Exploitation of feminism in the media.

[MotherPeresA]

I happened upon this today:

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

I don't know if it's a valid statement or not. But, it did cause me to wonder if some elements of the media - which includes columnists and bloggers paid for their work - actively exploit feminism for 'clicks'.

Actually, I'm pretty certain they do - these are profit-making corporations, not charities. So why wouldn't they? But, in this regard, is 'no news bad news' because the message creeps into general consciousness, or does it play to the criticism of some aspects of activism being trivialised?

Additionally, how objective a witness is someone whose livelihood depends on 'advertising wrongs'?

This is partly inspired by a question some one asked me on here about a month ago. Apologies for not remembering who or where it was.

You think there's professional media feminists who don't want feminism to succeed because they'd be out of a job then? That is ... well, it is unlikely to happen so fast that the current generation of feminist bloggers and columnists couldn't just retire as there's less need for feminist media.

But I think it has been mentioned somewhere here that the LGB support groups don't have anything to do nowadays, because homosexual people are accepted by society, and that while some closed down, some went into the business of cheering on parents who transed their children, i.e. turning into lgbT support groups.

So yes, the problem apparently exists with regard to some goals that are closely related to feminism, but I don't think there's any danger of feminism itself having it anytime soon. If we manage to crush patriarchy in all EU countries (not likely to happen anytime soon), columnists and bloggers would still be able to move onto what happens in the rest of the world.

There's certainly also organisations that make a profit by selling t-shirts with "I am a feminist" or similar phrases written on them. While those are the happier the more toothless and male-appeasing "feminism" is, I am not sure they are driving that development.

Vestal You think there's professional media feminists who don't want feminism to succeed because they'd be out of a job then?

I agree: that seems very unlikely. However, the way you've phrased that implies that feminism has a single identifiable objective ('crush the patriarchy', perhaps?) and little lies beneath that. I'm not sure that that reflects the complexities of the various debates - and that's really where I'm going with my thoughts about honest witnesses and the criticisms of trivialisation.

However, the way you've phrased that implies that feminism has a single identifiable objective ('crush the patriarchy', perhaps?) and little lies beneath that.

I am a radical feminist, so it really is that easy. I want liberation, and until that is achieved, feminism will always be needed.

Liberal feminism might imagine it already achieved its goals, so that might be a bit more complex.

Regarding that quote ... interestingly, we all know that racism is still a problem today, especially in the US, and you need not have to be a professional activist to see that.

I am therefore a bit sceptical about the motivations of the person who wrote that paragraph.

All in all, it seems to me that those who want to declare that we don't need feminism anymore are exactly the same ones who make most money selling feminist t-shirts and the like. Men only tolerate, and participate in the making of feminist t-shirts when they are told that what we have today is equality and they can wear the "I am a feminist" t-shirt, too.

I thought I recognised the quote, there's an excellent take down of it here

It's used on a lot of far right blogs and websites to explain away racial bias and blame PoC for their own continued oppression. It's interesting that someone would post this on a feminist forum asking if feminist bloggers and writers are doing the same, although not unexpected.

The people who benefit most from the continued subjugation of PoC are white people, and the people who benefit most from oppressing women are men. Not bloggers or workers in either field.

Yes, I suppose that is interesting, and what you say is undoubtedly true: people are always looking for ways to delegitimise others. Aren't they xenophile.

I see this with the climate change debate. There are people that use the commercial exploitation of consumers' demand for green products to dismiss climate change itself. This is clearly false.

So, if people use this quote as you say, that has little relevance to its actual value. I certainly don't feel that it needs to be relevant to my own reflection on the issue and I'd welcome your own independent thoughts.

You have my own independent thoughts already both about both the quote; which has been taken completely out of the context it was written in by Booker T. Washington and about the use of it to, as you say, delegitimise others. The context and the common use of the quote are completely relevant to its value.

It is used by neo-nazis to delegitimise those working for race equality, and you are attempting to use it to delegitimise the work of women who both undertake consciousness raising work about feminist issues and those who use the small platforms they have carved out in order to further the work of liberating women from patriarchy.

I genuinely find it interesting that anyone would attempt to do that on a feminist board and wonder what someone would expect to achieve by doing so.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be with you or why you would assume I had somehow used other people's thoughts to formulate my post.

I'm unsure whether I should really quibble with someone who derails a thread towards Nazism in the space of two posts, but against my better judgement: no, you haven't really been clear about your personal thoughts. You posted a link to someone else's problem with the use of the quote, some of which you've regurgitated. I get it: the quote can be problematic because people use it to delegitimise oppression. I agree with you.

But, I have to say again, that doesn't invalidate the topic. Again, I agree that - in both your words and mine - this is an issue of raising consciousness. (Read my original post, I actually said that.) You seem to be suggesting exactly what I propositioned: no news is bad news. I'm not sure you're making a great case for it though.

Did you mean legitimise oppression ?

Is it a requirement that someone writing, say, an opinion piece, be an 'objective witness'?

Would you argue that a newspaper reporting about the Manchester bombing is exploiting terrorism, given that reporting big events such a this will gain them readers and therefore advertising revenue?

I might be (probably) missing what you're asking but for the above to be true, wouldn't someone actually have to be making money off of feminism?

The bloggers who follow a radical feminist approach to feminism are not as far as I can tell actually making any money off their blogging.
They're mostly trying to hide any paper trail that leads to them to avoid rape threats.

If Meghan Murphy from Feminist Current is raking it in I'd be fucking shocked. There are definitely some organisations, companies really, which are profiting off "feminism lite" but I don't think that's their main objective, it's still not that profitable (see Everyday Feminsim which is on its way out).

They seem to be using it as a mouthpiece for other (non feminist) agendas. Certainly as a sounding board for trans ideologies. Before the world accepts 'cis' or 'gender fluid' they rolled it out on feminist blogs. The fact that these companies are owned by men alerts you to their actual objective though.

There's actually a good article by Feminist Current about the commercialism behind "emowerful" words. How we get our power from lipstick etc, but again that's not the blog she making money. It's Benefit and Mac