How do we judge the success of feminist groups? This is a tough question because we all have our own standards of what we want them to be. For example, take The Women’s Media Center. This is a group founded in 2005 by such feminist stalwarts as Gloria Steinum and Robin Morgan along with Jane Fonda (I’m not sure about her feminist credentials) for the express purpose of making women more visible and powerful in the media.
According to their mission statement, the group “launches media advocacy campaigns, monitors media for sexism, creates original content as features and blogs on its website, trains women and girls in media skills, and promotes media-experienced women experts.” They certainly do all that but I have to question how large an impact they’re having. For example, their blogs do not seem to be as well read as the articles on Feministing or the Ms. Magazine blog. I’m not certain if this is because their readership is limited or if it is just that their blogs are kind of dull (sorry!).
Then there is their Progressive Women’s voices training program. This is an annual program in which trainees receive comprehensive training and tools to position themselves as media spokespersons in their fields. Women from around the country apply for the program and then 20 are chosen to attend. After the training, graduates are promoted through WMC SheSource — a “brain trust” of top women experts used by media outlets worldwide. The whole point is to provide the media with female voices that can be cited as experts.
This sounds like an excellent idea yet, once again, I question the breadth of impact. For one thing, most of them hail from the East Coast. Out of the 20 women comprising the Class of 2013, 16 were from the east coast. Three others were from California, leaving only one woman not from either coast. Are you telling me that they could not find more than one woman from the vast majority of the country? This seems unlikely. It also undercuts the point of developing local experts. How can we reasonably expect women to make a difference in all parts of the United States when almost all of the leadership is concentrated in only one or two areas?
Another problem is it seems that most of the women who are selected for the program are already experts in their area and well-known in their fields. For example, the Class of 2013 includes an internationally recognized Consultant and former FBI Executive, a 2013 Fulbright Fellow, a senior editor at TheNation.com, the Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates, and the founder Sylvia Global Media Network. These are indeed impressive credentials, but wouldn’t you think that these women would (a) already have solid media skills and (b) be sought out as experts even without the additional training? In other words, it appears as though the training program is teaching women who probably don’t even need it.
The rationale of WMC about holding training in New York City and not paying for trainees travel costs is part of the problem. I certainly can appreciate the difficulties of funding the program but it seems like there could be another answer. My idea (and one I suggested to them) is that it might be more cost-effective and provide a wider impact if they could bring training to other places, specifically areas that don’t have a thriving feminist community. Instead of focusing only on a few unique individuals, why not offer a larger, more general type of training for local women?
This would serve several purposes. First, it would provide some truly local experts upon which the media could draw. Second, it would give more women a chance to get trained and work within a feminist context. Third, it would give the WMC blog a much needed shot in the arm by putting forward local viewpoints and more relatable content. Readership might even increase! Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it could give local women a chance to meet and connect with one another. This could have the biggest ripple effect of all. Women who live close to one another could meet regularly and start local affiliates. They could organize local sit-ins, boycotts, and influence local events and politics. They could provide support – social, emotional and financial – to one another. In this way, the effect would be much, much greater.
As I mentioned, I did suggest this possibility to the WMC but got no response. This is too bad but not so surprising. I know from experience that sometimes when you’re working in a bubble with like-minded people, you often cannot see the forest for the trees. You believe that the impact you’re having is significant because you are not getting contrary views. This is may be what is happening with the WMC.
So, how do I judge the success of this group? It’s hard to say. I am glad that they were formed and are providing programs and media (like Robin Morgan’s radio show) that would not otherwise be possible but I am disappointed that their vision and reach is not bigger. So what would you say? Maybe a C?
Riley Holden