Feminism Is Not a Monolith and Neither is Double X

Our first week at Double X is drawing to a close. And we’ve heard all sorts of responses. We’re not feminist enough. We’re too feminist. We say we’re not feminist but then we talk a lot about feminism. We (and Slate) are ghettoizing women. First, I want to second my co-editors Hanna and Emily in what they wrote yesterday and today about why we wanted to create Double X and its relationship to Slate. Second, I want to take this moment to clarify some things about the disparate points of view you’ll find on the site.

The spirit animating the site is the spirit of debate. We do not edit the blog posts before they go up, or read them over to make sure they all hew to a single party line. And so XXFactor blogger Susannah Breslin, for example, may have one take about feminism, while our essays reflect another. When we at Double X have said that we’ll have a “feminist” viewpoint, we do not mean that this viewpoint will be doctrinaire or singular—or even that every piece will have a “feminist” angle. For example, for our launch, we asked a range of women to answer our question, “What is the primary problem facing women today? What is today’s problem that has no name?” Many of the essayists in our symposium chose to point to the problems with feminism itself. We did not coach the responses, or set out to hack feminism off at the knees. The essays reflected the writer’s own views.

And that’s, in our view, as it should be. We created Double X so that readers and writers would get to hear women’s voices raised in cacophonous debate—not in well-oiled agreement. As editors, we believe in the importance of discussing issues of women’s equality and identity, and we are not afraid of the word itself. But some of our bloggers and contributors might not agree with us. Maybe they’ll be cacophonous and contradictory for a while. So be it. That’s the reality of where we are the moment. Let the arguments continue.

Tags: double x, feminism, feminists

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Meghan O'Rourke is a founding editor of Double X and the author of Halflife, a book of poems.

Comments

Not buying it, though I really wanted to

By: Cuberat | Tue, 05/19/2009 - 16:15

I feel like this website started by insulting a whole bunch of very successful websites for women and then tried to hide it under the label of diversity. I agree with the commenter who suggested that easing into these issues would have been better.

thank you, Meghan!

By: klucassm | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 09:22

I've been enjoying DoubleX and have been surprised at some of the trouble you've seen. I think that in the weeks going forward the above message should be the center of your postings and essays. People don't yet seem to understand what is going on, exactly, what you're trying to do with DoubleX.

What about the dudes?

By: Marc | Sun, 05/17/2009 - 00:14

I know the tagline of this site is "What women really think," but I hope that there will be content that reaches out to men.

not lovin' it

By: tabula rasa | Sat, 05/16/2009 - 19:03

i was really enjoying The XX Factor on Slate and then they put up DoubleX and ruined it. now everything HAS to be filtered through feminism and the articles this past week have all been about appearances and sniping about who is more or less feminist (or appears to be). why can't you just have intelligent women writing about whatever issues come up instead of the "women's issues as seen by women"? counting the days for this venture to fail so that these authors can stop wasting their time and ours.

It's not the diversity of opinion

By: whysnakes | Sat, 05/16/2009 - 14:59

Really, arguing that you want to have a diversity of opinion is a great argument if people's complaint is that everyone should have the same opinion, but I don't see any sort of response here to the "ghettoization" argument that I find much more troubling.

If you think women need to be better represented than they are in Slate, then represent them better in Slate. All this does is perpetuate the idea that there are regular issues and then there are women's issues; there are regular writers and then there are women writers. And frankly, the minute I got here and saw that ridiculous article about why Michelle Obama needs to wear pantyhose because plastic surgery and self-tanners are the only other choice, it made it appear that the idea here is to bait with talk of feminism and switch to the language of Us magazine, and I take offense at that, quite frankly. Not because it's contrary to my view of feminism, but because it's just celebrity gossip and has nothing to do with feminism on any axis.

If you really need more space to consider women's issues, but what you want to do with that space is tell Michelle Obama to wear pantyhose, then the editorial direction isn't what it would need to be for me to stay interested. I'll be back if I hear that somebody has said, "You know what? The pantyhose piece was a rookie mistake while we were trying to get attention in the first week, and we will never do anything like that again." Until then, I'm happy to read lots of divergent opinions about feminism, but sadly, not here.

Michelle Obama pantyhose article

By: Krell | Sun, 05/17/2009 - 16:03

I suspect this article was a rookie mistake but I do think the site writers should apologize for it. It was a shock, in this era of near-unshockability, to read something so regressive, condescending and vapid on a new 'feminist' site. To have varied discourse is one thing but to blatantly send a volley from the enemy's camp just for the sake of shock value seems really misjudged.

That said, I'm struck by the virulent dissent the site has already stirred up. How divisive the issue of feminism is -- how volatile!

I'm interested in and excited by the existence of this site but I do wonder why, or if, we need a separate area for women to write and discuss. Is it like the theory of same-sex education that holds the opposite sex is a needless distraction for the students?

terrible add placement, it's

By: minnie ruth | Sat, 05/16/2009 - 14:07

terrible add placement, it's really distracting. is there no way advertising could be restricted from the body of the text?

the lady doth protest too much

By: mmebovary | Fri, 05/15/2009 - 23:22

too early to apologize, to readers or advertisers, perhaps you are afraid of being actually, substantially feminist?

Feminism, etc.

By: Reese | Fri, 05/15/2009 - 15:13

"...or even that every piece will have a 'feminist' angle."

Thank God.

I love Slate, always have, and was extremely excited to read about Double X. I agree with most of lightening's ideas, although I don't think Double X, in publishing content with less of an agenda, will be redundant to Slate. I was eagerly anticipating stories written for, by and about smart women, with an tacit acknowledgment that such stories do not have to be sex- or gender-based.

yeah, well, they have a point

By: lightening | Fri, 05/15/2009 - 14:23

If you read Ann Friedman's article in The American Prospect, you might agree that it's an excellent article.

When I started reading DoubleX I was thrilled, because it appeals to me and the topics are interesting. But I began thinking, does that make Slate men-oriented? If no, why do women need their own site? If yes, why can't they just incorporate more female focused content into Slate?

Also, in some ways, this separation of men's and women's topics smacks of a modern-day Redbook. But instead of recipes for your family, it's recipes for your career, focused at educated women instead of homemakers.

I can see in some ways how having a separate venue for women's topics trivializes them, as if they are not significant for the "main" sites.