Dedicated to the Press: No Bloody Leaders!
Make it stand out
Part two of this column explores how Kate Millett and Angela Davis’ celebrity visibility was productive and exploited by sections of their respective movement. Millett’s celebrity visibility was seen as unproductive by the radical and lesbian branch of the WLM, whereas the productivity of Davis’s celebrity to the communist movement outweighed the unproductive aspects of celebrity visibility.
Millett became a member of National Organization for Women (NOW) when it was founded in 1966. NOW saw themselves as the spokespeople for the WLM, and from its formation, the positive portrayal of the Feminist movement was essential to them. This is evident in NOW's press handbook from 1971, adapted from NOW's 1968 Public Relations Guidelines. One of their main goals was to: 'give the general public an honest picture of the Feminist Movement.’ NOW wanted to ensure that they could control how the Feminist movement was portrayed to encourage recruitment and win community support. This is why NOW developed and distributed media kits to local chapters of the organisation; to ensure that members knew how to deal with the media to guarantee favourable coverage.
Millett's book, Sexual Politics, became nationally recognised, providing a source of positive representation for the WLM. Sexual Politics was published August 31st 1970, with little publicity, but by October, the book had sold ‘6,500 copies a week, for a total so far of about 50,000 in the US.’ Two months after the release of its hardback edition (November), Sexual Politics was the sixth non-fiction bestseller in Publisher's Weekly.
Moreover, Sexual Politics was one of ‘the first books of academic feminist literary criticism’ that demonstrated how patriarchy infiltrates ‘literature, philosophy, psychology, and politics.’ It articulated feminist thought through academic convention, elevating feminist claims into the spotlight as ‘real theory.’ This provided the WLM with legitimacy. This legitimation was needed because the WLM was being delegitimised by negative stereotypes created by mainstream media publications.
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
GETTY IMAGES: Two women toss items into the Freedom Trash Can while a female reporter looks on.
After the Miss America Pageant protests of 1968, the term ‘bra-burning’ became popularised. Women threw away their ‘woman-garbage’ into a ‘Freedom Trash Can’ but did not set fire to it. However, when speaking to the NYT, protester Robin Morgan stated that the action was a ‘symbolic bra burning.’ This provided mainstream media publications with a catchphrase to trivialise and invalidate the WLM. While one of NOW's press goals was to ‘give the general public an honest picture of the Feminist Movement’, these negative stereotypes did the opposite. However, Sexual Politics countered this narrative. James Hilton and William Hippel have argued that stereotypes are devoid of specifics, ‘stereotypes are sustained in the absence of real evidence, this absence strengthens them.’ Sexual Politics provided academic arguments and historical evidence, becoming a powerful weapon against those stereotypes. Journalist R. Z. Sheppard, in his 1970 review of Sexual Politics in Time, stated, ‘sooner or later they [women] will probably come armed with a copy of Kate Millett's Sexual Politics.’
In Flying, Millett describes an interaction between Betty Friedan, writer of the Feminine Mystique, and herself before she was outed in December. Millett explained that Friedan interrupted her ‘four times’ while arguing that she wants ‘to write on the gay issue,’ Friedan combatively responded, ‘write whatever you like.’ Millett then rhetorically remarked, ‘has Betty become my mother? Is she now a permissive parent?’ This interaction with Friedan, a co-founder and the first president of NOW until March 1970, is emblematic of Millett's relationship with NOW. They wanted her to be seen, but not necessarily heard. She had to ask for permission when speaking her mind, specifically when it came to gay liberation.
Silencing Millett in this way was to NOW's advantage, as they recognised that speaking about sexuality would cause them ‘image problems.’ In her book Entertaining Lesbians: Celebrity, Sexuality, and Self-invention, Martha Gever explains that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, ‘gay liberation activists were ignored completely or rendered as eccentric curiosities’ by the media. This is most apparent in the New York media’s coverage of the Stonewall riots in 1969.
The uprising was sparked by a police raid at the Stonewall Inn. This six-day uprising saw individuals from the LGBT+ community fighting against police brutality but this is not how the mainstream media reported the protests. The NYT victimised the police and painted the protesters as the aggressors. They titled their article, ‘4 Policemen Hurt in Village Raid’ and explained in detail how ‘young men’ violently attacked the police but did not explain that they were merely acting in self-defence.
The mainstream media's framing of these events painted those in the LGBT+ community as aggressive and ‘eccentric’ characters. Mainstream media's homophobia impacted NOW's stance on sexuality. In their 1968 Public Relations Guidelines, NOW explained that questions around sexuality are ‘especially susceptible to ridicule by the press; thus, special caution must be observed’ when making statements on said issue. This is why radical feminists and lesbians within the feminist movement saw mainstream media and celebrity visibility as a hindrance, rather than helpful.
“From the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Northern Ireland, the Soviet Union, and all over the world, ‘Freedom for Angela Davis’ became an outcry against capitalistic corruption and oppression.”
Angela Davis’s celebrity visibility was productive to the socialist world because it drew international attention, formulating transnational solidarity. Davis was found and arrested in New York in August 1970, after months of being on the run as one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. A worldwide movement known as ‘Freedom for Angela Davis!’ erupted following her arrest. From the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Northern Ireland, the Soviet Union, and all over the world, ‘Freedom for Angela Davis’ became an outcry against capitalistic corruption and oppression. Historian Maurice Casey explained that ‘the international communist movement have long recognised the mobilising potential of global solidarity campaigns.’ These campaigns assembled individuals worldwide to participate in this global struggle against capitalist America.
The Irish Times, 1971
Statements of support were sent to Davis from countries under dictatorships. Several activists such as Betty Sinclair linked Davis’s case to the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. While Davis was awaiting trial in January 1972, British Parachute Regiment Soldiers opened fire, killed thirteen people, and injured thirteen others participating in a civil rights march. This massacre is known as Bloody Sunday. A Northern Irish woman named Martina wrote Davis a card, and drew a black coffin on it with the number thirteen Inside the card, Martina wrote, ‘even if our Irish troubles are still going strong, we here still have time to FREE THE SOLEDAD BROTHERS + FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES, AND YOUR FREEDOM.’
Martina’s letter shows that Davis’s case united different struggles worldwide. Martina’s inclusion of the Soledad Brothers highlights that the movement was not solely about Davis but all political prisoners. This movement was not just about the United States but also about all imperialist nations that target and oppress marginalised people. Solidarity campaigns have constantly threatened imperialist states like the United States, and this is why Davis’s celebrity visibility was so productive to the socialist world. Capitalism and the United States were publicly being denounced during the ideological conflict of the Cold War.
While Davis’s celebrity visibility was productive to the Soviet world, it was also exploited. Davis was an iconic figure among the youth in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). As a result, politically motivated materials were created for the youth about Davis. Within Soviet tradition, Ada Bieber and Sonja E. Kloche explain that literature and film were seen as critical political tools for the youth. They aimed to entertain and educate the youngest in society with the ‘ideas and ideals of socialism.’ This intent is apparent in the politically motivated literature and films created about Davis. Davis’s Marxist analysis, racial politics and political criticisms were flattened, representing her as an admirer of the GDR.
Black Rose from Alabama, published in 1972 by Werner Lehmann, became the standard text for informing young people about Davis. In the novel, Davis only appears as a character at the end, describing her time in prison. There is also an emphasis on Davis’s trip to East Germany in 1967 and how it strongly influenced her. Lehmann writes, ‘Amid hundreds of thousands of people at Berlin's Marx-Engels Square, she witnesses socialism, the realization of justice, freedom, equality and lively international solidarity.’ Lehmann describes May Day, an annual event on May 1st when Berlin erupts into leftist protests and street parties. Lehmann writes about Davis’s experience at May Day romantically, asserting that it was in these moments that Davis’s revolutionary beliefs were shaped. This articulation of the importance of the GDR can not be seen in Davis’s 1974 autobiography, where she nonchalantly recounted her experience at May Day. Davis wrote, ‘the next day I watched the parade, participated in the May Day Festivities and then went on back through Checkpoint Charlie to catch my plane for Frankfurt.’ Davis does not write that May Day impacted her in any particular way. In Davis’s entire autobiography, she mentions May Day only twice, in minimal detail, and expresses no feelings towards the event. This story about Davis was not really about Davis; it was about the GDR. Lehmann's fabrication was used to teach young people that the GDR is morally and politically superior to places like the United States because it creates revolutionaries like Davis. Davis was moulded into a loyal ally and the perfect role model for young people in the GDR to imitate. In this way, Davis’s celebrity was exploited for the GDR’s advantage.
Though it is evident that some exploited Davis’s celebrity visibility, there is a historical tendency to position African Americans as passive victims of the Soviet Union. Jemele Watkins has argued that ‘it is no secret that Black bodies were treated like chess pieces during the Cold War, and Angela Davis is no different'. Scholarly attention has not been paid to the idea that African Americans might have been exploiting the USSR for the resources they offered them. Even though Davis was uncomfortable with her celebrity status, she exclaimed in a 2018 lecture that the solidarity campaigns saved her life, as if she was convicted, she would have to face the death penalty.
Engineer Robert Robinson provided a clear description in his 1988 memoir Black on Red, of an African American using the Soviet system to his advantage while also being aware that they were using him. He wrote, ‘I got moral satisfaction that through their system I accomplished something.’ He also bluntly acknowledged that ‘the Soviets tried to use me for their propaganda.’ African Americans were aware of Soviet exploitation; however, the Soviet Union provided African Americans an attractive alternative to the United States.
Ultimately, Millett’s celebrity visibility was productive to NOW as Sexual Politics combated negative feminist stereotypes and provided the WLM with legitimacy that improved their image. However, her celebrity visibility was unproductive to the radical and lesbian branch of the WLM, as she struggled to properly advocate for them because homophobia was rife within mainstream media. Furthermore, Davis’s celebrity visibility was productive to those in the Soviet Union, as her case provided a public platform to denounce capitalism. Though Davis questioned the productivity of celebrity visibility, she followed the footsteps of other African Americans who utilised what the Soviet Union offered them to improve, and in her case, save her life.
Words: Halima Jibril
