Join the call for a new grassroots network in support of Jeremy Corbyn. Read and sign up · Close this box

Add women and stir!

Ruth Michaelson reflects on the Rebellious Media Conference.
17 October 2011

Preface any question put to a room full of people with the words “let’s have a question from a woman now, shall we?” and you can watch the collective feminine blood pressure of the room rise by about 100 points. Add another 50 if that room is filled with lefty participants in a conference whose purpose is to showcase alternative methods not just of communication but of organisation; every time this sentence was uttered, my heart sunk and my blood pressure started to do an impression of a Nasa rocket launch. It’s not that women don’t want to have their delicate feminine sensibilities offended by anything as impertinent as a question, it’s that none of us want to hear this kind of accompanying song-and-dance to show that (sound the alarm, comrades): female inclusion is happening. It also puts an inordinate amount of pressure on whoever the poor unfortunate is who then asks a question, meaning that their question has to be twice as interesting, witty and inspiring as the one that preceded it, all because they don’t own a penis. When the lucky lady in the room happened to be me, the heady cocktail of my anger at hearing those dreaded words plus said pressure meant that my previously beautifully formulated question on media attention in Bahrain turned into something so stupid that people turned around to glare at me for wasting the room’s time.

The thing is, that sentence was something of a motif of the Rebellious Media Conference, its inception following the keynote address by Noam Chomsky. If the all-male nature of the panel necessitates the syrupy words “as there are no women on the panel, why don’t we take the next three questions from women,” it’s time to reconsider the nature of the panel, not try and palm us off with the equivalent of crumbs from the high table. Even the most eagle-eyed representation-obsessed feminists in the room didn’t seem bothered until we were all suddenly asked to make our presence known by asking the man of the hour something so riveting that it would have knocked his glasses off.

Given that feminists are often chided for being too quick to jump to the moan, this seems the right point to clarify something: this isn’t a gripe about straight-up representation. Female attendees were there in what seemed like force, and the conference featured a fair range of female speakers, including the chance to see what Amira Hass’s face looks like as she vents her frustration at Skype malfunctioning projected onto an entire wall. That alone was worth the entrance fee. The conference also featured a discussion on feminist media and the 21st century, which did provide some worthy talking points but felt rather like a lefty version of a Women’s Institute meeting. Aside from the rather vital inclusion of Laurie Penny and a speaker from Black Feminists UK, it lacked the riot-grrl-style verve and spark needed to keep it feeling fresh and inspiring and safely out of the tea-cosy-zone.

Yet overall the conference had the feel that its pointed moments of representation had been tacked on as an afterthought; the “add women and stir” vibe. This also seemed to be true of some other factors- the unintentional irony of a discussion on “voices from the Global South” was entitled “We are Everywhere”, which is precisely where they weren’t. Inclusivity isn’t just about having workshops whose titles could make a Benetton campaign spontaneously orgasm, it’s about providing a real opportunity for both participants and organisers to reconsider the traditional structure of the conference and how this affects inclusion and participation. We could have spent four hours discussing how to make feminist media more relevant to men, but given that the room was almost entirely female this seemed somewhat futile. Rather than attempting to draw men to the workshop with the scary f-word in the title, it would have been of more benefit to reconsider how women and men were included in the conference, rather than ring-fencing “women’s issues” in order to make a point about female inclusion.

Simply put: if it’s understood that women are really part of the conference because they are a vital part of the anti-corporate media, there is no need to tap dance around their inclusion each time it comes up. Taking women’s inclusion for granted, provided that there is adequate female representation, is the bulls’ eye in the centre of the feminist dartboard. Feminists don’t need a parade each time a woman is allowed to ask a question, it shouldn’t be considered special. Had the conference taken place in Saudi Arabia, the act of a woman asking a question in a crowded lecture theatre would be worthy of praise. But this being London in 2011, it’s about as special as a Che Guevara badge.


Ireland: Water protesters face jail as political policing ramps up

Ireland's movement against water charges is being criminalised by a nervous state, writes Oliver Eagleton


With a decision on replacing Trident due in 2016, WMD Awareness want to put on the UK's first film festival dedicated to exploring the impact of nuclear weapons

London event: Festival of Choice 2015

A week of events looking at threats to reproductive rights and the plight of women and girls who do not have access to safe and legal abortion in countries around the world

How the next generation is challenging big oil

Lindsay Alderton explains why a group of children staged a protest intervention against BP

Michael Pooler 18 October 2011, 06.52

Yes I did think that that opening remark regarding the lack of females on the panel was very tokenistic and embarrassing – possibly saying something more about the gendered nature of even ‘radical’ media. However having organised (much smaller) events myself, I must say that it can be very difficult to get a good gender/ethnicity/age/background balance among speakers. This is not an excuse for not striving to challenge power closer to home. But I feel I should point out that often the majority of people who you invite you speak/run sessions at such events cannot attend, so the best intentions can come to nothing.

For a first bash at running this event I thought that it wasn’t bad. We should agitate for a greater diversity of voices if there is a next time.

Martin 18 October 2011, 14.26

Nice writing… When the event was in the planning stages for some 18months there are few excuses I feel.
Gender wasn’t the only issue I feel;

Ged Byrne 23 November 2011, 18.26

There are so many ways of discrimination and none of them were observed except the gender thing! Personally, I didn’t even register that the panel was male, white, disabled, minority, left wing, middle class or anything like that, I only tried to listen to what was being said!

I wonder if this ^ feminist, Ruth Michaelson, considered asking, nay demanding, from her fellow female who was wandering around with a loudly crying baby in her arms, that she take the offending baby out of the auditorium until it was quiet?

I was at the back, as far away from the woman with the baby as was perhaps possible to be and I found it distractingly annoying! It was a media conference for adults and I was hoping to have a room of mature adults and any who may gain from the experience without taking away from others.
Fair play if you can attend such an event with a nursing infant, but surely there are limits? I know a chap who is severely mentally disabled who rocks himself, shrieks and shouts with a VERY loud voice! He’s an adult and, rightly so, had a right to attend the conference too, but I can not for the life of me imagine anyone with half a brain and or any realistic set of decent manners would wish to bring him. He’s not going to gain anything from it and his presence would only annoy others attempting to hear over his din.

Likewise the squawking baby whose adult walking up and down with a smug smile on her face should have perhaps had pointed out to her! It certainly would have made a difference to me…or, are women with babies too sacred to murmur any dissent towards?

Comments are now closed on this article.

Red Pepper · 44-48 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 7JP · +44 (0)20 7324 5068 · office[at]
Advertise · Press · Donate
For subscriptions enquiries please email