A panel discussion about media blind spots, how feminism changed motherhood, whether personal beliefs should shape politics, and what is a "feminine woman" anyway? Hosted by the Mill Institute at UATX
I love Nancy’s stance that you don’t have to take a stand either way for anything ... thank you ! You can be thoughtful, have your own opinions and not have to share them with anyone. Yay
Wonderful discussion an actual cordial, productive conversation with differing perspectives, so refreshing.
Oh my God ladies, please stop qualifying your observations by saying “just quickly…”
I’m a few minutes in and hearing Meghan and the host do this. Ladies, The Fifth Column guys never promise to make their points “quickly” before monologizing.
If this is not an example of gendered communication, I don’t know what is. You are all wise and witty and have thoughts that we want to hear, please do not qualify your extended observations. Just let them rip!
Meghan’s example of what’s happening in newsrooms where story angles are being driven by editors, especially about the racially disparate impact of events, reminds me of numerous New Yorker articles I have read over the past several years. They start out describing a topic (imposter syndrome, fracking, birdwatching, etc.), then about halfway through the article it becomes entirely about the topic PLUS race. I didn’t notice this formula five years ago but it’s everywhere now.
And you know what? I should be able to point this out without worrying I’ll be accused of implying that it’s a bad thing that we are considering the racially disparate impact of more phenomena today than we were five years ago!
Also, please don’t apologize after offering your impassioned commentaries (Sarah!). Riffing is your brand. You have insights and we’re listening.
I’m not saying any of this to be overly critical, I loved this event and am a big fan of you all! This is feedback for next time. I imagine the live format with a panel feels different from your podcasts and you don’t want to hog air time. But I listen to so many long-form discussions and the self-deprecating comments are distracting and frankly, seem off brand (notably, Nancy didn’t really do this).
If you feel like you’re taking up too much time, just say less! Don’t add all these qualifiers, which just use up more air time. But I think the length of all of your responses was perfect, we want nuance, and you can’t get that in a soundbite. This is why people love Podcasts!
"Shout your STD!" actually worked in the case of AIDS. When the gays acted up, AIDS research and treatment got much more funding. "Shout your abortion!" is based on a similar idea. If abortion was ever to become Safe, Legal, and Rare, as President Clinton once urged, there would not be enough abortions to keep the clinics profitable, and there would not be enough abortion supporters to out vote abortion opponents. So if you want abortion to remain legal, it can never become rare.
If I'm ever asked for my ideal dinner party on the Proust questionnaire, I'll link to tis episode. Gah!
I love Nancy’s stance that you don’t have to take a stand either way for anything ... thank you ! You can be thoughtful, have your own opinions and not have to share them with anyone. Yay
Wonderful discussion an actual cordial, productive conversation with differing perspectives, so refreshing.
A true treat! I feel fortunate to have listened in.
Oh my God ladies, please stop qualifying your observations by saying “just quickly…”
I’m a few minutes in and hearing Meghan and the host do this. Ladies, The Fifth Column guys never promise to make their points “quickly” before monologizing.
If this is not an example of gendered communication, I don’t know what is. You are all wise and witty and have thoughts that we want to hear, please do not qualify your extended observations. Just let them rip!
Only halfway through, but this is such a refreshing listen.
Meghan’s example of what’s happening in newsrooms where story angles are being driven by editors, especially about the racially disparate impact of events, reminds me of numerous New Yorker articles I have read over the past several years. They start out describing a topic (imposter syndrome, fracking, birdwatching, etc.), then about halfway through the article it becomes entirely about the topic PLUS race. I didn’t notice this formula five years ago but it’s everywhere now.
And you know what? I should be able to point this out without worrying I’ll be accused of implying that it’s a bad thing that we are considering the racially disparate impact of more phenomena today than we were five years ago!
Also, please don’t apologize after offering your impassioned commentaries (Sarah!). Riffing is your brand. You have insights and we’re listening.
I’m not saying any of this to be overly critical, I loved this event and am a big fan of you all! This is feedback for next time. I imagine the live format with a panel feels different from your podcasts and you don’t want to hog air time. But I listen to so many long-form discussions and the self-deprecating comments are distracting and frankly, seem off brand (notably, Nancy didn’t really do this).
If you feel like you’re taking up too much time, just say less! Don’t add all these qualifiers, which just use up more air time. But I think the length of all of your responses was perfect, we want nuance, and you can’t get that in a soundbite. This is why people love Podcasts!
I love sarah's accent / cadence - there is something so familiar about it but I can never put my finger on why
I'm adopting "sticky widget."
"Shout your STD!" actually worked in the case of AIDS. When the gays acted up, AIDS research and treatment got much more funding. "Shout your abortion!" is based on a similar idea. If abortion was ever to become Safe, Legal, and Rare, as President Clinton once urged, there would not be enough abortions to keep the clinics profitable, and there would not be enough abortion supporters to out vote abortion opponents. So if you want abortion to remain legal, it can never become rare.