Drawing upon lived experiences, this article explores challenges facing feminist academics sharing work in the media, and the gendered, raced intersections of ‘being visible’ in digital cultures which enable direct, public response. We examine online backlash following publication of an article about representations of Meghan Markle’s feminism being co-opted by the patriarchal monarchy. While in it we argued against vilification of Markle, we encountered what we term distortions of research remediation as news outlets reported our work under headlines such as ‘academics accuse Meghan of dropping feminism like a hot potato’. Negative responses were polarised: anti-Meghan (drawing upon racist, anti-feminist, pro-empire, pro-Brexit/Trump rhetoric), and pro-Meghan (both general royal enthusiasts, and a smaller subsection viewing Markle in terms of politicised black uplift). In response, we received accusations of sexist, racist bullying, debate over definitions of feminism, claims feminism has gone ‘too far’, variously worded directives to ‘shut up’, gendered personal insults, and threats of doxxing. This article examines the tenor of public discourse around feminism and visible feminists. It questions the responsibility of institutions benefiting from public intellectuals for the wellbeing of employees in the public eye, particularly in the anti-intellectual socio-political context of Brexit and Donald Trump, where the costs for ‘visible’ women and feminist activism are ever higher. It also considers our responsibility as researchers to ensure our contributions to public discourse do not exacerbate existing harms of a white-supremacist, classist society. This article interrogates the risks – of misrepresentation, hyper-visibility, and reputational, psychological and potentially physical harm – faced by those engaging in acts of public feminism.
On 21st May 2018, two days after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle wed at Windsor Castle, the Daily Mail published the headline "Meghan's Manifesto: 'proud feminist' the Duchess of Sussex will take the royals in a striking new direction". The piece by royal correspondent Rebecca English-part of thirty-one pages of wedding coveragedescribed in celebratory tone how Markle's "candid" biography on the official royal website highlights a host of work dedicated to "social justice and women's empowerment" (2018:1), appropriating the language of feminist activism to describe a "manifesto" of objectives. This approach to reporting upon the new royal is far from unique, with headlines like "Why the Royal Wedding Is a Coup for Feminists" (Wright, 2018) and "How the Duchess of Sussex is smashing the royal glass ceiling" (McGoogan, 2018) abounding across news, comment and women's magazine titles alike to position the event as a feminist, post-racial utopia: a bi-racial, divorced, self-proclaimed feminist, American actor "modernising" (Duncan and Low, 2018) an ancient patriarchal institution. The representation of people of colour in the ceremony, from the African American pastor to celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and Idris Elba, has been interpreted as Markle disrupting monarchical status quo through a 'rousing celebration
The wide readership and commercial power of the ghostwritten celebrity memoir are indicative of its cultural significance, yet it remains a critically overlooked, much-derided genre. With some of the most popular texts being associated with female celebrities, both the books and their female author-subjects are 'bad objects': viewed as inauthentic due to visible mediation and thus denied authority. This article seeks to demonstrate that, far from being a legitimate means by which to invalidate the genre, the ghostwritten status of celebrity memoir is a source of complexity that rewards critique, and, indeed, makes it an exemplary site for the study of the wider dynamics of the construction and circulation of celebrity. This reading accounts for both the collaborative authorship and the industrial conditions of these texts' construction without dismissing them as the solely cynical manufacture of corporate merchandise. Contrasting the memoirs of Paris Hilton and Jade Goody (and their respective ghostwriters where visible) offers a productive interplay between polar class positions that enables a reading of the ways in which access to certain capitals inflects the celebrity's status as subject of her own life story. This shows the ways in which agency in self-representation is multiple and negotiated within gendered parameters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.