Forbes censors article on women and the media as being “too controversial”

Tom Watson left Forbes because they decided to pull this story about WAM! (Women, Action & the Media). What a hero – to stick up for your morals and beliefs and give them more priority than a paycheck. We need more journalists like this.

<script async src=”https://static.medium.com/embed.js”></script><a class=”m-story” data-collapsed=”true” href=”https://medium.com/@tomwatson/sexism-and-the-media-as-election-heats-up-are-we-nearer-to-tipping-point-for-equality-a7d94d9a1280″>Sexism And The Media: As Election Heats Up, Are We Nearer To Tipping Point For Equality?</a>

Note: I have resigned as a contributor to Forbes.

Yesterday, I posted this interview with Jamia Wilson of Women, Action & the Media, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “building a robust, effective, inclusive movement for gender justice in media.” I consider her work, and that of feminist organizers everywhere, to be vitally important to the field of social entrepreneurship and to public life.

The editors found it inappropriate for the section of Forbes I have contributed my Social Ventures column to for the last three years — and they removed it this morning. I strongly disagree with their decision and we have parted ways.

Gender Justice Uncovered

Wow! I loved hearing about this award. It uncovers sexism in courtrooms, a supposed area of objectivity in most societies, that Mothers Rights folks, among other groups, will recognize as a blatant misconception. Moreover, it offers a trip to Madrid for those nominating the top 3 most heinious abuses.

Women’s Link Worldwide

In every country, regardless of its political system, culture or religion, what judges and courts say has a tremendous influence on people’s day-to-day lives. With your participation we continue to uncover the most sexist and discriminatory court decisions or statements and highlight those that advance gender equality.

Nominate your decision today!

Tilly’s teaches women how to listen

Please consider signing the petition against Tilly’s despicable, degrading, and indefensible T-shirts:

No comment:  Tilly’s teaches women how to listen

GREAT paragraph here –

Consumer activism like this is an indispensable tool to fight the widespread dehumanization of women seen in television shows, movies, advertising and even on t-shirts. Corporations are interested in drawing attention to their products, so they break through the clutter of messages with increasingly shocking content, too often at the expense of girls and women. The only way to break this cycle is to threaten their bottom line through organized boycotts, a disinvestment campaign, culture jamming or damage to the corporate brand through public truth-telling.

Media abusing female candidates

Media, stop abusing female candidates by Magan Tady, in In These Times Oct. 21, 2010

Excerpt:

People should be angry that our media so often fails to report the track records of female politicians, and place them on a level playing field with male opponents. A platform, for those in the media who don’t know, is a list of issues a politician runs her or his candidacy on; it is not a type of shoe that reporters should be comparing with stiletto heels.

When vitriolic and disparaging comments about women become normalized in our national political dialogue, they harm us culturally. They create deep wounds in women and girls and have a chilling effect on those considering a run for office.

Sam Bennett, president of the Women’s Campaign Forum, put it well during an interview with C-Span’s The Washington Journal: “We have to come out in outrage when comments like this are made—irrespective of the party, irrespective of the situation—because what we have to do… is de-normalize these types of comments. No candidate—male or female—deserves to be on national television being referred to in a sexually explicit way.”

Despite the abuse, more and more brave women are stepping up every year to run for office and endure the media gauntlet. Politics shouldn’t be easy and women should be prepared to defend themselves, but they should be defending their platform, their positions and their views, not their gender, appearance or sexuality.

Ball is refusing to let the negative attention derail her campaign, saying: “We are young women. And we are dedicated to serving this country. And we will run for office. And we will win.”

Name it. Change it.

A new campaign called “Name it Change it” is out to stop sexism in its tracks! You too can participate – see the Web site for details:

Name it Change it

Watch the video “

Here’s a description of the campaign:

Widespread sexism in the media is one of the top problems facing women. A highly toxic media environment persists for women candidates, often negatively affecting their campaigns. The ever-changing media landscape creates an unmonitored echo chamber, often allowing damaging comments to exist without accountability.

We must erase the pervasiveness of sexism against all women candidates — irrespective of political party or level of office — across all media platforms in order to position women to achieve equality in public office. We will not stand by as pundits, radio hosts, bloggers, and journalists damage women’s political futures with misogynistic remarks. When you attack one woman, you attack all women.

Here’s an article in the Washington Post about it: Women’s groups target sexism in campaigns

And here’s a letter to the editor about the article (note the misogynist comments on it):  Group references sometimes overlook the absence of women 

Julia Child forced to eat at Hooters

Communications professor Susan Douglas, the mother of a 22-year-old daughter, compares popular culture targeted at young women to junk food. “I feel like Julia Child forced to eat at Hooters,” she writes in her new book Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done.

Isn’t that a great line? It’s a quote taken from this article in Macleans today:

Outraged moms, trashy daughters

Enlightened Sexism charts how the wedge between mothers and daughters increased during the first decade of the 21st century as so-called “millennials”—girls born in the late 1980s and early 1990s—became the most sought-after advertising demographic in history. The desire for power and change that coursed through Douglas’s generation was recast for their daughters as “empowerment” through conspicuous consumption and sexual display, she writes. Activist outlets like Sassy magazine, published from 1988 to 1997, and “riot grrrl,” the feminist punk movement of the early 1990s, were eclipsed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess, along with a tribe of female action heroes. These “warriors in thongs,” as Douglas dubs them, paved the way for the retro “girliness” championed by Legally Blonde, Ally McBeal, and Bridget Jones’s Diary. And from there it was a heartbeat to reality shows like The Bachelor and Say Yes to the Dress, which depicted young women as obsessed with boys and getting married when they weren’t engaged in catfights with one another.

With all the news about women’s gains, the media choses to highlight women’s catfights and marriage “obsession” rather than our triumphs. And Jennifer Pozner says:

“If you did not know anything about American culture or American life other than what you saw on reality TV, it would be extremely easy to believe that the women’s rights movement never happened, that the civil rights movement never happened, that the gay rights movement never happened,” says Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women In Media & News in New York City, whose book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, is to be published in November. “Reality TV producers have achieved what the most ardent fundamentalists and anti-feminists haven’t been able to achieve,” she says.

“They’ve concocted a world in which women have no choices and they don’t even want choices.”

More on Douglas:

Douglas says she was inspired to write the book after noticing what seemed to be a glaring disconnect between the prime-time shows aimed at her generation—Grey’s Anatomy, CSI, The Closer, all featuring tough-talking, assured women who don’t use their sexuality to get what they want—and the programming aimed at her daughter. Eventually she came to believe both kinds of shows were perpetuating the myth that feminism’s work was over: “both mask, even erase how much still remains to be done for girls and women. The notion that there might, indeed, still be an urgency to feminist politics? You have to be kidding.

Yet, as Vonk points out, female progress at top levels has not moved markedly in 20 years, Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated run for president notwithstanding. Certainly the numbers reflect this: in 1980, women held approximately seven per cent of the legislative seats across Canada.

Ten years later that number had risen to 17 per cent. But between 1990 and 2010, that percentage rose only six per cent—to 23 per cent. (According to the Intra-Parliamentary Union, Canada ranks a pathetic 50th on the world scale of women’s participation in politics, behind Rwanda, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates.) Women’s presence in top-tier corporate jobs is even lower. According to Catalyst, an organization that tracks female advancement, women head only 3.8 per cent of FP 500 companies in Canada, and make up a scant 5.6 per cent of FP top earners, 14 per cent of board directors and 16.9 per cent of corporate officers.

The notion that the workplace is an equal playing field is a myth, says Susan Nierenberg, Catalyst’s vice-president of global marketing. The first study to look at the impact of the recession on high-potential women found those in senior leadership positions were three times more likely to lose their jobs than men. Another Catalyst study published last February tracking 4,500 M.B.A. graduates in their first jobs found that women begin at a lower level than men and earned $4,600 on average less. “And more importantly, they never catch up,” says Nierenberg

Where is the outrage?

In the “Where is the outrage?” department, we have a story that has received very little attention let alone signs of outrage. A man, intent on killing his wife, also targeted women. He injured three women and killed another three. He also killed his wife and took his own life.

Haven’t heard of this story? I’m not surprised. The question is, Why? If a person specifically targeted 3 Blacks or Hispanics or gay individuals, this would have made national news and we’d be having debates in all kinds of media about racism in America. Kill 4 women? Heck, that’s not so interesting, is it? Amazing…