FEMINISM AND THE CONWAY CONUNDRUM

Note from the Roar Publisher: I think Roar missed the mark in publishing this piece. Kellyanne Conway rejects the label “feminist” – so I don’t see how this writer, or anyone, can call her such. That is, to my mind, both paternalistic and bizarre. Further, it is our position at Roar that if one is not pro-choice, one is not, by definition, a feminist. This author is correct that feminism is for everyone – all women (and men and gender non-conforming folkx.) That does not mean that everyone is a feminist. One’s resume does not make one a feminist. Their beliefs and actions and identification do.

We chose not to take this piece down — though to have run it was a mistake — because we don’t want to hide our mistakes in the basement. We want to expose them for what they are. We blew it. I’m sorry we did. I think our record up to this point speaks for itself. I think our record moving forward will continue to do so. That said, I am sorry we ran this.  Stay with us.   — Anna March


While I consider myself a liberal and a feminist, I find it hard to reconcile the disdain and hateful rhetoric toward a woman who has accomplished so much. In this writer’s opinion, her successes as a woman and a feminist should be honored by all women and feminists, regardless of political association. We are, after all, women (and men) who want equal rights for all our sisters. While I understand the abhorrence and disagreement with her political beliefs, I celebrate her accomplishments. 

Kellyanne Conway is the first woman to run a presidential campaign.

This one declarative sentence should have feminists extolling her ascendancy and joyfully sweeping up shattered ceiling glass, yet instead, her very accomplished career is barely recognized by the party touting inclusion, equality, tolerance, and acceptance.

How do we as feminists validate and celebrate the historical success of Kellyanne Conway when she represents and advises POTUS, a man who stands firmly against everything we believe in and continue to fight for?

Let’s review Kellyanne’s history:

Born in New Jersey in 1967, she was raised by her mother, grandmother, and two aunts after her parents divorced when she was three.

She received her B.A. magna cum laude in political science and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Trinity College.

She received her law degree from GWU Law School in DC and graduated with honors.

She served as a judicial clerk for Judge Richard Levine of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

She is president and CEO of The Polling Company, Inc./Women Trend, a consulting firm she founded in 1995.

She has worked for Congressman Jack Kemp; Senator Fred Thompson, former VP Dan Quayle, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Congressman (now VP) Mike Pence among others.

She was senior advisor to Newt Gingrich in 2012 during his unsuccessful presidential campaign.

Initially, she supported Ted Cruz in the 2016 election and headed the fund raising super PAC, Keep the Promise, 1.

When Cruz suspended his campaign in June 2016, she was hired one month later by Donald Trump as a senior advisor.

In August, Trump announced her as his campaign manager.

After winning the election, Trump named her Counselor to the President.

She commentates on major networks, cable television, radio, and social media platforms.

She is married and has 4 children.

She is an author.

Reading these credentials, it’s inconceivable to think her political expertise, business acumen, perseverance and intelligence is given little or no recognition by feminists solely due to her political beliefs as a conservative and her affiliation with Donald Trump.

Since when is this ok?

At 61, I have marched on Washington, voted in numerous elections and not only waved the feminist flag in front of my children, but taught them to help me carry it. But far left feminists are to the liberal party what the Tea Party is to the conservative and while I disagree with the far left agenda, I fully support their right to pursue and advance what they believe the feminist platform to be.

Disagree with Kellyanne Conway’s views, her tactics and her associations, with that I have no problem but I am disheartened by the far left’s unwillingness to acknowledge her as a feminist.

Liberal feminists resist Donald Trump because he’s self-aggrandizing and close-minded, racist and oppressive; he leads with hate and exclusion and pushes an anti-woman agenda. But the far left display many of the same tendencies, particularly when considering women’s rights.

What? Feminists not caring about women’s rights?

Do you as a liberal feminist respect and accept pro-life women as feminists? What about women advocating for prayer in schools or the right to limit marriage to a man and a woman? Surely feminism includes conservative women. Or does it?

Part of having intelligent and productive debate is understanding there will be disagreement, there will be discourse, there will be uneasiness in listening to others speak passionately about a subject we may vehemently disagree on. But to demean women solely on their personal convictions is every bit as ignorant and childish as we accuse our president of being.

I vividly recall the calamitous uproar when Hillary Clinton was insulted or berated during the campaign and joined my feminist sisters in denouncing such tactics. But I also saw staunch resistance and often complete refusal by far left liberals to entertain respectful dialogue from women expressing their distrust or disagreement with Clinton’s policies. They were often verbally assaulted; their comments dismissed as racist, ignorant, and anti-woman, all before being banned from the page or group. This is the very behavior we as feminists deplore and march by the millions to protest.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feminism as: the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. By this very definition, most women are presumed feminist but there are several categories in which a feminist can identify: Liberal, Radical, Socialist, Cultural and Eco and expanding on these categories, there are many sub-groups of feminists, making the boundaries and ideologies of feminism difficult to define.

Had Kellyanne Conway ushered Hillary Clinton’s campaign to victorious fruition, she would be recognized as a women’s rights icon, held in the highest regard by the feminist community not only for smashing the glass ceiling, but accomplishing it all as wife and mother; a shining example of what a woman being raised by women looks like; the perfect package: a feminist symbol of Hear Me Roar.

Where is it written that we as women, not only ignore and dismiss another woman’s triumphs due to oppositional viewpoints but punish her for them? Kellyanne Conway loses all rights to the feminist seal of approval because she was Donald Trump’s campaign manager? Is there a feminist by-law stating only women with whom we agree shall be advocates of our gender?

I admire Kellyanne Conway. She’s a key player on the world stage and has the ear of POTUS. She was an integral part of Donald Trump securing his seat in the Oval Office. I don’t agree with her political opinions or philosophies but will not hypocritically dismiss her remarkable accomplishments because of them. If we as women fuel division and animosity among each other, are any of us feminists?

True feminism encompasses all women, not because of their political or religious affiliations, but because at the heart of feminism is empowerment, enrichment and equality for all women.


Mary McLaurine’s work can be found in The Washington Post, Huffington Post, The Manifest-Station, Chicken Soup for the Soul as well as many other sites at: https:theheartofsassylassie.wordpress.com/featured-writing.

46 thoughts on “FEMINISM AND THE CONWAY CONUNDRUM

  1. I Don’t agree with the authors point of view on this issue, at all, but what disturbes me just as much is the unprofessional editors comment before the article even begins. You should have determined BEFORE a piece ran that it was not right for your site, not wait till after it runs and then issue an “apology”…Shame on you, It makes you look unprofessional and that you sold this writer out because you got some negative feedback from the piece. If anything issue a statement that her view doesn’t speak for the editorial team, it’s the authors view only, but to go on and on about how it should not have run makes you look worse then anything written in the article.

    1. Nonsense. On the contrary, esteemed publications — like Ms., like the New York Times, like Harper’s, like the Washington Post, like the Boston Globe, etc, etc, — flat out issues apologies when they blow it. It’s not at ALL unprofessional and the suggestion that is is just not rooted in reality. Publishers and editors simply can’t read every piece that runs in a publication — and sometimes mistakes are made. What’s professional — not to mention ethical, not to mention RIGHT in terms of the issue — is to do what I did: say we blew it. And, for the record, we had no feedback on the piece when I issued my statement. I read the piece and sent our site editor a note to put my piece up and he did.

      1. I think the big, huge difference is they way in which the NYT et al issue such apologies. I can’t find one example where the publication shows actual contempt for its own writer. That’s not nonsense. It’s professionalism.

      2. Anna March- You don’t get it. It is not that you wrote an editors note, it is HOW you chose to word it and handle it that is unprofessional. You called the writers perspective “bizarre” (among other things) and DID insult her. Guess what? All the highly regarded pubs that you listed above do NOT do that. They do not insult the writer. Ever. Even when they issue a statement about a piece they do not word it like you did. Stop referring to The NY Times, as if you are in the same category as them. Perhaps read HOW they handle these types of issues before you respond that you did the same thing as them. Had you reached out to the writer FIRST about your concerns before blindsiding her and then worded your statement better then none of this would be happening. As of now many writers do not want to follow your pub or submit to you.
        Your hyper defensive responses and refusal to acknowledge your error in HOW you worded the comment only shows a continued pattern of being unprofessional.

        1. Cleary, we just fundamentally disagree. I don’t think there’s anything insulting about calling a perspective bizarre if that’s what i think of it. I think that’s just critique. And I’m A-OK, as I’ve said about anyone who chooses not to submit based on my comments — truly. As I’ve said, I don’t care at all about that — I care about those who aren’t submitting because of the piece itself. Thanks.

          1. And therein lies the problem. There is something “wrong” with calling her perspective “bizarre” because you agreed to publish it. You can convince yourself over and over that you are being transparent and “owning your mistake” but the way you chose to “own that mistake” was highly unprofessional. You could have achieved that goal without insulting the writer.

      3. You need to stop being defensive and accept your own mistake. Though you continue to say you did not throw this writer under the bus, the fact is, you did – “so I don’t see how this writer, or anyone, can call her such. That is, to my mind, both paternalistic and bizarre.”

        Without that comment, calling your writer’s opinion into question as being bizarre, your statement might come close to standing on par with other pubs such as NYT – but that statement sunk you.

        “Publishers and editors simply can’t read every piece that runs in a publication —” Another VERY problematic statement. There is a trust between contributors and editors, it may be unspoken, but it is time honored among reputable publications. It would sound something like this, “I/We (as eds and pubs) will not publish something that I/we do not have every expectation of standing behind 100% behind publishing – even and especially when the subject is controversial and may bring unpleasant comment and consequence to both the writer and the publication.” In other words, publishers should never, EVER throw their writer’s under the bus. If you are going to do that, then don’t publish the piece. I find it appalling that you would hide behind the excuse that eds and pubs can’t possibly read every piece? Are you kidding me? THAT is your job by definition. For God’s sake, this happened to my daughter when she was the editor of her school paper and at 18 years old, she stood by her writer and took all the heat. She is now managing editor for a very high profile pop culture publication.

        It sounds to me like you have an inter-administration problem that you let go public. Some editor and or the publisher let this piece go live – you saw it and realized it didn’t comply with the standards of the publication as you understand them. Great – deal with it in office and make sure it does not happen again. And if you choose to post an “apology” ahead of a writer’s piece, make sure that you praise them, acknowledge their creds and also apologize to them for putting them in this situation.

        “We here at Roar are extremely chagrinned that this piece somehow slipped through our editorial process as it does not align with our stance on feminism. This in no way reflects on the writer and/or her skill and opinion. It is our job to ensure that published pieces are the right fit and speak to our readers. That said, we also have a policy of not removing pieces once published, so again, we apologize to all parties we have harmed, including the writer and our readers and renew our commitment to ensuring this doesn’t happen in future. Thank you.

        1. I’m not the least bit defensive — and have been clear: we shouldn’t have run the piece, it’s not in keeping with our mission, I regret that we did, I stand by my statement. Further, we don’t think the writer was harmed. And — again, I never saw the piece until it was live. Had I, we wouldn’t have run it. Thanks.

      4. How do you not read every piece before it’s published? Isn’t that what editors and publishers do?

        1. Obviously, an editor read this piece before it went live. I do not read every piece before it goes live. I don’t believe most publishers of daily publications with multiple posts read everything before it goes live. They couldn’t possibly — and the ones I’ve checked in with on this all say, “No”, they don’t.

  2. Anna, your remarks are incredibly rude and disrespectful to your writer. You can’t say you made a mistake and continue to bank on the clicks and views of a writers words.

    If you feel you made a mistake, remove this, speak kindly to your writer, and be done.

    As a writer myself I find this incredibly bizzare, unprofessional, and distasteful.

    I hope you apologize to your writer, who is incredibly accomplished and who does not deserve treatment like this.

    Please don’t act like you’re doing anything but trying to manipulate your readership by posting your little note. It’s very patronizing.

    1. My remarks aren’t “rude and disrespectful” — as I’ve pointed out above, there is an incredibly long history of publications saying so publicly when they blow it. We blew it. I said so. Like the New York Times does. We don’t bank on the clicks and views of the words — at all. AT ALL. We don’t believe in taking down a piece when we have made a mistake — though out of just about 200 pieces, this is the only one I regret us having published. We aren’t going to sweep it under the rug, we’re going to say, “We made a mistake.” It’s not bizarre, it’s not weird, it’s not unusual, and it’s not disrespectful. A good google search will let you see what other publications have done in this situation and the literary/publishing tradition we are upholding. BELIVE ME, my life would have been easier today — and for a long time to come — to just yank the piece. I don’t believe in that. We said it, it’s our mistake, we’re not going to hide it. We’re going to own it, we’re going to say we screwed up. Just like we would if this were print and we could not undo it. (Longtime, well-respected publications like Salon and Slate and Guernica — have rules about NOT removing the piece — or did at one time — and i follow their lead in my thinking.) Like us, hate us — OK, your choice. But I stand by what we did in not taking it down and by saying publicly, “We screwed up.” And if I or the publication gets lambasted for that — OK. We stand by our views — and say we made a mistake whether or not the writer is “incredibly accomplished” — as many of our writers are — or this is their first publication. And we aren’t trying to manipulate our readership into anything –I’m not even sure what you think we would be trying to manipulate them into thinking — other than that we screwed up, which isn’t manipulation, it’s simply true. If the writer has an issue, she’s got my email. Thanks.

    2. …from my impression of feminism, it’s equal rights for all — so to say one is not a feminist because they’re pro-choice is discriminatory, which contradicts the very basis of feminism (equal rights)…But I don’t think that’s even the point here, (and someone can be one thing and something for themselves, but not necessarily feel it necessary to inflict those things on others, so 😫 this editor baffles me).

  3. I don’t understand the publisher’s note. Why do you think it is appropriate to publish a writer’s opinion and then throw her under the bus? As a writer, this would make me very afraid to send a submission to you, and as an editor I can’t understand this approach.

    1. We did not throw anyone under a bus. I assume the writer stands by her words and ideas regardless of what we think. What harm do you think we caused her by saying we disagree. Would we have thrown her under the bus if i’d published my critique as a response essay where I tore her “arguments” to shreds and corrected her factual mistakes? I’m a writer– and I’m very clear that publication does NOT mean that my views are supported. All views are a writer’s own. However, at Roar, we have an editorial mission, and this is contrary to it and destructive to that mission — so I spoke out about it. When we make a mistake we aren’t going to be afraid to say so. Out of 200 pieces, this is our one. I hope we do better from now on. But when we make a mistake, we are going to say so. And if writer’s want to not submit because of it, I’m 100% ok because of that. I’m much more concerned about the writers not submitting because we ran this piece — and how harmful these ideas are to marginalized folks. We’ve had a writer I respect pull because of it. We’ve had no writers I respect pull because of my note — and if we did, I’d be OK with that.

      1. Wow. You are a piece of work. If you have an editorial mission at Roar and this piece does’t fit it, then it never should have been published in the first place. Once again, this is looking more and more like some conflict that is going on among the ranks and in such case – you SO THREW YOUR WRITER UNDER THE BUS! Also, what harm did it do her. You might ask that of the many who are hammering her in a private forum she (and I) belong to. Also, you mentioned somewhere in your comments here, that your statement was published before there was negative feed back? Maybe so, but does that explain WHY you changed that statement and published a second one – obviously, there was some catalyst to that change. You just keep digging yourself deeper.

        1. I am not digging myself in deeper — or at all. I agree it shouldn’t have been published — as I’ve said, repeatedly. I added the second paragraph of my statement in order to illuminate why we didn’t take the piece down. If you think that’s problematic — I’m A-OK with that.

          1. To continue saying you are okay with the outrage of those posting here does not negate or condone your mistake. It’s like a person who would club somebody over the head and rob them continuing to say they are okay with the expressed outrage of observers – being okay with it yourself, does not make it okay to do it. Do you even get that? And again, it did do harm to the writer by lending justification to now upwards of 50 people ganging up on her in a private forum. Your statement is what they keep throwing around. THIS IS HARM I have seen first hand, so don’t excuse yourself from that either.

  4. Sadly, it seems as if instead of utilizing discernment in choosing who would be published in arose, you’ve instead chosen to write any entire editorial as precursor to this post.

    The irony: the precursor, in essence, proved the point the writer was making- as women, we should be free to choose to define ourselves and chart our own destiny, be it within the right or left side of the political spectrum. We choose where we use or talents without others directing where we shall go and how we shall think.

    Alice Paul was famously asked if she was fighting for women’s suffrage because she believed that women would be more ethical voters than men. She replied that she didn’t care how women voted- just that they were given the same legal rights to do so, that their male counterparts were.

    This is the epitome of feminism: the belief that men and women enjoy equal protection- and respect as individuals- under the law and in society.

    We don’t have to like the ideas of others. We don’t have to agree. But to decide someone else isn’t feminist based on your limited rules on what feminist means- that puts you in the position of oppressor.

    1. Well, Alice Paul was a racist, white-supremacist so let’s not hold her up as the paragon of virtue, shall we?

      And if someone wants to say that my “limited rules” of what feminism means (intersectional, pro-choice) I’m the oppressor, then OK. Let them. They are wrong.

    2. This is utterly ridiculous to call people oppressors for adhering to probably the broadest definition of feminism, that being that someone who actively promotes misogyny and empowers an outspoken misogynist is not a feminist. “Limited rules on what feminist means”? Are you kidding me? We truly are in a post-factual Trumpian world when someone is called an “oppressor” and accused of having a limited view of feminism because they don’t accept the outspoken champion of one of the worst misogynists in modern times as a feminist. I’m sorry, but someone who defends a man’s bragging about sexual assault as “locker room talk” is not a feminist in any realm of the definition, narrow or broad. Period. And there are no alternative facts. We call those lies. This entire article and thread of people attacking Anna March, people defending this illogical line of reasoning that a person’s gender completely trumps their sexist ideology, and accusing feminists of being oppressors if they don’t accept someone working hard to enact policies damaging to women, have illustrated the process of gaslighting to me. Thankfully Anna March is solid in her convictions. Keeping the article up and taking the heat, while responding to these comments thoughtfully and thoroughly, show me that she actually has integrity.

    3. Thank you for this voice of reason that harkens back to what the feminist movement was about in it’s infancy. This new wave feminism that insists all women must agree on what is “right” for all women, is oppression. If the hard line was coming out of the mouth of a man, they’d be all over it as controlling and oppressive.

      I personally loathe KellyAnn Conway and everything she seems to stand for, but the fact can not and must not be denied that she is the first woman to run a successful presidential campaign. We NEED to look at that. What can we learn from it? What do we want to take away and what part of it do we want to throw away? I reject the way she bends the truth and manipulates situations. And yet, how many time have we all complained that when a woman does these things is not praiseworthy, yet a man can do it and he is considered savvy? These are the complexities we MUST be honest about. Other women have played loose with facts and used manipulation and still not achieved what KellyAnn has – we have to look at what set her apart, what else did she do? – if we want to understand how women rise in a man’s world. And we most definitely have to understand the game before we can change the plays and win.

      1. Just for the record — I’m not a new wave feminist. I’m 48 and have been a feminist since early childhood….and nothing I have ever said has anything to do with prescribing what is right for all women. However, Roar’s position is that one is not a feminist if one disavows the term — as Conway does.

  5. I do not fully agree with the author’s stance, but as a writer myself, I am appalled by the treatment this writer is receiving from a site that agreed to publish her work. It should have been determined beforehand that the content did not meet your editorial standards. If not, a simple statement saying that the views are the author’s only would suffice. Invite rebuttal piece from other writers to spark a healthy debate. Otherwise, notify the author that you have decided to remove the piece and allow her to republish the content elsewhere.

    Refusing to stand by a published piece and throwing your writer under the bus due to negative feedback for an unpopular opinion shows a lack of integrity and frankly, the same dog-piling attitude the author was lamenting in the first place.

    By renouncing her piece in such a classless manner, you have proved her point.

    1. Again, as I”ve pointe out above, a publisher and every editor can’t possibly read every piece a publication runs before it runs. Which is why publications DO print apologies, clarifications, response pieces, etc. All views are the author’s only — on every piece. But this piece is in direct contrast to our editorial mission. Hence the note. We aren’t interested in debate on these issues. We believe they are wrong. As we have said. And we don’t hide our mistakes in the basement and take down our pieces — like Slate, like Salon, like Guernica, etc. And to be 10000000% clear — I didn’t publish my note because of feedback.

      1. Again I will say your problem is in house. Are you the publisher? Then clearly you have failed to communicate your mission and guidelines to every editor you have working for you. That is your job, and when it doesn’t happen, the buck stops with you. If you stand by the precept that no publisher can possibly read every piece published (perhaps true though I’m not convinced it’s a good policy) then you’d better be damned sure that all of your editors and those with publishing/posting privileges know your policies and guidelines inside out and backwards, This is your job too.

  6. I LOVE this post, despite the publishers weird comments. I think it’s so important to actually bring issues like this to the light, to encourage people to think and to talk about this!
    Thank you Mary for a post that made me think!
    Izzy @ http://www.izzywears.com

  7. The blogging community is appalled by this publisher’s behavior. Not only are we angry, but we are kind of embarrassed for you. You think you did the “right” thing, but from where I am sitting, what you did was prideful and arrogant. You showed us who you really are. We know your political views, but now we also know that you value your contributors so little, that you would rather save your own face than back them up. Do you even warn your contributors that you’re about to publicly announce their post was never actually worthy of your site? You need to add another disclaimer saying that all submissions will be put through a political filter and if said posts don’t 100% align with the publisher’s personal beliefs, they will not be accepted.
    #Tolerance #Equality

    1. I don’t get why it is important to call Conway a feminist when she doesn’t describe herself as such. Not only does she lie as easily as breathing, she lies in an attempt to put in the forefront, a man who rarely speaks truth.

      What definition of feminism does she meet? It is difficult for me to think highly of a woman or include her in feminism simply because she is a woman who accomplished something big – uuge –

    2. We say when we’re wrong and we were wrong to run this piece. If you and the “blogging community” are embarrassed for me because of that, well, so be it. We are standing on a longstanding journalistic tradition — not blogging — of saying when we are wrong. That’s not showing a lack of respect to writers. It’s treating them like the writers at The New York Times, etc, as I’ve mentioned above. We have a very clear editorial mission — the publication’s value — and pieces taht aren’t in keeping with that of course aren’t accepted. This one shouldn’t have been. OF COURSE the pieces we run are put through a political filter. Roar is a POLITICAL magazine. Our editor missed it on this one — that’s all. We aren’t about #Tolerance —- we don’t think marginalized populations are here to be tolerated. We are about inclusion and justice.. And intersectional feminism. And being pro-choice and anti-bigotry. This piece is not all those things.

      1. You are so misguided on this. The very definition of publishing v. blogging is a careful and considered editorial process. If you are going to set up a publication via a blog utility, you best know the difference.

  8. Sadly, it appears ROAR – Anna March, has a convoluted and distorted understanding of how publishing works. Why choose a piece only to rip the author to shreds? Running the peice was not the mistake, different people have differing opinions and are supposed to have the freedom to express them. This brings about discussion, discourse, or agreement. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. If Mary Mclaurine’s opinions do not fit a particular agenda, which you apparently have, they should have been rejected. The real mistake here, ROAR, was publishing the peice and then allowing a poorly written slap in the face to preface it. My response has nothing to with the content of this page, it has everything to do with the treatment this writer received.

  9. I believe I’ve responded to each of the points in this comment in my earlier replies, above. It seems however that you don’t have a grasp of how editorial guidelines work — and how that is different from freedom. People have the freedom to express whatever they want — that is different than any given publication having an obligation to publish those ideas. We have a very specific editorial mission. This piece is outside of those and shouldn’t have been allowed to run. We did, as I’ve said many times, erred in taking this piece. When we make a mistake, we’re going to say so, just like The New York Times.

  10. You should give up on responding to these people, Mary.

    They’re a lost cause with a bone to pick and won’t be soothed by any words. Namely, defending this flawed notion that Conway gets to dispense with several generations of feminist thought; claims she’s “post-feminist” and yet — in the same thought — wishes that contemporary feminism was open to including her marginal views.

    1. Many of us completely disagree with this piece, had you read the comments thoroughly you would see that, but the bigger issue is how the editor worded her statement above the article. They chose to run her piece and then insulted her in the editors note. It is highly unprofessional. They could have written a disclaimer saying “these views do not represent the editorial team” …instead they chose to insult the writer. THAT is what many ppl are responding to in this section, no one needs to be “soothed” …we are just stating the obvious-the editor looks unprofessional in how she handled it.

  11. When the NYT apologizes for “blowing it” they manage to do so without heaping more shame and embarrassment on their writers who are, most likely, already feeling vulnerable for fucking up in front of the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ny-times-fathers-womens-march_us_5886346be4b0e3a7356a7295). There is a difference between saying you made a mistake and publishing a statement in which you call your writer’s work “paternalistic and bizarre.”
    Not a great moment for Roar. Do better.

  12. So because someone disagrees with your opinion on something, you throw her under the bus for writing it? As a writer, I would never submit a piece of work to you. You have disrespected this writer and frankly the “editorial guidelines” to which you suggest gives you the right to be so disrespectful should have been done before you published the piece. I have ran websites, I know what is needed before you post an article and someone had to at least look it over. If simply hit publish than you are not a very professionally run site. If this article is so outside of your “editorial mission” than it never should have run and you should remove it, not allow all of these viewers to witness your lack of professionalism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for eagerly accepting those page views and clicks wherein you try to break down another woman. How very un-feminist of you.

  13. Apparently the editor failed to read the article: “But to demean women solely on their personal convictions is every bit as ignorant and childish as we accuse our president of being.”

    If the publication no longer stands by this article, it should be taken down. Enjoying the clicks and the controversy is not furthering feminism. More importantly it is not supporting WOMEN and you can label a woman feminist or non-feminisit and honestly why is a label so important? By the definition stated above I cannot claim the title feminist. But how is passing judgement about who can or can’t claim the phrase furthering the equality of ALL women?
    I have just as much right to define what feminism means for me as this writer does to make her own claims about defining feminism. Isn’t that part of what equality means? If we’re just drawing lines and labeling “them and us” then honestly, patrichy wins, your attitude is no more inclusive or tolerant than Trump’s.
    Of course, you do not have to agree with me. It’s your magazine, do what you want. But it makes me sad that this is where feminism is, petty and small.
    And yes, you have an editorial agenda and you screwed up by publishing this. But the note added to this does not say something along the lines of: “We made a mistake publishing this and the magazine does not support the views presented in this article.” Which would be professional, it goes on to make unprofessional slants on the writers position. Which, when you did choose to run the article in the first place, is bizarre. And so rather than owning your own mistake, it comes across that you are placing the blame on the writer. That is the unprofessional part.

    1. Good to hear from a woman who can speak to not fitting the feminist description given here, but still has a bead on equality and respect. I couldn’t agree more that the more we quibble among ourselves about who can and cannot “be” a feminist, the more the patriarchy wins.

  14. Wow! Shame on the editor… not for running the piece but for trying to discredit their own contributor AND for potentially embarrassing her for simply expressing her opinion. This editor is highly unprofessional. All potential contributors should be fearful before submitting to this publication because it’s clear that instead of simply receiving a kind rejection, your piece may be published and ridiculed for all to see.

  15. We didn’t try to discredit our contributor. Her opinions are simply not in keeping with our editorial mission and her piece should not have run. It was our mistake. I’m sorry we made it. When I discovered it, I posted my note. If a publisher said they disagreed with my piece, I wouldn’t feel ridiculed. I’d feel disagreed with. We are closing the thread now — as I am unable to respond to any more comments here as I prepare to leave town for a funeral and I don’t want to miss any. If there are further comments– please send them to me — anna@annamarch.com. Thank you!

Comments are closed.