Given the spatial limitations of this report, and as an American student of European origins who began her graduate education in the UK, I hope that my transnational background can assist in evaluating the benefits of this year’s Console-ing in England. With American media often at the foreground, learning of some of the most noteworthy British broadcasting is vital.

During Charlotte Brunsdon’s plenary talk, “The Television City,” the celebrated scholar first compared the representations of the cinematic city with its sister medium once considered inferior. She then focused on London in particular as both the local site in series such as EastEnders as well as a global presence on BBC News, in contrast to more generic outlets such as CNN and Al Jazeera.  She expanded on the use of London first as a multi-cultural, near-utopian trope in the 1980s sitcom set in the Peckham-Rye neighbourhoud, Desmond’s. Another major example she cited is the Victorian feel of London in crime series such as BBC One’s recently remade Sherlock, despite its actual filming in Cardiff. She recalled the establishing klick-klack sound of heels on cobblestone roads amidst a foggy backdrop that usually indicates the unfortunate demise, usually murder, of a beautiful woman, often a troubled prostitute.

This understanding of London as a social, political, cultural, and economic hub of the specific and local as well as the vast and global contributes to the overall impetus of British academia to analyze media in both the micro and macro sense.

This notion especially resonated following the foundational panel on Fandom, one of the most burgeoning areas of media studies today, when Teresa Forde thoughtfully queried Suzanne Scott on the Americannes of her presentation on “Fake Geek Girls.” For any US scholar present, or any follower from afar who read Charlotte Howell’s corresponding tweet, “One of the best parts of attending #cp2013 in the UK is that American scholars (like myself) are forced to interrogate our implicit Americanness,” a collective light bulb loomed over our heads on the need to further discuss our work in the interest of national identity in a global intellectual landscape.

Topics on British women figures were some of the most memorable that cultivated knowledge on national consciousness. Hannah Hamad spoke of how “The Austere Celebrity of Mary Portas” is yet another indicator of recessionary nationalism in the vein of recent pageantry such as the Royal Wedding, Queen’s Jubilee, and the 2012 London Olympics.  Faye Woods explained how Clare Balding, “a slightly posh lesbian, nearing middle age, with a sensible haircut,” became a British national treasure during her Olympics coverage for the BBC and Paralympics for Channel 4.

Miranda Hart

Coming from a similar background as Balding, comedian and showrunner of sorts Miranda Hart was the subject of two out of the three presentations during the Comedy and Femininity panel. Chris Becker’s American perspective on Miranda’s use of traditional sitcom conventions argued for its value alongside the cultural primacy of acknowledged single-cam quality shows, using Elana Levine and Michael Newman’s Legitimating TV as the reference for cultural legitimation of Hart’s work. Rosie White expanded on Hart’s place in both the zeitgeist of British TV and women’s performativity. Forde’s talk positioned Julia Davis’ work as transgressive TV in Nighty Night, Hunderby, and Lizzie and Sarah, noting the auteur-like qualities of the actress, writer, director, and producer’s distinctively dark comedic proclivities.

The History of Television for Women in Britain: Highlights, Insights, and Future Agendas panel detailed the De Montfort and Warwick University partnership on the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded project that uses both archival and audience response methods to examine what TV meant for British women during the 1940s to 1980s. Helen Wood and Helen Wheatley’s presentations conveyed their goal to produce the British equivalent of the historical work of Lynn Spigel on the relationship between women and American television, and Hazel Collie and Mary Irwin’s collaboration showed the merits of the new methodologies in archival work along with in- depth interviews of TV audiences of the time to understand what the medium meant to women of the era.

Beyond the UK, Console-ing Passions at 21 brought forth some of the best scholarship on the intersection of gender and sexuality, with new views on both femininity and masculinity— from talks on The League to pro wrestling to Bronies—alongside race, ethnicity, national identity, class, as shown on fictional, reality, and news TV, social media, the internet, video games, and so much more, all packed into three days of 30+ panels.

Additionally, I greatly valued international perspectives such as Ireland through the lens of a dubious investigative series from my co-panelist Madeleine Lyes, Indian surrogacy as discussed by Sujata Moorti, and subdued Latin identity in tween programming as highlighted by Mary Beltrán.

As a first time Console-ing presenter, being a part of such an international conference, that further confirmed the rich breadth of valuable work being done in the expansive feminist media studies community across the globe, will remain one of the most invaluable experiences of my academic career.

This post is part of an ongoing partnership between the University of Wisconsin-Madison’sAntenna: Responses to Media & Culture and the Society for Cinema & Media Studies’ Cinema Journal.

A manifesta for feminist media criticism. Click here for part 1.

Because we are committed to critically analyzing systems of power in all their forms—but especially with regard to gender and media culture—and we want others to be as well.

Because we believe our culture and society can be better, and we can play an active role in transforming them.

Because we share in the fight to end oppression so all individuals everywhere can be who they want to be and reach their potential happily and without suffering.

Because we believe that biology is not destiny, that gender and other identity norms are socially constructed, and that they can and should be deconstructed.

Because we are angry at a society that continues to tell us that a woman’s first priority is to be sexy, that to be smart is to be unattractive, and that feminism is no longer necessary and/or that feminist = anti-male, feminist = humorless, and feminist = nazi.

Because too many of our female students, colleagues, and friends say, “I’m not a feminist,” despite acknowledging they want equality with men and don’t experience it in many aspects of their lives.

Because there are not more men who are willing to join our fight.

Because we refuse to assimilate to someone else’s standards of what makes a good scholar, teacher, artist, writer, activist, citizen, consumer, or person.

Because we understand the media industries as comprising the most powerful and influential social institution today, and they traffic in normative values harmful to many.

Because we want to destroy the domination of global media culture by those who want us to keep consuming whatever they churn out, buying whatever their sponsors are shilling, ignoring politics, hating ourselves, and competing with each other rather than producing our own media, working to end oppression, fighting for social justice, loving ourselves, and supporting each other.

Because we want more movies, TV shows, songs, games, websites, comics, radio programs, and news stories that don’t infantilize, hypersexualize, demonize, exoticize, marginalize, exclude, or demean us—or anyone else.

Because we value our media tastes and pleasures and want them affirmed rather than ignored for those of a more lucrative market.

Because we are troubled that popular culture has become more focused on sex and violence than when feminist media criticism emerged four decades ago.

Because women in the news are consistently discussed in relation to their appearance, and men hardly ever are.

Because we are frustrated that women are always seen as women first, and whatever other role we have is secondary.

Because Kathryn Bigelow is the only woman to have earned the Academy Award for Best Director, and because most people don’t even know who Kathryn Bigelow is.

Because so many female characters on television are victims of assault and murder, and because so many girl characters are motherless and sisterless.

Because women-made and women-themed movies are considered “niche.”

Because the privileged role for girl musicians is still the sexy vocalist, and playing instruments continues to be seen as a “guy thing.”

Because many journalists see “women’s issues” as not serious and apolitical and thus ghettoize them in the Life and Style section of newspapers.

Because we know reading/watching/hearing/writing/doing things that validate and challenge us can help us to build the knowledge, strength, and community we need to overcome the sexism, racism, classism, ageism, heterocentrism, able-bodieism, thinism, and xenophobia writ large, which structure our lives, our communities, and our culture.

Because we understand the power of media as tools for documenting lives, expressing creativity, exploring identity, and building community, and we want all people to have equal access to those tools and those powers.

Because we are committed to supporting feminist, queer, and anti-racist media producers and know that doing so is integral to changing our society for the better.

Because many media studies programs do not have classes specifically devoted to exploring gender in media culture.

Because so many media history and production classes continue to focus on the Great White Men of Celluloid, of Video, of the Air, of the Tubes, of the Internet, of Gaming, and of Comics . . . and privilege the work of only the male scholars who write about them.

Because so many girls, parents, and teachers the world over don’t see media production as a worthwhile profession for women, and males continue to dominate both production programs and the media industries at all levels.

Because female media critics and producers tend to earn less and are promoted less than their male peers, and women are more affected by contingent labor practices than are men.

Because we know being multiply oppressed as a result of sexuality, race, or ability makes all this much, much, much more difficult.

Because we are encouraged to remain quiet or tone down our activist rhetoric and activities to get better teaching evaluations, promotion reviews, and salary increases.

Because we know the heart of academic life is about participating in critical debates started many years before us, about having our beliefs and expectations challenged, about facilitating learning in community with others, and about mentoring others so they can develop as participatory citizens, discerning consumers, and genuinely nice people.

Because we are interested in creating ways of learning, teaching, mentoring, administrating, and sharing research that privilege collaboration and communication over competition and celebrity.

Because we want to make it easier for feminist media scholars to read and hear each other’s work so we can share strategies and resources, critique each other, and support one another.

Because we honor, draw strength from, and want to continue the work of older feminist media critics, and because we desire to teach, mentor, and collaborate with younger scholars who will do the same, until such a time when that work is no longer necessary.

And, last but not least:

Because we believe, with all our hearts/minds/bodies, that progressive change is necessary, that progressive change is possible, and that feminist media critics constitute a revolutionary force that transforms academia and popular culture—for real.

(Photo by Michael Kackman – phobject.com.)

But eventually I reconnected with my muse, and the words flowed. I hope what follows below and in tomorrow’s post helps readers to understand better why folks like me do what we do.  If you’re a student working on research papers right now, I hope this inspires you to foreground the larger political stakes of your scholarship and thereby to connect your projects to the longer history of critical media studies.  Thanks to the Antenna staff for their enthusiasm and for providing another opportunity to share the spirit.

***

For Console-ing Passions, on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary.

I’ve changed the direction of my plenary talk a bit from when I first started writing it, but I think you’ll like this version better.

I was going to talk about some of the major transformations in feminist media criticism over the past two decades that Console-ing Passions has been in existence, including:

1) changes in feminist politics, especially the rise of third wave and third world feminisms; 2) transformations in feminist epistemology as a result of the development and diffusion of poststructuralist theory, postcolonialist theory, critical race theory, queer theory, and theories of postfeminism; 3) the emergence and growth of new areas of feminist media research, including fan studies, Internet studies, industry studies, game studies, and girls’ studies; 4) the expansion of publishing venues for our scholarship, not only via the Feminist Media Studies journal, but also various online ventures, like Antenna; and 5) the broad growth of feminist media criticism outside the academy, especially as a result of the zine revolution in the 1990s and the blogging revolution of the past decade.

I was also going to talk about three of the challenges facing our field that I think deserve much more attention, particularly: 1) the privileging of a presentist perspective and myopic focus on contemporary media, combined with the devaluation of historical research; 2) the decreased attention to independent media, despite the so-called rise of participatory culture and an increase in production studies; and 3) (which is related to the other two) the de-radicalization of media studies with the rise of various subfields seemingly resistant to analyses of power.

And I was going to wrap up all that with a plea to all of you to pay more attention to the totally out of whack gender imbalance in college training programs for film and TV production, which I see as one of the highest priorities for feminist media scholars and activists today.

But, I changed my mind.  As I was writing all that, I thought: “Wow, this seems pretty boring to me, and most of this is already probably evident to the folks participating in a Console-ing Passions conference.”  So, I asked myself: “What do I really want people at this conference to take away from my talk?  What would I like to hear?  How might I be more inspiring?  After all, when the hell will I be asked to do this again?  Shouldn’t I seize this as an opportunity to be provocative?”

And the bad-ass, scabby-kneed, chukka-boot-wearing, kick-ball-loving little Mary Celeste deep inside me—the one that is about 7 and fearless, because she doesn’t give a shit what people say about her—that little girl-me raised her fist and shouted loudly, “YES! YES! YES!”

So, shortly after this, I got a migraine (probably from working on this plenary talk and my panel paper at the same time – not advised).  But in the midst of skull-crushing pain, I still heard the younger me.  I heard her loud and clear.  She wouldn’t shut up.

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  I want to be inspirational.  I want to put my money where my mouth is.  I want to present myself as an activist and not just an academic.  I want to channel all the fierce and fiery women who have motivated me to be a feminist and a feminist media scholar.  I want to pay homage to all their blood, sweat, and tears.  I want to acknowledge them and their work, and I want to pay it forward.  I want you to feel energized.  I want to do what I can in the few minutes I have up here to help keep this thing—feminist media studies—going for as long as it’s needed.  I want to be the feminist media scholar I want to see in the world.

So, I turned up the volume on my headphones (after the migraine had passed, of course), and I let the percussive beats, driving rhythms, and fist-thrusting lyrics of Wild Flag, Bikini Kill, L7, the Gossip, and Patti Smith wash over me.  In other words, I tapped into the vein of feminist media production that most inspires me—women’s punk—and, on fire and dancing in my seat, I came up with this: A manifesta for feminist media scholars.  Props to Kathleen Hanna and riot grrrls everywhere.

Click here for part 2: my manifesta for feminist media criticism.

(Image credit: Kara Passey, 2012)

Logo by Hyun-Yeul Lee.

Some years ago when we were both graduate students, we, like many other junior scholars, discovered Console-ing Passions, an encounter that felt a bit like finding an oasis. Here was an organization with a history of supporting feminist media research, founded by a number of feminist scholars we studied and admired, which convened small conferences every other year. The chance some years later to continue this legacy by hosting Console-ing Passions in Boston with our local colleagues Miranda Banks and Deborah Jaramillo is a responsibility we were honored to accept.

The Boston conference, which will take place next week at Suffolk University, holds additional promise and potential: the first ever Console-ing Passions conference occurred at the University of Iowa in 1992, meaning that twenty years had passed since this watershed event. This milestone had the effect of putting our local host group in a mood of reflection. We wondered, what would be the most appropriate way to celebrate CP’s legacy of feminist media research, and to acknowledge how new technologies, delivery systems, and consumption practices have altered what it means to work in this discipline? How to best honor an organization that began focused mainly on television studies, but has expanded to include digital and new media, aural media, and gaming? Finally, we asked, what sort of events would allow us to reflect on where CP has been, and where it is going?

Our opening plenary, “Feminist Media Studies: Pasts, Presents, and Futures” is meant to kickstart such conversations, and features scholars at various points in their careers who will share their impressions of the field’s transformative moments. This group, moderated by two-time CP conference host and Fembot editor Carol Stabile, brings to the conversation expertise in the fields of Latino/Latina media studies, industry studies, feminist theory, digital and children’s media, ethnicity and cultural studies, girl culture, and postfeminism. A glance at the conference program likewise reveals that conversations about media histories are imbued throughout; participants will speak on panels titled “The Future of Feminist Historiography,” “Nostalgia TV,” “Toward a Historical Poetics of TV: Revisiting Seeing Through the Eighties” and “Neoliberalism, Difference and the Posthuman.”

Many of the longstanding interests of CP, known for its focus on gender, sexuality, and identity, feature in the 2012 line up. Speakers will present on online and televisual sexualities, soap operas, lifestyle media, female media makers, fandom, branding, gaming, and stardom. Take a look at the conference in total, however, and it becomes clear that the field of feminist media studies grows increasingly capacious. This year’s CP’s participants, and their proposed presentations, illustrate how feminism lives and thrives in myriad media forms—they are writers, watchers, and listeners, as well as players, designers, bloggers, fans, remixers, and modders.

This belief in media as a vehicle for feminist praxis—and our recognition that such actions are as vital now as ever—also provided the impetus for a keynote plenary, “Female Sexuality, Media Politics, and the War on Women”, a public conversation that will serve as the conference’s culminating event. In response to recent media controversies over women’s health care, and amidst reminders of how troubling conceptualizations of female sexuality and body politics continue to shape national discourse, feminist blogger Jessica Valenti will screen her film The Purity Myth, and well-known feminist media advocate Jean Kilbourne will moderate a panel discussion on social media activism, reproductive justice, and global health politics. They are joined by Daily Beast journalist Michelle Goldberg; technology consultant Deanna Zandt; reproductive justice activist La’Tasha Mayes; and broadcasting and social movement historian Allison Perlman.

As befits this twentieth anniversary year, we are looking forward to using next week’s gathering to take a pulse on the field of feminist studies. Antenna’s new series on Feminist Media Studies is surely an apt locale for such reflections; we look forward to reading your posts, tweets, and updates!

The second question is easier to tackle than the first, so I’ll start there.  In the tradition of feminist standpoint theory, I/we need to remember as scholars and teachers that despite how we may professionalize and depersonalize our writing, that our questions and approaches are shaped by who we are and where we’ve been.   So, to illuminate where I write from, I grew up the daughter of a Mexican mother and German and English American father, in mostly white neighborhoods in the U.S.  I thus write as a Latina and Chicana, with these identities claimed mostly as an adult, and as mixed race. My mother didn’t get the opportunity to go to high school, and my parents, while they helped me get a college education, never expected me to pursue graduate degrees.  Especially important to my work today, I later became a social worker, and worked for several years with low-income families and Latina and African American teen parents in San Francisco before returning to graduate school to pursue a Ph.D in media studies. Do my mixed ethnic background, class positioning, past romantic partnerships with women, work experience, or even my feminist values make my scholarship more feminist, however?

There’s a story I tell sometimes when asked what inspired me to become a media studies scholar. One of my days working with teen parents has stuck with me; it was a screening of Mi Vida Loca, Allison Anders’ film about Latina gang members.  The girls were riveted, and later told me that it was the first time they’d seen themselves in a film.  (Which is not to say that I’m proposing Latinas should always be portrayed as cholas or as working class, but that we all want to see ourselves represented, respectfully, in the media). In my visits to my clients’ homes I also saw how many of them were very isolated, with only their babies and a television to keep them company.  As I considered what mid-1990s television offered them in terms of role models or inspiration to even finish high school, I realized just how much media representation – or lack thereof – matters.  This is part of what is feminist in my work; I’m motivated by the fact that these young women are not there, on the TV or movie screen, or behind the scenes telling their stories. But Console-ing Passions made me think about how I might better foreground feminism in my research, teaching, and mentoring. We may assume it’s “built in” to our work, as a colleague and I joked at the conference, but our readers and students don’t necessarily know that.

Excellent anthologies such as Yvonne Tasker and Diane Negra’s Interrogating Post-feminism and the work of a number of smart scholars, many who contribute to Antenna, aside, the word feminism is coming to feel out of place in contemporary media scholarship.  As we’ve become more integrated into the academy, it seems we’re in fact expected to build in feminist, anti-racist, and related objectives but not focus on them too directly. We’re also not always studying histories of oppression that contribute to the dearth of female and non-white voices in media production or the impact of media texts on audiences, which at worst, I think, can result in analyses that are far removed from how media matters.  We might be viewed as less than rigorous scholars if we call attention to or take an activist stance when we encounter denigrating representations, cite Gloria Anzaldúa or bell hooks before Foucault or Stuart Hall, or acknowledge that we personally are motivated by feminism and related ideals. And I write this as someone with the new freedom of tenure, remembering that it often is less safe to be open on these topics as a graduate student or untenured faculty member.

I don’t think all media studies scholarship should be feminist or social change-oriented, but I do think we play a role in creating space for this work, and that what we say and what we leave out has an impact.  I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this as well. What’s your opinion on the integration of feminism in contemporary media scholarship?  How can scholars successfully accomplish this? And do these issues resonate in the same way for younger scholars?