Hello? Oh...
Feminist bloggers were recently invited to participate in a conference call by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. The bloggers who participated seemed to find it worthwhile and, unsurprisingly, blogged about it. So why do I feel uneasy?
I Jus' Wanna Sing… opens her post about the call with a brief explanation:
"The call was for members of the blogging community who are engaged with issues of reproductive rights and health. The purpose of the call was to help bridge the gap between those who are pro-choice and others in the maternal rights movement( who might or might not be termed pro-lifers). A good article to read on the NAPW site to get a feel for what the conference call was about would be The Abortion Diversion.She's referring to Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of NAPW.
Lynn talked for about 10 minutes and then opened the call up to questions and comments."
Toronto blogger Melissa at A womb of her own writes about the organization:
"National Advocates for Pregnant Women is an organization I have a lot of respect for. Their work focuses on issues that the mainstream pro-choice movement tends to ignore, by ensuring the rights and health of pregnant women. In particular they do a lot of work with low-income women, women of colour and women who use drugs. What I like so much about them is that they approach reproductive justice from a perspective that moves beyond the rhetoric of 'choice', to one that understands reproduction in the context of structural constraints, such as earning a living wage, being free from violence, and access to maternity leave and health care. They also centre an anti-racist and class-based analysis in the work that they do."Among the other bloggers who participated and published posts: Egotistical Whining, Is there no sin in it?, and Woman of Color Blog.
I feel uneasy about the use of bloggers to prop up this organization, because there is a power dynamic at play, and it puts the individual blogger at a distinct disadvantage. I think it was probably pretty flattering to be asked to participate in a conference call with the Executive Director of a professional organization.
Bloggers are unlikely to think critically about an organization under these circumstances.
This results in posts that read like bland press releases. Most of the posts stated the purpose of the call was to open dialogue, so there was a great emphasis on this point. Yet most posts mention the NAPW conference (or "summit", to use the NAPW's grand language); I suspect increasing conference figures was the real purpose of the call.
Would these bloggers have blogged about the NAPW if they hadn't been contacted and courted by this organisation? I doubt it.
As it stands, based on reading these posts, it looks like bloggers were being manipulated. I didn't see any tough quesitons being aired about this organisation, or their conference. Bloggers are in danger of functioning like mini-marketing machines without critical thinking.
Ring ring. It's Petco on the line. They want to open up discussion about bridging the gap between cats and dogs.
"Hello? Oh…"
7 comments:
You are right, as I hadn't heard of this organization before the conference call. I'm not a tough questions asker, though
ha, you called me on my bad writing!!! :-)
I actually have written extensivelly about this organization off line--and have done lots of work in the area that they are working on--so for me, it wasn't so much that yay, look at me, they asked me to participate (as i did with a different call that i won't get into because it's too embarrassing--suffice it to say, I was like a damn school girl.)--but rather that I was just too damn tired to do the write up that I wanted to. I actually had a big post about racism within the ranks of pro-choice groups, but I was at that point, just too tired to deal with a bunch of indignant woman about how dare I say things are racist!
having said that, i do question certian things--bitch lab pointed out that many of us who do blog quite a bit about reproductive justice were not asked to participate in the call until other bigger bloggers who have used offensive language in reference to pregnant women (like breeders) were asked to participate right off the bat. I agree with her, and wonder how to begin to bridge that gap between online organizing and offline organizing. Because you are exactly right, I *don't* want to move into acting uncritically as a blogger--I really think we need to open a dialogue about this in the progressive blogosphere-I know that bitch already posted, but I was sick when she posted so I didn't have a chance to participate--hopefully your post will start that discussion back...
I'm not sure why the comparison between the NAPW, a non-profit organization that, from what I understand, is actually helping women in extremely dire circumstances, and PetCo. I sold nothing on my blog for NAPW.
Also, it meant a great deal to me that the invitation came not from NAPW, but from Nancy Goldstein of the Raw Story, whose investigative work into the situation in South Dakota inspired me to post back when I was filling in for Bitch, Ph.D. So for me, it wasn't a blind shill for some random organization, but a response to a call from someone whose work I like and respect.
I don't understand, exactly: is there a problem with NAPW? I'd love to know about it if there is. Are they scamming people or hurting anyone? Seemed to me all they were offering is a powerful grassroots force for change.
Also, not everyone who was on that call ended up blogging about it. I felt there was little-to-no pressure to do so, but I chose to because I wanted to.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I guess I just don't understand the breach of ethics you're suggesting, and I'm not someone who takes ethics lightly. Please clarify?
That is, it's not like I'm a doctor and some pharmaceutical rep bought me lunch. I like lunch. I'd be happy to blog about someone who bought me lunch. Lunch, anyone? *crickets*
My point is, I'm a nobody who had a relationship with another blogger who was in charge of the project. I don't flatter myself into thinking the invitation was in honor of my, like, 200 readers a day.
I also feel awkward about the fact that this was, I thought, a little tiny thing I could do to help women, to get the word out about this organization, something I don't do nearly enough of, and now you're suggesting I should have rejected the information I received on this call?
That is, what would you have done in the same situation? Refused to post to your blog about an organization that, to every perspective, seems to be trying to help women take control of their lives?
Thanks for the comments and additional persepctives.
I think there's some reading into my post what was not there.
This post is more about my concerns and preoccupations, which were triggered by reading these posts, than about prescribing specific courses of action to bloggers.
Also, this is less about the NAPW specifically and more about a dynamic I saw at play and wanted to blog about.
I wrote a longer response to this post here if you are interested in reading it but the gist of what I have to say is this: I think that your perception of the events was inaccurate. I would think that whenever any small-time blogger such as myself is invited to participate in a conference call with any organization we would be hyper-aware of the situation.
I totally get your point, but in this case I don't think it's accurate. Personally, I've written about NAPW a few times on my blog. I even helped them organize another set of conference calls with other bloggers whose work focuses on reproductive justice. They were mostly doulas and midwives with smaller traffic flow, and not the big name feminist bloggers. And I wouldn't have bothered putting in the effort if they weren't an organization that I support.
Sure it's flattering to be asked to participate in something like this, but I think (*hope*) that I'm smart enough to distinguish selling a product and supporting an organization I respect. And believe me, there are easier ways to increase my traffic or my technorati profile, or whatever, than saying nice things about NAPW.
Ooh, and bfp, I would love to see your post about racism within the ranks of pro-choice groups.
Post a Comment