I’m a hardcore feminist. I swear.

May 9, 2007 at 5:42 pm | In navel, the forg |

So says Jessica Valenti, at any rate. And I’ve been wondering: I’ve been talking a lot of big talk lately, but what’s a way I can let people know I’m not one of those feminists, you know, the boring ones. Because I’m totally cool. Well, I thought about it, I had a chat with Sylvia, and ladies and gentlemen (especially gentlemen, you know what guys, I think you have the right idea, let me in!), I present the cover of my forthcoming book:

hardcore for realz

‘A huge part of keeping women in their place has to do with creating a really limited definition of what a “real” woman is like.’ — from Full Frontal Feminism

More here. And here.

85 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

I cannot believe how hilarious this is. I just can’t get over it.

Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — May 9, 2007 #
*eyeroll*

i mean, i know authors have a limited say over dust jacket material, but criminy…if i were her, i’d have bombed the publisher before letting that one out of the warehouse. and if i recall correctly, she actually seems to like it.

meh-what?

I’d gladly just call a mulligan for her on this one, but so far it hasn’t clicked for her that this is a “bad thing” yet.

Comment by sly civilian — May 10, 2007 #
Ok, so after having a lot of fun reading bitchfest, I thought FFF would be engaging, even though I get annoyed with Feministing’s blogging style.

The book’s style is a hyperbole of the blog’s style, ie, vera vera annoying.

Also, I know that “the personal is a political” is a tenet of feminism, but JV takes it waaaaay to far.

Anyway, hey lady’s stomach!

Comment by Aireanne — May 10, 2007 #
Eh… needs more titty. A little sideboob would make it extra feminist.

Seriously, that cover turned me off to the book before I even read a review. Glad to know I’m not missing much.

Comment by girldetective — May 10, 2007 #
Oh sigh…feminism is only interesting if it’s sexy.

Comment by LRapps — May 10, 2007 #
[...] And that’s all [...]

Pingback by Feminizm Matterz. « The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum — May 10, 2007 #
Eh… needs more titty. A little sideboob would make it -extra- feminist.

Ok, I was already chuckling and then I read this, now I’m scaring the cat with my howls of laughter.

Comment by Donna — May 10, 2007 #
I’m totally buying that book! Bow-bow-chicka-wow-WOW!

Very brilliantly executed, my partner in feminizt krime

Comment by Sylvia — May 10, 2007 #
I can’t get behind this hating. So, there’s a part of a woman’s body on the cover. BFD. Sure seems catty to get all pissed off about it. So, is sexy bad? Are we falling back into the whole madonna/whore bullshit trope again? And yes, I get that it’s a white woman. Again, I say… eh. That’s who the book is aimed at. Besides - authors, more often than not, don’t get to choose what goes on the cover. Often they don’t even get to choose the title.

Comment by Amber — May 10, 2007 #
amber, I don’t think petit is hating on anybody, I think she’s being sarcastic and satirical, yes, “hating”–no. not even close, really, IMO. If you’ll notice, Petit didn’t say a thing about the belly shot, but she said an awful lot about the style of the writing/choice of presentation of feminism.

Comment by brownfemipower — May 10, 2007 #
and, if i might so pertly add–very nice belly, my dear, i’d like to kiss it!
:p

Comment by brownfemipower — May 10, 2007 #
Amber, I have no problem with women as sexual beings. I have no problem with feminists getting book deals, either! (We need more!) My point is that the cover, while saying something important, is infantile and reductive in its approach, much like the style of the writing inside. We can talk about sexuality, and many other feminist issues, without being immature or ‘cute’ in an effort to seem less offensive.

Comment by petitpoussin — May 10, 2007 #
BFP AND SYLVIA OBJECTIFIED ME! I’M TELLING!

Comment by petitpoussin — May 10, 2007 #
I get that, but as I was saying on Ren’s blog, I think the otherwise legitimate criticisms are misplaced in this case specifically because of who the book’s target audience is. These are the girls who I met in college who said feminism was “quaint” and not necessary anymore, because women can vote and get jobs, and would go off on tangents about “reverse sexism.”

Comment by Amber — May 10, 2007 #
So swearing like a seven year old and talking, like, so, like, *puke-y*, will appeal to young women? Petit *is* a young woman, as is sylvia and BA–they are *legitimate* young women–struggling with a *real* desire to have their needs taken seriously–does it help or hurt to have the “leader” make all the older folks think talking and swearing like an affected seven year old is appealing to young women?

Comment by brownfemipower — May 10, 2007 #
I understand who the book is marketed to, Amber, but I don’t think women who don’t identify with feminism are stupid, or should be condescended to — which is what I think the tone of this book does. Often many women who reject the term (Ren, for example, or BA, or countless others we love) have been condescended to or lectured by feminists they’ve encountered, or have heard their problems minimized because they aren’t one of the Big Topics (media portrayal, birth control/abortion, gender pay gap, pornography) that dominate the mainstream. I don’t think smirking one’s way through the issues is going to reach more than those who already agree (a la Michael Moore).
I’d like to add that if somehow this book becomes a phenomenon and ‘feminism’ becomes a cool word again, I’ll be thrilled — although in that case we need our current conversation even more, to make clear the limitations of a ‘full-frontal’ approach.

Comment by petitpoussin — May 10, 2007 #
and when I say “legitimate”–I mean, they are 20-22–NOT 28-35–as the people who are legitimating this shit book are.

it’s bullshit that a 28 year old has convinced all the other 30 ish crowd that “appealing” to a younger crowd means dumbing things down.

Comment by brownfemipower — May 10, 2007 #
I get the concerns and y’all have been very clear. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree in this case.

Comment by Amber — May 10, 2007 #
i agree petit. There is a very real reason that many young women do not consider themselves feminists–AND there’s very REAL feminist action happen by young women that that book blatantly disregards. I think the book buys into a lot of stereotypes about young women–the biggest being that “accessible language” for young people means swearing and talking like a valley girl.

Comment by brownfemipower — May 10, 2007 #
I remember, once upon a time, I was a young woman. I didn’t read crap like that, condescending to me, every step of the way. I was too busy struggling through Foucault and Eve Sedgewick, and reading Adrienne Rich for a break, thanks all the same. Perhaps that proves that I was never the target audience of this book. But who IS the target? Flippy, hairbrained chicks who need to be convinced that feminism is relevant? This is going to reach them? I doubt it.

Petit, count me in on objectifying you! Wowza what a nice belly!!!

Comment by turtlebella — May 10, 2007 #
I agree with what’s been said against the cover; I might add that it doesn’t make any sense, and neither does the title. News about this has been circulating for months now, and I still can’t figure out what that belly has to do with the goals of feminism, or what “full frontal” has to do with what it might be like to espouse feminism and practice it. So, among other problems, it’s reinforcing the same kind of cognitive dissonance that uses female bodies to sell cars and hamburgers.

As for how the book is written, I’m confused about why Valenti thinks it is a good idea to use advertising language, abrupt dismissals paired with lots of promises. I object to the language of advertising out of a distate for capitalism, but more to the point, feminism doesn’t strike me as the kind of philosophy that always makes things better and easier. It’s occasionally something that creates a lot of havoc, and people stick with it because they think it’s the right thing to do, and they hold out hope for society changing. A money-back guarantee, or a promise that “feminists do it better,” isn’t going to sustain someone through all of that.

Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — May 10, 2007 #
Catty okay ,

Comment by Blackamazon — May 10, 2007 #
i think your autonomy and empowerment as a woman would be better exemplified with a lower-cut model of jeans.

Comment by nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez — May 10, 2007 #
Her goes

ROAR

First can we declare a moratorium on the belief that not liking this covers objectification.

Many of us do not see white women and see sex

And it’s not madonna whore because frankly that photo and that concept does not get our panties wet or our dicks hard.

And that its a white women is fine that its aimed towards white women

But its not eh cause its not sailing on a white women to white woman
It’s using young women like me to sell to other young women

who are not being taken care of by it

by someone on ewho at very least is fve to seven years to old

and complains about how older women treat her as s slow

adn rwrites post about post about it

FIne

we’ll hodl he rto her word

We expect integrity and in using o ur names

And were calling on her on it

She admits to approving the cover.

You kow women who say quaint

I know women fighting welfare

why is the first more important

and frankly why can teh first use second

We don;t care for it

Sure seems obtuse to try and reduce our self determination to catty ness

Comment by Blackamazon — May 10, 2007 #
Petit, that is levels of awesomeness. Heh.

-the old not feminist…

Comment by RenegadeEvolution — May 11, 2007 #
*sadness* I saw a link to Nubian’s place and for a shining second I thought she was back. And then I saw it was history and rereating that thread made me see red. So many words, so many strawwomen.

That cover still makes me 8( Your cover is cool, though. I like the bits of clothing - magenta is so empowerful. ^^

I do wish there were a few more recent feminist books handing me major essays on a silver platter, preferably in the tiny 5″x2″ book format I love to stick in my purse, but this isn’t it.

Comment by Deoridhe — May 11, 2007 #
I thought I was “the old not feminist”. I guess this means I must mud wrestle RenEv for the title belt. I hope we can get some big pay per view cash for this…

Comment by Donna — May 11, 2007 #
Okay, I have a feeling there is no way to argue what I’m trying to argue w/o having it be twisted around. So like I said, I at least will just agree to disagree.

Comment by Amber — May 11, 2007 #
Ren adn DOnna

Please

aint either one of you over 45 so HUsh up with teh old

I prefer chronologically seasoned miself

Comment by Blackamazon — May 11, 2007 #
Amber, in the first chapter Jessica writes:

“Do you ever feel like shit about your body? Do you ever feel like something is wrong with you because you don’t fit into this bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like?”

and you see no disconnect between these words and the picture on the cover? Isn’t that cover the bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like in our society. It is exactly the normative, skinny white girl that we are all supposed to aspire to.

Comment by Donna — May 11, 2007 #
donna…steel cage match? BA can be the ref?

Comment by RenegadeEvolution — May 11, 2007 #
the thing is, i have twenty year olds, seventeen year olds, even a -fifteen year old- on my feminist blogroll. -all- of them seem to have managed just fine without Feminizm 4 Dummiez. people gravitate toward what they need. and, speaking as a -really old person- who’s fucking -twice the age and more- of some of these people (shoots self), i realize that it is easy to forget how smart and capable one can be at an age that’s quickly receding into dim personal memory. but, they can and they are.

Comment by belledame222 — May 11, 2007 #
and you know: -we’ve done this.- there’s Bust, there’s Bitch, there were the zines. this is not news, any of this. that’s what’s most annoying.

gah. well we’ve had warmed-over and dwindled-down second wave online and now i guess we’re getting warmed-over and dwindled-down third-wave offline. maybe eventually we’ll catch up to ourselves…

Comment by belledame222 — May 11, 2007 #
Miso!

Comment by Blackamazon — May 11, 2007 #
Miso, Jessica picked that cover. She was given some by the publisher to choose from and she said that one was the best of the bunch. Which could mean there was worse crap, but I suspect not, since she refuses to describe the other covers or talk about her decision at all other than she made the final decision. I think that she really believed this was a good cover representative of her work.

Comment by Donna — May 11, 2007 #
Steel-cage match it is Ren. Did you notice that Belle is talking up being old too? I think she’s trying to horn in on our million dollar ppv contract.

Comment by Donna — May 11, 2007 #
and donna having read it it was!

and miso I’m okay with catty

As I am a leo

I actually prefer people be real and call me a full on all out bitch

So we g have the old feminits going hell dm amn naw

The young ones going hell damn naw

Woc and w hite

saints and sinners

fight the fight

we all agreee

it’ s utter shite

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TEAM!!!!!

* windmill kick*

Comment by Blackamazon — May 11, 2007 #
All right, I have one busy day at work and come back to find y’all are planning some kinda Old (Non)Feminist PPV Death Match? And BA’s a cheerleader? Hilarious!

Comment by petitpoussin — May 11, 2007 #
Amber, in the first chapter Jessica writes:

“Do you ever feel like shit about your body? Do you ever feel like something is wrong with you because you don’t fit into this bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like?”

and you see no disconnect between these words and the picture on the cover?

Donna, I didn’t say that.

Ren, I’m not trying to fight with Donna or anybody else. Far from it.

Miso, I’m sorry if you think my defense is stupid. It stands, based on the information I have at the moment and the criticisms I’ve read. I will reserve further judgment until I’ve read the book.

Disagreeing is allowed, yes?

Comment by Amber — May 11, 2007 #
Amber, I get the feeling that women who are blinded by their privilege would respect reporting on feminist issues that takes a more ‘hard facts’ approach than a book that deliberately cashes in on the aesthetics and writing style of Cosmopolitan. They might like Cosmo, but that doesn’t mean they respect it.

Comment by Fire Fly — May 11, 2007 #
As others have said, I think the issue is that this book buys into some pretty standard ideas about what ‘young women’ are like and how we like to be addressed. I take Amber’s point from Ren’s post, that there can be no one book on feminism. Of course not. But feminist books can acknowledge this limitation while also actively challenging mainstream conceptions of women, feminism, and how to speak of and think about those categories.

Comment by petitpoussin — May 11, 2007 #
Well, no (to the point about how no book can be all things to all feminists). But I think people are saying the book (a) leaves untouched the entitlist problems with the target demographic (i.e. that their concerns are the most important thing in the world, that feminism is really All About Them, and hence “cool”), and (b) uses a really condescending, exploitative style to make that point.

Yeah, that doesn’t mean other books with other target audiences can’t exist, but it also means leaving hierarchies within feminism untouched, and reproducing them through the “next generation”.

BTW, I’m young (also 22), I’ve identified as a “feminist” for something like 10 years now, and I would never buy the book. But I’d pick it up out of curiosity and probably put it back down again, shaking my head at what “feminists” will do to sell a book and make a name for themselves.

Comment by Fire Fly — May 12, 2007 #
agreeing w/miso. also not a “hater” *koff* full disclosure, i think she’s a hottie.

doesn’t have much to do either way with what’s inside the cover, though. and yeah, the irony’s pretty rich.

Comment by belledame222 — May 12, 2007 #
Did you notice that Belle is talking up being old too? I think she’s trying to horn in on our million dollar ppv contract.

i was old before either of you! you are totally PLAGIARIZING my oldness.

Comment by belledame222 — May 12, 2007 #
…and i realize, after reading miso’s description, that once again i am so utterly out of the loop that i am/was barely conscious of such Scenes. it sounds ghastly.

Comment by belledame222 — May 12, 2007 #
All inherent half sarcasm aside.

Amber I’m annoyed because when you say hating , it makes the concerns we express seem like the we’re jealous schoolgirl bs .

I don’t being called catty because it is a designated way to make a woman sound ineffective.

I am ANGRY , i am annoyed and i have reasons for it reasons you may not like but in a non hip hop context those two phrases are one step above hysterical.

Not to mention the whole sexy madonna thing , is a really big presumption ( and tied up into many racist tropes that miso covers a lil bit) that just assumes we find it sexy to stare at a certain kind of torso.

Point blank I’d have preferred overtly sexual , this was condescending and rather sterotypicallly “edgy” if by edgy you mean

” Looks exactly like the teen girls novels kids i teach love ( when theyre not reading urban fiction) ”

Except in addition to that the insides were inmy opinion actually sex negative! Did nothing for the actual complexity of teh issues of sex positiveness or actual sex beside s abortion and we want to fuck like dudes!!!!!!!!!

Which is fine if everytime she opened her damn mouth it wasnt oh all women blah blah.

Thats my name my reputation aand countles sothers so she can make cash on shit I’d tell young women to burn

—————————————————
MIso I have no scene bad experiences with scene mean ive been a shut in for two years.

Now I’m acting again I have t o go ut

I need friends

EB my firend!!!!!!!!!

In all serious ness

part of the reason i can get riled up is

While I’m fat no shit

I’m to other folks quite stunning

I am a very photogenic picture of the rage i have .

And it sucks because shit like this book makes it necessary for me to conside rthat

Comment by Blackamazon — May 12, 2007 #
well, I -think- I’m fun and cool, but i suppose it depends on your definition of a good time…

meh, i’m an introvert, that’s part of it. i mean, i -like- going out occasionally, but too much of that elbow-rubbing shit and i start to lose my shit, SRSLY.

Comment by belledame222 — May 12, 2007 #
Amber,

Not only are you allowed to disagree, I wish you’d explain how we got from the tummy shot to “Is sexy bad?” Is that book cover all of sexy? Is reading Valenti’s book going to give you that tummy? This is a book cover that demands you take what’s inside, like, not too seriously or anything.

White women are the demographic? We’re supposed to get behind that sort of blasé divisiveness?

***

the Scene is ghastly

What is this, Edgar Allen Poe? Much of Madness, more of Sin, and Horror the soul of the plot?

the popular people still rule, and they are mostly white, typically beautiful (you can’t be a totally atypical beauty and also be called upon the media to represent feminism, cus that’s nast) and upper middle class. if you call me a hater ‘cus I don’t see women of color representing on the more elite spectrum - then i’m a hater

I think I’m not getting this. Popular where? Are we just talking about Valenti here, and ignoring the legacy of Adrienne Rich and bell hooks? If we’re talking about culture, what about Fernando Meirelles or M.I.A.?

Clubs and bars are disproportionately moneyed, because they’re really really expensive and you have to be at your leisure. But there are working-class places. There are communities of mixed race and mixed class where people work to create art and organize for social change.

Writing as though there are no legit communities out there makes it impossible to find them, a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Blogging isn’t the same as being a shut-in. If we were really shut-ins, there’d be no reason to listen to Pink.

The things we say, and the people we meet here, are bridges back to the real world.

Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — May 12, 2007 #
I just love it…. thanks Sweet Poussin (good shot BTW; haven’t been having much camembert’n'wine lately as I can see…

Comment by Snuggle Bunny — May 13, 2007 #
Really good thread. Haven’t read the book, though I probably will and I’ll probably like it cuz I’m a big Feministing fan (no, it’s not always the most in-depth analysis, but there are other sites for that). Agree that the cover is… problematic, to say the least. I do want to quibble with this:

If you’re gonna look like privilege incarnate you don’t get to trumpet the cause of generalized body angst. Puh-lease. That’s not your battle you get to fight. Am i right, or no? Shouldn’t we get someone who’s really pushing the boundaries on the body front or an ex-ED sufferer or something, to champion that shit? is she just paying lips service?

You can’t tell by looking at someone whether or not they’ve had an ED, nor can you tell how much body angst they’ve suffered. I am, body-wise, pretty within the ridiculously narrow range of “acceptably attractive”–my BMI is I think 21ish? something like that–and I always have been, but I cried for days when I got stretch marks at age 10 and even harder when I discoered cellulite at 12. I’ve gone through phases where my body has driven me to minor acts of violence against myself (clawing at “extra” bits, nothing too major), and I have gone through phases of… let’s call it minorly disordered food restriction.

I see what you’re saying, and honestly sometimes I think it about myself–I know I get tons of “skinny privilege,” and while I’ve mostly made peace with my body I kow that peace would have been much harder to come by without the genes I have, the naturally small appetite and the large bone structure that makes me look thinner than I am, so I feel sort of guilty having this sort of thought at all–but just because Jessica Valenti is rather conventionally attractive doesn’t mean she’s never cried herself to sleep because her tummy was too big or her thighs too dimpled (not that I’m saying she has, I have no way of knowing). I don’t think she is paying lip service to the idea.

Comment by Isabel — May 13, 2007 #
You know, I wonder how differently this would have played out if the response to “We don’t like that cover” was “Lets discuss that, then; I want to hear what you think,” instead of, “A decision needs to be made and I made it; your concerns are all silly and wrong and maybe you’re jealous or catty.”

8/

Comment by Deoridhe — May 14, 2007 #
Donna,

Valenti did discuss the alternative covers, which she felt didn’t represent *her*. They were photos of blonde women — and she’s Italian. She wrote in the thread to which you refer the following:

You mean where I’m called a patriachal submissive, a patriachal whore, a waste of time and a sell out? Yeah, you’ll excuse me if I stay out of that.

By the way, I will say this–because it seems that people are making assumptions about the content of the book based on the cover. This book is very much me…my thoughts about feminism and it’s very much in my voice and about my experiences. It’s not meant to be some sort of “I speak for all feminists and this is what feminism is” book. Which is why I rejected several other book covers that had kind of a WASP-y looking blonde girl with “full frontal feminism” written across her shirt. Cause I’m not a skinny blonde. The tummy pic was more “me.” That may not make sense to folks, but that’s why this one was chosen over others.

As for the comments about “objectifying” women by using a body part–I’m sorry I just don’t agree. I don’t think that all use of womens’ bodies (especially when used to convey a feminist message!) is automatically objectifying.

When I said I was done with this conversation, it wasn’t because I was trying to be dismissive or don’t think the conversation is important. It’s because I’m fucking exhausted. Exhausted from having to constantly defend myself (whether from conservatives or other feminists), exhausted from finishing the edits on this goddamn book that are due this weekend, exhausted from keeping this site up and making it my fucking life while making no money, and exhausted of feeling like shit and like a bad feminist because I can’t make everyone happy.

So, please, break me off a little compassion as do the best I possibly can by this site while trying not to burst into tears every time someone calls me a fucking sell out.

Moreover, she mentions that she has considered the ramifications of the cover. Since we all seem to want women to be taken seriously, as intelligent beings, then I’d say that it behooves us to take Valenti just as seriously and assume that, as a feminist, she’s not innocent of the issues. Furthermore, it behooves us to recognize that there is no ONE feminist way, that the issue of representation is one that has several positions — which means that it is not at all obvious that there is a necessary contradiction between the cover and the contents of the book. That’s a flat assertion and it was asserted in a way that expected readers here to simply agree, as if there was no debate. But ther eis a debate, just there is a similar debate over representation in every justice movement over things like the use of the word queer/fag/dyke or the huge debates over the n-word.

I plan on addressing the assertions raised in the thread here, not because I’m some big fan of Valenti. Rather, because I think we are better off making criticism of the book that was actually written, not what we suppose was written. E.g, the suggestion that the book is feminism for dummies, that it’s dumbed down, etc.

In my estimation, it is not dumbed down in the least.

the language issue bothers me becuase my reaction to reading it was that I disliked it. But then, I thought, *I* write like that. So what has me bummed out. Some of the people here write shit, piss, fuck, and other words on their blogs too — and I read them and love their blogs. So what made me uncomfortable.

I concluded that it was in a book, rather than a blog.

The book review PP points to raises some interesting issues, but falls short of making any arguments. Valenti is described as “bratty” — yet without any evidence to back up that claim. What is bratty. What sentences exhibit this supposed brattiness. Valenti’s character is also assailed when she’s described as “egotistical”. Why that’s an appropriate thing to write in a book review is beyond me, but let me play and say this: I didn’t get egotistical out of the book.

I’ll stop there and save it for a formal review of the book that will probably span several posts. Much more than the book deserves, but the real problems with the book ought to be discussed, and they will, after I address what I think were some misconceptions about the content of the book. E.g., above it’s claimed that the book disregards the work of young women. Leaving aside the narrow definition of young women to 20-22 year olds, the book’s whole point is to make the argument that feminism is cool because lots of young women are already doing feminist work. To be cool here is to be actively involved in efforts to change your world for the better.

Thus, being cool is not discussed in terms of wearing high heels or looking hot. Nor is it even discussed in terms of “having better sex” or that feminism makes life easier. In fact, Valenti claims that feminism is “cool” because it makes some things better and easier, at the same time it makes things more difficult — like taking responsibility for your choices in clothes, book covers, sex, and when and where to spend your time (on personal improvement (e.g., school work, careers, being a good sister/friend/mother), poltical activism, snagging a man, or what? Valenti actually makes the case that the first two are the things that we ought to do to be cool.

Comment by Bitch | Lab — May 14, 2007 #
Exacept the sex chapter starts with

” i have better sex than you”

Sh eactually does say that. It’s not an invention . Tha’s how she thinks we need to be galvanized into working for our rights.

Not you cnahave the sex you want

not sex can be better ( which is problematic in and of itself)

but Sex is something we compete for and if your not a feminist you may be missing teh competition.

And the last sentence of well cgirls are getting head as much as guys so there!

Wee so a survey says so but w e’ll leave sexual fullfillment and girls feelings on that one oUT.

I write like that as well and I have an issue with the language because it struck me as something that was done for shock value and it was interspersed inside or adressing serious topics in a really offhand offputting way.

I felt it was dumbed down. The handeling of Angela Davis alone had me HOT.

And frankly ive said it before I’m supposed to broker her exhaustion when no one i think has said sell out , buts he lumpsa all criticisms in with teh worst possible ones.

And the young feminist work was almost all sex , abortion, or contraception related. except for one or tow mentions of consumerism.

It does to me disregard teh work of young women , if they arent doing work that dovetails with this supposed focus reproduction, sexualised tpics or how weu se disosable income.

Sista 2 Sista, women immigrants, asian women , native women, latinas, internationals. maybe we got footnotes or a bibliography refrence

havy on the maybe

and this prescrpictive of coolness is what exactly got me.

It prescribes to this really prevalent and really annoying trends a mong people in education, organization that kids are sitting her twiddling tehir thumbs for coolness.

Every teacher I asked, every kid I asked and I asked a shit load of peopel. Damn near all of em said cool is fine, relevant is better. The kids i asked could get nada from this and i combed my network.

adn the personal anecdotes

also pissed me the fuck off

BECUASE IM FORM NEW YORK.

I knwo what school she speaks of and her class thing is a lot more fucking layered than that

and rathe rthan discuss teh problems we have with girls aiming to please and how that plays across that and how she dealt with it

we get a woe is me story. Which could have beenused to introduice feminists dealing with class but was still longer than the Angela Dvavis refrence.

Boob?burqagate became all boobs all the time no race brought up there even though she knew it was an isssue and it to was longer than teh intersectionality chapter

Plus the descriptions of that as nerdy and dorky and the use of porinified and ” good little christian girls”

It s an attempt at a vernacular that offhandedly insults a whole lot of people

Myself included.

And this isnt what I suppose i read but what I sat and read twice.

Just to be fair.

It’s not for me, it treats my issues like drive by topics, it makes huge suppositions on whati need and want to hear.

and as a primer it was flip and actually in that flipness infuriating ( first wave feminist s wer annoyed when black men got the vote!!!!!!)

And I’m sorry shezs tired.

So Am I ,

I get the books point, I think it missed it, I think it did it such a way that it’s not merely oversite or good intentions gone bad

I dont think anyone ones saying there is one big feminism. I thik that this presentation sets up a lot of binaries to make feminism cool taht distorst minimizes and could honestly be actvely destructive to feminism.

Comment by Blackamazon — May 14, 2007 #
I think it’s really interesting that a book by a white feminist can galvanize this community but yet when petit posts about like, um, homelessness in Amrika’s paradise, we’re all pretty much silent.

BA, you’re totally right about how issues of black women or any other oppressed classes’ issues other than the White, Middle-Class Woman are zipped over. Honestly, despite the puerile style, the tantalizing, “post-feminist” (in the bad way) cover, that’s the most egregious sin.

Even if I felt this could convert the young and the dumb (yeah, I don’t have much hope for our youth. personal bias, I swear.), I wouldn’t want them to adopt this feminism of self-interest. Feminism should be about ending all oppression, and frankly, JV doesn’t convey that in FFF. (yeah, I read it.)

Comment by Aireanne — May 14, 2007 #
aireanne, spare me about how pp doesn’t get any props for posts about race. i’ve been dealing with that since forever. i write about race and every single one of my readers has zip to say. i write about class and i get even more zip.

I believe the comment about the women getting as much head as men issue has to do with the way that the media constantly talks about the uptick in oral sex, as if women are running around blowing every guy in sight because they are in desperate need to be male chauvinist pigs — as levy calls them.

*I* posted that survey data myself to make the same fucking point as Jessica did oh so long ago. Not so fast, peeps. Women are getting as many blow jobs as men are in the uptick in oral sex, which means things are a lot more complicated than a world where women are slaves to male desire.

As for the way she starts the chapter, I took it in context. her point is not to have competition but to flesh out what better sex means. And for her, it apparently means having sex under conditions in which you are informed about birth control, know what you want out of life, have a sense of who you are, etc. are the ingredients for better sex.

I’m in agreement about the superficiality with which issues of race and class are dealt with. I have already pointed them out but before I could get very far with that, I had to contend with what I thought were ridiculous misconceptions about the book. And I was deeply offended by statement about Valenti that could have been made about me and HAVE been made about me, including by you in the past BA. You spoek of crying. what the fuck do you think I did when I read that?

Comment by Bitch | Lab — May 14, 2007 #
Actually, don’t you think it’s important that we discuss why we get all riled up about how feminism is represented in the mainstream (which is always gonna be not quite right) but yet when poor people are getting fucked, we read about it, shrug, and keep drinking our coffee? We can’t even go, “that’s fucked up”?

I feel that the ire over this book and the silence around other, more important issues (I’m now taking bets to see if this enters the Feminist Cannon, and the odds are 26:3 against). It’s about what issues are who’s priorities in this community. It leads to dialogue about how each of us feels oppressed and where we meet at the “intersectionality” of them and, hell, change the world.

So thanks, Bitch | Lab for belittling my comment. Because, since I don’t have too much invested in this book (and I feel like you, for some reason, do) my comment is stupid and off-topic.

Comment by aireanne — May 15, 2007 #
Miso, it’s true that right at the moment, more people are probably thinking about Valenti than about Rich or hooks.
*
But pop culture is not reducible to what people are thinking about right now; or rather, to what they are visibly thinking about because some publisher pays for a book launch party. I knew about Adrienne Rich years before I knew about Susan Faludi. I imagine, for most people, it’s the other way around, but that’s sort of the point — if we pretend that the absorption of culture isn’t a diffuse and asymmetrical process, then we feel as though we owe Valenti much more than we actually do.
*
Look at it this way. Right now, Valenti’s book is #3,009 in Amazon.com sales. I’m sure, for a while at least, it will continue to go up from there. On the other hand, The Second Sex, which was first published in 1952, is still at #6,203. A Room of One’s Own, first published in 1929, is at #7,821. Neither of these books condescended to their readers, and both of them have lasted, which is precisely why the future of feminism does not depend on Jessica Valenti.
*
My point about bars and clubs is that you can choose where to go; just because you end up at a place showcasing tacit racism and sexism more than usual doesn’t mean “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” It was a choice in the first place.
*
None of these artists or thinkers are going to be a perfect icon of color, consciousness, and clarity; in fact, the idea of any sort of checklist is repulsive. Ani DiFranco is another white girl, it’s true; but she’s done an incredible amount to make culture more eloquent (and more independently-organized), and feminism more vocal.

Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — May 15, 2007 #
[...] Then there’s the issue of who deserves to talk about these issues. Apparently, since Jessica is white and pretty and young, she doesn’t: [...]

Pingback by Feministe » Full Frontal Feminism — May 16, 2007 #
[...] If you want to see Truly Outrageous satire Valenti, and read the wonderful thread that hooked me into this, go here. [...]

Pingback by The Debate Over Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism « The Kugelmass Episodes — May 17, 2007 #
for the record, I said this over at BL’s:
#

i probably shouldn’t have made the “Feminism 4 Dummiez” comment in that context. I don’t know if that accurately describes JV’s book; I was going off what seemed to be most peoples’ take on its tone, and my general impression of What Sells These Days. and my own slight irritation with what felt a bit (from the excerpts I’d seen) like a reinvention of the Third Wave wheel.

that said, i really shouldn’t say anything else unless/until i read the thing in full, I expect. I never really gave that much of a damn about the cover–although I do get that to go from the flat white tum to critique of “body image in the media” is, well, ironic; and I’ve got no bone to pick with JV personally. as LL notes, a lot of people I respect have bones with the book as well as what they see as patterns (wrt her, wrt what the book represents, or rather doesn’t but purports to, purportedly), and I do take that under advisement.

and yeah, i wish BfP had the/a book deal, too, along with a lot of other people who really don’t get their props, and frankly I think that is a lot of this, and there’s nothing wrong with that. it’s not -envy.- it’s a natural desire for well-deserved recognition that doesn’t seem forthcoming; meanwhile accolades get heaped on this one rather mainstream white feminist who’s by all accounts not written the most in-depth book; and any critiques get received in the framework of “yer just jealous” and “sex negative” and so on and so forth; so, in for a penny in for a pound…

meh.

I think mostly people are about reaching boiling point with the general atmosphere of “play nice and eventually the goodies will trickle down to you; if they haven’t, or they weren’t enough, it’s because you weren’t nice enough,” you know…

as per class as well as JV, I did write that one post after the Althouse/Clinton blowup:

http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2006/09/classy.html

…but, adding on, once again, there’s a whole lotta ugly starting to boil up, and it’s making me feel

1) uncomfortable, since it’s involving a lot of people I like and respect now fighting; perhaps it was overdue, but it’s hard to watch

2) embarassed, because I’m now getting remarked on as someone who made a “critique” when I did no such thing, and shouldn’t have written as much as I even did, because I still. haven’t. read it.

Comment by belledame222 — May 17, 2007 #
I’m a first timer to your website, and wow, that is a nasty parody of another feminist’s work. It comes across as so petty, personal, and mean.

Comment by Norma — May 17, 2007 #
Right there with you, Norma.

Attacking the person instead of the arguement is a fairly fundamental breech of good faith in any disagreement.

Also, while I do think there is some room to discuss the appropriate-ness of the book’s packaging, an entire thread judging the book by its cover is richly ironic.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 17, 2007 #
[...] of course, a number of issues to consider here. The cover. What it says to women of color. How that helps or hurts her ostensible cause (to convert the young ignorant white women who think feminism is [...]

Pingback by I really shouldn't get into this « Feline Formal Shorts — May 17, 2007 #
So you two come in having read nothing else to critique a joke avoiding the other substantive comments.

At this point

feministe and teh like have a long as thread for you to righteously indignant

but if you cant or wont read deeper than what We wrote just so you can say were mean

I might suggest you get the fuck gone for we REALLY start aiming to hurt some feelings

Comment by Blackamazon — May 17, 2007 #
I’m a first timer to your website, and wow, that is a nasty parody of another feminist’s work. It comes across as so petty, personal, and mean.

Maybe you should’ve photoshopped it some, PP… The kommentaurs are angry!!!!

Comment by Sylvia — May 17, 2007 #
Norma:

I’m a first timer to your website, and wow, that is a nasty parody of another feminist’s work. It comes across as so petty, personal, and mean.

Out of curiosity, how mean do you consider putting a burka on a non-Muslim woman is? How about putting blackface on a white person?

Do you think less of the sites that do that, or is it just people who write words on their stomach and then photograph it, when a stomach and the words written both show up on the original?

Comment by Deoridhe — May 18, 2007 #
[...] crazily debated, we’re talking hundreds of comments everywhere, cuts, fights, blurry dramas, more than other actual political issues that might not be very sexy. Cus the book cover is sexy sort [...]

Pingback by the oh zone » Blog Archive » “Feminism seems like a lot of work,” says male person. Apparently there’s life going on outside of the feminist blogosphere … choose a fucking side! — May 18, 2007 #
Blackamazon:

Point taken — there is a lot more said in this thread than just comments about the cover of the book or unflattering speculation about the author’s feminist “cred”. You (personally) raise at least two issues that I’m going to consider, once I get my own copy of FFF. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I won’t even like the book myself. I don’t know yet.

But back to my original point: Jumping right to deriding the author rather than debunking the author’s work is very bush league — and this is exactly what the OP and many of the first responders do. Perhaps you consider this clever parody, but I think it shows a lack of respect to someone who is at least nominally a part of your movement.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
What I actually take away from this thread, and the many like it I have seen elsewhere, is that Jessica’s book is not the book that many femenists would have written themselves or felt needed to be written.

It really does look like there is a need for other books about feminists or practical feminism written by authors with a different background or perspective than Valenti. She may just not be the person to cover all of the specific topics raised in this thread.

Or am I misreading this entire issue? Is it just that people feel Valenti is claiming to speak for people whom she isn’t actually addressing at all?

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
Jumping right to deriding the author rather than debunking the author’s work is very bush league — and this is exactly what the OP and many of the first responders do.

Medicine Man, care to explain how parodying a book cover is a personal attack on the book’s author? I mean, the stomach on the original cover is not her stomach. Moreover, I and others who commented found the flippant attempt at hipness evident on the cover to be echoed by the book’s contents – as we say on this thread, and on numerous other threads. If you bothered to read anything else on my blog or other commenters’ blogs, you might find that our comments here are part of a larger conversation about mainstream feminism and progressive movements and who they erase and condescend to even as they purportedly ‘include’ them.
Rather than posting extended quotes of the text of the book on my blog (which would have been pure torture), I chose to make a joke: to use an image that reflected my overall opinion, with a caption from the book itself that summed up my problems both with how it was written and how it’s being marketed (judging from the cover).
I’m going to disagree that Valenti ‘may not be the person to cover all of the specific topics raised in this thread’. Why not? Sounds to me like you’re the one making judgments.

Comment by petitpoussin — May 18, 2007 #
PP at this point I’m jsut restating points and going GOtcha

cause you know

we as old grizzled non readers cant a t all have critiques of the book

Comment by Blackamazon — May 18, 2007 #
Medicine Man, care to explain how parodying a book cover is a personal attack on the book’s author?”>

Good question — it is just the impression I got from your OP. It wasn’t actually anything about the cover that bothered me — although I did comment on the irony of a book’s cover being such a sticking point (stupid throwaway comment in hindsight). What did bother me is your suggestions about Valenti’s motives for writing the book, or motives for the *way* she wrote the book.
Ie. “I’m not one of those feminists, you know, the boring ones. I’m hip. Hey, let me into your club. Guys? Guys?”
It is a pretty fine line between parodying the book and writing a caricature the author. I took it more of a caricature. Not a hard assumption to make either. The topic may have been the book’s cover but the text was what you felt Valenti’s motives were.
So that was why my gut reaction was “crap, they really don’t like the author much”. Maybe that wasn’t your intention, but that was how I read it.

Moreover, I and others who commented found the flippant attempt at hipness evident on the cover to be echoed by the book’s contents – as we say on this thread, and on numerous other threads. If you bothered to read anything else on my blog or other commenters’ blogs, you might find that our comments here are part of a larger conversation about mainstream feminism and progressive movements and who they erase and condescend to even as they purportedly ‘include’ them.”

Yes, you’re right. I haven’t read everything that has been written about this subject, but given that I’m not trying to refute the broader critisms of this book I don’t really have to.
Say I take you at your word that elsewhere on your blog you have stated, in detail, what you consider to be ill-advised or downright poorly written about Valenti’s book — *OR* — say I take for granted that the other reviews you linked to echo your sentiments about the quality of Valenti’s work. It still is petty to follow those legitimate observations with a colour commentary about how Valenti is sucking up to the sorority sisters and frat boys.
I understand that there is an overarching narrative about this book and you are not alone in your critique. I also realize that my understanding of your position would be better if I took in everything that you’ve linked. On the other hand, believe me when I tell you that I’ve read enough already to see that you are not the only person taking potshots at the author. There are respected (feminist) commentators who have smoothly moved from picking apart FFF (peer review) to castigating Jessica Valenti for her percieved shallow, sell-out feminism (personal dissection). Saying that your parody fits into the overall narrative only makes me think you’re taking cover behind the consensus you’ve formed with some of your peers.

I’m going to disagree that Valenti ‘may not be the person to cover all of the specific topics raised in this thread’. Why not? Sounds to me like you’re the one making judgments.”>

No, I’m making an inference based on the volume of complaints raised by people who think Valenti made a mess of her current book. If her writing style is such an issue, then perhaps more than one voice is needed; and call me provincial, but I really think that all book critics should be ready to pick up the pen themselves from time to time. Moreover, the topics that Blackamazon brings up in this very thread really should be tackled by someone who has experienced them first hand, if only for the sake of credibility.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
/facepalm

PP — could you nuke my previous two posts while I figure out how to use the blockquotes on this board? Very embarrasing.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
Medicine Man, I believe I fixed the blockquote problem.
I also believe that bloggers/authors in general have a persona, I also believe that publishing is a monolithic industry that more and more resembles straight-up advertising, and I believe both of those things because, in fact, I’m a writer myself. So when I criticize the style of a book’s writing, I do not believe it is the same as a personal attack. Particularly when I am criticizing a book in the context of a much broader strategy in MSM and much of successful progressive media.
And if one more person tells me to go write a book myself, my eyes are going to roll out of my head.

Comment by petitpoussin — May 18, 2007 #
**not messing with blockquotes now

Yes, I agree — critiquing the style of someone’s writing or the quality of their written work is not the same as denouncing their character. In fact, this is the entire point I’ve been driving at. I think critiquing someone’s work is totally legit, but I personally draw the line at tarring their motives or persona, unless they’ve proven that they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It looks like we don’t actually disagree about that, but I am going to try to explain why I misunderstood your intentions with your original post.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
Eh… or maybe not. Doesn’t really matter. I’ll just say that rather than reading your OP as a humorous observation on the way the book presents, I initially took it as an underhanded commentary on the author’s motives for writing the book. You’re telling me that’s not the case, so I guess I don’t have much more to say here… except for another attempt at one of those XHTML tags.

And if one more person tells me to go write a book myself, my eyes are going to roll out of my head.

I’m not suggesting that you, per se, should write a book, just that other current generation feminists should, and make them accessible to people who know balls-all about feminism so that I can pick them up.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
because book deals for woc/non profit workers/ non self publicizing young feminists

Really are falling out the sky

Comment by Blackamazon — May 18, 2007 #
Definitely won’t happen if you just don’t try.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
But enough of my white-guy-sunny-optimism ™. It just doesn’t seem to me that the best representation women of colour could hope for is a white Italian lady, no matter how sharp.

Even if it didn’t get published, certainly there would be some value to a book written with contributions from this generation’s black feminists? Heck, anyone who writes a book these days is one step up on 90% of the population, who either never starts or never finishes such a project.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 18, 2007 #
ANd your hwite guy sunny optimism isn’t just grating its condescending and implies that people haven’t tried. Among women I know five have been actively pavement pouniding for book deals

NONE have them

But hey put ona happy face !

And of course when we engage in our critiques AWAY AWAY from others.

NO MATTER HOW HARD WE try to avoid them!

Make sure a s many entitled smug asshats, non reading synchohants, pretentious academics, pseudo activists

and sunny happy white guys come over and
\
tell us how we should roll for the glory of feminism!!

Comment by Blackamazon — May 19, 2007 #
I’m glad that people have written about woc issues. I hope they get published, so I have the option of reading what they have to say. That is my primary point, that I’d much rather read what people with a first-hand experience have to say about the subject rather than whatever the author of FFF may include in her work.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 19, 2007 #
I’ve said a couple of times that I don’t want to refute or challenge the criticisms the posters here have made regarding Valenti’s writing style or strategy. In hindsight, the only comment I’ve made here that I really regret is my “judging a book by it’s cover” comment, which was flip and inaccurate.

Comment by Medicine Man — May 19, 2007 #
Hey! Thanks for the link to my blog post. And for the fabulous conversation here. I’d add to the conversation, but I feel like I’ve said what I needed to say in my review of the book. I have to say, though, that I’m really glad this type of conversation, which is soooo necessary and largely absent from more “popular” blogs, is taking place. Viva la resistance!

Comment by Feminist Review — May 20, 2007 #
[...] And that’s all [...]

Pingback by Feminizm Matterz « Problem Chylde: Learning in Transition — November 26, 2007 #
[...] international feminist issues, despite its claims of universality. (My two favorite responses were petitpoussin’s and Kugelmass’s.) Yes Means Yes is facing much the same criticism: it has been accused of [...]

Pingback by Don’t you know that other kids are starving in Japan « tomemos — December 31, 2007 #