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.

Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

From the program: You’re a freelancer who knows how to write, but to get published you need to know how to pitch ideas, negotiate fees and rights, adn deal with the editorial process. This panel of seasoned feminist freelancers, all National Writers Union activits, will share their strategies and professional experiences. Bring your own questions for the Q&A and take away some great hand-outs to help you communicate with editors.

Speakers:
E. Jeanne Harnois, A&E writer with background in finance.
Sue Katz, blogger, wordsmith and rebel over four decades and three continents.
Shirley Moskow, journalist/author, former newspaper editor, National Writers Union contract advisor

Jeanne Harnois says, “Value your work, and get paid. [Editors] might tell you ‘You’re going to get to have a byline. That’s really cool,’ But ‘cool’ doesn’t pay the rent.”

“Don’t be discouraged if you have no clips,” she says In that particular case, you may want to take an assignment for which you don’t get paid, but after you get that, you can go to the next level and the next level and the next level. Editors may tell you they don’t have money in the budget to pay you. Whatever they tell you, it’s often not true. There’s a triangle relationship in journalism that’s really important. There’s the writer (you), the idea, and the editor. The story cannot come together without all three things.”

Harnois emphasizes the importance of marketing. “You are as much a commodity as the stories as you write. You need to create an image for yourself,” she says. “Google yourself. Whatever you want to be, a travel writer, a social justice writer, a feminist writer, you need to craft that image and sell it. If you meet an editor, the first thing they’re going to do is Google you. You have to be really careful where you are. If you have a Facebook page, look at what’s out there and visible to everybody. Party photos probably shouldn’t be on that. Maybe pre-party photos but not the post-party photos. Use Facebook as a networking tool. When you meet editors, friend them on Facebook.”

Sue Katz considers herself a “revolutionary”. She was involved in social movements, on the more militant side, and wrote for radical publications. One of the phrases she coined that became a battlecry in the movement was “Girls Say Yes To Boys Who Say No” (this was before her feminist days). She was also part of a group called the Stick It In The Wall Motherfucker Collective. She talks about writing for Alternet, in the digital age, and having her writing go viral off other websites like Truth Out, which republished her work without permission.

“My blog is the only place where I can write whatever I want to write. I started it because my book agent was trying to sell a book I was trying to write about alternative sexualities for people over 50, like ppl into kink. Not missionary. Alternative. Most book editors are young and just a few years out of college. Publishers would much prefer someone a couple years out of college who can’t demand the kind of salary as someone more experienced. It’s a bottomline issue for them. For most book publishers, it’s about the bottomline, not literature. When those editors hear about alternative sexualities, they go ‘OH NO! My mother, handcuffs, I can’t bear it.’” Katz didn’t sell her book on alternative sexualities through her blog, but she ended up selling Thanks But No Thanks: The Voter’s Guide To Sarah Palin, the only feminist book on Sarah Palin. She wrote it in 28 days and nights, with three weeks to go before the elections.

Shirley Moskow says, “I don’t write for free, except for one publications because it’s being done by one person in the [National Writers Union]. I am adamant about getting paid. I think when you create a piece of work, you have certain rights. I don’t think it’s fair for people on the Internet to pick up your work and say, ‘Well, it’s just out there.’ When you walk by a fruit stand, you don’t just pick up an apple, because it’s there and easy to do.”

You can register your work on Copyright.gov. First North American serial rights mean that when you sell a piece to a magazine like Good Housekeeping, and they ask if this is the first time it’s being published, what you’re really selling is first North American serial rights. If you send it to Canada, you can sell Canadian rights. You can sell first rights in Great Britain, Italy, so on. Magazines today are often asking for all rights, because they don’t know what media is going to be invented and they don’t know how they may be able to use it. Up until the current recession, it was possible to negotiate for more fees if a publisher wanted electronic rights or all rights. If rights are non-exclusive, they have the right to do whatever they want with the piece, but you can do that too.

Make sure you have a contact to protect you. If a publisher doesn’t send a contract, write up a letter of agreement and send it to them (this will work as a contract). Email records can also be considered contracts. The things you discuss in a phone call or email with an editor are the things that go into a letter of agreemnt. It’s important to be able to substantiate whta you’ve done. Terms of agreemnt: whether you’re being paid on publication or acceptance (when they receive it). Most publishers pay on publication but if you can, try to get the latter. First of all, publishers are going out of business, and second, they can hold onto stories for a very long time.

Never sign an indemnification clause that claims the writer is responsible for any lawsuits or libel that arises. Publishers have insurance for these circumstances. If you can’t get away without signing it, add a phrase “to the best of the writer’s ability”. Work for hire is something someone commissions you to do. You have no rights. A work transfers copyright from creator to buyer. Buyer becomes owner of the work. Time-limited rights is agreeing to not sell piece to another publisher for a certain amount of time. Digital Copyright Act (1988) - If you sell your work to a website and your work is republished elsewhere without your permission, you are not in violation of your copyright. Internet service providers are expected to remove materials that constitute copyright infringement.

Audience member discusses having a piece she did for BUST reprinted on someone’s blog and altered without her permission. Someone else in the audience advises that she start a personal website, and when writing for print-only publications (like BUST), to post her stories immediately to the web so that her website is the first search result if someone goes online to find it.

Couldn’t make it to Cambridge? Experience the conference through the bloggers who attended. You can check out other transcripts and summaries of WAM! workshops, keynotes, and breakout sessions on these websites:

• Pre-Conference Workshop: PR: Getting Your Work Out There [WIMN’s Voices]
• Pre-Conference Workshop: Women & the Dynamics of Digital Social Capital: Making the Tools Work for You [Susan Mernit]
• Keynote Speech: Cynthia Lopez, Vice President of P.O.V. [Kerri Kanelos & WIMN’s Voices]
• Making Girl Media Makers: The Whys and Hows of Youth Media [New America Media]
• Women’s Voices & New Media Policy [New America Media]
• In/Out Of Focus, Broadcasting A Feminist Lens: Gender, Non-Conformity and the Media [Susan Mernit & Feministe]
• Feminist Blogging: From Journalism to Activism in Election Years and Beyond [The Lady Finger]
• Catalyzing Cultural Change with Social Media: Fad or Feminist-Fix? [WILPF & The Word Warrior]
• Queer Teen Filmmakers: Eradicating Homophobia Across The U.S. Reel by Real [Kerri Kanelos]
• Lessons from the Ethnic and Community Media: Identification, Representation, and Dealing with “Difference” [Hyphen]
• The Other Glass Ceiling: We had a woman candidate, but where are the women in the political media? [Feministe]
• Women & the Economic Crisis: Getting Beyond the Corporate Media Narrative [WIMN’s Voices]
• Pulling the Plug on Rape Culture One WorTumblrd at a Time: Using Accuracy to Undermine Dangerous Attitudes and Injustice [Feministe]
• Get Opinionated: Write and Publish Persuasive Op-Eds for a National Audience [The Lady Finger]
• Rapid Response Journalism: How Social Media Tools Can Enhance Your Work [Susan Mernit & Deanna Zandt]

The full list of attendees who are live-blogging WAM! 2009:

• Feministe
• Feministing
• Hyphen
• www.kerrikanelos.com
• The Lady Finger
• New America Media
• SusanMernit.com
• WIMN’s Voices

Let me know if I’ve missed your recap on my list!

Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

From the program: Looking at the five to ten top reproductive health stories to watch under President Obama, we’ll prepare bloggers, advocates, and journalists to cover them, offering a clear synthesis of what legal and policy issues are coming up next, discussing how the nuts and bolts of how to track and report on these stories, and exploring how the feminist blogosphere can elevate and drive coverage of these issues. We’ll look at policy issues from a comprehensive, justice-focused framework and discuss punchy, disarming ways to counter misinformation from the anti-choice movement. This session is an opportunity to brainstorm collaboration between policy/advocacy organizations, jouranlists and the blogosphere.

Speakers:
Emily Douglas, content editor, RH Reality Check
Dana Goldstein, staff writer, The American Prospect
Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, deputy director, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Kiki Zeldes, web manager and editor, Our Bodies Ourselves

“[The web resources under the old administration] makes it seem like there’s nothing you can do but be abstinent. And the second one, which is much more accurate, says we have an incredible tool [condoms] that can help prevent you from getting these diseases if you use them correctly. It’s a very different message of empowerment and that you have a choice, that you can protect yosuelf. I was really struck by the subtle ways info can be distorted. They’re not blatant lies, but it’s how information is affected. I was really delighted to see a change happen.” -Kiki Zeldes

Zeldes calls for more transparency about where funding for drug trials come from and how that affects the results, since pharmaceutical companies can influence research methods. Douglas says that it seems that while the FDA tried to delay approval of Plan B, the approval process for Gardasil moved along quite speedily, perhaps a result of pharmaceutical companies lobbying for it. Zeldes says the hormones involved in Plan B have been around forever, have been tested and researched, and have demonstrated long-term efficacy. Even in the FDA, there wasn’t anyone who said this isn’t effective. They were trying to limit it to certain populations and stall it. It took political pressure to force them to move on it. Although Our Bodies Ourselves haven’t taken a stance on the the long-term safety of the HPV vaccine, they are against mandates.

Studies conducted by drugs companies are three to five times more likely to give a positive result for the product being studied. They are not required to publish the information they come up with. With more money coming from government, it takes out a huge conflict of interest.

Gonzales-Rojas speaks of a woman who was pulled over while pregnant, arrested for being an illegal immigrant, and separated from her newborn after childbirth (during which she had handcuffs on). Her organization, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, approaches feminist issues from a human rights framework. She thinks Obama is committed to overhauling healthcare, signaled a lot of support for immigration reform. Latina Institute is working at the intersection of immigrant rights, reproductive freedoms, and feminism.

Dana Goldstein said that including reproductive health in sliding scale (based on income) healthcare plan would probably face opposition from Republicans. For conservatives, adoption is only discussed and encouraged as an alternative to abortion. Mayor Bloomberg was promoting circumcision as a HIV preventative among gay, black populations in New York. In reality, studies suggesting that circumcision is an effective way to prevent HIV were done in Africa promoting heterosexual population. Circumcision in adult men actually causes increased risk to women.

Goldstein says that Nebraska has a safe haven law that allows parents to leave their newborns if they couldn’t afford to take care of them. Poor families or families without health insurance began to leave older, teenage children with developmental disabilities. Goldstein suspected that anti-abortion groups were behind safe haven laws and was correct.

Audience member mentions that women seem to be the receptacles of all the responsibility and all the burden of contraception.

Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

From the program: Fewer than 20 percent of the op-eds published in newspapers nationwide are authored by women. Help us dig behind the myths and get the real story on what’s happening on the op-ed pages. This interactive workshop will bring together a panel of editorial/op-ed page editors (the insiders) and op-ed contributers (the outsiders) to talk about “what’s keeping women’s voices on the outside” … and off the editorial pages. The session will look at strategies for increasing the number of commentaries that are submitted by women, maximizing your potential for getting published (without compromising your position), and how to avoidt he pitfalls of being pigeonholed. In addition, we will touch on how to establish yourself as a “go to” writer so editors come to you to solicit pieces. The session will also identify strategies for partnering with newspapers to pressure the editors from the otuside to change the status quo on the op-ed pages.

Speakers:
Denise E. Zeck, executive director, American Forum and the National Women’s Editorial Forum
Martha Burk, founder of National Council of WOmen’s Organizations (NWCO), op-ed author
Marjorie Pritchard, op-ed page editor, The Boston Globe

“Help another woman everyday. That’s how women get ahead in news organizations and everywhere else.” -Martha Burk

“I think people need to get hooked on op-eds. Women need to get hooked on writing op-eds. Even if they’re not writing them now, someday they’ll be in a position where they should be weighing in on public discourse about these issues.” -Denise Zeck

Zeck also says feminist pieces about topics like sex education get filtered into spam sometimes, due to the language. It occasionally makes sense to followup with an editor through call.

Zeck advises that writers hook op-eds to a timely issue, says that sometimes op-eds  (often regional ones) break stories because no one is covering the same issues. Reporters follow up on op-eds as basis for full length stories.

Marjorie Pritchard reviews 700 op-ed submissions a week. Pritchard of The Boston Globe says the paper stopped running syndicated columns to make space for 13 freelance op-eds/week. She suggests that writers try to get published in smaller papers that often struggle to attract submissions.

Zeck also says articles get picked up by conservative publications, because of the dearth of op-eds being submitted to smaller papers.

“Editors like to hear from young people. They don’t hear these perspectives.” -Denise Burk, who discussed a young woman who got an op-ed about the police chief’s abuses published in The Chicago Sun Times.

Burk says that you can plan ahead of time which op-eds you’ll be submitting so that your quick submission offers a better chance of being published. “We don’t have a crystal ball, but we can predict some of the things that are going to come up.”

Pritchard says to always submit an already written op-ed, rather than pitching one, because of the time sensitivity.

Even though op-eds don’t pay, Burk says they have other advantages, such as media exposure and allowing writers to do on-air commentary on their areas of expertise.

Have an op-ed you need help distributing? Send it to forum@mediaforum.org.

Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

From the program: There are plenty of good reasons to work in the mainstream media: you can get your ideas out to a wide audience; you can establish a name for yourself; and you might just be able to make a living (or at least finance some of your less well-paid writing). This panel will explore the different reasons why women might want to work in the MSM and how they can get a foot in the door. We’ll debunk some stereotypes — like the one that says the MSM is adverse to stories about feminism - and we’ll talk about our experiences trying to get stories about “women’s issues” publishd. This session is geared towars anyone who would like to write for the MSM, though it will probably be particularly helpful for those who already have a background in journalism.

Speakers:
Ada Calhoun, editor-in-chief of Babble.com and freelance writer
Lynn Harris, award-winning journalist for Glamour, The New York Times, and other publications
Kara Jesella, writer and editor for The New York Times and other publications
Rebecca Traister, senior writer at Salon.com and author of forthcoming book on women and 2008 election

“[Salon publishes] really long pieces, pieces any consultant will tell you is too long for the web. Even though it’s a medium that’s celebrated for being easy and in-and out, online journalism is actually a medium that lends itself to length.” -Rebecca Traister

“A lot of times people ask, how can i follow up with editors without being annoying? And my answer usually is, ‘Don’t be annoying.’” -Lynn Harris

“You’re not going to only write about things you care about. The problem with going down that road is thinking of your work as only some sort of art. It’s work. The problem with thinking of it as some sort of art is that it enables people to pay you less for it. When you’re a journalist, you’re running a business. Other people in other businesses do things they don’t like and it’s somehow okay, but when you think of your work as artistry, then that allows people to pay you less.” -Lynn Harris

“Work really hard to make an impression on people. If you’re making coffee, make really good coffee.”-Rebecca Traister

“I remember the day I had to come out as a feminist [at The New York Times Style section]. They were working on a story about fat politics. And I had to say, well, no you’re kind of getting it wrong and I actually know about these things. After that, more people came to me because I somehow became the feminist expert. There is a lot more space [in mainstream media] now.” -Kara Jesella

“[Salon gets] a lot of submissions, and a lot of them are for Slate. I think the same thing happens to Slate.” -Rebecca Traister

“Talk to women’s magazines about their website, because I swear to god, they just figured out the Internet last week.” -Lynn Harris

“There were lots of ways to get feminist messages into makeup copy. The thing I found most problematic was not actually the words, but the pictures. The stories I often thought were extremely feminist, though a little consumerist as well, but there were still the pictures. There’s a photo of Beyonce and most girls are never going to look like that and it will make them feel bad. It was something I struggled with a lot.” -Kara Jesella

Ada Calhoun, Babble.com EIC, says the future is online magazines with a “lean, mean model of small staff, mostly freelance.”

“I have been in prochoice marches with other beauty editors. There are feminists within the mainstream media.” -Kara Jesella

“Taking my GQ money funded my super feminist articles at Salon. Doing those articles lets you afford to do the articles you care about.” -Lynn Harris on the financial reality of working for glossy mags

“People think you’re a writer so they’re like, ‘Oh, do you go to the park and have ideas? Do you journal?’” -Lynn Harris, Glamour contributing editor

Columnist Rebecca Traister says she created her own feminist beat at Salon. She references Ariel Levy doing the same thing at NY Mag.

This weekend, I’m attending the Center for New Words’ Women, Action & the Media conference in Cambridge, thanks to a scholarship that subsidizes part of my registration fee. It’s my first time going, and I’ll be live-blogging the whole thing for the benefit of those who can’t attend.

What kind of conference is this? The official goal is “to bring together everyone who has a stake in achieving gender justice in media, in order to share facts and ideas, develop skills, build collaborations, bridge differences and create action plans.” In other words, this is SXSW if Jessica Valenti ran the show. Two things make WAM! especially progressive: 1) it is inclusive of all communities, including those typically marginalized by class, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and 2) it empowers participants with the tools they need to affect real change.

Naturally, I have a huge list of sessions I want to attend and have to do some narrowing down:

Saturday, March 28, 2009
11:00am-12:30pm

• FOIA for Feminists: Investigative Techniques You Can Use
• How to Work in the Mainstream Media—and Why You Want to
• In/Out of Focus, Broadening a Feminist Lens: Gender, Non-Conformity and the Media

2:00pm-3:30pm

• Feminist Blogging: From Journalism to Activism in Election Years and Beyond
• Get Inside the Minds of Editors
• Global Citizens, Global Journalists: Women journalists organizing around the globe
• Women’s Voices & Media Policy

4:00pm-5:30pm

• A WAM! Roundtable on the Economy: Crisis & Opportunity
• Got Democracy? Media and Movements
• More Than Guilty Pleasures: Sexism, Racism, Consumerism & Other Hazards of Reality TV
• New Administration, New World Order: The Top Five Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights Stories You’ll Want to Track - And How

Sunday, March 29, 2009
9:30am-11:00am

• Get Opinionated: Write and Publish Persuasive Op-Eds for a National Audience
• How to get your P.O.V. heard: A panel with the producers of the P.O.V. (Point of View) series on PBS
• New Technology, New Activism: Case studies
• Women & Investigative Journalism

11:30am-1:00pm

• Make Money From Your Writing: How to Negotiate Money and Rights with Editors
• Pulling the Plug on Rape Culture One Word at a Time: Using Accuracy to Undermine Dangerous Attitudes and Injustice

If there’s a session that particularly interests you (either from the full list or my shortened one here), let me know and I’ll try to attend or get the notes from someone. I’d love to get some input on which sessions to keep on or cut from my list. (The speakers for each panel can be found on the website.)

In addition to the four breakout sessions, I’ll be at the first keynote, Saturday lunch, the closing brunch, the Queer Women of Color party, and possibly a film screening. I’m especially looking forward to seeing comedian Sarah Haskins (Harvard ‘01, represent!) kick some sexist media ass on Saturday night. Stay tuned for the live coverage.