Funny thing about reporting and editorial decisionmaking: the goal is to sell ad space. And what sells ad space? Stories about how feminism is failing women. Not so much, I think, because advertisers want to support a retrograde 50s fantasy of America, but because trying to stuff the little ladies back in the kitchen causes a sensation: the Guys Like Us, We Had It Made crowd loves to wave those stories around like a bloody shirt, saying, ah-HAH! Proof, PROOF that men are naturally meant to be on top and women were meant to serve! Whereas, the You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby crowd tends to take umbrage at the effort by the dominant culture to hold us back, and picks apart the story until it’s exposed for the crap it is.
And all the while, page views go up, newspapers fly off the shelves, people talk about the influence of your magazine, and both ad rates and ad buys go up.
Take, for instance, much of the content of the Style section in the New York Times and its support apparatus on the op-ed page, which has pushed everything from the ill-supported idea that women are “opting out” of careers early on and in droves; that pole-dancing parties are the new Tupperware parties; that Mommy is making you a slut; treat women like cyborgs while men are real people; laugh off emotional abuse as “cute”. And do we even want to start thinking about some of the stuff they run in the “Modern Love” column?
But one of the areas where this kind of thing can be rather blatant is in science and health reporting. Take, for instance, the recent scare-mongering about a study which may or may not have concluded that equality was harmful to women’s health. If that’s all you had ever heard about the issue — and it’s likely it was — you might think that the study actually had some merit. Certainly, the right-wing media seized on it, and loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh waved the bloody shirt.
Echidne, however, has heard more about the issue. Including earlier studies with better methodology that arrived at the opposite conclusion — yet somehow never got the kind of publicity that the Feminism Is Bad For You! Back To The Kitchen! study got:
Do you remember the big fuss the media made over the 1999 study by Kawachi and others which found that greater gender equality appeared to be correlated with better health for both sexes in the United States? How about the even bigger media fuss caused by the 2005 study by Chen and others which found that gender equality appeared to be correlated with better mental health for women? And surely you remember the excitement in the media last year when we all learned about the Swedish study which showed that both men and women have better health when roles are shared more equally at home?
You don’t recall? Neither do I, because there was no such fuss at all. Studies with those findings are not mentioned in the popular media at all or only fleetingly. But when a Swedish study in 2007 suggests that greater gender equality leads to less health for both sexes, what happens? You guessed it. The media is on the study right away:
Warning: feminism is bad for your health
By Roger Dobson
Published: 25 March 2007Since before Germaine Greer published The Female Eunuch in 1970, and even before Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, campaigners have fought for sexual equality, convinced it is the key to a better society. Now researchers have discovered that gender equality may make people unwell.
It is most interesting, is it not? Consider this: Hundreds of studies are published each month in the social science literature, and only a very few of these are ever publicized extensively. How do those lucky studies get picked? Some of them are obviously important in their findings, but many are selected because they might sell more newspapers or get more television watchers glued to their sets. And I’m beginning to suspect (heh) that there is an ideological point to deciding which studies are to be given more advertising. It will not be studies which suggest that feminism is a good thing.
This has two important consequences. The first one is that the general audience obtains a biased understanding of what the studies show in general. The second one is that people like me have to spend an awful lot of time criticizing and analyzing the mispopularization of studies. It doesn’t matter how well I do that, because it LOOKS like all the studies out there are proving points for the anti-feminist side. What is urgently needed is some sort of a way of getting a more representative sample of studies into the popular debate. But this is not something the anti-feminists want to do.
Sigh. I am bitter, bitter.
Things weren’t always like this. Feminism gained astonishing ground in the 70s, until Phillys Schlafly got so offended that other women might be guaranteed the kinds of advantages she enjoyed that she put a stake through the heart of the Equal Rights Amendment, which had been overwhelmingly popular. And then the backlash started, and part of that was the rise of right-wing talk radio, which tapped into the lizard brain of the country. And after a while, editors figured out that anti-feminist stories got publicity. But not *too* anti-feminist, please — the trick is to stir up controversy without being so radical that the advertisers get turned off.
Perhaps, soon, newspapers and magazines will figure out that positive stories about feminism also get talked about, also create buzz, and also can sell ad space. Some advertisers may drop out, but others will take their place.
Similar Posts:
- Kos Gets Real by Lauren June 6, 2005
- WAATFPB? by Lauren February 21, 2005
- So, What Were You Planning on Doing in the DR With That Viagra, Rush? by zuzu June 27, 2006
- “Science” Confirms: I’m Female by zuzu December 28, 2006
Oh but you know inequality is just heaven for women. Cause then we get noticed by our husbands so much that they beat us and still force us to make dinner for them and make their babies. And then we can go into the street at night to fetch baby some formula cause you ran out and your husband didn’t bother buying any on his way home from work because he doesn’t take care of the 5 kids you have, so how’s he supposed to know you need it? Then on your way home you can get raped and the offender can run off, and then nine months later the baby the rapist impregnated you with is born. And the husband blames you for it all cause you know you did wear that skirt and all, and it came just over your ankles so he had every right to take advantage of you.
It’s like saying that African Americans were better off as slaves. They wouldn’t dare post a fucking study like that, so why the fuck do they think it’s appropriate to publish this tripe they falsely call a study!? It’s completely preposterous and hateful! The only agenda behind this study was to support the right in their biased, bigoted views towards women. I would rather die than live in an unequal society.
*Sorry, I’ve been on a ranting rampage all day.
Thanks for posting on this. I’m not sure that the desire to time-warp us back to the imaginary 50s is such a small part of it, though, especially for certain advertisers. There are a whole lot of products whose sales benefit from the investment that the supposed female identity has in them – makeup and household appliances are the first to come to mind.
“Perhaps, soon, newspapers and magazines will figure out that positive stories about feminism also get talked about, also create buzz, and also can sell ad space. Some advertisers may drop out, but others will take their place. ”
Yeah, and I’m Marie of Rumania.
Insert customary “modern capitalism and feminism cannot co-exist because the former’s existence is predicated on the oppression of women” and “controversy sells paper, headlines at 11″ rants here.
I admire your optimism though.
Two points about this study. First, they make at least two statements about their conclusions being tentative and needing further research to confirm them. They are not suggesting that their results mean that women should return to the kitchen immediately and make no further trouble. Second, this sentence from the abstract:
Why isn’t the media picking up on that last part: unless men alter their behavior? Is the idea of men altering their behavior to deal with loss of privilege just too crazy a thought?
Headline that I would like to see- WARNING: Mainstream media is bad for your health, sanity and pocketbook; update at 11.
But the mainstream media is Liberal!!! Liberal I tell you!!!
Hurray for rants, lindsay!
This is just another point on the long line of argumentation that second-class citizenship is better for us women. Cleaning the house is good for your health! Abortion causes breast cancer! You won’t find love if you have a well-paying job! Sigh.
I’d like to think that the reason the other studies don’t get any press is because they aren’t really a surprise, and that the most recent study only got attention because it goes against the conventional wisdom and provides sensationalistic headlines. That’d actually indicate that basic tenants of feminism (loosely defined as parity & equality) are generally accepted now so as to be totally unsurprising (and thus unnewsworthy) when confirmed by social science
That’s what I’d like to think, anyway.
Yeah, Paralgl, I was referring to those “men won’t marry women who make more than them/it makes everyone unhappy” commentaries and studies from a while back.
And never mind those pesky statistics regarding how highly-educated women are more likely not only to get married in the first place, but also to stay. Stats are only relevant if they can be twisted to fit an agenda. There should be an opportunity cost for uppity wimmenfolk who have letters after their names and good salaries, damnit.
That should’ve been “stay married”, not just “stay”. And the last sentence isn’t supposed to be all in bold, just “should”.
Sigh. Preview is my friend.
This crap always drives me crazy. Another one that annoys me is how every time a “study” supposedly proves that women are naturally monogamus and that men are genetically predisposed to “spread their seed,” it is touted as more proof that men can’t be faithful and women don’t like sex. So ladies, remain pure and unadultered (so to speak) and don’t be mad at your man when he strays, it’s only natural.
Yet, every time there is a study (and there have been several) that suggests both genders are evolutionarily predisposed to have multiple partners, and often more so for the females, they disappear into news-oblivion-land. Why, that can’t be credible. Because obviously the gender that fires one off and can’t do it again for hours is meant to get around, but the one that has a physical trigger motivating them to continue coupling is meant to wait for the man to be ready again. Really. Isn’t it obvious? No? Maybe it’s nature’s way of punishing you for having the audacity to be born female. That’s what god would do too, you know. Now shut up and get me a beer.
Isn’t the reason Ms. magazine went adless that Gloria Steinham couldn’t convince product manufacturers that feminists, you know, buy stuff?
*snerk*
RacyT – I would love access to those studies or at least a direction like a field (medicine, biology, psychology, sociology) or journal title (JAMA etc) in which to start looking for them. Such data becomes very useful when people in my own field say stupid things.
I think the constant attack on feminism (or the more frequent pretending-like-feminism-doesn’t-matter-or-simply-doesn’t-exist) is not only an indicator of how much it’s still needed, but also an acknowledgment that it’s still working. If feminism were outdated and useless, why would the patriarchy feel the need to knock it down all the time? When the powers that be smell a threatening rebellion, they try to slander and squash as much and as quickly as possible lest the others get wind of it.
As many feminists as I know, there are so many more that need to see the light: males and females alike.
There is my first time reading this blog, but I’m quite impressed! I’ll be back!
You will love this, then.
EXACTLY!
Do you remember the big fuss the media made over the 1999 study by Kawachi and others which found that greater gender equality appeared to be correlated with better health for both sexes in the United States? How about the even bigger media fuss caused by the 2005 study by Chen and others which found that gender equality appeared to be correlated with better mental health for women? And surely you remember the excitement in the media last year when we all learned about the Swedish study which showed that both men and women have better health when roles are shared more equally at home?
You don’t recall? Neither do I, because there was no such fuss at all. Studies with those findings are not mentioned in the popular media at all or only fleetingly. But when a Swedish study in 2007 suggests that greater gender equality leads to less health for both sexes, what happens? You guessed it. The media is on the study right away:
This is why I’ve always said that, if anyone could categorically prove that union workers were less productive, we would have heard that study screamed from the rafters, 24/7, all media outlets. Hell, you just know that enterprising pro-bidness legislators nationwide would have the bill outlawing unions submitted before the ink was dryi on the study.
But they haven’t found anything remotely implying it, so nada, zip.
Dead silence. Not even a cricket chirping.
Me, I’d call into question the methodology of any study trumpted in the media that says equality is bad for us. I’d ask to see it, and go through it myself, to make sure the media didn’t cherry-pick what they wanted to see in it. I’d ask if this were a preliminary/interim interpretation of the data, and not the final analysis. I’d ask who sponsored the study.
And I’d ask all that, because there are too many people with an agenda out there, including in the media.
Has anyone conducted a study on what studies get cited in the media? I guess the results wouldn’t get any publicity, but you’d think there would be empirical data somewhere backing up the (obvously true) observation Echidne makes.
I’m not really sure what the mechanism is that makes the media have such a reactionary agenda. I guess it’s more profitable to write articles that appeal to people who think they’re smart, than to people who actually think. (ie the kind of person who’ll point at this and go YOU SEE? YOU SEE? vs the kind of person who’ll question it. There’s so many more of the former.)