[I]f you want your activists front and center out there doing the work to combat the Forces of Intolerance and create a better liberal-progressive world, the reality is we need to get paid so we can comfortably live our lives and fight for you full time. – Monica, TransGriot

There’s been some controversy over a letter that “disappointed” college student Nonnie Ouch sent to the Dallas Voice about activist Dan Choi’s speaking fee.  (The letter is addressed to Choi.)

Since [the National Equality March], I began the arduous journey to get you to speak at my school, Texas Tech University… To me, the mere hope of reaching out to those who meet my words with deaf ears was worth putting up with your agent and the exorbitant amount of $10,000 to get you out here. I never for a moment questioned why it was that much, or why you were charging anything at all.

…About a month ago, after nine months of dealing with your agent, I received an e-mail directly from you. In short, you basically said that the only way I could get you to speak is if I raised enough money to bring you to Tech. No deals, no compromises, end of story.

…I’ve lost all respect for you as a gay- and human-rights activist…You, sir, have lost sight in one of those many $10,000 checks written to you, of why you came out and became an activist in the first place.

ZackFord at Pam’s House Blend and Monica of TransGriot have great posts addressing why this criticism of Choi is unfair, and why we need to support activists getting paid. As a feminist writer/activist who makes the majority of my income from speaking (in fact, sometimes it’s my sole source), I wanted to weigh in.  Because this is an issue that goes beyond individual activists’ fees or income sources – it’s about the way we value (or don’t value) activist work. And it’s a problem I’ve seen time and time again within the feminist movement: We’re expected to do the work for free, because if we were really committed, it wouldn’t be about the money.  So here are some reasons why we all should support paid activist work…

We don’t want to limit who can speak for our movements: Ouch mentions speakers who travel to events with “their own money.”  Zack rightly asks, “Where does that money come from? It seems to me there is an incredible assumption of socioeconomic privilege in that statement. There’s just this expectation that people should have money (from where?) and all the activism should be on them.”   If we rely only on speakers that have enough money to pay for their own travel and lodging and those who can take the substantial amount of travel time off to work for free – the only people speaking for social justice will be those with money.

Not all activists are rich: Pam, in Zack’s comments section, mentions the common assumption that well-known activists already have money.  In my own case, people sometimes think that because I’ve had books published, I must be rolling in it.  For serious, feminist book writing does not make you money.  The advances are generally very small, the royalties mostly nonexistent, and you can spend up to two years writing, editing and promoting a book that brings you less than a living wage.  All of the authors I know hustle for their income through consulting, freelancing, speaking, and other gigs; the same is true of bloggers, even those of us at highly trafficked sites.  For many activists, speaking is our bread and butter: it’s what allows us to blog every day for free, to write books and articles for little to no money, and to tirelessly organize and speak out.

Since Ouch is primarily offended with the fact that Choi’s fee is 10k, I also think it’s worth mentioning that the money is most likely not all going in Choi’s pocket.  An agent can take anywhere from 20-30% of that fee, travel and lodging is often deducted, as are taxes.  And I’m betting that Choi, like myself and most of the activists I know, also does some events for free.

Our time and labor is worth money: Ouch writes to Choi, “Think about those in Lubbock, Texas, and other cities who couldn’t ‘afford’ you and how you could have changed their lives.”  The notion that activists should work for free because we owe it to the movement is common, especially in feminism.  (After all, women’s work is often undervalued – by others and by ourselves.)  While I understand the frustration students like Ouch must feel when they can’t raise the funds to bring in a speaker who would make a difference in their community, the assumption that activists must forgo payment is simply unfair and unrealistic.

And beyond the basic fact that activists need income too, it’s also important to recognize that this work is hard.  Even the speaking is difficult – it’s not glamorous jet-setting.  A normal week for me this past Spring involved speaking at two or three schools, taking at least four flights (because there’s no direct flights to smaller towns) in small, uncomfortable propeller planes that – in my first trimester of pregnancy – meant I was throwing up constantly.  You don’t stay in shmancy hotels or eat dope, or even good, meals (believe me).  And the job is not just about speaking for an hour.  You’re doing afternoon workshops, hobnobbing with students and teachers, and just being generally available to your sponsors for the day and most of the evening.  Now, these aren’t complaints – speaking on college campuses is my absolute favorite part of the work I do.  I get to connect – in real life! – with amazing young activists, see what’s going on with feminism in different parts of the country, and get energized by the work that so many amazing college organizers are doing.  But it is still work – hard work – and it is still valuable.

Our activists are not public property: While the vast majority of experiences I’ve had as a public feminist have been amazing – I thank my stars every day that I get to do this work – there are troubling expectations put on well-known activists.  We are expected to do things for the “good of the movement” to the detriment of our own personal lives, boundaries, finances and more.  We’re expected to write or speak about whatever issue people demand of us at any particular moment (for me, it’s suddenly being expected to talk about motherhood).  We’re expected to be constantly accessible by email, Twitter, and Facebook.  I just had someone send me a nasty Facebook message, for example, when I suggested they “friend” me at a public fan page rather than my personal account.  Again, this work is rewarding and wonderful – and being a professional activist is a privilege in and of itself.  But activists like Choi are people – they’re not owned by the movement and they don’t owe us anything.

This is a movement-wide problem: Expecting activists and feminists to work for little to no money isn’t limited to speaking.  Anyone who has ever worked in feminist nonprofits knows that the pay is minimal; this is especially true if you’re a younger person or in an entry-level position.  Now, low pay for nonprofit work is to be somewhat expected.  A lot of organizations, especially smaller ones, don’t have large budgets and struggle for funding.  But there are a lot of bigger, mainstream feminist orgs that do have money.  And I heard the argument from higher-ups more than once – particularly when people were asking for raises – that this was about the work, not the money, and that working for peanuts was just “doing your part” for the movement.  (Never mind that many high-level employees at these organizations had trust funds and/or rich partners that allowed them to work for the sheer joy of it.)  It’s the same argument I hear from feminist orgs and publications that expect bloggers (again, mostly young women) to write for free – that we should be happy to be associated with the movement, and to have access to an audience and to this very important work.  The feminist movement’s work is done on the backs of unpaid and underpaid young people, volunteers and interns – and it’s not right.

At the end of the day, it’s about how much feminism is worth to you, and not just in the financial sense.  Do we really want to support a system that only allows a privileged few to speak for our movements?  Do we want a model of activism that devalues feminist labor, or one that takes it seriously – ideologically and economically?  The truth is, if we want a movement whose internal workings mirror our external values, then we need to do everything in our power to ensure that feminist work is valued and that activists’ work is sustainable.

So…yeah.  Apparently there’s a creepy video game that teaches girls (and only girls?!) how to remain abstinent.

In news that isn’t entirely shocking, Dr. Phil is a douche to stay-at-home-moms who don’t wanna be.

Also a douche: the editor of Deadspin.

In non-douchey news, Prop 8 was overturned!

Amanda does an excellent job tearing apart blogger Susan Walsh (as she did with Jaclyn and Heather Corrina of Scarleteen on Twitter yesterday) on why Walsh’s post is disingenuous and misogynist.  (I mean, anyone who bemoans that non-slutty women can’t “compete with determined sluts in the marketplace” has a ways to go in terms of not hating women.)  So I strongly suggest you read Amanda and the Twitter war that preceded her post, because they’re awfully telling.

But outside of the content of Walsh’s argument, there’s something else going on here that I think deserves some attention.  Walsh is peddling in a pretty common (and tired) theme among bloggers who don’t really have shit to say – attacking someone who does.  This kind of post is especially successful when you make it as salacious as possible, so Jaclyn was a perfect target.  What truly bugs me is the way that Walsh – in her post and subsequently in comments, where she’s getting her ass handed to her – keeps insisting that she wrote this post to help young women.  You know, cause she cares.  She condescends that she has nothing against Jaclyn but simply feels bad for someone who is so clearly a tortured soul.  (Walsh conveniently ignores the positivity and joyfulness of Jaclyn’s post and work.)

But let’s take a look at what she’s really done from a bloggy perspective.  She’s featured a picture of Jaclyn – one that as far as I can tell isn’t publicly available.  She’s constructed a headline for her post that not only has the word “slut” in it, but that also features Jaclyn’s full name.  This is search engine gold for anyone searching for Jaclyn’s work (a lot more people, I’m assuming, than search for Walsh’s).  She’s created the post as slut-shaming traffic bait, no more.  Walsh doesn’t actually have anything of substance to say, as evidenced by the fact that she can’t seem to honestly answer one question posed to her in her comments section or on Twitter.  (Like when Amanda asked how many men one has to sleep with to be considered a slut, and Walsh replied she “rejects the concept” of a number.  Ahem, #15.)

This kind of attempt to character assassinate online is something that will always happen to feminists and women who speak their mind.  Vultures like Walsh know that there’s no better way to get traffic and to make a name for themselves – especially when they have no discernible expertise, writing ability, or following.  So where does that leave us?  We could ignore the Walshes of the world; my writing this post just drives more traffic to her, after all.  But there’s always a new crop of traffic-savvy anti-feminists cropping up, and I believe we should make sure we know who they are so we can promptly smack down their nonsense and remind ourselves why the work people like Jaclyn do is so meaningful. I also think it’s incredibly important that we not forget the personal and professional downfalls of being an unabashed feminist online. When we’re called whores, attacked and mocked online – those posts follow us forever.  We take the hit so others don’t have to.  So please show Jaclyn some love today; people who write bravely need all the gratitude they can get.

Nissan is coming out with a lady-car that will feature “breathable Vitamin C moisturizer pumped through the A/C.”

My girl Ann delivers a much needed smackdown on sexist shit-talking-as-harassment.

More Cowbell!

If you missed the amazing Twitter war between slut-shamer Susan Walsh and feminist bad-asses Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman and Heather Corrina today, you really should make sure to start spending more time online.  Or you could read Amanda’s post that takes Walsh down in more than 140 character bites.

In other news: 12th & Delaware airs tonight! (Admittedly, it will take some restraint not to watch the season finale of The Bachelorette. I find it fascinating, sue me.)

• Stop touching my stomach without my permission.  It’s presumptuous and it creeps me out.  You wouldn’t touch a non-pregnant person’s belly without asking, so what makes you think it’s okay to just lay hands on mine?  I know you probably mean well and are excited about the baby and all, but please just ask first.  (Especially because there’s no socially acceptable way for me to tell you to stop without sounding like a killjoy.)

• Please don’t comment on how small or big I’m carrying for how far along I am.  It’s weird enough having your body change in such dramatic ways without having strangers tell you that you’re not normal.  (I’m talking to you, bra-store lady!  Your skeptical frown after I told you I was 6 months and comment that I’m way too small was not helpful nor welcome.  I’m nervous enough about shit as it is.)

• Consider the fact that I am more than my pregnancy status and like to talk about things that aren’t pregnancy-related.  I am an interesting person outside of carrying this baby – I promise!  I have a life!  And shit going on that doesn’t involve cribs, baby showers, nipples and diapers!  Let’s talk about those things.  (Yes Mom, that means you too.)

• Whether I use cloth or disposable diapers, whether I’m doing a home or hospital birth, or whatever other “charged” topics you’re asking about are really none of your business.  (Unless we’re buddies and talking about said issues, of course.)  Yes, I write about feminist stuff and maybe I’ll write about those one day too.  And I’m totally flattered that you’re interested in my opinion about certain subjects in the general sense.  But I’m also a person who is not very interested in justifying every pregnancy/birth/parenting decision I ever make with a long political explanation.  I can paint my daughter’s room bright pink and line it with sparkly tiaras and – while it might be odd and out of character – it would still be a personal decision that you don’t need to know about.

Sigh.  That feels better.

As fun as it would be to take on all of these responses, it’s Kathleen Parker’s most recent article – A feminism that spans from Palin to Pelosi – that I find the most interesting, and the most telling.

Like most of the other pieces that criticized my WaPo article, Parker focuses on my take-down of Palin’s anti-choice policies – bemoaning the belief that “a pro-life woman can’t really be a feminist.” I can’t say I’m surprised that so many chose to respond with the abortion/feminism debate – it’s the most salacious, and certainly the argument that will get the most attention. But it’s also pretty goddamn lazy.

Because feminists aren’t criticizing Palin and her co-opting ilk (organizations like IWF and writers like Christina Hoff Sommers) simply because of their views on choice.  These faux feminists are called out as such because they fight against women’s rights across the board.

These “feminists” would cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act and fight same-sex marriage rights. They shallowly laud working moms while supporting business’ right to discriminate on the basis of gender, opposing increased funding for SCHIP and supporting cuts to the Family and Medical Leave Act. They believe that the pay gap doesn’t exist. Hell, they believe sexism doesn’t exist!

You want to have a debate about whether or not one can be pro-life and feminist? Fine. But don’t tell me that someone who makes their career trying to roll back women’s rights is a feminist. It’s fucking insulting.

But perhaps the most telling part of Parker’s column is this one line: “The reason Palin so upsets the pro-choice brigade is because she seems so content with her lot and her brood.” Because if there’s anything feminists hate, it’s a happy woman with a family?  This is a sentiment I’ve seen repeated often, and it’s great – because it’s the last resort of someone who has no cogent argument to make. Feminists couldn’t possibly be upset because Palin benefits from feminism while trying to undo all of its progress – no, no, we just hate families.  (Methinks someone is starting to sweat!)

Putting aside for a moment the fact that this line of reasoning is completely desperate, I have to say that part of the reason Palin and other “feminists” scare me so much is because I’m a happy woman with a family of my own, including a baby on the way.  I want my daughter to grow up in a country that sees her as a full human being and has laws and policies that reflect as much – not one where politicians take her rights away and call it feminism.

If the supporters of Palin’s so-called feminism had anything of substance to say, they would have said it.  Instead, they rely on played out feminists-hate-the-family narratives and controversial talking points.  So for now I’m just going to sit back, relax, and watch these “feminists” frantically try to justify themselves.  Something tells me American women won’t buy it.

Meghan Daum at the LA Times writes,

“But putting that aside, I feel a duty (a feminist duty, in fact) to say this about Palin’s declaration: If she has the guts to call herself a feminist, then she’s entitled to be accepted as one.”

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone – a racist, a misogynist, etc – could be a feminist just because they identify as such. Ridiculous. Daum’s argument also presupposes that it took “guts” for Palin to identify as a feminist, something that’s so often maligned in U.S. culture.

Now, there is no doubt that there is a backlash against feminism and the women who identify with the movement – but that backlash is largely confined to feminists who actually espouse and fight for feminist values. Conservative and anti-feminist women who have appropriated the feminist label – like Palin or organizations like the Independent Women’s Forum – only benefit from using the word. Because, they claim, they’re the “real” feminists. (The “feminists” who want to limit women’s reproductive rights, cut funding to VAWA and claim that pay inequity doesn’t exist.) These self-proclaimed “feminists” are using the word because they know it has power and because they know it resonates with women. But when it comes to actually implementing policy that’s feminist, or fighting for women’s rights…well, not so much.

Read the rest at Feministing.

Love. Love. Love. I’m gonna use that “righteous blade of equality” line.