When someone takes the time to explain why "x" attitude is screwed up and that it excludes them, we should be thanking that persyn for a gift at their own expense. First, because you excluded them to begin with, then you take up their personal time to educate you about your ignorance at the risk of you being a jerk about it, and then also because you are responsible for your interrogating your own privilege/socialised roles.
No one's perfect, but if you feel yourself getting defensive when you're challenged on here, it's probably healthy to be more aware of how your own privileges color your perceptions.