COMMENTS: 44
Why Fixing the Media System Should Be on the Feminist Agenda
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
Ask a feminist to identify what the most important issues are facing women, and she might mention reproductive freedom, violence against women and children, the disproportionate burdens women bear in light of the growing gap between rich and poor in America or the many ways in which war specifically impacts women. Chances are she wouldn't immediately point to the media. But she should.
Without accurate, non-biased, diverse news coverage and challenging, creative cultural expression it is virtually impossible to significantly impact public opinion of women's and human rights issues or to create lasting social change. Indeed, corporate media are key to why our fast-moving culture is so slow to change, stereotypes are so stubborn and the power structure is so entrenched. Pop culture images help us determine what to buy, what to wear, whom to date, how we feel about our bodies, how we see ourselves and how we relate to racial, sexual, socio-economic and religious "others."
Journalism directly links and affects every individual issue on the socio-political continuum in a national debate over the pressing matters of the day, from rape to racism, hate crimes to war crimes, corporate welfare to workplace gender discrimination. By determining who has a voice in this debate and who is silenced, which issues are discussed and how they're framed, media have the power to maintain the status quo or challenge the dominant order.
And how have media used this power where women are concerned? With a vengeance.
Let's start with female politicians. Ever since the midterm Democratic upset, media have been exclaiming over Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi's new position as the first female Speaker of the House, a position which puts her only two steps away from the presidency -- but few outlets have noted that in 2006, we still lag behind many other developed countries in electing women to the highest political offices.
Ever wonder why American women are still stuck with only token representation in the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court, or why the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office was Geena Davis on a short-lived ABC drama? In part, it's because women audacious enough to seek political office are routinely dogged by double-standard-laced news coverage that focuses on their looks, fashion sense, familial relationships and other feminizing details that have nothing to do with their ability to lead -- as noted in a previous TomPaine.com commentary, "Commander In Chic."
From headlines speculating about whether or not New York Senator Hillary Clinton "had millions of dollars of work done" to make her look less "hideous" to the New York Times likening Pelosi to a nagging grandmother, this sort of coverage implies that women should be taken less seriously and are less electable than their male counterparts. (Of course, their male counterparts aren't helping to dispel such stereotypes, as when Dubya said, in his first post-election press conference, that his "first act of bipartisan outreach" he "shared with [Pelosi] the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new office.")
Even the most powerful women in America suffer this media indignity: When Condoleezza Rice wore black leather boots last year, the Washington Post described the Secretary of State as a "dominatrix"; on the day she was chosen as America's first African-American female national security adviser, a front page New York Times story reported that "her dress size is between a 6 and an 8," and she has "a girlish laugh" and "can be utterly captivating -- without ever appearing confessional or vulnerable."
Media content matters, and not just to women at the highest echelons of power. In fact, the more vulnerable women are, the more hostile media coverage becomes. Young, low-income mothers of color have been derided for decades by a bigoted and misogynistic press as "promiscuous," "lazy moochers" and "brood mares" supposedly popping out babies for welfare checks. A Newsweek editor once even insisted that "every threat to the fabric of this country from poverty to crime to homelessness is connected to out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy." The end result of this scapegoating? Punitive welfare reform that decimated the social safety net for poor women and children.
As feminists, we need to prioritize media among our top political concerns. Is sexual assault your most urgent issue? Media still imply that women "ask for it," as when a Wall Street Journal column blamed rape and murder on "moronic" women who don't have enough "common sense" to keep themselves safe. Think anti-abortion violence is a threat to women's safety and to our reproductive freedom? An American anti-abortion fanatic attempted to blow up a women's health clinic in Iowa on September 11, 2006, yet only one newspaper in the entire Nexis news database deigned to report this terrorist attack. Against the war? When three pretty, blond country singers are called "Dixie Sluts" by major magazines and TV news reports, banned from airplay by ClearChannel, Cox and Cumulus Radio and censored with radio-funded CD-stomping spectacles simply for expressing anti-war sentiment, it's a safe bet that corporate media won't be giving much press to Iraqi women who complain that their safety and autonomy are now curtailed by new Sharia laws imposed by the U.S.-approved Iraqi Constitution.
Sexist, racist media content is fruit from a poisoned tree. The demonization of women and the near invisibility of progressive feminist perspectives in American media are the result of institutional factors, including the financial and political agendas of mega-merged media monopolies; the pandering of news networks and entertainment studios to advertisers' profit motives without regard for the public's interest; the limited access of women, people of color, low income people, LGBTQ people, Native people, immigrants and other marginalized constituencies to the means of media production, distribution and technology; decades of right-wing investment in media messaging, production and advocacy; and, funding restrictions of independent media alternatives.
Also at play is the systemic underrepresentation of women and people of color in content (on op-ed pages, network newscasts, cable debate shows, as hard news reporters) and in the industry (as top-level executives, board members and owners in news and entertainment companies), as dozens of depressing studies document.
Luckily, a vibrant movement for change is gaining steam at the grassroots level, and there are plenty of ways to begin to fight for a feminist vision of media justice and reform . Here are just a few places to start:
- Pressure public officials to defend the public interest in media policy: The next Congress will likely have the opportunity to weigh in on media and communications policy issues which will reshape the ways we can make use of our first amendment freedoms for decades to come. These issues include Internet freedom, media ownership consolidation, privacy rights, copyright reform and more. Progressive media policy reform by itself won't make the media more just but it's a necessary step. Look into your local and national representatives' positions on media and telecommunications issues -- or ask them for their stance if their views aren't public knowledge -- and urge them to support media policy that prioritizes the public's interest rather than corporate profit.
- Debunk media bias, amplify public interest voices and demand accountability from corporate media: Become an engaged, critical media consumer. Women In Media & News debunks media sexism and inaccuracy through multimedia presentations on college campuses, an online alert list and a women's media monitoring group blog and conducts media skills-building workshops to give women's and progressive groups the tools they need to propel their messages onto the public stage. Groups like Youth Media Council, Third World Majority and GRIID conduct media trainings, release reports and provide organizing tools to women, people of color, youth, immigrants and other underserved populations. FAIR's Extra! magazine and CounterSpin! radio show are invaluable resources.Center for Media & Democracy and Commercial Alert can help you fight corporate and governmental propaganda in the form of video news releases (VNRs) that masquerade as independent news. Send letters to the editor, conduct your own studies and organize public protests.
- Defend the public interest in telecommunications policy: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has all but abdicated its responsibility to regulate the U.S. media industry in the public interest. Urge Congress to fight against media concentration and support legislation for diverse, local, independent and uncensored media alongside Reclaim the Media, the National Organization for Women, the Center for International Media Action, Free Press and other national and grassroots campaigns. Learn more and develop action plans at the National Conference on Media Reform
- Demand open access to existing and emerging media technologies: It is crucial that existing and emerging media communications technologies remain broadly accessible as a public good. Join the fight for Network Neutrality at SaveTheInternet.com. Stand up to internet censorship and control, protect bloggers' rights, advocate privacy protections and work to close the digital divide between wealthy, white Americans and low-income people and people of color with help from the tech-savvy Electronic Frontier Foundation, the D.C.-based Center for Digital Democracy or the grassroots United Church of Christ's Media Empowerment Project.
- Claim the cable systems and radio airwaves for your community: Challenge cable license renewals and equitable service to low-income communities with models from Reclaim the Media, and help press for better pricing and programming through the Grassroots Cable Coalition. Organizations such as Prometheus Radio, WINGS (Women's International News Gathering Service), Media Access Project, National Lawyers Guild and Community Media Services can help you set up low power microradio stations, advocate fairer radio spectrum regulations that support diversity and access and demand accountability from ClearChannel and other powerful radio conglomerates.
- Protect the future of feminist and independent media: Subscribe, donate to and give Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, Ms., World Pulse, Women's Review of Books, New Moon and Teen Voices as gifts to your friends. Support nonprofit advocacy groups like WIMN, the WAM (Women, Action & Media) project, the Women's Media Center and others working to propel women's voices onto the media mainstage. Independent news sources such as ColorLines, In These Times, The Nation, Stay Free, Clamor, Democracy Now!, Uprising Radio, WomensEnews.org and AlterNet.org are crucial to our ability to inform ourselves, educate others and effectively work for social justice. Remember, if you don't like the media, be the media!
- More tips on how you can reclaim, reframe and reform the media are available at http://www.wimnonline.org/action/ and at www.reclaimthemedia.org.
The fight for media and gender justice needs you. The right has prioritized media messaging, production, policy and ownership since the 1970s, which is in large part why the American political and media landscapes have become as problematic as they are today. If we truly care about women's rights and social justice, we cannot afford to be overwhelmed by the scope of the problems in our media system -- we must simply roll up our sleeves and begin to tackle them.
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 11, 2007 2:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what's wrong with women being feminine, and being interested in drapes, beauty, clothes, etc.? Why does the mention of things regarding their feminine side necessarily take away from who they are as politicians, country singers, or whatever?
I agree about negative comments regarding looks. It seems to be a right-wing obsession, when you consider the bashing Hillary, Chelsea, Janet Reno, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. have gotten for their looks. Not that they're ugly, or that it matters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I thought only two of them were blond.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 11, 2007 4:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And consider this: If you substitute "average workers" for "women" in this article, it still is true in almost every detail. The mainstream media are owned body and soul by the corporate establishment, which carefully doles out information according to its own political and economic interests.
More power to women -- and more power to all of us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 11, 2007 4:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: stuff
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: stuff And Don't Forget The Religious Right
Posted by: bob t
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nhs on Jan 11, 2007 5:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fear the future of MSM will be to "equalized" both genders by printing front page articles regarding how they dress and burying or ignoring anything of substance regarding their policies and how the policies affect society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: fix the media
Posted by: cricktage8
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 11, 2007 5:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wawa on Jan 11, 2007 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't luck, but perseverence and
reporting the true facts on the ground from Occupied Territory
that has caused the steam to rise on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Big Brother in the USA Military and Government are consistently in the
Top 20 of WAWA readers-
they don't talk to me, but I have a link that tells me they are visiting.
The MSM is no fan of WAWA,
for reports what the MSM has not-
and what will be a huge story in 2007:
The Verdict in the
Freedom of Speech Trial
of the Whistelblower of
Israel's WMD Program.
Catch up on the homepage of:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
-eileen fleming, eco-feminist, activist, author, reporter and editor WAWA
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 11, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either I'm being asked to take seriously a female canine's perspective on pop culture, or I'm being asked to bring myself down a crude level to consider an already-crude topic, that being pop culture, to include Britney Spears underpants, lack thereof, and etcetera. Yawn.
The article comments on how much attention is paid to how females politicians look and behave by the media, but have you seen some of the less-doctored images of John Kerry? McCain? Or the ridiculous commentary on what Bush's handlers chose for him to wear and where he chose to give his speech outlying the case for furthering our national lethal stupidity yesterday?
When and why, such as in the case of Cynthia McKinney, should the onus be on the media go out of it's way to not allow the individual to communicate their pompous, mean-spirited, and politically destructive nature and attitudes? Is it really sexist or racist if you just let the cameras roll and allow the individual implode according to his or her more candid nature? How much interference would the author of this article like to require the media to run for people by virtue of their skin pigment and/or genitalia? If a person holding political power is exposed as a complete ass, a fool, or a foolish ass, it stands to reason that that information should be in the public domain, regardless of the race or sex of the idiot.
Then again, I'm strongly in favor of equal opportunity, and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to my fellow citizens regardless of the color or sex, so I can see where I'd naturally be at odds with many of the ideas of this article.
In the quite Foxian interest of "fairness and balance", the feminist blogosphere does a great job at fighting the nasty, unfounded, ignorant, and arrogant filth out there by picking it up and tossing it right back. Anyone recall the majority of the now-discredited feminist blogs' response to the now-defunct Duke rape case?
Perhaps the article above could be best viewed as an exercise in introspection? Introspection is enlightening. and, unlike botox and polka dot ties, it always looks good on ya'.
~ABF~
Humanist At Large
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 'Humanist' perspectives are part of the problem when confronting sexism, racism, etc.
Posted by: godsbedamned
» If your point was that...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» ...oops. i think i did it again...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: If your point was that...
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» 'k. I'll give it a glance, time permitting.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CrystalD on Jan 11, 2007 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another problem progressives face is that we still hear noise from the right about the "liberal media" when in fact the corporate media is anything but.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Jan 11, 2007 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't we just witness a media frenzy over pics of Obama on the beach? Jesus Alternet, give it a rest. There's plenty of shallow, petty commentary to go around. After all, this is America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Jan 11, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aburritt on Jan 11, 2007 9:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giordano’s long article, which can be found by Googling “Al Giordano and Alternet” makes a number of serious charges against Hazen. These charges include Hazen’s theft of royalties from writers, his blacklisting of writers, his lying to Giordano when confronted about trying to sell stories written by other writers without permission, and his asking his staff to post bogus positive “reviews” of Alternet publications on Amazon.com. Now, over FOUR YEARS after Giordano published this column, Mr Hazen is still the executive director of Alternet.
According to Giordano, the only response Hazen has made to his questions and before writing the column was to lie and attack him personally, (Giordano also mentions Hazen’s brazen attack on Jeff Cohen and FAIR in what appears to be an attempt to secure more donor funding for his own operation.)
The hypocrisy of all this is amazing: Unlike the folks at Halliburton or the Bush Administration, for example, Alternet is a website which day in and day out publishes articles and opinion demanding transparency and honesty from others, whether it be the government, big business or the corporate media. And yet this very same website is being directed by someone who, according to a highly reliable veteran journalist noted for his uncompromising integrity, has violated a whole mass of basic journalistic principles and ethics and so far has gotten away with it.
Read the article by Giordano and make your own judgment. (Again, just Google “Al Giordano and Alternet.”) There is also a growing exchange of posts concerning this issue in the comments section to “Will Bush Provoke a Constitutional Crisis?” published on 1/7 here at Alternet. It begins with the post, about half way down, entitled “Hmm....Alternet not such a nice buncha kids, hmm?” which first brought this article to my attention, and then develops into an exchange mostly between staff member Joshua Holland, several supposedly posters who are supposedly unconnected with Alternet (make your own judgment about that after reading this exchange,) and myself.
After reading this material, I’d be interested in hearing from other Alternet readers how all of this sits with them. My opinion is that Mr Hazen owes readers and supporters of Alternet a detailed explanation which sticks to the facts and is not loaded down with Ad Homonym attacks on those requesting such an explanation.
If these charges are indeed true, and Don Hazen has never responded to this story to my knowledge, then I think that Don Hazen as executive director of Alternet destroys the inherent credibility of Alternet, makes a mockery of its professed political mission, and should be forced to resign sooner than later. So far as I know, there is no statute of limitations on basic journalistic integrity and ethics within any credible news organization that I’ve heard about. I’d be interested in hearing comments from others about this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 11, 2007 9:05 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more feminized the popular media has become, the more "fashion" and social norms generally have bubbled up from below; so we have gangsta/thugs and bimbo/stripper chic. Back in the dark ages, when men had some influence on all this, people aspired to the respectable classes and fashion trickled down from above. But that was "oppressive" and feminism did away with it. So now they don't like what they've helped create? Go figure. Maybe it's the characteristically female lack of vision which disqualifies them from leadership (statistically speaking, of course) in the eyes of the majority, which would be women.
The so-called indy media is little different in its incessant feminacentrism. If anything, it's worse because it does so with so much holy righteousness.
I would suggest that abstractions such as rights, freedom, justice or "the public interest", being basically male inventions, really don't register with the average female mind. Yes, truly fundamental change will be needed if you want to makeover the media.
> "...the many ways in which war specifically impacts women."
Let's see... 15% of the armed forces in Iraq are women, yet 98% of the deaths have been men. That's quite a specific impact alright. Yes, such things should be investigated and considered. Meanwhile, we have literally been bludgeoned to death with all the stories about how women suffer when their guys go off to war or get killed, or how tough it is when a mommie is shipped out and has to part with her kids.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: godsbedamned
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Object lesson: practicing psychiatry without a license or the consent of the diagnosed
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 11, 2007 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-stop buying silly beauty and gossip magazines
-stop watching stupid gossip/entertainment talk shows
-stop buying the products advertised in those magazines
-stop watching television all together (maybe for a period of time as protest.)
Its really funny to see all the hand-wringing and consernation on this issue. You women are the majority in many countries. Simply use your sheer numbers to influence the outcome. Its simple economics. The media exists to make money. If over 50% of the people stop watching and stop buying stupid products they will quickly cancel the programmes and make a good product.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: MAD
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hujo on Jan 11, 2007 11:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How we ever going to find the solutions for ending sexism when we only examine half the issue?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: H_H
» Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: hujo
» RE: Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: hujo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faultroy on Jan 11, 2007 7:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However she misses the mark by not including the feminist media as much more destructive to women's rights and interests than anything mentioned in these banal excerpts. This article is just another example of Feminism's lack of vision, leadership and honesty in dealing with issues germane to women. The real problem is not the general media's lack of proper and respectful coverage of female politicians. The real problem is the misinformation, lies, bias and bigotry inherent within Feminism as part of their political platform.
Statistics are conveniently manipulated, twisted and misrepresented. And, when the facts do not coincide with the direction the current leadership envisions, they just lie--no problem.-everyone does it right?
If one takes an unbiased view of Feminism for the past 40 years, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Feminism has destroyed the nuclear family, created latchkey kids, destroyed the financial viability of working class American women, turned women into sex focused whores, fathers into child molesters, daughters obsessed with sex and sons into date rapists.
It is no secret that lower middle and lower class women have been most negatively affected by Feminism. If Feminists have made any inroads at all, the educated Betty Friedans and Gloria Steinems have made sure that they took care of themselves--and on the backs of true hard working women everywhere. There is no Title IX in small business, in the factories or in the fields of Agriculture.
In Forty years, these self aggrandizing Feminist moral prostitutes have made sure that they and their " well educated, pampered, elite girl friends," received almost all the benefits while the less educated and financially heeled fall further and further economically behind.
If Feminism is not a totally dishonest Con, then why is it that the two industry classifications that have the highest percentage of women workers (Education and Healthcare) has the highest burgeoning costs--which inversely and adversely directly affects lower middle and low income women?
Today Feminism is just another name for self absorbed, self centered, self aggrandizing Brandeis- educated, snotty, elite, effete bitches totally focused on their own narrow issues rather than a viable social movement focused on dealing with real women and real female issues.
A perfect example of this is the recent hoopla about Harvard educated graduate degreed women deciding to get off the fast track rat race and opting instead to become stay-at-home moms. Now we may be talking about 25 people out of a total population of 300 million.. Inconsequential--but this minor story received national headlines and endless hand wringing and commentary in all the feminist elite media: for what? What about the tens of millions of women that work at low end jobs and have to take care of their children? This supercilious, air headed, mindless reporting on the part of the feminist media marginalizes so many very serious, valid and worthwhile issues germane to all women This kind of attention is indicative of the schizophrenic talk-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth manic activity so common to Feminists. And, this clearly demonstrates the huge cultural, economic and philosophical divide between rank and file women and the out-front cultural and economic cultural snobby feminist elites.
It's no wonder that so many of us have flocked to the Christian right even though many are not Christians--it is the only movement that discusses both morality and personal responsibility.
Real American Women need to turn their backs on these cultural feminist elites and embrace those concepts and movements that directly address their specific needs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hujo on Jan 12, 2007 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OOhh what other clishe feminist shaming tactics you got? Women are allowed to talk about sexism from the patrarichal media, yet men are condemed for talking about sexism from the feminist media. I have always maintianed feminists are hypocritical supremacists, it's impossable to miss it..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: typical
Posted by: hujo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 11, 2007 2:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what's wrong with women being feminine, and being interested in drapes, beauty, clothes, etc.? Why does the mention of things regarding their feminine side necessarily take away from who they are as politicians, country singers, or whatever?
I agree about negative comments regarding looks. It seems to be a right-wing obsession, when you consider the bashing Hillary, Chelsea, Janet Reno, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. have gotten for their looks. Not that they're ugly, or that it matters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I thought only two of them were blond.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 11, 2007 4:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And consider this: If you substitute "average workers" for "women" in this article, it still is true in almost every detail. The mainstream media are owned body and soul by the corporate establishment, which carefully doles out information according to its own political and economic interests.
More power to women -- and more power to all of us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 11, 2007 4:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: stuff
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: stuff And Don't Forget The Religious Right
Posted by: bob t
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nhs on Jan 11, 2007 5:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fear the future of MSM will be to "equalized" both genders by printing front page articles regarding how they dress and burying or ignoring anything of substance regarding their policies and how the policies affect society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: fix the media
Posted by: cricktage8
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 11, 2007 5:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Media reform is great for BOTH men and women, geesh !
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wawa on Jan 11, 2007 5:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't luck, but perseverence and
reporting the true facts on the ground from Occupied Territory
that has caused the steam to rise on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Big Brother in the USA Military and Government are consistently in the
Top 20 of WAWA readers-
they don't talk to me, but I have a link that tells me they are visiting.
The MSM is no fan of WAWA,
for reports what the MSM has not-
and what will be a huge story in 2007:
The Verdict in the
Freedom of Speech Trial
of the Whistelblower of
Israel's WMD Program.
Catch up on the homepage of:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
-eileen fleming, eco-feminist, activist, author, reporter and editor WAWA
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 11, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either I'm being asked to take seriously a female canine's perspective on pop culture, or I'm being asked to bring myself down a crude level to consider an already-crude topic, that being pop culture, to include Britney Spears underpants, lack thereof, and etcetera. Yawn.
The article comments on how much attention is paid to how females politicians look and behave by the media, but have you seen some of the less-doctored images of John Kerry? McCain? Or the ridiculous commentary on what Bush's handlers chose for him to wear and where he chose to give his speech outlying the case for furthering our national lethal stupidity yesterday?
When and why, such as in the case of Cynthia McKinney, should the onus be on the media go out of it's way to not allow the individual to communicate their pompous, mean-spirited, and politically destructive nature and attitudes? Is it really sexist or racist if you just let the cameras roll and allow the individual implode according to his or her more candid nature? How much interference would the author of this article like to require the media to run for people by virtue of their skin pigment and/or genitalia? If a person holding political power is exposed as a complete ass, a fool, or a foolish ass, it stands to reason that that information should be in the public domain, regardless of the race or sex of the idiot.
Then again, I'm strongly in favor of equal opportunity, and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to my fellow citizens regardless of the color or sex, so I can see where I'd naturally be at odds with many of the ideas of this article.
In the quite Foxian interest of "fairness and balance", the feminist blogosphere does a great job at fighting the nasty, unfounded, ignorant, and arrogant filth out there by picking it up and tossing it right back. Anyone recall the majority of the now-discredited feminist blogs' response to the now-defunct Duke rape case?
Perhaps the article above could be best viewed as an exercise in introspection? Introspection is enlightening. and, unlike botox and polka dot ties, it always looks good on ya'.
~ABF~
Humanist At Large
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 'Humanist' perspectives are part of the problem when confronting sexism, racism, etc.
Posted by: godsbedamned
» If your point was that...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» ...oops. i think i did it again...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: If your point was that...
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» 'k. I'll give it a glance, time permitting.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CrystalD on Jan 11, 2007 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another problem progressives face is that we still hear noise from the right about the "liberal media" when in fact the corporate media is anything but.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Jan 11, 2007 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't we just witness a media frenzy over pics of Obama on the beach? Jesus Alternet, give it a rest. There's plenty of shallow, petty commentary to go around. After all, this is America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Jan 11, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aburritt on Jan 11, 2007 9:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giordano’s long article, which can be found by Googling “Al Giordano and Alternet” makes a number of serious charges against Hazen. These charges include Hazen’s theft of royalties from writers, his blacklisting of writers, his lying to Giordano when confronted about trying to sell stories written by other writers without permission, and his asking his staff to post bogus positive “reviews” of Alternet publications on Amazon.com. Now, over FOUR YEARS after Giordano published this column, Mr Hazen is still the executive director of Alternet.
According to Giordano, the only response Hazen has made to his questions and before writing the column was to lie and attack him personally, (Giordano also mentions Hazen’s brazen attack on Jeff Cohen and FAIR in what appears to be an attempt to secure more donor funding for his own operation.)
The hypocrisy of all this is amazing: Unlike the folks at Halliburton or the Bush Administration, for example, Alternet is a website which day in and day out publishes articles and opinion demanding transparency and honesty from others, whether it be the government, big business or the corporate media. And yet this very same website is being directed by someone who, according to a highly reliable veteran journalist noted for his uncompromising integrity, has violated a whole mass of basic journalistic principles and ethics and so far has gotten away with it.
Read the article by Giordano and make your own judgment. (Again, just Google “Al Giordano and Alternet.”) There is also a growing exchange of posts concerning this issue in the comments section to “Will Bush Provoke a Constitutional Crisis?” published on 1/7 here at Alternet. It begins with the post, about half way down, entitled “Hmm....Alternet not such a nice buncha kids, hmm?” which first brought this article to my attention, and then develops into an exchange mostly between staff member Joshua Holland, several supposedly posters who are supposedly unconnected with Alternet (make your own judgment about that after reading this exchange,) and myself.
After reading this material, I’d be interested in hearing from other Alternet readers how all of this sits with them. My opinion is that Mr Hazen owes readers and supporters of Alternet a detailed explanation which sticks to the facts and is not loaded down with Ad Homonym attacks on those requesting such an explanation.
If these charges are indeed true, and Don Hazen has never responded to this story to my knowledge, then I think that Don Hazen as executive director of Alternet destroys the inherent credibility of Alternet, makes a mockery of its professed political mission, and should be forced to resign sooner than later. So far as I know, there is no statute of limitations on basic journalistic integrity and ethics within any credible news organization that I’ve heard about. I’d be interested in hearing comments from others about this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 11, 2007 9:05 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more feminized the popular media has become, the more "fashion" and social norms generally have bubbled up from below; so we have gangsta/thugs and bimbo/stripper chic. Back in the dark ages, when men had some influence on all this, people aspired to the respectable classes and fashion trickled down from above. But that was "oppressive" and feminism did away with it. So now they don't like what they've helped create? Go figure. Maybe it's the characteristically female lack of vision which disqualifies them from leadership (statistically speaking, of course) in the eyes of the majority, which would be women.
The so-called indy media is little different in its incessant feminacentrism. If anything, it's worse because it does so with so much holy righteousness.
I would suggest that abstractions such as rights, freedom, justice or "the public interest", being basically male inventions, really don't register with the average female mind. Yes, truly fundamental change will be needed if you want to makeover the media.
> "...the many ways in which war specifically impacts women."
Let's see... 15% of the armed forces in Iraq are women, yet 98% of the deaths have been men. That's quite a specific impact alright. Yes, such things should be investigated and considered. Meanwhile, we have literally been bludgeoned to death with all the stories about how women suffer when their guys go off to war or get killed, or how tough it is when a mommie is shipped out and has to part with her kids.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: godsbedamned
» RE: Wow... you sure hate women, don't you?
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Object lesson: practicing psychiatry without a license or the consent of the diagnosed
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 11, 2007 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-stop buying silly beauty and gossip magazines
-stop watching stupid gossip/entertainment talk shows
-stop buying the products advertised in those magazines
-stop watching television all together (maybe for a period of time as protest.)
Its really funny to see all the hand-wringing and consernation on this issue. You women are the majority in many countries. Simply use your sheer numbers to influence the outcome. Its simple economics. The media exists to make money. If over 50% of the people stop watching and stop buying stupid products they will quickly cancel the programmes and make a good product.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: MAD
» RE: Women are the majority
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hujo on Jan 11, 2007 11:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How we ever going to find the solutions for ending sexism when we only examine half the issue?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: jenny_dreadful
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: H_H
» Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: hujo
» RE: Laughable. Pot, kettle, black. (n/t)
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Making human issues into womens issues is stagnation.
Posted by: hujo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faultroy on Jan 11, 2007 7:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However she misses the mark by not including the feminist media as much more destructive to women's rights and interests than anything mentioned in these banal excerpts. This article is just another example of Feminism's lack of vision, leadership and honesty in dealing with issues germane to women. The real problem is not the general media's lack of proper and respectful coverage of female politicians. The real problem is the misinformation, lies, bias and bigotry inherent within Feminism as part of their political platform.
Statistics are conveniently manipulated, twisted and misrepresented. And, when the facts do not coincide with the direction the current leadership envisions, they just lie--no problem.-everyone does it right?
If one takes an unbiased view of Feminism for the past 40 years, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Feminism has destroyed the nuclear family, created latchkey kids, destroyed the financial viability of working class American women, turned women into sex focused whores, fathers into child molesters, daughters obsessed with sex and sons into date rapists.
It is no secret that lower middle and lower class women have been most negatively affected by Feminism. If Feminists have made any inroads at all, the educated Betty Friedans and Gloria Steinems have made sure that they took care of themselves--and on the backs of true hard working women everywhere. There is no Title IX in small business, in the factories or in the fields of Agriculture.
In Forty years, these self aggrandizing Feminist moral prostitutes have made sure that they and their " well educated, pampered, elite girl friends," received almost all the benefits while the less educated and financially heeled fall further and further economically behind.
If Feminism is not a totally dishonest Con, then why is it that the two industry classifications that have the highest percentage of women workers (Education and Healthcare) has the highest burgeoning costs--which inversely and adversely directly affects lower middle and low income women?
Today Feminism is just another name for self absorbed, self centered, self aggrandizing Brandeis- educated, snotty, elite, effete bitches totally focused on their own narrow issues rather than a viable social movement focused on dealing with real women and real female issues.
A perfect example of this is the recent hoopla about Harvard educated graduate degreed women deciding to get off the fast track rat race and opting instead to become stay-at-home moms. Now we may be talking about 25 people out of a total population of 300 million.. Inconsequential--but this minor story received national headlines and endless hand wringing and commentary in all the feminist elite media: for what? What about the tens of millions of women that work at low end jobs and have to take care of their children? This supercilious, air headed, mindless reporting on the part of the feminist media marginalizes so many very serious, valid and worthwhile issues germane to all women This kind of attention is indicative of the schizophrenic talk-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth manic activity so common to Feminists. And, this clearly demonstrates the huge cultural, economic and philosophical divide between rank and file women and the out-front cultural and economic cultural snobby feminist elites.
It's no wonder that so many of us have flocked to the Christian right even though many are not Christians--it is the only movement that discusses both morality and personal responsibility.
Real American Women need to turn their backs on these cultural feminist elites and embrace those concepts and movements that directly address their specific needs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hujo on Jan 12, 2007 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OOhh what other clishe feminist shaming tactics you got? Women are allowed to talk about sexism from the patrarichal media, yet men are condemed for talking about sexism from the feminist media. I have always maintianed feminists are hypocritical supremacists, it's impossable to miss it..
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: typical
Posted by: hujo
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




