Musings of an Inappropriate Woman

» Should feminists engage with the mainstream media? Of course they bloody well should.

But I also think it’s more helpful to think of it less as “writing about feminism” and more “speaking about the issues that matter to the people reading and applying critical frameworks to them”. And probably not calling them “critical frameworks” in your pitch, because that just alienates people.

Jessica Valenti asked the same question on her blog this morning, and thankfully came to the same answer. She writes:

Yes, it’s likely that the mainstream media will always screw feminists over.  If we’re older we’ll be called stodgy; if we’re younger we’ll be called do-me feminists or be otherwise sexified.  Our messages will be edited out, or mocked.  Only some of us will get called on to give quotes or do interviews because we’re perceived as more “mainstream friendly.”  It will continue to be an unfair system.  But we should participate in it anyway.

Valenti’s Feministing stablemate, Courtney Martin, is currently in the running to be the Next Great American Pundit, with a column at the Washington Post up for grabs. On the blog and elsewhere, she’s been promoted on the basis that “we need more feminist voices in the media”.

But I think this misses the point. I’d like Courtney Martin to have a Washington Post column not because she subscribes to a particular philosophical framework, but because she’s an exceptionally good writer and analyst, who thinks about issues in a way that most others don’t, presents her arguments in a nuanced way, and is able to capture visceral emotional truths.

Pop feminist commentary is everywhere, at least in Australia (and my impression is in large smathes of America as well) - good analysis and original thinking, not so much.

Good feminist writing in the mainstream media - and good writing of any persuasion - isn’t about pushing a particular philosophical barrow. It’s about communicating with an audience about the issues that matter in their lives in a voice they can relate to (hence the not using words like “discourse” or “framework” in one’s pitches), and applying frameworks (here we go again!) that help to illuminate their experience and understanding of the world.

ETA my response to Jessica’s post:

I’m glad the answer you came to on this one is “yes”.

While I can appreciate the frustration some feminists feel when it comes to MSM, I can’t imagine *not* engaging with it. You just need to pick your medium/s (personally, I prefer to converse with the convertible than battle it out with the completely opposed) and modulate your message so it speaks to the intended audience.

I also think it helps to think of it less as “writing about feminism” and more “applying feminist – and other personal-is-political – frameworks to issues that matter to the people you’re talking to, in a voice and language they can relate to. This is exactly what I do for women’s mags, and I’m getting plenty of work.

» Seems Crikey agrees with my Walkleys assessment

Andrew Dodd writes:

There is another bias, which might be worth thinking about.

The list of judges heavily favours the traditional media. Surely in the all-media categories there is some room for judges from outside the old radio, TV and print media?

Also chuckled at this bit:

… pretty well all the entrants are self-nominated. All the self-effacing, modest people in the media are out of contention to begin with. It’s just as well there are only about seven such people in the entire nation, and they all work in the record library at ABC Classic FM.

» Walkley list revealed - mUmBRELLA

via buyhercandy:

Annabel Crabb is nominated for Magazine Feature Writing, while Kate Geraghty is nominated for Press Photographer of the Year and is part of a group nominated for Best Online Journalism for their amazing multimedia piece on sexual warfare in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Steve Cannane is also nominated with three others for an ABC2 episode of Hack.

On a more entertaining note, check out some of the best headline nominations: “Ludwig bans vote haven”, and “Regrets? We’d had a flu”.

To be honest, I was a little underwhelmed (if not surprised) by the conservatism of their choices. Annabel Crabb’s Turnbull essay was outstanding piece of feature writing - undoubtedly one of the best of the year - but only at the greatest stretch of the imagination is Quarterly Essay a magazine (really, it’s a short-form book). Similarly, the Weekend Australian (which took out both of the other nominees in this category) and other newspaper magazine supplements very much teeter on the boundary between newspaper and magazine journalism.

I understand why the Walkleys privilege this more newsy style of journalism - there’s a lot of crap out there in magazine land - but there’s also some brilliant writing in them too. In The Monthly, most obviously, but also in Vogue, in YEN, Madison, Marie Claire and other, non-womensy publications.

I was similarly disappointed to see all the online nominees come from newspaper websites. All these stories are technically outstanding, but I think the most interesting online work is happening elsewhere: in Crikey, in New Matilda and in the blogosphere.

And again with the non-fiction book award: there seems to be a self-consciously serious, establishment sameness to them.

Perhaps it’s time to launch a new set of awards? Especially on the online front.

Disclosure: yes, I did submit work for consideration; no, I was never delusional enough to think it might win. A nomination does equal a party invite, though, and I never say no to a good party. ;)