courteney has recently been invited to do a feminist column at the "new statesman". this is what she came up with:
http://www.newstatesman .com/200711260001
See i was annoyed in the first place that there are so many UK feminists they could have asked to write for a UK magazine, but didn't. They could have asked any number of bloggers for example, or even some of the women at Subtext. They could even have gone to the Education Not For Sale alleged socialist feminists. But instead this British socialist magazine chose to ask an American on a Liberal feminist blog to write a column on feminism. Perhaps us brit fems tend to be too radical for them, but like i said, they could have gone to ENS if that was the case. I know this might not be an issue for Americans - but these women already have books published, they already get read in classrooms, they already have that audience. UK feminists dont get book deals, we dont get read at universities, we dont have an audience that isn't other feminists - homegrown feminists in this country are basically ignored. And there are a lot of us to ignore! But this UK socialist mag overlooking us all and going to a feminist who probably has very little in common with even the magazine is infuriating - what they mainly have in common is most likely a lack of interest in radical feminism.
So there was that. But then the article itself - the usual "im young and pretty and im feminist so that smashes stereotypes" stuff. All she does is essentially say, oh its okay if you dont like *that* sort of feminist, because us third wavers are snappy dressers! You know what im saying, right, she should be saying - fuck your fascist beauty standards, what i look like is irrelevant to my humanity or my politics!
I mean - her first column at that place and at the very least she could have started her analysis at the magazine itself - the fact that its willing to give a small space to feminism as a "belief or philosophy" rather than apply feminism to socialism as a necessary component of the whole. Basically - feminism should be there throughout the whole magazine, not a small column on the side, harking back to days where newspapers would dedicate a single column to "womens issues". Could they be any more patronising?
Or how about the title of the magazine itsef "New Statesman"? According to their "About" blurb they not long ago merged with New Society magazine, so they had a genderless title right there they could have stuck with, but they chose instead to continue using the gendered - why?
Or how about their list of editors on the same page, since 1913 and throughout 14 editors, all have been men. Is it coincidence, that men are just naturally the best for the job, or is there discrimination in there, do you think?
Id suggest that if feminism is merely a "belief system", if 'women's issues' can be chucked the odd column, and if the gendered title was chosen to be more appropriate than the ungendered, that the discrimination is deep enough to explain why they have only ever had male editors.
Rant over, sorry.