After spending spring break in a cabin in the woods with no Internet, I was behind on just about everything. Hoping to catch up, I checked the news section on the sidebar of Facebook and skimmed a couple major news outlets. As I looked through various news sites, I noticed a lot of websites now include an additional category along with sports, entertainment and other standards. Many have started to include a new section dedicated to “feminist news.”
I wondered about the definition of feminist news, and I found that a lot of the issues addressed in the feminist sections were issues important for everyone, not just readers who consider themselves feminists. I looked into the feminist sections of several news outlets including The Guardian and The Huffington Post. Much of what I saw was what I expected: a discussion of whether women should take their husbands’ last names when they get married, a piece on International Women’s Day and so on. But I also saw articles on equal pay legislation, the pro-choice/pro-life debate and stories of sexual assault survivors. These articles were all filed under the label of feminism. I noticed many of them were not featured anywhere else on the news sites, and were simply banished to the “feminist news” category.
Of course, being labeled “feminist news” is not inherently bad. What concerns me is that by putting certain articles in the feminist category and not featuring them elsewhere on websites, news outlets are limiting the number of readers those articles will get. Not everyone is going to see the label “feminist news” and feel compelled to click on it. Those sections will likely only draw readers who feel passionate about feminism. The problem with this is that many of the issues addressed in “feminist news” categories are issues that everyone needs to know about.
Feminism means believing in equality — plain and simple. In a perfect world, everyone would understand that definition, and we would all consider ourselves feminists. There would be no confusion between feminism and misandry (the two are not related), and there would be no need for constant articles about whether various female celebrities like Nicki Minaj or Taylor Swift consider themselves feminists. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. There is a lingering fear of the concept of feminism — TIME Magazine recently published a poll about which word should be banned for 2015, including “feminist” in their list of suggestions. As long as so many people continue to treat “feminist” like a bad word to be uttered in hushed tones, it is safe to say a large portion of news readers are not going to click on the “feminist news” tab. While these news outlets may aim to give feminist news its own forum, they end up pushing important issues into a category that might have a negative connotation for a lot of readers, suggesting that certain articles are not useful or of interest to anyone other than those passionate about feminism.
It is dangerous to put important articles in a category that a lot of people just aren’t going to read. Articles on sexual assault, for example, need to be seen by the general public. The sexual assault epidemic is not a “feminist issue.” It happens to men and women, feminist or not. Equal pay legislation is not a “feminist issue” either. Sure, people who consider themselves feminists tend to campaign for equal pay, but they are not the only ones doing so.
When it comes down to it, Congress makes legislation. Given the national irrational fear of feminism, I doubt the majority of Congress (which is 80 percent male) is logging on to check out the feminist news page every day. They need to see these articles. They need to know what people are thinking and feeling about issues like equal pay, abortion legislation and sexual assault. To be fair, some members of Congress might not be checking news outlets like The Huffington Post or The Guardian anyway, but these examples are part of a larger trend. There is nothing wrong with having a separate page for articles that might be particularly interesting for people who are passionate about feminism, but those articles ought to be featured elsewhere in news outlets as well. A specialized news section for feminist news (or any other group or movement) may seem beneficial in theory; it provides a forum dedicated solely to one issue, hopefully giving a voice to those that need it.
In practice, a feminist news section might give a voice to feminists, but it also quickly moves that voice to a place where no one has to take notice of it unless they seek it out. Stories of sexual assault or legislation regarding a woman’s right to choose should not be topics one has to go looking for. These articles should be mixed in with mainstream news, featured on pages heavily trafficked by the majority of readers. Nothing is ever going to change if the only people reading about crucial issues in the United States are the people who already know about them.
Nora Walls is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Flipped classroom models subtract from effective education
By Heer Patel | 9 hours agoFlipped class models fail to organize learning into these defined stages, instead overwhelming students with a large volume of content in a short span of time.
BRUNMAN: Raise the bar for Charlottesville’s Republican Congressional candidates
By Wylie Brunman | 15 hours agoDo substandard Congressional candidates in Charlottesville and across the nation deserve our vote whilst delegitimizing the voting system?
HUYNH: Hung Cao's story is powerful — don't take the bait
By Viet Huynh | 2 days agoVirginia voters have the power to reject hollow rhetoric and demand candidates who prioritize meaningful change over soundbites.
