Renee Martin at GlobalComment questions whether WAM! is truly inclusive, considering the cost of attendance. She says that the registration fee (as well as accommodations, travel, and food) makes it unaffordable for many women:

“Some women have been able to achieve free entrance by volunteering. but what does this say about equality? Money is more valued than the equal participation of women across class lines. Lest we forget - poor women have always had to serve at the beck and call of women of privilege.

A woman choosing to travel from Australia will spend 2000 thousand dollars in transportation fees alone before attending a single session. Meanwhile, there are many women active in Asian countries trying to improve the lives of women and yet the cost of participating in this conference ensures that much of their voices will not be heard. The same is true for women in Europe and Africa.

If you are a mother as I am, daycare for your children is a priority. Even arranging childcare can be a nightmare for a parent for work, never mind to take a weekend to raise consciousness. Finding extra money to pay for a weekend of daycare can also be an issue. Not every mother can depend on leaving her children with their father, or count on family and friends to pick up the slack.

These sorts of conferences have historically been attended by women of class privilege, who are able to negotiate their personal responsibilities. How many women of class privilege are rushing off to speak about oppression while leaving their children in the care of a woman of colour domestic helper? The irony of this often escapes many feminists; while they rail against the sins of patriarchy how many are complicit in the exploitation of other women?”

Martin suggests that WAM! could have live-streamed the conference (like The State Of The Black Union did) or divided it into satellite locations across the U.S. so that more women could have participated. I myself noted very few women of color in attendance. Though there were plenty of younger and college-aged women (including a group of ten that made it down from Smith), those under 30 were probably in the minority.

However, I wonder how realistic it is to expect the Center for New Words to lower registration fees or to live-stream the conference. From what I know about CNW, it’s a small non-profit with a modest staff. There weren’t a ton of volunteers present, and the only videos being made at the panels were shot by independent and local media. I don’t know if WAM! presenters had their airfare and accommodations comped by CNW, but one of the Friday keynote speakers flew in from Africa, and her monthly salary is what I make in two days, so either CNW or some other organization had to offer financial assistance. Granted, CNW has a fantastic presence in Boston, but WAM! had ten times less volunteers than any Harvard undergraduate conference I’ve been to. Judging from the lack of Harvard students and even MIT kids in attendance (and there were no faculty in the distributed contact list or program either), I’m guessing that CNW suffers from a lack of local support. Thus, it operates on an extremely limited budget and relies heavily on its small contingency of volunteers (which is why it probably waived registration for anyone who volunteered five hours or more).

At the closing lunch, Jaclyn of CNW also informed us that MIT’s women studies department has sponsored WAM! for the past five years by offering conference space and multimedia assistance at no cost. The conference is moving to Chicago next year, the first time it’ll be held outside of Boston in its six years of existence. Considering the budget limitations, satellite locations may not be a reasonable expectation.

I myself wouldn’t have been able to afford the conference without a scholarship, which CNW gives out based on financial need. This was the form I received when I applied:

“In order to make this conference accessible to as many people as possible, we are offering a limited amount of scholarship funding to defray registration costs. Because these funds are limited, we are distributing them solely based on financial need. If you would like to apply for scholarship, please complete the form below. Scholarship applications will be considered on a first-come, first-served rolling basis. Should you have any questions about the application or the scholarship process, or if you would like to request a payment plan, please contact me at [redacted].”

The form asks for monthly income, household expenses, and additional expenses (which I assume includes childcare). I applied the day pre-registration closed, about a week before the conference, and the student fee of $55 (the early rate) was reduced to $20 for me. For the record, I make $1,200 each month after taxes and I half-expected for my fee to be fully waived (because seriously, $14,400 a year is not a living). The fact that I had to pay $20 didn’t make me resentful since I took away much more than $20 worth from the conference, but it did make me think that there were plenty of other women — of all ages and backgrounds — who probably applied for and received scholarships as well. CNW also encourages ride- and room-sharing and set up a message board so that WAM! attendees could defray other costs.

I don’t know if I agree with Martin’s assertion that there’s a lack of consciousness about class divides within the feminist movement, nor do I think that the recession is the only reason why class is being spoken about more today. Perhaps I come from a different perspective, since I grew up during the third-wave which is decidedly more attuned to issues of class, race, and sexuality. There’s no question that plenty of groups were left out by the activism of the 60s and 70s, most of which addressed concerns of middle-class, white women. However, it’s not as if issues relevant to women of color, queer women, working class women, etc. only became more prominent post-recession; these were concerns borne out of disenchantment with second-wave feminism and they were simmering long before the obliteration of Wall St.

I found WAM! to be very inclusive, which is in line with CNW’s commitment to “those of us whose voices are often silenced or ignored, including women of color, poor and working class women, women with disabilities, lesbians, bisexual women, genderqueers, and transpeople.” There were panels that specifically addressed activism for and media representation of women of color, queer women, and poor women. The Friday keynote, which featured journalists from Iraq, Colombia, and Zimbabwe, also represented some of the global perspectives that Martin says are often forgotten.

As a woman of color who comes from a lower middle class family, I completely understand where Martin is coming from. It’s frustrating to feel marginalized within an already marginalized group. However, I don’t think WAM! is deserving of this particular criticism, since CNW clearly tried to make it as accessible as possible. (And besides, how many conferences of this scale offer scholarships? BlogHer, which can afford it far more than CNW, certainly doesn’t.) Hopefully, by holding next year’s conference in Chicago (again, with the support of a local univeristy), WAM! will be able to reach women that previously couldn’t attend. I’m pretty sure I’ll be making less, not more, by then (since I’ll be finishing senior year), but I’m going to try to scrounge up the airfare.