Get the Feed
This Is What Real Journalism Looks Like
This week the National Post of Canada goes where very few media outlets have gone before: an academic conference.
Here’s the editor’s note that appears above the first report in the series:
When 5,000 academics gather this week in Saskatoon for the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, everything from the geography of shopping to gender in governing will be on the agenda. In a week-long series, the National Post explores some of the most interesting research being showcased.
Now, usually I’m not one to make generalizations about how attitudes in other countries are radically different from those in the United States. Most of those assumptions are made by either a very biased personal experience or from a very small sample of elite members of the respective societies.
But can you imagine an American newspaper — let alone an American TV news channel — making this same commitment?
Of course, this is at the core of what’s wrong with American news. When it comes to politics and culture (as opposed to scientific or medical topics), American media refuses to acknowledge that there are experts in the field that can provide research-based answers to many of our questions. Instead, we rely on “pundits” who are experts at looking good and providing the catchy soundbite.
Ironically, Zosia Bielski’s first report from the conference for the National Post — in which she reviews recent “findings” concerning the current state of feminism — shows that academics don’t always have the right answers.
East Carolina University Professor Donna Lillian’s research on the increasingly infrequent use of the word “Ms.” is fascinating and ultimately depressing — especially when it’s the younger generations who are the ones less likely to being using “Ms.”
But Jennifer Crawford — a Ph.D. student at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax — misses the mark in her criticism of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” campaign:
“Is this — this slogan on the fuchsia baby tee, or italicized in screen-print across a cute tote bag, or pinned with good intentions on to the lapel of a jacket, this shut-down of communication — is this what feminism looks like?” asks Ms. Crawford in a session called “Who Cares What a Feminist Looks Like? Inscriptions of Gender, Sexuality and Personal Politics” [...]
She admonishes the campaign for feigning accessibility with four ethnically diverse women, a clear message that “feminism is for everybody,” but launching it with freshly scrubbed Ashley Judd, the “conventionally aesthetically pleasing and feminine actress.”
Ms. Crawford also notes that all four women are “beautiful, successful, affluent and reasonably sized,” which in her mind excludes the “man-hating, hairy, angry queer,” one of the most “political and passionate demographics of the feminist community,” the “devout feminist” she insists has been discarded as a negative stereotype.
Yes, these women are celebrities — not “ordinary” people. But that’s the point. The celebrities that everyone knows — either admires or hates — also happen to be feminists.
And considering that they were going to celebrities, it’s hard to imagine four more “real” women — not all stereotypically “beautiful,” not all “reasonably-sized.” Certainly Ashley Judd can be considered an image of traditional Hollywood glamour in some of her movies and on the red carpet, but I have seen just as many pictures of her attending benefits and other socially conscious functions with short hair, a t-shirt and jeans — the uniform, I’m presuming, of Crawford’s “devout feminist.” She appears that way, in fact, on the cover of Ms.
I’m aware of the dangers of dumbing down or commercializing feminism (although these days I’m more worried about the demonization of feminism). It just isn’t happening here.
And even though I’m taking issue with this particular academic argument, I appreciate the fact that the National Post is giving me something to ponder. The news rarely does that these days.
I should note that a couple of months ago I took the National Post of Canada to task for their well-intentioned but somewhat simplistic and reductive look at the “Menaissance” — what they claimed in a series of related articles as the return of “guys being guys.”
What I should have recognized back then — and praised — was the significance of Post’s willingness to provide a broad, in-depth analysis of a complex issue. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.
Posted at 2:05 PM | Permalink | | 
Email
| 
Print
May 29, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“… that’s the point. The celebrities that everyone knows — either admires or hates — also happen to be feminists.”
If you think the Ms. Magazine campaign’s main message was that “even celebrities are feminists,” you’ve missed the point. Ms. Magazine markets the campaign at ordinary, “feminine” women. The message is more like “feminists aren’t angry lesbians.” And that waters down feminism and excludes people that don’t look like beautiful celebrities (and even with short hair, it’s dishonest to suggest Ashley Judd is not the typical Hollywood beauty).
Whenever people say: “This is what X looks like,” it necessarily alludes to what X does not look like.
May 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm
But the point of the campaign is ANYBODY can wear the t-shirt … I was at the March for Women’s Lives in D.C. in 2004 where both men and women, young and old, wore some form of the “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” shirt — in pink or black. It was an opportunity to declare one’s support for feminism — supposedly a dead or dying cause — and self-identify as a feminist, which is often used as derogatory word. I don’t see this as exclusionary in any way.
May 29, 2007 at 9:53 pm
A better question is why has feminist become a derogatory word? Mainly because anti-feminist, anti-women groups such as REAL Women do their best to make it a dirty word. That’s the point. The “This is what a feminist looks like” campaign is born out of this panic that feminism has turned into something that questions the mainstream and offends people with their own complacency. All you have to do is put on a T-shirt and — just like that! — you can be a feminist. No action or change required. And don’t worry — being a feminist won’t make people think you’re an angry, hairy, man-hater. We’re not like that.
May 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I don’t know anyone who assumes the shirt turns them into some sort of Super Feminist just by putting it on. Friends who have it are proud of their activism and are proud to announce who they are. You may think it’s not worth much, but when I see someone wearing this, I smile big.
But maybe that’s because I think most wearers have done something to deserve it.
May 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Reading “feminists aren’t angry lesbians” into a positive campaign for feminist identification is a classic case of critical misfiring. This campaign is about the types of people who can be feminists, whether they’re celebrities (marketability and recognizability, the great equalizers in a media economy) or neofeminst rockers or working-class straight men. You make two attempts to dismiss the campaign: 1) saying it’s an attempt to exclude angry lesbian feminists, and 2) saying it’s a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived loss of the term “feminist.” Both of these miss the mark by ignoring all the positive implications of a mass media campaign designed to reintroduce feminism as valid self-identification.
June 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I think this issue is complicated by various competing schools of feminist thought. Much of the apparent debate here seems to be jockeying for the superiority of one of these schools over the other.
My understanding from folks who have studied feminist thought in depth is that, at the most basic level, you’ve got two schools. Defined here I guess as “hairy, man-hating, lesbians” and “‘real’ women”. Specious as this distinction is, it does point to feminism as a means of subverting or redefining what it means to be feminine for the former, and feminism as a means of taking ownership of femininity for the latter.
The former says, in effect, “we don’t have to wear makeup and baby tees to be feminine.” The latter says, “But we CAN wear baby tees and makeup and be feminine.” Clearly Ms. is advancing the second position. This doesn’t mean, however, that they’re decrying the first position. If feminism is, at least in part, about taking ownership of the terms of one’s femininity, then these items are successful. Folks are making conscious choices about their wardrobe and self-identification(s).
Of course, the merchandise should really say, “This is one way a feminist can look”…but somehow that loses the umph.
June 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Well, I guess I just don’t get it. I naively thought that being a feminist simply meant that you believed that women were entitled to the same rights, opportunities,and responsibilities as men. What do feminists look like? They look like any man or woman who knows how to engage in critical thinking and is fair minded.
June 2, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hey there,
I’m Jen (Crawford), from the article. Some advice for everyone — if the National Post asks you to talk about feminism with them, the best answer is NO WAY!
The author managed to simplify, take out-of-context, make volatile and manipulate almost all of my points. I was MORTIFIED when I saw this article, and also that they couldn’t even be bothered to get my info right — I’m just finishing up my MA.
I’m glad it’s getting people talking and thinking about it, but I hope everyone knows that the impact and slogan of this shirt is, whether it appears to be or not, hugely complicated. And as someone who felt really worried about this campaign, my aim was to complicate what has been blanketly accepted as good.
too bad the article hugely missed the mark. now i remember why i never read the national post (and why i’ll never interview with them again)!
solidarity,
jc
June 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Mark, when I first got to your summing up of the primary feminist positions, I was skeptical, but you give a sharp articulation. You might say it’s “we don’t have to wear makeup and baby tees to be feminine” versus “We can wear makeup and baby tees and still be powerful.” I think that this tension… between alt-fem and pro-fem… is the defining character of postmodern and third-wave feminism.
What needs to happen is that both of these perspectives get their share of respect within the critical community, and that we ultimately find a way to synthesize them, or negotiate the difference between them.
I’m not sure how this point applies to the t-shirts. I just wanted to elaborate on what I think is a good insight by Mark D into postmodern feminism.
December 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm
actually, where do you find those t-shirts?
tank you
laurence