Women's Media Center boasts it is "Making the female half of the world visible and powerful in the media" but you can't really tell that to read their non-stop attacks on Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate on the GOP ticket. In fact, there has been nothing powerful or empowering about their attacks on Palin -- some of those attacks have even utilized sexism.
Ironically, they brag about their "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It" campaign which insists that sexism is "pervasive" (we agree) and that it "isn't a partisan issue." But haven't they made it a partisan issue by refusing to take on the non-stop sexism aimed at Palin? Not only have they contributed to it, they've refused to call it out.
Palin follows Geraldine Ferraro as a woman nominated by one of the country's two major parties to be vice president (no major party has yet to nominate a woman at the top of the ticket). Ferraro was nominated in 1984 and has been surprisingly non-judgmental of Palin -- if you accept WMC as the norm.
Gloria Steinem declares Sarah Palin "unqualified" but fails to make the case for that judgment (doesn't attempt it and fail, just refuses to even try). Palin's a governor. That's the end of the argument. She is the highest representative of Alaska. Not their senators, not their one House Rep. It's Palin. And she is among the many women governors in the US. Declaring a female governor unqualified hurts all the women. The governors hurt by that nonsense include (but are not limited to) Ruth Ann Minner, Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco and Christine Gregoire. Life goes far beyond 2008, forget the fear tactics, and another woman will run for president on the Democratic ticket. No woman identifying as a feminist has a right to make that candidate's job harder; however, insisting that a sitting governor isn't 'qualified' does just that.
WMC claims, "Every day when women turn on the news, open the paper, or log on to the Internet, they see a world that, as shaped by the media, is missing something. What's missing are the women: women reporters, women's voices, and women stories. From the reporter's desk to the executive suite, men are overwhelmingly the ones making the decision about what we see in the media." We don't dispute that claim. We do know that their actions regarding Sarah Palin do not attest to their own belief in that claim.
Sarah Palin is a woman. She has identified as a feminist.
Palin does not support abortion -- under any circumstances. We have argued here many times that maybe feminism needs to stop be so encompassing and have postulated that a woman who does not support the right for women to make their own choices shouldn't be considered a feminist. (Or a man, for that matter.) But we've been alone in that. WMC hasn't ever floated that. Having failed to do so, they have no right to question or ignore Palin's self-identification as a feminist.
You can't make the rules up as you go along.
WMC also asserts, "When we see a problem, we speak up -- behind the scenes, through our contacts within the industry, or through campaigns that hold the media publicly accountable." Are they blind? While trashing Palin, they said nothing about PBS' sorry coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions. Three men were allowed to be commentators (Mark Shield, David Brooks and Jim Lehren) and three men were allowed to be 'presidential historians'. Where were the women? And where was the WMC?
If holding the media accountable is a goal, it's not just the MSM that's failing. It was, after all, The Nation magazine that published 491 male bylines in 2007 and only 149. WMC either stands up for women or it doesn't.
Last week, they felt the need to link to the news of Amy Goodman's arrest. While Palin should be covered, the only reason Goodman should be would be to call her out. She chose to publish in H**stler magazine this decade. She chose to turn an hour of programming over to Larry F**nt. There is nothing feminist about Amy Goodman and she should be on her own. (It also bears noting that following the 2006 mid-term elections, she brought on a variety of guests to discuss various voting segments but ignored the largest segment of all -- women voters. Women are repeatedly ignored on her program. There's no need to promote her.)
There is much for anyone on the left to disagree with in Palin's record. Sexist attacks, attacks that harm all women, are not doing anyone any good. And while we would gladly support a dialogue on narrowing the definition of feminism to disallow those who do not support abortion for others (regardless of their opinion of what they themselves would do), WMC hasn't advanced or even addressed that topic. Having failed to do so, they can't after-the-fact start drawing that line in the sand to call out Palin.
Women's Media Center is something we support in terms of its mission statement; however, there is no denying that the mission statement failed in execution last week.
Another failure they might want to consider is their total black-out on Cynthia McKinney. She is a presidential candidate and her running mate (Rosa Clemente) is a woman. For some strange reason, WMC can't cover their run.
It's not only puzzling, it reenforces the false stereotype that feminists are all White and only interested in White women. That destructive stereotype did not come along this year. It's been around forever and WMC can count it as a real failure that they have added fuel to the fire by refusing to cover McKinney's campaign.
When McKinney was in Congress, Feminist Majority Foundation's Feminist Wire could note her (she's had nine items counting the last one in July noting she was the presidential nominee). They don't rush to cover her now. Neither does the WMC.
Does the WMC exist as a Democratic Party organ? If so, they need to change their name to Democratic Women's Media Center. If not, they need to lose the 'tude with regards to Palin and they need to start covering Cynthia McKinney's run.
By refusing to do either, they are alienating many women and, allegedly, WMC wants a large women base of readers. You'll have a hard time building such a base by ignoring women to root for one man. You'll have an even harder time of doing so if you're seen as an outlet that disrespects women by refusing to enlarge the discussion out of fear that it might hurt Barack's campaign. When you're seen as a gatekeeper, you lose readers.