Literary Mama Blog Tour: Food for Thought

Today's stop of the Literary Mama blog tour takes us to LM's Literary Reflections co-editor Caroline Grant's blog Food for Thought.

Although Grant writes frequently about her love of cooking and her favourite recipes, this is not a "food" blog per se. Rather, Food for Thought reads like a cookbook passed down through the family, a social history featuring a recipe for Mom's Fruit Crisp on one page and how a news event touched their lives on the next.

In her most recent post, she writes about the milestone event of her sons playing (nicely) together for the first time.

When people consider having a second child, one argument in favor of expanding the family is always that you're giving your first child a playmate, a best friend, a true companion who will be in their corner long after you fade from the planet.

Once you have that second, you're too busy referreeing petty disputes about who gets to sit on the blue chair NOW, and who had a longer turn with the ukuelele.

Caroline also blogs about motherhood and academia at Mama, Ph.D. (also the title of the anthology she and co-editor Elrena Evans are compiling on the subject).

Talk Radio for Women, by Women: Victory or Cautionary Tale?

Yesterday evening marked the official launch of GreenStone Media, a new national radio network "for women, by women." With powerhouses Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem serving on GreenStone's board, this looks like a wonderful day for feminists, indeed.

GreenStone promises to be "what is missing in talk today -- radio that is thought-provoking, emotionally involving, believable and trustworthy. Radio that talks with you, not at you." GreenStone took the unique approach of having Gloria Steinem host a conference call with a number of well-known women bloggers to help promote the concept that this radio network will be a two-way conversation. Steinem also gave the keynote address, titled Broadcasting: As If Women Mattered, at this year's The Conclave Learning Conference (a key conference for radio industry insiders). Her address is an interesting one and is well worth the read.

In her address, Steinem makes some surprising (at least to me) statements about women's interests: "Nine out of ten (women) said they want information about current events and issues – no topic ranked higher – and they also want humor; they want to laugh. They want information about health, about fitness, about relationships, about women in the news, and also – this is something they find virtually nowhere -- about how women live in other countries. How do those women handle many of the same things that women experience everywhere? Women wanted stories, stories and more stories. They also wanted to know what books and movies or worth their very scarce time. What do they want the least? Politics – because unfortunately, it has come to symbolize fighting -- and sports, because inaccurately, it has come to seem like “a guy thing.”"

I thought that the group might take this opportunity to reframe the political (and, for that matter, athletic) conversation. To make it so that talking about politics is not associated with Limbaugh-style confrontation. Instead, it seems, it's simply off the agenda. According to an article in Washington Business Journal, GreenStone President and CEO Susan Ness "says the company plans to add programming for every time segment and day of the week. The shows will steer away from politics and instead focus on issues such as faith, business, families and relationships. "The talk that typically appears on the AM radio tends to be harsh and confrontational, and that's not the kind of radio that women want to listen to," Ness says.""

It also struck me as a little strange that Steinem, of all people, seemed concerned in her keynote address that radio insiders not be put off by any feminist label: "I tell you all this about feminist not because good programming is about labels. On the contrary, it’s about information and humor and creating an on-air community, one that treats everybody with respect. I tell you this only as preventive medicine: Don’t let labels be used to keep you away from good programming – the programming most women want." And just in case any radio executives might still be hesitant about joining forces with arguable the country's best known feminist, she reaasures them, "I trust the intelligence of this audience to know that we aren’t going to burn bras."

The thing that struck me as most odd in the address, however, was that after a lengthy discussion of how women are ignored by mainstream radio, in spite of our earning power, education and lead role in major household purchases, one of her conclusions was this: "No wonder 91% of women are annoyed at the low level of ads and pitches directed at us."

Huh? What? I'm annoyed at ads, period. High level. Low level. They are all ads, trying to convince me to buy something I don't really need.

So then I thought I'd check out GreenStone's advertising policies because up to this point, I thought that it would be run along the lines of NPR. Suddenly the reading became even more interesting.

On the page designed for prospective advertisers, the network is described not as a place for women to be their "authentic selves" (as is described on the listener oriented page), but as "The Perfect Vehicle for Female-Oriented Brands". It describes how "GreenStone Media programs offer unparalleled advertising opportunities for people and products who are trying to reach the very desirable 25 to 54 year old women." They describe their approach: "We do it with powerful personalities with a sense of humor, big time guests, real world content, interactive talk about issues that women care about, and an approach that creates community: the best possible environment for female-targeted brands."

On the "Our Reach" page, they offer their advertisers access to their target market: "More than just radio, we’ll build brand awareness and drive sales with in-program product placement, guest experts, branded features, podcasts, and promotional campaigns -– on-air and on the web. These targeted efforts will bring your brand closer to the female audience than ever before."

On their page describing their Charter Sponsor Packages,they refer to an "Audience Database -- We know who our women are, where they live, what they like. . . and what they buy. Get product and logo placement, database research, targeted email, product sampling, and more." They offer these features: "Product Placement and Guest Experts -- Where appropriate, your products and experts will appear on our shows and in our content", "Sponsor Features -- Own a lifestyle feature: Parenting, relationships, beauty, entertainment, health, fashion, shopping, style, leisure, home, and more.", and "Long Form Commercials and Custom Vignettes -- Your brand becomes the star with audio content that entertains and sells your message."

And the final line, in bold, "GreenStone will deliver the women you want in a whole new way."

Yikes. Is it just me or is this a little unsettling?. I know that sometimes the end justifies the means and perhaps this is the game we play in order to get our issues on the agenda (Gail Evans, author of Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman is on the Board of Directors) but, wow, I've got to say this left me feeling a little weird. How can I be expected to have an open and honest conversation and to be my authentic self, knowing that somewhere out there a researcher at a consumer products company is mining my data to try to get me to buy more female-oriented products?

In fact, even in her keynote address, Steinem seems to be referring to how offering women what they wanted to hear can influence their purchases. She describes radio pioneer Mary Margaret McBride: "She ate food on air, could be lyrical about describing it, and became so trusted by listeners that advertisers forgave her for refusing to promote alcohol and cigarettes -- just as they now forgive Oprah for promoting products she actually likes." Cue radio industry audience chuckles.

I'd like to think that women are looking for ways to take an ownership role in the media and I don't kid myself that making a profit will not be high on the list of objectives. As more and more media consolidation is taking place, obtaining and maintaining ownership is critical to keeping the issues concerning women -- family, health, and yes, even politics -- on the agenda. But I just want to believe that the $3.1 million invested by Billie Jean King, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Rosie O'Donnell, all strong and powerful women, might be used to do something other than "deliver women" to advertisers.

Ladies, I'm concerned. Please prove me wrong.

Will write for swag?

Mediabistro.com's Galleycat has an interesting piece on product placement in books. While a handful of books that have embraced this idea does not a trend make, one wonders how long authors will be able to resist tapping into the $6 billion of product placement dollars and in-kind payments.

Since so many advertisers are focused on marketing to the Mommy Demographic, it will be interesting to see if, as mother writers, any of us get approached. And it will be interesting to see if, as mother readers, the book that nourish us will in any way become compromised as a result.

LM Blog Tour: Peter's Cross Station

Literary Mama's E-zine editor Shannon L. C. Cate's blog, Peter's Cross Station, chronicles what it is like to be a "life-partnered, over-educated, tea-not-coffee-drinking lesbian co-parenting the planet's cutest child," and to live in a "a queer interracial family in the times of George W. Bush". Blog fans may recognize her as the voice behind "Waiting for Nat" (Nat has since arrived and is now 18 months old). Cate weaves together the personal and the political, writing one moment about her daughter's love of language and another about the importance of getting a passport for Nat:

See, none of the three people in our legal family share a last name and the parents and child don't share a race, and the parents have no legal marriage status. But once we have a photo id for Nat we can cobble together our photo ids, Nat's photo id, Nat's birth certificate, our adoption decree and...voila! Proof that we all belong to each other for sure. So Nat can't get snatched by crazy Oklahomans claiming we aren't really her parents or whatall.

Cate also features photos of her gorgeous daughter Nat (aka She Who Must be Adored) that make one's heart simply melt.

It's fall and we're back!

It's the fall. The air is growing crisp, the days are growing shorter and it's the perfect time to pour yourself a nice strong cup of tea, draw the curtains and curl up with Literary Mama. This summer saw the relaunch of our e-zine, the launch of the Mama Sez column where LM editors share what's on their minds, and an Op-Ed page. We've opened up the comments feature on a number of our columns so that Literary Mama site can continue to generate conversation.

The blog is undergoing a revamp, as well. We will be focusing on the issues of the day such as the so-called mommy wars, the frustrations with the mainstream media's presentation of mothering (or should I call it Yummy Mummying) but we will also continue to help promote some of the voices of mothers who are not typically given a platform in the mainsteam media. Each Monday I will introduce you to a different blog. Initially I will be starting with the LM editors and then I will be working my way through some of the unsung corners of the blogosphere. We will also be introducing the voices of some special guest bloggers over time.

As always, we welcome your comments. Or, if you are shy to see your name in lights, you can always send an email to tomama@tomama.com. Just use LM blog in your subject line so that my spam-filter won't mistake you for someone peddling a cure for ED.

Literary Mama Editor in Skirt!

Literary Mama Editor-in-Chief Amy Hudock's essay, "Transformations" appears in Skirt! magazine. This touching piece deals with how Amy's mother dealt with losing her hair while undergoing chemotherary. Amy's current writing can also be found in her Literary Mama column, Mother Writing: Our Storied Past.