Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Do We Still Need Feminist Media?

By L.S. Kim, Ms. Magazine. Posted November 9, 2007.


Despite women's advancements, in some areas of news journalism they continue to lag way behind.
Advertisement

Thirty-five years ago, as the second wave of the 20th-century U.S. feminist movement burst into action, women were all but shut out of newsrooms, press clubs, editorial boards and broadcasting booths. Women did the research; men got the bylines. Feminists were determined to be included, and to change the media. They wanted to counter and correct the mainstream news -- and start their own press(es).

Today, women are writers, producers, anchors, editors and publishers at every important newspaper, news magazine, television network, and local TV and radio station. So in an era in which women seem to have integrated into the mainstream, do we still need feminist media?

More than ever.

Feminist media remains an instigator and a feeder of content, as well as providing a gender lens through which to view the news. And it's had quite an impact: As Patricia Bradley points out in her book Mass Media and the Shaping of American Feminism, 1963-1975, subjects like domestic violence, sexual harassment and equal pay eventually became issues accepted in the broad society without a specific feminist framing.

As feminist media has affected the larger news media from without, feminism has equally affected the media from within. One of the key tenets in the founding document of the National Organization for Women (NOW) was to protest and contest the false images of women in the mass media, but that was merely the first step. The feminist movement as a whole called for inclusion in the institutions of power, including the media: There were numerous lawsuits, sit-ins and other protests to end blatant sex discrimination and sexist programming, improve coverage of significant women's issues and boost the numbers of women delivering news.

In the 1960s, only a handful of pioneers held network TV reporting jobs, but with the prodding of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s women such as Barbara Walters, Judy Woodruff, Connie Chung, Carole Simpson, Diane Sawyer, Jessica Savitch and Jane Pauley rose to national prominence. Too often, though, the typical hierarchy of the broadcast was that a "serious" older white man served as the primary news anchor, while a "perky" younger woman anchor read script and offered a smile.

Over the past 10 years we have seen more women journalists than ever on the national airwaves, but they are still evaluated as visual objects in ways that men are not. Thus, the mere presence of women doesn't solve the problem of gender bias when it comes to who is most capable of possessing and delivering information and ideas. That's why what goes on behind the camera has been crucial in advancing women's causes and perspectives.

As Carole Simpson, a trailblazing African American woman who was ABC's former weekend anchor for World News Tonight, explains, the news of old was solely decided by men -- "And they were usually white, middle-aged and upper-middle-class. The news they presented was not in the public interest, but in white men's interest.'"

Nonetheless, women in the news media have sometimes been instrumental in obtaining coverage of issues. For example, it wasn't accidental that Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas appeared for hours on national television, and the term "sexual harassment" came to permeate public discourse -- it was women reporters that made it happen. Then again, the Anita Hill story had sexual content. Would it have gotten the same coverage and ignited the same water-cooler conversation if Hill had instead complained that Clarence Thomas paid her less than male employees?

Despite women's advancements, in some areas of news journalism they continue to lag way behind. Women are still rarely asked to comment as experts on serious events, trends or policies: They comprise less than one in four newspaper opinion writers. In radio, women program less than 11 percent of all stations, and just four of Radio Ink magazine's 40 "Most Powerful People in Radio" are women. Even in the more liberated blogosphere, only a handful of Technorati's 100 most-visited blogs include women writers, among them the Huffington Post and Gawker. But a recent study found that women now make up half of all bloggers, and breaking into the top echelons are feminist blogs such as Feministing, Echidne of the Snakes and blac(k)ademic.

We're in the midst of a digital revolution, which is changing everyone's thinking about the news and its delivery. Will there be more and more room for other voices -- those of women, people of color -- in the new environment that is arising?

In any case, there is no reason for us to be satisfied with a nonthreatening, depoliticized feminism proffered by the mass media. Yes, mass media can bring about progress and social change -- but not without feminist and other alternative media pushing and guiding.

The full text of this article appears in the Fall issue of Ms., in which the magazine celebrates its 35th anniversary. The issue is now available on newsstands and by subscription from www.msmagazine.com.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: byline gap, workplace equality, gender, women, media, journalism

L.S. Kim is an assistant professor of film and digital media at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She is the author of the forthcoming Maid for Television: Race, Class and Gender on the Small Screen.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We need both.
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 9, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we still need feminist media, but I wish it were a little more compelling. Too often, I put down Ms. because the writer has lost me. There are women out there who NEED to hear that someone notices when the only sex education is "just say no," and birth control becomes so expensive that it's tempting to skip it. We need to counter that sick religious message that women are just God's (and men's) vessels and that day care is evil. We need to hear that our looks are not our most important credential and to question why we pay so much to alter them.

And in the mainstream media, we need to support women who tease out the stories that matter to us. Carole Simpson has been incredibly stalwart in reminding those privileged white men that their views are not fair and balanced. I launched a mini-crusade to get CBS to look at PBS's Gwen Ifill when Dan Rather was forced out, but Leslie Moonves obviously had a thing for Katie Couric, and look where that has left us. I still say that PBS has the best women—Ifill, Margaret Warner, Judy Woodruff, J. Dentzer. As for cable, we need more Christiane Amanpour and less Ann Coulter, and we should tell the cable networks so.

In print, I have my hero(ine)s. Jane Mayer, Naomi Klein, Noomi Wolfe, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and, sometimes, Maureen Dowd, but basically, we're looking at a comfy white guy world. In my version of The Rapture, women will rise up against this patriarchy, but until then, there's work to be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We need both. Posted by: Urgelt
» RE: We need both. Posted by: Plamya
» Yo, got a question Posted by: Q30
» RE: Yo, got a question Posted by: fork
» RE: Yo, got a question Posted by: Q30
» RE: Yo, got a question Posted by: fork
» RE: Yo, got a question Posted by: scheherezade
Some voices are not heard
Posted by: ninakat on Nov 10, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heartily agree with Professor Kim's thoughtful call to arms. It seems that feminists are so seldom heard in connection with mainstream media outlets, unless they're thrown on some show in order to be chastised or humiliated by someone right wing (Keith Olbermann is a consistent and wonderful exception).

This upcoming election will certainly be a difficult and troubling one for women (and men) who are self-aknowledged feminists (and those who are not). Many people seem to immediately assume that Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and many people may vote for her--because she's well known and a woman. But sometimes women have to waver in their support of a candidate--especially one who is undeniably pro-war and waffles on issues of reproductive rights and Roe V. Wade. Take one look at the NARAL site, and see who's leading, and then take another look at their "statements." Automatically assuming that Hillary Clinton is the best "feminist" candidate is like automatically assuming that Condaleezza Rice is working hard for black women everywhere.

Anyway, there are many smart feminists out there who have important ideas for change, and if there are not outlets for those voices to be heard, we have to try to make our own. Not an easy task!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's just prejudice, folks!
Posted by: luzmejor on Nov 10, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we worry so much about prejudice against women and children? It's because that prejudice is exactly like the esteem that slaveowners of the past displayed toward their slaves.

If a man's own family is considered merely his chattel, then nobody will treat them like the humans they are.

Sexism is an evil to be targeted with even more energy than we give to the vicious capital crimes that result on a daily basis from that horrible prejudice.

It's time to get really uppity and mean it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually it's only laziness.. Posted by: messedup
Words gained from long, hard, stubborn experience
Posted by: anothername on Nov 19, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminists have accomplished good things over the years. I consider myself to be a feminist. However, I do not read feminist media any more.

I grew tired of reading bland feature pieces about women in business that were nothing more than free advertising. The horrors of rape are similar regardless of the country in which or the war during which they take place. I do not need personal stories in every single article; I need information that will help me contribute a solution to stopping rape everywhere, not just in the current crisis zone. Cries for more education and more non-traditional jobs for women are a mockery when data from recent years show that segregation of jobs continues as women move into formerly male-dominated industries. I worry that in another ten years the now women-dominated educated fields will have fallen behind the income of the new male-dominated jobs. The feminist media just praises how many women are moving into the jobs.

We measure success in terms of the number of businesses women start, but we pay no attention to whether sales revenue grows at the same pace to sustain all those new businesses, let alone create new jobs. We measure success in the number of women who receive university degrees, and advanced degrees, but do not place the cost of obtaining those degrees with the income of the jobs that they want to take.

We obsess over the uneducated, poor, and pregnant young women and don’t understand that some poor women are well educated and not all are pregnant. We fret about the older women who don’t know about pensions or who are living on reduced Social Security benefits but must manage resources, however large, now that they are widow. Yet, we ignore the women of middle age who stand up repeatedly and yell that they are sinking into poverty because the jobs they need to pay expenses while allowing time to nurture are impossible to find.

We claim we must talk about children’s health issues and child care because women are still the primary care givers, but children are not women. A woman having the option to incorporate children into her life is a women’s issue, but the actual care of the child is not about women.

I see signs everywhere that the old girls’ network of non-profit social service agencies, humanitarian volunteer work, and even the philanthropic contributions of wealthier and well-compensated professional women still exists. For all the calls I hear women make to have women mentor other women in business and in politics, I do not see it happening. I do not see women investing in other women’s businesses or understanding how to form partnerships to grow wealth. I see non-profit organization after non-profit organization, beloved by political offices and governmental agencies, totally ignore the commercial efforts of women who want to grow wealth instead of merely struggle by in a non-profit. There are roles for both the private business and the non-profit in the promotion of women’s equality, but women still do not understand this, let alone understand how to make use of the differences.

I have started describing the need for women-owned for-profit media by saying I want to be more like Oprah than like Women’s e-News. In other words, I want to have a business that brings in a profit that I can use to start other businesses and to influence decisions and behavior. Women’s e-News, as a non-profit, is at the mercy of its larger funding organizations. It must cover the limited topics for which those funding organizations emphasize education, which limits its growth.

This is a long-winded comment, but the short message is that feminist media is not covering the stories that are facing women today. They are covering the stories that faced women 30 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mister
Posted by: Spock on Nov 19, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a reality check, consider what would happen to "feminism" were the world to wake up tomorrow, to learn that no more fossil fuel energy exists - back, in other words, to the time of power derived mostly from muscle. Go further; imagine a world wherein some malady had destroyed all white male intellect and character; or just all white male contribution to society. The white guy just dropped out. Mightn't you realize that the world wherein you are empowered as you are now wouldn't be possible had it not have been for the male having overcome the jungle and wilderness with his blood, muscle, and brains? Think about it: when, for instance, the effeminized society's assault on the education of male children and boys themselves, what will it mean for the society and nation? "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" may represent something short of reality, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mister Posted by: skybluesky
Got a question...
Posted by: Q30 on Nov 19, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since we're all so good at spotting "sexism" in the media, isn't it sexist to not call Hillary Clinton a coward for failing to serve in Vietnam?

She legally avoided the draft, but so did Bill and that didn't stop him from being assailed as a coward and draft-dodger. We take delight in pointing-out taht GW was in a National Guard unit at the time and that VP Cheney was in grad school. So why does Hillary get a free pass on this issue? Is it because of her sex? If so, I demand equal treatment for Hillary!

Let's all call Hillary a coward for failing to serve in 'Nam! It's equality, folks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Got a question... Posted by: Richard House
» False logic Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: False logic Posted by: Q30
Feminism hits a new low!
Posted by: Ambrose Pare on Nov 19, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now you’re all complaining that not enough women are in broadcasting. When will it end with you crazy broads?!

Go use your super women powers for a worthwhile cause, like maybe stopping your president from murdering millions of innocent civilians?

Feminists are idiots, why do you retards waste your time on trivial matters when such horrid injustice is rampant through the country and world?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women must effect change from within
Posted by: scheherezade on Nov 19, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
messed up wrote: Can't say it's a bad gig ever needing a woman for anything besides sex.

Instead of bemoaning such male 'attitudes,' at some point, feminism must accept the biological facts of life:

1. This is what a man is.

2. Very often, male needs run exactly counter to female needs.

Focusing on 'critiquing' male behavior and 'patriarchal systems,' accomplishes little in the way of change. Men have not changed in 40,000+ years because they have not had to.

As history and anthropology affirm, males are adept at forming teams, or armies, and using violence to obtain power. They use that power to dominate women. And historically, women allow it, enable it, and encourage it.

Until feminism comes up with an organizational strategy to counter those tendancies, gender equality, with respect to power accumulation and use, will never happen.

Men are what they are: like it or not, self-absorbed focus on personal gratification is a genetic trait that favors passing genes on through as many offspring as possible (not counting gays -- nature's nasty little joke on women). How women cope with raising and protecting those children is not his problem, and as domestic practices throughout history show, never has been without strong social constraints.

Males have certainly never tried to disguise that nature -- generations of popular music affirms and celebrates it. Patriarchal religion maximizes male advantage to the detriment of women and children.

But feminism continues seeking ways to 'change' biology -- when we should be focusing on changing our own political and economic organizational habits.

Nobody obtains respect by asking for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 'nother question... Posted by: Q30
» RE: 'nother question... Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: 'nother question... Posted by: scheherezade
» The jokes on you Posted by: Ambrose Pare
» RE: The jokes on you Posted by: masterjc
» RE: The jokes on you Posted by: skybluesky
Yup
Posted by: talkville on Nov 21, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need media. We need feminists. We need feminist media. In depth, not necessarily in extension. Desperately!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Duh!
Posted by: LimeyPhish on Nov 22, 2007 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the question even has to be asked answers the question...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]