Criticism of women’s pages
This week, Ms magazine’s blog included the post: The “Women’s Pages” Go Online: Good or Bad News?” In it, Ruth Rosen (a great author) dismisses the women’s pages.
She wrote: “Forty years ago, feminists demanded that special “women’s pages,” which featured fashion, society and cooking, be banished from newspapers. Instead, they insisted, newspapers should mainstream serious stories about the lives of women throughout their regular news.
Forty years later, the new media have re-segregated women’s sections. The good news is that they are no longer about society, cooking and fashion. Most are tough, smart, incisive, analytic and focus on events, trends or stories that the mainstream online news still ignores. The bad news is that they are not on the “front page” where men might learn about women’s lives.”
The Women’s Media Center describes the Ms column as: “The New Gender Apartheid of Online News Magazines.”
I hate when media critics and historians dismiss the women’s pages as fluff. The content of women’s pages was complex – and often included progressive content. Dismissing women’s pages marginalizes women’s work.
One Comment
Jessica
Hi Kimberly,
Jessica here, an editor at Ms. I came across your website when photo-researching that Ruth Rosen blog post and ended up being so fascinated I read every entry. Would you have an interest in writing a post for the Ms. Blog, in response, about why women's pages shouldn't be dismissed? If so you can reach me at jstites@msmagazine.com!
Best,
Jessica