In a call to arms featuring the same old predictable bogeymen, Jessical Valenti was given space in the Washington Post today to editorialize on why the battle against men is far from over. According to Valenti, Americans are suffering from the “mass delusion” that women don’t have it so bad in the West. She goes on to use the exaggerated statistics concerning rape and women’s earnings that have been thoroughly debunked by people who have bothered to run the numbers, painting a picture of a suffering, victimized American womanhood.

Valenti’s job is to promote a sense of female vicitimhood, whether it exists or not, so even her supporters should be skeptical of her claims, but the real issue is why she is given such publicity and space to promote her radical, questionable views. Does the Washington Post actually profit from Valenti’s strident declaration that we are facing “an epidemic of sexism?” Is there any chance that someone with opposite, equally strident opinions will be given any space in a major national publication to offer some editorial balance?

Sadly, the PC culture in newsrooms around the country suggests that there will be no effort to achieve balance, but the profit question still remains. As demonstrated by Jezebel and Cosmo, feminism is best promoted with an eye toward women’s interests, which include things such as fashion, celebrities and sex. Strident feminists such as Valenti aren’t the greatest draw in that department, but I’d be willing to bet that there are some women on WaPo’s editorial board who are very sympathetic to her brand of activism.

This is just the thing: as media has found it more and more difficult to make a profit, it has become more elitist. Major newspapers are becoming charities for activists such as Valenti, supported by the rich and powerful rather than the average consumer. Exacerbating the problem is the huge disparity in wealth that has arisen in the United States over the last generation, allowing the rich to fund their pet projects, many of which involve outdated ideologies and the warped view of reality that big money tends to create.

Valenti is making a direct appeal to these people. Although she doesn’t state it explicity, she’s clearly asking for money:

There is so much more work to be done. The truth is, most women don’t have the privilege of being able to look at gender justice from a distance; they have no choice but to live it every day. Those of us who are lucky enough not to have to think about sexism, racism, poverty and homophobia on a daily basis — those of us who have the privilege of sending money to an international cause via e-mail while ignoring the plight of women here at home — have a responsibility to open our eyes to the misogyny right in front of us. And then to stop it.

For the foreseeable future, we should expect more of the same fantasy-laden editorials in national publications. There is little remaining motivation to cater to the typical American, and the money is flowing in from the kinds of people who vacation in Paris every year, so editorials will be skewed toward the interests of perhaps 10% of the American population. This will further erode profitability, leading to a positive feedback loop that forces the old media into the position of boutique publishers who cater to a small elite.

Of course, this is unsustainable over the long-term, and new models will eventually find their way and rise up to relegate the old media to its proper place, much as printing eventually pushed old manuscripts into museums and the hands of wealthy private collectors. But in the meanwhile, we should expect “respectable” media outlets to increasingly become platforms for fund raising for the pet causes of the very rich.