"Please explain why you're a feminist in 10 words or less. Preferably less. Like 3."

Comments

I hope they get lots of flak over the stunts they pulled. And you're right; at least it's publicity. Women (and men) will have heard about all of you and search you out, then realize you are all so much better than the magazine portrayed. Congrats on being chosen!
[this is good]
I think you looked FABULOUS!!!

And it is true...once you have been misquoted you have made it...

Congrats!!

omg. i, too was Li'l Red in my High School's production of Into the Woods.

I'm sorry the interview didn't work out the way you expected, but perhaps there will be more. good luck!

[this is good]
Hey you are a star in my book. You are a world traveler and in magazines. We are talking hot shit here. Congrats.

And this is why I hate talking to reporters. Still, it sounds like they got the essense of what you were trying to say, even if they threw in a few phrases of their own. Congrats on the write-up!

Why I'm a feminist, preferably in three words? Easy: "Women are people."

Same reason why I'm a masculinist, too. "Men are people." No, it's not a word, I just made it up.

honestly it deserves to be bitched about - it doesn't do you justice! but congrats anyway, the recognition is awesome!
oh cate, how INFURIATING! hopefully you will make it into bust one day, that is the only magazine i actually subscribe to.

I want to beat down on that article like an... ANGRY FEMINIST. Those pics of you are AWFUL!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, any PR is good PR. But still...

reading what they had for you, I don't know why they didn't just shorten it to: I like makeup & being married; and I'm labeled a "bad feminist".

I'll go with a Richard Bach quote: "Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published around the world - even if what is published is not true."

[this is good]
I often think the sole purpose of journalists is to misquote people. I have family and friends in politics and I worked for a year at a magazine (NOT as a writer or editor, thank goodness, so I still have at least some of my soul), so I've seen it from both sides. From local politicians who are suddenly quoted as supporting policies which they are completely opposed to, to magical quotes that appear from thin air that were never uttered or even thought by the person in question, and not to mention journalists who condense an interviewee's response to a mere sound bite 'because it means the same thing anyway' and 'they're usually grateful for it'.

Any quote has to be cut, pasted or fabricated to support the angle of the story - which the interviewee may or may not actually be informed about in advance. Then the quotes have to be dumbed down to be fed to a public which is assumed to have the IQ of a cabbage. And lastly the whole thing needs to be chopped and changed to tart it into a cute graphic style that will POP from the pages. It doesn't matter if the magazine is about celebrity gossip or finance - they all follow the same evil plan.

Unfortunately when you agree to be interviewed by a magazine all your integrity ends up in the hands of people who have none. Use it to advance your career if you can, use it as a learning experience if you can't! At least it's made a fabulous topic for a great blog post!
Thanks for this (came over from your comment at Observer Woman Makes Me Spit) - it's really interesting. One of the best things about blogs is that they can be used to expose the way the media works, so people can be more informed about whether or not an article is an accurate representation of what was actually said. The same sort of thing happened to me this weekend in the Times, and I blogged about it here. It's good to be able to tell our own side of the story.
[this is good]
I think the bitching is totally justified. It's okay to be thankful for an opportunity and simultaneously disappointed in the outcome. Especially when it could have been so amazing. You just know if it had been a publication like BUST you would have all been looking totally fabulous and you would each have had at least half a page of interview. Which, let's face it, would probably be the best article ever.
[this is good]
Mazel Tov on the recognition...understandable frustration...
I suppose what I find most interesting is that a magazine has interviewed a group of young girls about how they are re-branding the word feminism. That concept in itself is self defeating since it relies on the girl's, as well as the reader's, somewhat uneducated concept of what that word actually means, what its history is as well as the multitude of theories it represents. Most of the girls interviewed, I'm willing to bet have never taken a true academic interest at what the 'F' word is and where it came from. From its initial conception this article had potential to distort the ideas of 'feminism' in that it did not interview feminist scholars who are actually trying to redefine the cultural discourse in a semi-sociological/scientific fashion. And believe it or not, those people exist, female and male. I guess when I get down to the brass tacks of it, when a profit driven organization outside of any reputed journal throws the word 'Feminism' into a title, you can be fairly sure it's simply being used to exploit the already misconceived feminist theories to attract business and generate dollars. WHy couldn't they just entitle the article Headstrong, Ambitious Women? To me it's not unfortunate what happened to the women interviewed, it's a magazine so what did you expect? What I am most frustrated by is the fact that the intricate and infinitely rich knowledge-base of feminist theories are being lambasted and destroyed under the weight of today's heavy status-quo-hungry, media consuming culture.
[this is good]
The only possible way ever that I could be mentioned in a post about feminism - by discussing the context of misquoting.

And the facebook pics are hot, you're right ;-)
When I was in my early twenties, I was witness to a mass murder in my hometown while at work. A newspaper reporter interviewed me, and at one point I told him our company brought in a grief counselor who talked to all the employees in a group setting, though most of us didn't need it, and thought it was bullshit, but a nice gesture. The next day, the article in the paper said: "Clint was so disturbed by the murders he sought psychological help from a grief counselor." I was pissed, but I guess it made better print than the truth. Lesson learned, never trust the media.
[this is good]
I was in a tent with a boy when one of my friends started reading aloud from the 'interview'.

jesus holy fuck.

when he got to my comment where I accused my 'boyfriend' of being 'a massive girl about everything' the boy I was with was like, 'who me? Or do you actually have a boyfriend?'.
Ignoring him and rolling over, still groaning from the horrendous assault on my syntax, I asked how I looked, chuckles ensued, 'you look fat honey. fat and fluffy'.

Seems like a wasted opportunity to get together a collection of cool, funny, interesting, hot women, and then ignore them and make them look bad.
Wasted opportunity for them, but I think anyone who does any further research, or already knows any of us, will be well aware of the difference between us, and them in that chart there.


Having been on the receiving end of media exploitation myself, on 2 mortifying occasions, I know exactly how you feel. The good news is that the vast majority of people do not read into things that closely. By virtue of simply being in this piece, you are a rock star, even if they missed the mark representing you. Also, it is obvious to the reader that these are soundbites, and no one is expecting that much from a soundbite.

You are fucking fabulous.
[this is good]

What. The. FUCK.

Maybe the interviewers didn't realize they were using real, you know, "quotes". Maybe they were thinking, air quotes.

I remember contacting an interviewer who not only changed what I'd said, but took one of the answers I'd given to her and put it as a reply to a question she had not even asked me. What she did in response to my inquiry was add me to her email fan-list, and ignore me.

I can sympathize. It fucking sucks. But don't stab anyone or set anything on fire because it won't help at all.

But everyone above is right. There you are, in print, you're on your way :) Later on, you can bitch to the NYT about being misquoted, and how you and a bunch of other goils took down a shitty magazine :)

And I think you're hot in that photo, love your hair, and I adore all the other pics you have here.

Echoing de-GOR-juss Miss Scotch: You are fucking fabulous. Infinity.

Well, at least it should be easy for them to find this lovely gem of a blog entry from that horrid article.

By the way, you're awesome.
[this is good]
I still think it's simply fab that you were featured in the article...misquoted or not. I just hope they get enough flak that they realize they completely undermined the entire purpose of the article. They created a neat little package for feminists and that isn't at all what it's all about.
[this is good]
Ha ha! Yeah, I think the rule for these women's magazines is to misquote - a mate of mine was in a similar style article (they all seem to use the same mold) though it was a gay grid, not a feminist grid! They quoted her - and using quotation marks - as saying something that she would *never* say just so they could make her out to be a clichéd dyke. There are obviously only so few boxes for so many women.

Great blog BTW - wish I had more time to read more xxDD

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

CupCate

About Me

CupCate
United Kingdom
Speaking my mind, even if my voice shakes.
Flickr:
CateSevilla
LinkedIn:
catesevilla

Archives

  • Powered by Vox