Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Perhaps if you dress like a stewardess for Halloween, you get a pass from raping yourself Previous entry: ...But Is He Conservative?

New York Magazine takes the time to notice all them ladies typing

FeminismMedia

Update: I should have noted earlier, but there's a cool slideshow to go with the article.  I like how my eyeballs look.

In the world of Lady Issues, most of the bandwidth this week is going to be taken up by the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain. I may have some thoughts on those later---I mean, who doesn't?---but first I want to highlight an article that just came out in the online and print edition of New York Magazine about the feminist blogosphere. This is really exciting for me, because most media coverage of other media tends to be in one of two categories: 1) A profile of someone specific who has done something above and beyond what the rest of us do and 2) A generalized profile of a bunch of Young Turks who have energy and new ideas. The latter tends to get people's ire up, not because they have anything against Young Turks, but because women are ignored, over and over again, for that sort of treatment. Women are seen in the media world as the worker bees (which is why they have a stronger presence in the editorial staff than in the front pages), which means that we're not looked to as innovative thinkers, even if we are. In fact, one of the early concerns when I was first blogging---which is discussed in the article---was how men, especially white men, were sucking up all the oxygen when it came to the liberal blogosphere. Those of you who were around then probably remember this:

Left-wing blogging was on the rise, a phenomenon that was strikingly male. As writer Amanda Marcotte says, laughing in recollection, “We had a running joke about how every three months, another guy would publish a post about ‘Why don’t women blog?’ And we would all comment, ‘We’re out here; fuck you!’ ”

That doesn't happen anymore, thank god. It points to why I have so much faith in the blogosphere and in internet media in general: I think it has demonstrated more flexibility and the people involved are more willing to change. Part of the reason is that the constant output of material makes it easier to portray your changes as evolution; in stale mainstream media, changing your mind or outlook is easier to see as some kind of waffling. Therefore, some of the men who were gave us pains in the early days are now some of our best allies. But mainstream media isn't so quick to change. They have a model of what an innovative writer looks like, it that model doesn't include a vagina. When women are innovative, we're generally seen more as silly and hysterical, but mostly we're not allowed to be seen as innovative. I won't belabor the point any further. You can just go read Ann Friedman's delightful satire of the problem here.

So I'm thrilled to see feminist blogging get the Young Turks treatment. Granted, it's by New York Magazine, which is one of my favorite magazines because they are willing to reject media norms and do their own thing. Hopefully, they're opening a door for women to be considered eligible for this sort of treatment.

Mainly, I wanted to highlight this because the writer, Emily Nussbaum, did a good job of making this piece about you. Instead of concentrating on a handful of blogs that get the most traffic, she sees the feminist blogosphere in its entireity, and includes the LiveJournal confessionals and Tumblr satires and all the other various forms of feminist discourse that are happening in the broad world of blogging. One of the major problems of media coverage of feminism is it rarely captures how much of it is about dialogue. Nussbaum understands feminist history really well, and how the archives of the second wave show a lively and diverse movement that had a lot more women in it than Gloria Steinem. She sees the blogosphere the same way: as a jungle of voices, and one where digging in the stacks instead of sticking to the chart toppers can often produce some truly fascinating reading. There's a reading list of blogs and a portrait slideshow that focuses on some of the most prominent voices, but the actual article itself is about the vastness of the discourse. Which is important, because it's a remarkable counter to the same tedious storyline about how feminism is dead. That so many people are online writing about feminism, and that it's not just a few prominent voices, demonstrates how much feminism is not dead, but is in fact undergoing a 21st century revival. 

On a personal note, I have to say it's been amazing watching all this happen. There was no "feminist blogosphere" when I started, which is part of the reason I write largely about politics and pop culture and not just about feminism. (The other reason is: I want to.) But that anyone was writing about feminism at all in the early days turned out to be more inspiring and expansive than those of us typing in our kitchens and living rooms years ago could have imagined. Except maybe Jessica Valenti---I think she had ambitions for Feministing, but the rest of us were just doing our thing for the hell of it. And so much has come from it, for ourselves and for the larger internet community. Now you see feminist discourse normalized in all sorts of unexpected online spaces. And hopefully this article suggests that next on the list is the real world.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:17 AM • (24) Comments

Part of me says “It’s just another story that focuses on the fact that some bloggers have vaginas.” And another part of me says “Why is this news? I’ve looked at many of those sites for years.” But mostly I think, “Yeah! Amanda’s in that magazine I once got when I sloppily wanted the New Yorker!” I think I’ll subscribe again, since I miss good crossword puzzles.

Congratulations on making it to the big time again.

Comment #1: 3letterjon  on  10/31  at  09:41 AM

Remember the gasps when it turned out that Digby was a woman? It points to the general assumption back in the day that a talented, observant, acerbic writer was by default male. Things have changed, but not enough.

Comment #2: NobleExperiments  on  10/31  at  09:59 AM

What I liked best about the article was the tone. It wasn’t all “OMG Wimminz blog?!”, but simply a straight primer on what’s out there. Long needed, well done.

Comment #3: benvolio  on  10/31  at  11:19 AM

Truly amazing. I remember back when someone first turned me on to Feministing, which was the first link on a long chain of blogs that I have come to know and love.

Comment #4: morningstar  on  10/31  at  12:30 PM

On a (completely un)related note, I came across this highly disturbing Halloween story on Official Wingnot Blog.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281706/halloween-hill-ike-brannon

“A few years ago, I was a yeoman staffer for an obscure committee… When I looked at the front of the line to see what was causing the holdup, I saw an attractive young woman in a costume. Wearing costumes for Halloween was not uncommon on the Hill, especially on a day (like that one) where neither the House or the Senate was in session. What was unusual was that this woman had made the spectacularly bad decision of dressing like a prostitute — replete with too-short skirt, revealing top, ripped fishnet stockings, and very high heels.

The issue slowing the line down was that the security guards were having too good a time leering at her to let her depart after a few seconds, so they had engineered some sort of “problem” with the x-ray machine to keep her there a little longer so they could chat her up — and casually inquire which office she works at. Finally, they deigned to let her pass, and as soon as she was on her way I could hear one of the Capitol policeman whisper in his walky-talky, “Activate the Alpha-Bravo team,” which sounded pretty ominous to me. “


He later goes on to relate how he, and apparently the entire Capitol Police force, followed and stalked this woman to her office.

A conservative like him obviously blames the woman for daring to “dress slutty” for Halloween for this incident. Now maybe some, especially of the humorless man-hating feminazi bent, might have more of a problem with security guards sabotaging their own equipment so they could harass this woman more, and then call in their buddies to do more of the same, all as some right-wing congressional staffer leered at her from behind. But hey…

Comment #5: morningstar  on  10/31  at  12:35 PM

Yay she mentioned LiveJournal!!

Comment #6: pitbullgirl65  on  10/31  at  01:08 PM

word.
I’m not as great as some of the women listed, but if anyone wants to know what it’s like writing a novel from a wheelchair, feel free to read my blog…there’s plenty of political and media bitching, too.
http://erikajahneke.com
But I feel like I have to defend my generation against that thing that we “Let feminism die,” or something. The internet makes it easier, but there were feminists in the early nineties…I was inspired by Becky Bell’s attempted self-abortion, for instance.

Comment #7: chicating  on  10/31  at  02:51 PM

Maybe this seems superficial or sexist, but I was curious about the photos. I’ve been reading many of the ladies for years, and those are by far the most unflattering photos I’ve ever seen of most of them. Some of the photos verge on looking grotesque. They seem distorted, like an inappropriate lense was used or something. Maybe it was intended to be a ‘this is me, I’m a smart interesting writer, I don’t need to look cute’ sort of message, but a lot of them are of the ‘being feministically inclined doesn’t mean that I want to look ugly’ school. It’s almost like whoever was in charge of that photo shoot wanted to perpetuate (or maybe ironicise?) the humourless, unattractive stereotype about feminists.

Comment #8: clevername  on  10/31  at  03:12 PM

Heh, I like your eyeballs in that photo too!

I blog so rarely and weakly that I would never show up in any list, but I am glad that there are so many other feminist bloggers who are more prolific, talented, and willing to stick their necks out.

Comment #9: oldfeminist  on  10/31  at  03:16 PM

I think they did the classic line-em-up-and-shootem, clevername. But I hadn’t seen most of them in any case.

Comment #10: chicating  on  10/31  at  03:54 PM

I like your eyeballs as well. They have a very stare at me and be hypnotized quality.

Comment #11: siveambrai  on  10/31  at  04:24 PM

I like your eyeballs as well.

I’m not sure the dress says “hipster” though.  More, I dunno, “Amish”...

8-)

Comment #12: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/31  at  04:39 PM

Peter Pan collars are SO hip, Piator. They never go out of style, imo. And I’m the authority. raspberry

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/31  at  04:45 PM

Based on the portrait, you should start a new blog: “Trancealicious”.

BTW, what color are your eyes, Amanda?  Mine are blue-green hazel color.

If you need a less formal portrait in the future, I recommend this one.

Comment #14: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/31  at  04:47 PM

Mine are blue, a very light gray-blue. Same as my father’s, but he happens to have jet black hair. Or he did, until he went gray.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/31  at  05:12 PM

Peter Pan collars are SO hip, Piator. They never go out of style, imo. And I’m the authority. raspberry

i maintain my own opinion.

Comment #16: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  10/31  at  05:34 PM

I think Sady’s picture is the best, with the rakish hair.  Everyone else looks like they’re looking into a fish-eye lens. x-x

No, I don’t have anything useful to say about the article.

Comment #17: Crissa  on  10/31  at  06:11 PM

Gotcha

Comment #18: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/31  at  06:22 PM

Mine are blue

So were Ingrid Bergman’s…  (The picture with the article looks like her.)

Comment #19: James  on  10/31  at  07:29 PM

Not that it’s like a big deal, but this picture captures my eye color well. It’s really not a true blue. Probably explains why the B&W picture looks how it does.

Comment #20: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/31  at  10:37 PM

Now you see feminist discourse normalized in all sorts of unexpected online spaces.

The problem comes when you try to hang out in civilian spaces once your consciousness has been raised. It kind of sucks to see how backward so many people are.

Comment #21: junk science  on  10/31  at  11:01 PM

It’s almost like whoever was in charge of that photo shoot wanted to perpetuate (or maybe ironicise?) the humourless, unattractive stereotype about feminists.

I’m pretty sure they’ve been run through Photoshop, if only to run the usual ‘blur everything but the eyes’ trick that’s used on women. Which I find slightly ironic for a slideshow of feminists.

Comment #22: Jayn Newell  on  11/01  at  09:16 AM

Wait, wait!  I missed This my first time through:

... the lady-centered blogosphere ... (“lady” being the term of choice for many online writers, an ironized alternative to the earnest “woman” or problematic “girl”).

Seriously? WTF!  I consider anything termed “lady-x” to be a big fucking red flag saying it isn’t “real-x, just the lady-x”.  You don’t have to take this all THAT seriously, it’s just the ladies, etc.  Has the ladies’ auxilary stinch faded that much?  You know, the “we’ll let the ladies take part, they can make lunch and clean up and stuff” of the old male clubs.

Comment #23: helen w. h.  on  11/01  at  04:31 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.