But the history of the women’s page shows us that women-only sections are all too often the only places, as Voss says, where women don’t run into the same sexist coverage. Writing on women in mainstream news today often repeats the same tropes feminists have been fighting since they first complained about being sidelined onto the women’s page. Women like the New Inquiry’s Rachel Rosenfelt have their clothing discussed alongside their magazine; even Hillary Clinton is not immune from mention of her “pale pink lipstick.” During the 2012 election cycle, male politicians seemed to be unable to stop saying horrific things about women and rape—Voss notes that we’re hardly in a “post-feminist” era, and there’s still a need for a place for women talking to women about the issues that matter to them—particularly when those issues are treated as trivial, still, by the male-dominated media.
“We tell journalism students that [style] is not real news. It’s quite a gendered message that the things women care about are still not as important,” Voss says, pointing out that even “soft” subjects that are supposed to matter to men, like sports, are not considered frivolous the way “fashion and style” are. The women’s page was in a way analogous to the sports section, she notes—but the discussion of Bhaskar Sunkara of Jacobin’s desire, as a child, to play professional basketball is not seen as demeaning to him, while comments on Rosenfelt’s miniskirt seem to undermine her professionalism.
We still seem to have trouble resolving the conflict from the 1970s. Feminists continue to rightly complain of being pushed out of the more “serious” sections and worry that being discussed alongside the day’s fashions leads to more focus on their clothes and makeup than their ideas, and stories on “women’s issues” that hit the front pages are often still written by men. Is it any wonder that women’s magazines and websites still appeal? They provide space for women to talk to each other, since we’re still too often left out of the conversation in front of male audiences.
Until women’s news (and women reporters) are given equal footing in all the sections, we’re going to keep seeing the dilemma of one style editor, who complained to Mills that women would ask her to cover news stories in her section. “[I]t belongs in the front section or the city section, not my section. I have my own mission. Should I turn my section back into a ghetto of women’s news?”
This is a great piece, and true of the UK too - I remember first reading about The Vagenda blog when the founders were profiled in the Style section of the Sunday Times...
#1 Posted by Debbi Evans, CJR on Wed 20 Feb 2013 at 10:26 AM
Why is this article broken up into three separate screens? In a print newspaper or journal itr would be together as one.
Women helped to build their print journalism ghetto by cooperating with the powers that be.
#2 Posted by Lewis B. Sckolnick, CJR on Fri 22 Feb 2013 at 12:00 PM
This doesn't go nearly far enough towards answering the questions raised by the first three paragraphs. It really doesn't answer them at all. The implication here is that "style" sections are more or less "women's pages," albeit without the feminist-y consciousness-raising stuff that marked some of the more interesting ones in the 60s and 70s. But the author is speaking about them as if they're a thing of the recent past. Those two NYT profiles that received such incongruous treatment -- and I do think it was incongruous rather than disparate -- were last year. I don't see how anyone can explain why they ran in the sections they did without talking to the editors who put them there. They're contemporary figures, how about asking them? I also think it's misguided to say that "women-only sections are all too often the only places . . . where women don’t run into the same sexist coverage." As a woman who generally does not read the "style" section (which is far too short on actual style and far too much about very middle class trends) and who does not read blogs like Jezebel or the Hairpin (which likewise seem fixated on things stereotypically of interest to extremely conventional, middle class women), I think it's laughable to suggest that a heap of articles about what women politicians are wearing, what beauty products sent out press releases this week, and what the latest breeder trend is (a new kind of baby shower? ooh, do tell!) are somehow not sexist. Even when they cover things that aren't inherently sexist, e.g., the editor of a new literary journal, who happens to be a young woman, the pieces very often take a sexist angle (oh look, she dresses well, it's adorable!). How can we address any of these questions without looking at the values of the people who are actually writing and editing the stuff right now? This little history lesson was interesting in its own way but it certainly does not explain the present.
#3 Posted by Anonnie Muss, CJR on Tue 26 Feb 2013 at 01:03 PM
How funny. I was just telling someone yesterday that when I was growing up in DC, what we now know as the Style section was known as For and About Women. I guess nothing has changed except the name.
#4 Posted by Jane, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 07:05 PM