i’m not a hater, but….
nubian on Oct 19th 2006
im sorry. this is wack. for a number of reasons.
why not just call it a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism? it is so obvious that this book is not for my young cousin, her friends, and a number of other young women of color who believe that they should be treated the same as any other woman. but i guess, they don’t matter, do they?
why the WHITE NAKED torso of a woman? of course, i wouldn’t have prefered a black body, or any other woman of color either. my question is though, why the naked body of a woman at all? is it to sell more books? there are a number of other ways to visually depict an image of “feminism”–i am not sure why a naked body, reminiscent of the glossy images of tabloid trash had to be the way to go.
why does feminism have to be so overtly sexualized? (even the title is called “Full Frontal”–wow) is it because THE PATRIARCHY, which weyou are all so trying to defeat, really, has a stake in what books are being published on feminism? you know it’s true. why don’t we talk about that instead of applauding a soon to be published book, a future historical document (agree with me on that or not), that even in 2006, has blatanly privileged the idea of white femininity over everyone one else. and arguably, this is considered by some to be radical!
as feminists, we you guys are always up in arms about how women’s bodies are protrayed, and to go and reproduce those same images is ridiculous. is this what feminism is these days? is that what white feminism is these days?
i am not trying to be the feminist police–and, yes, i realize i am judging a book by its cover, but seriously, nowadays people read books because of the cover–let’s be real here. and the image of a white female body as representative of “feminism” is disturbing.
images are POWERFUL. i don’t think we should forget that.
Filed in Uncategorized |
amen, sister. i’m in 100% agreement with you on this one.
xoxo, jared
omg, this is so disgusting. i agree with you completely…
I had the same reaction to the cover. I don’t know what will be inside that book, but I don’t pick up books with covers like that.
It is total crap. She does not represent me, and frankly I am sick of her and her kind getting the lip service as so. You are right, she sold out to the patriachy to get her book published. That would make her a patriachal submissive, a patriachal whore, same as captalist whore. Ain’t nobody hating, that that is these Sophia Coppolas (see Black Amazon) way of saying “I mean something because people want to be like me.” Who would want to be like them but another idiot that is alrady like them?
That’s a seriously stupid title for a book…and the cover is wrong on so many levels. It’s definitely a ploy to get more people to buy it. If something doesn’t make sense, follow the money, as my father says.
cuz, you know, to get people interested, we gotta, like, make feminism fun and sexy! of course she’s also giving a speech today called “Why Feminism is Cool.”
ok, tongue-out-of-cheek, no hate to Jessica–I understand the need to make feminism relevant, to do outreach, but i hate the sense of selling and bait and switch–we might objectify women’s body’s parts on the cover, but dammit, once you read it, you’ll know how wrong that is!
and i agree with you, nubian–surely someone has realized that this image is not going to attract some (ahem) readers–are they to be dismissed as inconsequential?
Yup, you’re right again. I was also disappointed in both the title and cover. I don’t see how this could be accessible to young feminists.
Though I’m only a few years removed from college, I have noticed that in the college-aged women I teach that the whole “choice feminism” crap is rampant, and there is a real aversion to publicly noticing oppression and sexism (because, as several have told me privately, they don’t want men to think they are “ugly feminist bitches”). I think that, the more subtle sexism gets (though there’s plenty of overt stuff too), the harder it is on young women, and this makes me sad. As much as I respect Jessica (and I read Feministing and blogroll it), I am disappointed by this book.
i think, as i read it from comments on this post on feministing, that the reasoning behind the cover was exactly what you all have described–to interest those that might not be naturally interested in a book on feminism.
so, i understand wanting to reach the masses.
but i totally do not get this cover.
and honestly it makes me angry. every day we all see ads like this, the commodification of the female body. i just don’t understand why as feminists we need to use that as our ‘olive branch’.
So this is a book, and not Glamorpolitian magazine?
*sigh*
So, not surprising.
i\’m just upset that attributes of femininity and feminism, are once again attributed to the thin, perfectly tanned, white female body–this is troubling.
second, why does there even need to be a naked body in the first place?
and before people get their panties in a twist, i never said this shit was racist. so don\’t even try to put those words in my mouth.
so, this is suppossed to get women who weren’t interested in feminism to be interested in it?
hmmm, ok…
you would think though, as feminists, we would give more credit to the younger generation of women, instead of playing down to them by continuing to commodify their bodies. i am POSITIVE, there are other ways to grab young womens attention. ways that would be a lot more subversive than this.
I agree, particularly about giving young women not enough credit. If a woman isn’t a feminist because she doesn’t think feminism is sexy enough, I don’t WANT her to be a feminist. Since when is feminism about being sexy?
And I can’t believe everyone over on the feministing thread is being so dense: “omg, if women of color refuse to read this because it has a white woman on the cover, they’re being shallow!”
Plus, the image is almost certainly airbrushed. So it doesn’t even represent the skinny white young women it’s supposed to appeal to in the first place. And… am I missing how an image of a skinny naked young airbrushed woman is supposed to appeal to a large amount of young women Who Should Be Feminists, rather than men? Some of us aren’t straight, but I personally still find attempts to sell products using women’s bodies to be a total, well, turnoff.
you know, I really think it’s a white problem, not having women be interested in feminism–I know tons of woc who may not call themselves feminist, but goddamn if they aren’t there at every progressive get together on campus challenging everybody–what about the women? I mean, almost all of the really radical groundbreaking shit i see happening is with women of color…I know a few radical white feminist organizations, but they are all older women, who have been doing that work for decades and refused to sell out to the happy choice feminists…
ick. Not that I “need” a book to tell me anything about feminism, but I still wouldn’t be buying a book like with that cover- it seems like deciding to put that image on there belies everything feminism stands for… or anyway, what I *thought* feminism stands for…but you know, more and more white women’s “feminism” isn’t the same thing as what I believe in! So perhaps it’s not suprising that I’m totally disgusted by this. And as for “the people that might not ordinarily be interested in feminism” reason for putting a naked, thin, “perfect” white woman on the cover? That’s bullshit. The whole “sex sells” idea is so entrenched that we can’t even get away without using it when the subject is how our sex and our bodies are commodified and why that’s a BAD thing?! Crap. They (authors, editors, etc) shoudl have known better.
Feminism has done nothing for the Black race but to promote the abortion of 15,000,000 (that’s fifteen million) Black babies since about 1975 AND 450,000 BLACK BABIES EVERY YEAR.
Meanwhile, white teenagers are encouraged to have babies out of wedlock, white women in places like the US, Poland and Russia are being paid to have lots of babies - while having ‘multiple births’ will lead to free house, free pampers for live, free tv publicity, free cash.
Feminism has contributed to the removal of Black men from the households.
RANTINGS ABOUT ‘PATRIARCHY’ IS BOGUS
The talk about ‘patriarchy’ pushed by white feminist tricksters and swallowed by Black ‘feminist’ followers and copiers is a DISTRACTION.
THE MAJOR PROBLEM IS WHITE SUPREMACY/RACISM and feminism and abortion are the ‘tools of war’ against Blacks.
The so-called ‘partriarchy’ is not a problem in the Black community - IN FACT, IT IS UNCONTROLLED ‘MATRIARCHY’ THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A WEAK AND FRAGILE BLACK AMERICAN NATION. If Black men were in fact apply PATRIARCHY, THE BLACK FAMILY WOULD BE STRONGER, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE ORDER AND THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE STRONGER.
“Susu and Susunomics,” pub. by http://www.iUniverse.com
“A History of Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming,” pub. by http://www.Xlibris.com
http://sexhistorynsoul.proboards102.com
http://sexyloveromancepoems.blogstream.com
http://sexylovenromancepoems.blogstream.com
WANT GREAT AFRICAN MOVIES - TIRED OF THE IGNORANT AND DEGRADING TRASH BEING FED ON BLACK ORIENTED (OWNED BY OTHERS) TV NETWORKS?
See some great tv stations http://africanamericasworldnetworks.blogspot.com
BUILD THE BLACK COMMUNITY, STOP BLACK AMERICA FROM BEING RETURNED TO SLAVERY, HAVE MORE BLACK BABIES TO INCREASE THE POPULATION:
http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire
Feminism has done nothing for Black people but contributed to the breakup of the Black family while everyone else’s family remains intact, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO PRESENTED FEMINISM IN THE SIXTIES (INCLUDING ONE WHO MARRIED A WEALTHY WHITE MAN)
Ahhh, nothing like good old fashioned Black male misogyny…
people: never trust the word of anyone who puts more that 4 capitalized words in a post
I just wanted to post to show my support for your opinion at feministing. I am appalled at the way you were treated in that thread regarding this cover, and I absolutely agree with your analysis. It horrifies me when white women feel comfortably apathetic about images that reflect their reality, particularly when it is exactly because of their privilege that they have a responsibility to help deconstruct and complicate the white=feminism conceptualization. Thanks for your words.
Books with covers and titles like this are exactly why I was never attracted to Feminism as a movement. I came into activism from a race/ethnicity perspective and was convinced that Feminism was for white well off girls while the rest of us were dealing with shit like protecting our peeps from getting beat downs in their hoods from the cops etc.
Yikes. Yeah, that’s a disturbing book cover. I definitely wouldn’t buy it for all of the reasons already mentioned. The only people I can see it appealing to would be a) people who already look like that and b) people who want to look like that (just like how the cover models sell magazines). People who don’t want to look like that and don’t, for whatever reason–colour, size, ability, etc.–why would this cover appeal to them? I think the assumption that a young, white skinny girl will appeal to all girls/women is troubling. To say the least.
brownfemipower–”I know a few radical white feminist organizations, but they are all older women, who have been doing that work for decades and refused to sell out to the happy choice feminists…” But not all of us (as a young white non-happy choice feminist). I know we’re not very visible, but we are out there. Here. Whatever.
WOW. I’d love to find a book on feminism fo the young woman in my life (my sweet sister). Guess I’ll have to keep looking - no way would I purchase something that tells her that feminism is about her flat, white tummy.
Good grief. That’s offensive.
The most disappointing thing for me is Jessica’s reluctance to discuss these points, actually. To hear the criticism and yet respond with “I’m not going to say anything about it”–rather than with some discussion of her own–seems to go against notions of feminist community. The whole “I’m sticking to my guns” mentality just reminds me way too much of the current administration’s rationale…
feminism my sweet brown ass
I just wanted to post to show my support for your opinion at feministing. I am appalled at the way you were treated in that thread regarding this cover, and I absolutely agree with your analysis.
yeah, fuck feministing. i’m never ever visiting or commeting on that site again. waste of my fucking time.
* punches desk*
Oddly enough UNITY is on while I type this so the contrast it is huge.( and yes I mourn Latifah too)
What I like and by like I mean abhor with a straightup fucking honesty don’t really give a shit whose feelings are hurt at this point are the following
1) The body it has no head. Literally there is no center of reason in the picture . A book anout ensuring feminism matters to women is marketed by them by a headless torso. Feminism matters but your brain don’t just your abs ( which are abviously photospped) which arent in your face unless their perfect .
2) The title. Some young women arent necessarily prone to nudity porn or sex . Some are. Some are afraid of feminism but hey the title sounds like a fucking cabaret act! WOhoot.
3)The body is white . Nubian didn’t say it’s racist . I’m going to. Racist action isn’t just the conscious exclusion its the regular non attempt to engage all people . SO young women if you don’t look like,aspire to look like,are have the possibility to look like, that body . You’re not a full frontal feminist and you may noy matter. Lovely!!!!!!!!! BEcause it’s not like your the woman/girl whothis doesn’t happen every frapping day to you inmainstream media and discourse as well.
4)Feminism is COOL Feminism matters but I won’t be engaging in it with the women who have the nerve to not appreciate the fact that I am reachingout in this way,ignoring ,critique, non participating in discourse while adding to it and getting paid for it and PLEASE DON”T HURT MY FEELINGS!
And for real when was the last time someone asked girls. when was this approached non authoritarianly , in the we’ll tell you what you need to know way?
That’s right every day by RADICAL/&WOC spaces all the time in many ways .
She wants to make money , or ” reach out” fine but if the response isn’t what you like that’s as much feminism as the naked torso of a computer boys fantasy.
And yeah nubians back
Hi, I came over here from Feministing, and I just wanted to say… I don’t know why suddenly so many people there seem to have become completely dense about this. I thought the offensiveness of this image was pretty effing obvious, and I’m “just” a young (dumb?) college-aged woman. I wish I could explain the rest of the reactions over there, but I really can’t. I do really really hope that people don’t completely write Jessica and the rest of Feministing off over this, though; they’re usually pretty on top of things.
Sad, sad, sad. Of course the cover isn’t meant to exclude nonwhite women– because to wilfully exclude a population you have to be actually thinking about that population. Looks like another case of nonwhite = invisible to me.
And I don’t buy the whole “this naked lady is an IRONIC naked lady” business, either. If nobody gets the joke, was it a joke? It’s like a tree falling in a forest. There could have been a cover that didn’t feature yet another anonymous, white (= raceless), headless wardrobeless chick.
I think this cover will appeal to exactly the target audience. Someone else is going to have to write the books aimed at nonwhite women.
1) The body it has no head. Literally there is no center of reason in the picture . A book anout ensuring feminism matters to women is marketed by them by a headless torso. Feminism matters but your brain don’t just your abs ( which are abviously photospped) which arent in your face unless their perfect .
Black Amazon you are words to the thoughts that I just seem to be able to bring to life more and more every day.
My friend and I talk about how the body and head is becoming more and more detached…..Coincidently she has a friend who occupation is “Head Hunter” and his wife miscarried, the baby was a fetus with no head, and they never made a connection or anything. They are materlisitic, superficial, judgmental, every thing, and the irnoy never rung a bell….
And if she didn’t want feedback or already knew what the feedback would be, and had no intention of discussing it, then why even post the cover and ask what people thought?
I agree completely. There must be some other way to catch the attention of young, non-feminist women than using the body of a (thin, white, conventionally attractive) woman to sell a book. I like Jessica and Feministing a lot, but this really bothers me. I posted on it also, because I thought it was just so wrong. We’ve all seen images like this everywhere our whole lives–do we really need them on the cover of a feminist book too?
The closely cropped torso with no head is nothing new–that’s been popular in photography practically since its invention and I remember discussing it in the early ’80s when I first took a photography class–you didn’t see it so much in representations pre-photography, interestingly… it’s never gone away, and women perpetuate it as much as men. I agree it’s problematic. We’re regressing in so many ways it’s difficult to keep up (or back). However, the language of disgust and/or vilification over the representation of any woman’s body is dangerous, for example: “a patriachal submissive, a patriachal whore, same as captalist whore”–really? Is that automatically how a woman’s body reads? Even on the cover of a book by written by a woman ostensibly about feminism? It sounds like the cover of the book was a lesser-of-evils choice on the author’s part, which is more frequently than not the case in mainstream publishing. As someone who works on the representation of black women’s bodies, usually their nude bodies, I know that this kind of response leaves little room for any reclamation of representations, for the subject’s agency or pleasure (not necessarily sexual), and there’s nowhere to go with it except censorship. That’s like saying as long as women’s bodies are exploited (which will be forever) we should cover them up. When are nude bodies okay, and why?
I read feministing.com, but as a 41-year old black feminist, I automatically know this kind of feminist book never appeals to my demographic. I don’t assume it has anything to do with me. Maybe that has to do with my age and awareness that there are many women of color whose work speaks more directly to my interests, but as we all know the book’s title/language doesn’t even have to say “white.” Like everything else in this culture, unless it explicitly says otherwise, that’s who it’s for.
i have no problem with nude bodies, especially those that belong to women (obviously). it is not the fact that the body is nude, it is the fact that the body is nude AND has the words full frontal written across it, as well as being posed in the exact same way that womens bodies are in pronographic-esque magazines like maxim or king. it was a combination of those things that upset me, and a number of other women. it is hard for me, to not read this image against without taking into account the intertextuality of it.
i don\’t think, however, simply because the female body is sexually exploited, therefore, we should always cover it up–no. i just don\’t think as feminists, we should take part in that explotation. there are a number of ways to subvert the sexually charged imagery of the female body. even feministings logo is a prime example of the subversion i mean.
[…] and discussing. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
The cover photo of the torso is probably associated with the reproductive/abortion rights of women. Maybe I’m stretching, but that seems like a reasonable conclusion. She might as well have used a photo of the pubic area as well. Maybe then the message would’ve been better interpreted.
I agree about ‘feminism’ rarely addressing issues facing women of color.
Feminism is a white student of Michigan filing an attack on affirmative action against Black students trying to attend Michigan University, while she and her white female friends can attend with no problem.
Feminist initiated abortion on demand on a lie. They contributed to the abortion and ‘canibalizing’ of over fifteen million Black babies. They continue to support genocide and racist pogorms agaist Blacks with one side of their face, while smiling and grinning to Black brainwashed women on the other side of their face.
Feminism is a tool of white supremacy/racism.
My sister is a Black Nationalist and Black separatist. She understands that asking for too much power can lead to not having any.
Black women have lots of power in the Black family and community. Black women are also given lots of power by the old ‘massa’ slave system that is discussed in the Willie Lynch Letter ( http://community.webtv.net/nubianem ).
Therefore, ‘feminism’ the ‘ism’ established in the early 1900’s by people like Sanger and other eugenicists who took abortion and family planning to destroy the Black community — that ‘feminism’ is part of the system of white supremacy/racism and genocide.
My syster believes in ‘isms’ so does my lady. The ‘ism’ they believe in is Black Nationalism and Black self-preservationism.
http://www.blacktown.net
http://sexyloveromancepoems.blogstream.com
I am a hater.
I just posted this over at Feministing as well, and I thought it amusing to post it here because it kinda reinforces the point:
When I showed the cover to my boyfriend, he reacted with a “Whoa!” and he asked me honestly if the book would have sex tips in it before he read the title.
So yeah: deeper meanings = 0; sexuality undertones = 1.
The cover?
It is definately a clique satire at best, representative of what is inside the book at worse.
I think Jessica is being honest. She didn’t use the “blond girl” because that is just “not her.” Her experience as a feminist is one of a white, (brown haired!) commerial looking feminist.
Had she been a 65-year-old over-weight white woman, her rebelion might have more to do with resenting society for acting as if she is worthless/desposable because she was not attractive or old. She could have an ironic bag over her head in the cover shot! That would be clever! Because she is not, her subversity might have more to do with her shouting “I’m not *just* a (white) sexual being!” And thus the cover is ironic.
I hope she takes these complexities of feminism into the inside of her book (yea, right) . The outside is very prettywhitefem=I wear short skirts as a rebelion, I own my sexuality, it is not yours, etc. etc. etc. So I don’t think it is incredably offensive, it is a stupid, simplistic way to show irony.
When are people going to learn that a feminist is NOT a feminist if they don’t take the experience of WoC into account on every issue? There are more WoC in the world than white women. They are more exploited than white women. In order to actually be a feminist, I think Jessica needs to stop being so concerned with “what is truly her” and think about what is truly oppression.
Excellent analysis. Thank you for providing it. It is really important that in 2006, we remain ever vigilant to the contradictions that undermine a more encompassing, inclusive feminism.
I think it takes a fundamental distrust of feminism to get to the point where one could be talked into thinking this was a good tactic to sell a book about feminism to anyone. I don’t know her at all, but maybe that’s the world Jessica lives in.
This cover tells me that the contents will have nothing to offer for people of color, poor people, fat people, people who don’t like porn, people who are struggling to be taken seriously. It’s not against these people, it’s simply ignoring these people. It’s a fun book for fun people who want a fun look at a tiny little fun corner of fun feminism.
The obvious question for me is, why? What will the feminist community gain by having empty-headed fun-loving people added to our ranks? People who respond to these kind of covers aren’t going to become serious allies, are they? Why bother at all?
I have to wonder, do these ‘progressives’ have any idea of the extent to which they alienate women of color?
Nubianem,
No one forces Black women to kill their babies. How about taking some personal responsibility for your(in general) actions.
I’m a feminist who is AGAINST abortion and I’m Black. However, I am pro choice only because women should have dominion over their own bodies. But to blame white feminists for the killing of black babies… I don’t think so.
India has a startingly high abortion rate too, although I can’t remember the stat. They abort their girl babies, because boys are prized there.
But anyway, women need to take responsibility and and stop opening your legs without using protection, that’s the bottom line on abortion.
peace.
oh, This might seem rude, but i find that many white feminists lately, rarely say anything worth relating to. Unless you’re upper middleclass and attended a finishing school of some sort.
Oh, Jessica. You’re not half as cute as you think you are, and people aren’t up in arms because we’re JUS JELLUS (head dip). God, it seems like 1/2 of her entries are bitching because WAAAAAAAAH, she’s so young and cute and people don’t take her seriously! Gee, I wonder why?
Let me qualify this by saying I’m neither a feminist nor a WOC, so most of this may not be valid to you but…
She’s white, what would you expect the cover to be.
Of course the book and the cover are about money.
She is the Nancy Grace of feminism, sort of a pundit if you will. Most lawyers cringe at Nancy Grace despite the fact that she periodically makes a point. I assume most feminist cringe at some of the stuff at Feministing as well.
You’re right in that middle and upper middle class girls and their mothers will purchase this - some just for the cover, some too be cool, pop culturish and oh so enlightened.
I haven’t read the book, there may be something profound inside, and I’m not going to judge it as a whole until I can read it – whenever I can get it for free.
As for the cover, I like bodies and don’t feel posting a female body on a cover even if it has a flat stomach is going to do any harm to “real feminism”; it just won’t help it. I understand it is exclusive - feminism is derisive and often exclusive as I see it.
Real feminism would come with aiding women worldwide, women who are truly oppressed, in their quest for supremacy, aiding them by asking them what feminists can do for them, thus allowing a more powerful body of women as a whole - that doesn’t happen ; it’s not going to happen because of this book, and so it’s not worth getting all up in arms about.
This is a little piece of white middle class pop culture is all and if it turns out to be more than that then that I’ll actually be happy.
You are right to be angry that the cloak of feminism is put over all feminists without taking into account whether or not it really applies.
You (nubian) raise totally valid/reasoned/well thought out points and it stymies me that critical thinking is so shunned in that thread. It seems rather insulting of young women think that they need to be duped by the image of a naked female torso into buying a book on feminism. And who do we mean when we say “young women”? That is where I think the use of a single white woman on the cover (faceless and all) says a lot.
Well, as to the body being white, how inappropriate would it be for a white author to illustrate the cover with a black woman’s waist? That expropriation would be racist and exploitive. I would have preferred a different cover, but could never condone a white author implying a false connection and understanding of women of color by portraying a woman of color on her book cover.
I have not read the book and probably won’t, but I confess that the cover doesn’t bother me perhaps because I have feminist friends who are constantly being dismissed as not feminist enough because they like high heels, lip gloss and fashion. Some feminists think that if a woman doesn’t dress like an crunchy granola earth mother hippie, she’s just not feminist. That’s as false as imploying women who don’t dress as femme fashionistas aren’t feminist.
One reason many young women say, “I’m not a feminist, but I believe….(fill in feminist idea here.” is that feminists have been stereotyped as sex-hating, man-hating humorless and frigid droids. If the author is going after that stereotype, then the cover makes sense. Whether it’s appropriate or not really depends on the content of the book. By the cover, I would expect that the book is specifically targeting the stereotypes of feminists as “feminazis”, humorless, anti-sex, anti-fun and so on.
All that said, I agree that throughout the history of feminism, the voice of women of color AND low-income women has been discounted and dismissed. I agree that most most mainstream feminist organizations focus on the concerns of white professional class women to the detrment of low-income women and women of color. However, I don’t expect one book cover by a young white author to redress that injustice.
It would be interesting to read how that author addresses the nexus of racism, sexism and homophobia — but not, I guess, interesting enough to want to buy the book.
Kija– isn’t that a straw (wo)man? I have a hard time imagining that a WOC who had written such a book would have used an image like this at all– at the very least, not a young, thin, objectified body part– white OR of color. That’s the biggest disconnect– that this book isn’t going to cover the issues you’re talking about, or if it is, that the cover (not to mention the title) implies the opposite.
I don’t understand all these white people (in other fora, too) asking whether it would be a good thing if the image were exactly the same, but of a black woman. That tends to suggest to me that the best most white people can do in terms of “racial understanding” is to use the same language and the same symbols and the same mindset and just replace “white” with “of color.”
Now we’re back to “colorblind”/aversive racism. Talk about missing the point.
After rereading my post, I see an implied disrespect for the subject of the book. That’s not what I mean by not interesting enough to buy. I perceive this book to be one written to persuade those who are not feminist to align with feminism, to persuade all those “I’m not a feminist but..” women that feminism is not what they think it is. I am a feminist and don’t need to be persuaded…so I don’t need to discover why feminism is cool. I already think it’s cool.
Actually, I don’t think that the photo is that sexualized. The hands on the hip imply a toughness and self-confidence that takes this away from traditional objectification of women’s bodies and suggests something else altogether.
I think that more folks need to be like I’m not a feminist but. You know why? Because if you think a social movement is about whether the boooys will think you are sexy and fun, well, we don’t need you anyway. If you want to work for women to be educated all over the world, if you want us all to have our reproductive rights, if you want the raping to stop, that’s who I want on my side, not a bunch of flibertyjibbets who seem to have as their sole interest in lifeworrying about what other people think of their hoo hahs.
The reason people like that aren’t taken seriously is because of their behavior, not because of what they wear.
Michelle,
I guess that I am reading the capitalization of WHITE in Nubian’s original post as stressing that while the torso if offensive in and of itself, it is even more offensive because it is white. My understanding is that her objection to the cover is two-fold. 1) It’s exploitive of female sexuality, adopting patriarchal norms of women’s beauty. 2) It’s whiteness marginalizes women of color.
While I don’t agree, I can understand the first objection and relate to it. It’s a troublesome fine line between marketing and being coopted and I don’t want to get too invested in defending the use of the female torso. It doesn’t bother me. I can understand why it bothers others.
The second objection is a tough one, though. Although I agree that nothing in the cover shouts out to women of color that this book is for them, I think a white woman appropriating imagery of women of color to suggest that she is qualified to speak for them would be unforgiveable. This is “a young woman’s guide” not “THE young woman’s guide” and thus it’s a white woman speaking for herself about why feminism matters.
It would be great if Jessica Valenti’s book included a chapter on how sexism compounds other forms of oppression (racism, classism and homophobia) and acknowledges that when one form of oppression interacts with another, it’s not addition, it’s multiplication. It would be good if she includes some examples of how racism and sexism exponentiate each other and note how women of color have specific concerns that the broader movement must include in order to be truly a women’s movement for all women — but she cannot do that through imagery.
Well, I dunno, I don’t read feministing or whatever. But if you were getting crap over there for your analysis, nubian, that’s just wrong. Cos I thought you - and many of the other posters HERE, were right on! Which I guess is why I don’t read over there, I tried once and was just horrified! horrified! but why I *do* read you and bfp, etc.
I checked out the feministing.org web site earlier (something I haven’t done in ages) and had a few good eye rolls. None of them are as clever as they seem to think they are. As a middle class, college educated Black female, I just don’t find their writing appealing or informative. And hey, I’m former raver who has mainly dated white boys–so go figure(?)
I think I went to Feministing once. I couldn’t find anything interesting to read.
Exactly. This will turn off more women than it would attract for many reasons. Does this Jennifer(because I’m not really familiar with her) believe that this stuff really works?
What’s radical about this book again?
Somehow, I don’t see Jennifer nor the women at Feministing at an Oct22 event today either.
I am gonna have to say that I am a hater! Further perpetuation of the body as THE representation of feminism. Where does this leave the bodies not shown…and the bodies that are many many hues darker than the idealized standard?
Oh yes, I am truly a hater on this one and I agree with you all the way!
toni, feministing.org is actually a “parody” of feministing.com put up by some MRA weirdos. It tends to make me want to vomit and not roll my eyes, but whatever.
I can only speculate, but from desinging book covers and knowing a little about the industry, the author hardly gets a say in anything that has to do with design, typography, title, or marketing. She might be given some roughs to choose from, but the people who actually make the decisions about how to market — that’s something the publisher controls especially for first time authors.
If that’s the case, I just don’t know why Jessica doesn’t just say that. It might be awkward, but why hide the realities of the business from everyone if it is the case?
The bodywith no head business is more a function of the fact that, if you put a picture on the cover, most people are going to assume it’s the author or are going to associate it with the author. no head, not so easy to pin a face to your image of the author. less confusion.
publishing industry is also notoriously competitive and they cut costs everywhere. IF there’s a head shot, then the photo has to be model-releases: the model has to agree that she wants her face associated with the book. Those photos cost a lot more since the model, once associated with the concept, may get pigeonholed in that area, reducing her opps. As a consequence, the default is often avoid head/face shots for book covers.
I do agree with Black Amazon and whoever else mentioned it, “The feminism is cool” title to the speech is … well … ugh. Chabert’s been calling this Feminist Branding or something like that: where feminism is reduced to brand cliches, taglines, etc.
Sorry, another one of my notorious slippages in my name. Sorry about that.
I have to disagree that most of the commenters over there are agreeing with Jessica’s cover choice. It seems to be split with alot of people uncomfortable with the choice.
I think that Jessica thought she would be reaching some people who might not read her book without the Cosmo style cover, unfortunately she will alienate many more who would have been inclined to buy it for themselves or their daughters/grandaughters/nieces.
Kija, you are missing the point. No one is saying that it should have been a brown torso on the cover, no one. What is being said is that there should not have been a torso on the cover in the first place, but that a white torso is a double slap in the face, saying that the only feminists are white, saying no WOC issues are covered in this white middle class fun feminist book. It’s further insult. An argument could be made that the book cover is sexist (sexualized image) and racist (whites only), although that isn’t being said either, I’m just giving it as an example for you to see why the cover is problematic and a double insult to WOC feminists. It does not appear to be serious because of the picture and font choices, and both will exclude many readers for many reasons. It would have been better if it was marketed towards the older woman to buy for her younger female relatives and friends, because I can’t really see any ditzy teen wandering into the feminist section of the bookstore to ever be exposed to the cover in the first place, and as many have said, this will alienate so many who would wander into that section, and would have been inclined to buy it with a more serious treatment.
The thing I found most disturbing about that thread was Tom Head’s reactions to nubian. He’s basically saying that she better let him act patronizing to her or else he will oppose everything she says whether he actually agrees or not. That was the most incredibly childish temper tantrum. His initial post was dismissive, instead of asking what she meant because he doesn’t understand, he assumes she is being stupid because he doesn’t understand. I’d have slapped down the hand patting my head too.
oh, me dumb.
just curious:
why, when looking at the cover, do you autmoatically assume that the stomach belongs to a white person? if a chinese woman, or a pale hispanic woman, or middle eastern woman had a picture taken of their stomach, would any of you really be able to tell the difference between eacg without looking at their faces? this is an honest question. i ask this because when i look at my non-caucasian, purely egyptian stomach, i honestly can’t find a distinct colour difference between it and that of the model. or is it that as long as your skin is white (or pale) you are automatically considered a ‘white’ person regardless of your background?
crimmy–
i dont think it’s so much as it’s obviously a white stomach, but i mean, c’mon, it surely is coded as white. considering the audience is looking at the image against a history of seeing a majority of other white bodies on display in the same position. it has hard to not see it as otherwise, at least to me it is.
Of the four basic arguments raised:
1) the picture of the torso is generally a bad thing
2) the fact that the torso is white is bad because it is white
3) Jessica’s feminism is bad for various reasons
4) the book is bad (though nobody has read it yet, it seems)
The only one that confuses the heck out of me is #2.
Jessica is white. If there is going to be a picture which is supposed to represent the author… it’s going to be a white woman. If Jessica was NOT white then #2 would be a much more valid attack. The cover and title combine to suggest the book is written by an attractive white woman (which it is). Hell, for all anyone knows it’s her stomach in the picture.
Sailorman, it just looks like you’re completely misinterpreting argument #2.
No one’s criticizing white women for having stomachs, and we’d all be damned confused if they didn’t have any. However, for many many years, white women have always been credited for the gains and activism of the feminist movement at the expense of women of color fighting just as hard. So seeing a white stomach on the cover of a book purporting to explain why feminism matters just prompts the question, “Matters to whom, Jessica? That airbrushed, thin, pale-tummied young woman?” As nubian pointed out in her post, images are powerful, and while the written message may not alienate women of color, the representation wouldn’t speak to them in any respect — the isolated stomach, the white stomach, the bare stomach period.
Matters to whom? I hesitate to use “duh” too often, but: matters to the author of the book. Duh.
I guess my confusion is about something a little different: Are people assuming that anyone who doesn’t include the caveat
“Warning! Represents the author’s personal views and experiences!”
supposedly speaking for the entire group?
This seems sort of silly. I mean, isn’t that what makes authors different? Am I to expect nubian, Jessica, or anyone else to constantly qualify their phrasing every time they make a general statement to reflect that they’re, well, not the same person?
No.
When I read what nubian writes I figure she is talking. I don’t expect her to qualifiy all her statements so they are ultimately acceptable to, say, white males. While I might disagree with her on some things, I pay her the courtesy (which she returns) of not nitpicking about every general statement.
If I wrote a book showing my stomach, entitled “A man’s guide to why feminism matters” then I sure HOPE you would expect a different book.
To be honest, the rest of it is unsurprising to me. Lord knows with porn and BJs and the recent Alas shitfest that the whole concept of “nekkid sexy woman on cover of feminist book” was bound to raise a fuss. I have my own opinions but they’re just, well, my opinions.
Similarly, there have ben a lot of good things written about the intersection between race and feminism (reading nubian’s stuff is how I ended up reading this blog in the first place). I have no opinions on that matter worth sharing.
but when i read this piece I can’t help but feel like nubian is annoyed because Jessica is… white? Because she writes from the perspective of a white person? Because a cover on a book written by her would be of a white woman?
It’s odd.
When someone writes a guide, I generally think they’re not writing for the benefit of themselves. I’m not referring to authorship; I’m talking about her target audience.
And if Jessica is writing to an audience like her, is she writing to other brown-haired, modestly attractive, thin, white young women or is she writing to young women in general? If the category is the latter, then the cover isn’t going to accomplish that. But if she’s writing for her reflection, then maybe it’ll travel.
I think we’ll just have to disagree. I think you’re sticking on the semantics of the word “guide” and to be honest, I think that’s a pretty weak argument. It’s a COVER, for chrissakes. It’s not an academic review.
Having pregnancy books on my mind, I’ll use these examples:
“What to expect when you’re expecting” doesn’t tell you everything you’ll expect. It tells you what the UATHOR thinks you’ll need.
“the girfriend’s guide to pregnancy” doesn’t give you all the information, by any means.
You are probably OK with those examples. Why hold Jessica to such an unusually high standard?
I suspect that a book of the same title, written by (say) nubian or brownfemipower, would be quite different. And I think that would be a GOOD THING.
Donna, you say Kija misses the point. What part of “I guess that I am reading the capitalization of WHITE in Nubian’s original post as stressing that while the torso if offensive in and of itself, it is even more offensive because it is white.” is even slightly different from “. What is being said is that there should not have been a torso on the cover in the first place, but that a white torso is a double slap in the face, saying that the only feminists are white, saying no WOC issues are covered in this white middle class fun feminist book.”
I think you are missing the point.
but when i read this piece I can’t help but feel like nubian is annoyed because Jessica is… white?
Wh-wh-wh-what? Sailorman, can you quote the part of Nubian’s post in which she says or even implies that she doesn’t like the color of Jessica’s skin?
Did you read Nubian’s post? Like this part:
there are a number of other ways to visually depict an image of “feminism”–i am not sure why a naked body, reminiscent of the glossy images of tabloid trash had to be the way to go.
That’s clear to me. Doesn’t comment on Jessica’s whiteness.
How about this part:
why does feminism have to be so overtly sexualized?
Doesn’t mention Jessica’s whiteness.
Nubian, I just don’t get it. It seems like the only way your writing can avoid being misinterpreted is if you limit it to one sentence. For instance, if you had stopped at:
im sorry. this is wack. for a number of reasons.
Then the commenters here and at feministe would have to stop making up things they claim you are saying and actually have to read your words. I am so glad that you continue to post, even though your posts get constantly misinterpreted. Sheesh!
On the other hand, even if you’d stopped at that first sentence, I’d predict the following comments:
1. Nubian apologized today for all the lies she’s been telling in her blog!
2. Nubian changed her name to “Wack” today!
3. Nubian is refusing to divulge the exact number of reasons she has for her opinion!
4. Nubian is….
Well, you get the idea!
I think we’ll just have to disagree. I think you’re sticking on the semantics of the word “guide” and to be honest, I think that’s a pretty weak argument. It’s a COVER, for chrissakes. It’s not an academic review.
So you mean when I see the word “guide” on the cover of a book, I can expect to learn jack shit about its contents? *epiphany or seizure either way I’m shaken up k*
Having pregnancy books on my mind, I’ll use these examples:
“What to expect when you’re expecting” doesn’t tell you everything you’ll expect. It tells you what the UATHOR thinks you’ll need.
“the girfriend’s guide to pregnancy” doesn’t give you all the information, by any means.
Okay. So you’re saying…that because the author doesn’t tell you everything…you’re to expect not to gain much from it. And…that authors who are pregnant…only write for pregnant people…and people who don’t expect to get pregnant (childfree people, fathers, doctors, lamaze instructors) have no interest in a book with a cover like that or a title of that sort. Mmmk.
You are probably OK with those examples. Why hold Jessica to such an unusually high standard?
I’m actually not. I’m just using the brain God gave me to read the damned words on the cover.
I suspect that a book of the same title, written by (say) nubian or brownfemipower, would be quite different. And I think that would be a GOOD THING.
Probably, but you’re confusing authors with readers. I’m speaking as someone who falls within the target audience (a young woman), but not really (black, already a feminist and womanist).
So it’s not just that we disagree, we’re wrong too because we’re stuck on semantics regarding a word that ? Because I had some of the same questions other people have and I’m also not clear where all your assertions about what nubian has written are coming from.
No, a cover is not an academic review, but unless I’m wrong, it’s something designed not just to protect a book, to provide information about a book, but to sell it as well?
Yeah. Thanks for challenging that strawman argument.
And I don’t know whether it’s Jessica’s stomach or not, but I doubt it, because if it’s airbrushed, which it obviously is, it really isn’t anyone’s stomach.
What’s that saying about not judging a book by its cover…?
As a woman, I don’t find the cover objectionable, nor do I find it offensive that it’s a white torso. The fact that the torso is white shouldn’t even be an issue. The writer is obviously appeaing to the ‘Sex in the City’ crowd or whatever show young white women watch these days. Look at the current culture where women like Paris Hilton and the like are held up as the ideal. How about analyzing the contents of the book?
There are far worse things to fret over. And if the book is lacking substance or doesn’t eddify you, write your own.
I am so glad that you continue to post, even though your posts get constantly misinterpreted. Sheesh!
RavenM, I mused on the same thing at Shannon’s today: i mean, nubian’s been back, what, a week and she’s already getting it–from a white man who didn’t like her rejection of his patronizing and a black man who can’t believe “sistas” aren’t jumping on his bandwagon.
really, nubian, my respect and admiration grow daily.
All the points taken wrt poor choice for cover; but, I was thinking the same thing BL posted: how much say does the author actually have in choosing the cover pic?
Marta, maybe you should read the comments before you comment on them? Because you would have seen that Kija twice misinterpreted nubian to say that she would prefer a black woman’s torso on the cover when she did not. Nubian is saying that there should be no sexualized women’s body parts on the cover. None. That a white woman’s body was chosen to represent the book is a slap to women of color, telling us this guide is not meant for us. In other words, she will turn off many feminists by using an airbrushed torso, and on top of that any WOC who still might have been interested will be turned off by the fact that it is only meant for skinny white middle class airheads, the normative group of women in this country. What I am saying is that it should have been marketed to women who are more likely to buy it than the airheads who are more concerned with the new fall fashion colors; women who take feminism seriously and want to read it for themselves and then may want to pass it on to the airheads.
Says who? Maybe you and you are entitled to have your opinion. Aren’t others, including women, entitled to disagree? If they believe as women have said here that it doesn’t speak to them, do you have a problem with them saying that? Or when they say that it’s not meant for them? If women are saying these things, then actually it is an issue even if it’s not your issue. Whether or not it’s the main issue is up to each woman but to say it’s not or shouldn’t be is just dismissive on your part imo.
No thanks. There’s tons of good literature out there to read on women, women’s issues and feminism. This cover knocks this book, oh about 100 places down my list. Judge a book by its cover? That’s one of the reason there is a cover, as a selling aid to particular customer bases. Whether or not it’s the “Sex in the City” crowd, I don’t know. I’ve never seen that show. But the cover just doesn’t make me want to pick up the book to read it, let alone pay the rising costs of hardbacks or trades to purchase it.
Authors have varying levels of input on cover design depending on the contract they sign with the publisher.
Hmmm. I’m expressing an opinion on a book which is what I assume others are doing. I don’t think anyone here is unaware that there are more worse things to fret about. Some of those “things” have been detailed in the comments here.
I’m writing a book already, thanks, though it will probably not be finished until 2015 at the rate I’m going, lol.
Yes, of course I read the post–a few times, actually, so I could be reasonably sure I didn’t misread it. I always read nubian’s posts carefully. That I may have a different interpretation of you doesn’t mean I can’t read. And BTW, I was very cautious not to use the language “Nubian says ____” without a qualifier. That’s why I said “I feel like…” and not “Nubian says that…”
That said, do I really need to quote this for you? Do bloggers who are, in my experience, extraordinarily aware of what I might call the “unecessary mention of race in an effort to make race an issue” elsewhere in the world really need that? Is it really necessary in light of the many folks who can take, say, “X thinks illegal immigration is a problem” and report “X is saying she doesn’t like brown people”?
Well, OK… here, if you insist, I’ll give one easy example:
Let’s take this, for example. In particular, let’s take the first “WHITE” in that sentence. Why is it capitalized? Why the emphasis on Jessica’s race? In the context of the rest of the post, where that method is used in a disapproving and negative fashion, it was inappropriate in my limited opinion. I have certainly seen blog burnings for less.
You correctly note that a lot of nubian’s post does NOT focus on Jessica’s whiteness. But if you think that “disproves” what I wrote, I have to ask the return question: did you read my post? Because everything you noted there were things I agreed with. So you might want to, you know, remember that I said there were FOUR basic arguments, of which I was confused only by ONE. Just FYI.
OK, irony aside re the whole “making up” thing: nubian can of course write whatever the heck she wants, and I’ll keep reading it. But to use an excellent quote from one of my professors: “If your team misinterprets you once, it’s possibly them, and possibly you. If they do it twice, either change your presentation or acknowledge it’s not them.” I have no predisposition to either party; I don’t know either personally. But it’s not as if I’m the only one intepreting it this way, ya know?
Well, you’d look at the entire cover, wouldn’t you? I would. So I expect the Michelin guide to restaurants to be different from the Zagat guide, and I expect both of them to be different from the “Good Housekeeping Restaurant Guide” or the “the Disrespectful Cook’s guide to New York Food.”
So naked stomach and “full frontal” and the cover font and the title would not, in this case, be especially misleading at all. IMO. I don’t think it is misrepresentation.
I think this is something important and I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Can you elaborate?
I addressed some of the questions above.
BTW, a bit OT: PLEASE do not lump me into the general category of “folks on feministing who call nubian a traitor for daring to disagree with them.” That’s not what I’ve said, nor is it what i feel.
As for my feeling re what nubian was implying: It’s a feeling. That’s all. And it’s perfectly normal to have one–just like I can read a blog post on, say pornography, and (sometimes) end up with a feeling regarding the authors’ views towards non-pornography subjects. Just like, I suspect, how some people will read these posts and develop an (incorrect) feeling that I don’t like nubian, or black people.
Am I wrong; does my feeling fail to reflect the reality of nubian’s thoughts? Sure, maybe. I’m wrong a lot, such is life. Happens all the time.
I agree. I tend not to think of a cover as providing a whole lot of information though, in most cases. I think only a small proportion of covers accurately reflect the contents of the books which they enclose.
Finally: Radfem, you realize that second quote in your response wasn’t me, right? That’s why I’m not responding to that part.
Let’s take this, for example. In particular, let’s take the first “WHITE” in that sentence. Why is it capitalized? Why the emphasis on Jessica’s race? In the context of the rest of the post, where that method is used in a disapproving and negative fashion, it was inappropriate in my limited opinion. I have certainly seen blog burnings for less.
Because it’s responding to the idea that “white” is indistinguishable from “non-specified.” Nubian is emphasizing Jessica’s race not to denigrate it, but to point out its place as the default. A white woman’s body can stand in for every woman’s body whereas a black woman’s body would be considered a reference to black women alone. You’re also wrong about the all-caps; look at the use of “POWERFUL” simply to underline a point.
Yes, I am aware that it’s not your quote and did not expect a response.
I’m not aware that I had lumped you in with “folks from feministing…” as my only experience with you is at Alas, a blog.
My only mention of that Feministing site was that I wasn’t really interested much in what was written there. Nor do I believe that I would ever see them at an Oct22(which is the national day against police brutality)event either.
What Elle said.
Sailorman wrote:
Well, OK… here, if you insist, I’ll give one easy example:
why not just call it a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism?
Let’s take this, for example. In particular, let’s take the first “WHITE” in that sentence. Why is it capitalized? Why the emphasis on Jessica’s race?
I see where you got the impression Nubian was talking about Jessica’s race, but if you read the entire paragraph, the meaning should be clear. Nubian starts the paragraph with the sentence you quoted, then goes on to explain that the cover image creates the idea that this book is both BY a young, shapely white woman and is written FOR a young, shapely white women.
Whether or not the author is young or shapely or white is unimportant in the context of the book cover. In fact, the book could have been written by a 90-year-old obese, hirsute man. Consumers will expect to find the author of the book to write in the voice of a young, shapely, white woman talking to young, shapely, white women. It’s not about Jessica’s whiteness, it’s about the white body part pictured on the book cover.
I have no idea what’s in the book and I’m not judging its contents, I’m juding the cover image. Adding that image to the phrase “feminism” is totally absurd in my view.
Sailorman wrote:
Of the four basic arguments raised:
1) the picture of the torso is generally a bad thing
2) the fact that the torso is white is bad because it is white
3) Jessica’s feminism is bad for various reasons
4) the book is bad (though nobody has read it yet, it seems)
I disagree. Strongly. In fact, this list is a very aggressive misinterpretation of the discussion here. Here are my responses to your suggestions:
1. the picture of the torso is generally a bad thing
No. Body parts in advertising have been used to belittle women for years and feminists have a long history of explaining, discussing, decoding this type of imagery. Using a body part on a “feminist” book is either a coded erasure of feminist work in that area, or a sign of complete ignorance of the work that has been done for years.
2) the fact that the torso is white is bad because it is white
No. See piny’s comment about white as normative in our society and the problems that causes in our culture.
3) Jessica’s feminism is bad for various reasons
No. The analysis is of the way Nubian’s comments get treated at Feministe, a site run by Jessica. This is not, then, a discussion of Jessica’s feminist beliefs.
4) the book is bad (though nobody has read it yet, it seems)
No. The book cover is bad. If Jessica’s book is any good, it will be undermined by using this kind of image on the cover. Unless she really is just a young shapely white woman writing to ….. etc.
nobody hates jessica, a least, i don’t. she asked what people thought about the cover i gave my opinion. it has nothing to do with jessica being white. period.
You emphasize the fact that the whole cover should be taken into consideration, and yet you keep generating false arguments about attacking Jessica and the cover model for being white. You insist upon this course even though you’ve stated yourself you can’t find evidence that nubian’s said anything to that effect, nor is it the subject of her criticism.
Who is on this “team” of which you speak? It seems like there’s another “team” who understands exactly what nubian’s points were and see no reason for it to be rephrased. The other team has not engaged the merits of the argument. Instead, we hear about:
**Jessica’s delicate sensibilities (Althouse yelled at her — not you too!),
**Her limited brain power (as if she’s never spoken with a woman of color or had knowledge of women of color, or her qualifications as a feminist limit her writings to personal reflection and nothing beyond it),
**Her race guiding her work (as if she cannot transcend this barrier by being more inclusive in her writings and her packaging),
**Narrow interpretations of some things (the young woman and the stomach are quintessentially Jessica),
**Broad interpretation of other things (this book does have widespread appeal despite these things being quintessentially Jessica), and
**The desire for more commending and less criticizing (lumping all criticism into the category of “bad criticism”).
I still don’t see how this point refutes anything I’ve said; in fact, it amplifies it. Is “young woman” specifically a white woman characteristic the way Michelin refers to a specific type of industry and Good Housekeeping refers to a specific type of magazine? And if it is, why do you object to nubian’s writing that it is “a WHITE woman’s guide to WHITE feminism?”
If I view the entire cover, I see a disembodied white stomach, the title “Full Frontal Feminism” emblazoned across the center of the cover, I see the subtitle “A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters,” and I see the author’s name.
Are you arguing a “Young Woman’s Guide” does not encompass all young women within its scope? That’s the point nubian is raising — a white young woman is not the default for all young women. That’s why she argued she doesn’t feel comfortable passing this book on to young women of color she knows — young women who also should read about why feminism matters. This cover arrangement — image and title — establishes for whom these reasons will matter and to whom this book seems geared — young white women talking about the importance of white feminism. Despite the fact I’m a young woman, and young women are referenced in the book’s title, this book’s cover isn’t speaking to me. Why should I expect its contents to do so? This cover knocks the concept of feminism being for all women hard on its ass; so why am I being asked to delve deeper and farther than the cover when the cover already deters me?
Most importantly, it’s questionable whether using a bare white airbrushed stomach (regardless of the “hand on the hip”) is subversive in any respect. Even young women who do not identify themselves as feminists would observe a disconnect with the cover art and the subject, and it’s debatable whether this disconnect would prompt them to read its contents, even with the little knowledge of feminism they may bring to the table — which is why we’re debating its selection.
Yea I think they are greatly underestimating the intelligence of young women or their savvy about marketing.
jesus. it’s always “just” a picture, innit? always always and forever more, it’s *just* a GODDAMN PICTURE.
god, it makes my head hurt just thinking about going through this thred. it never fucking stops.
Jessica’s a hypocrite for being anti-maxim all these years and pretending she stands against using women as a commodity while she commodifies women to sell her book.
HA
Nubians a hypocrite for having a forum all about black female perspective and then claiming Jessica’s book is discriminatory because it contains white female perspective.
Contrary to some modern racist opinion, white perspective does not equal racist perspective.
Nubian, it seems you can’t find anything in common with Jessica’s opinion while you mock white feminism for disinterest in your opinion? You don’t like white feminism? You don’t like white pop culture nonsense that pretends to have meaning, but is really a selfish cash grab that uses feminism’s name as a selling point?
Me neither. But what I don’t get is why demand to be part of something you hate? If its damaging to women why suport it at all?
I want to emphasize what piny is saying at 77, using WHITE in capitals like that points out a blind spot for white people, they are biased to think that white means ALL people, but to people of color white means white only.
Sylviasrevenge also emphasizes the same point: Are you arguing a “Young Woman’s Guide” does not encompass all young women within its scope? That’s the point nubian is raising — a white young woman is not the default for all young women.
Whites misinterpret us all the time and to tell us that it’s our fault is total bullshit. I can already see how some white person will come along and misinterpret what brownfemipower said above, “See! A WOC agrees! It’s just a picture and you’re making a big deal out of nothing!” Nope, she’s saying that when FireDogLake posted the blackface Lieberman, whites excused that as just a joke, it’s only a picture. When the photo of the Clinton lunch came out, similar excuses were made, just a lunch, the picture is no big deal. When Amanda at Pandagon posted the burqa picture, why are POC making such a big deal of a picture. And now with this picture, it’s just the cover, blah blah blah. What she is saying is, “Why is it always ‘just’ a picture to many white people? When does it become a pattern of blind white privilege?”
The last point I want to make is that I am not attacking or hating Jessica, and I don’t believe anyone else is here either. In fact if read the right way Jessica would see that this criticism is CONSTRUCTIVE, and could help her to sell more books if she heeded it. Even at her own site there are many white people uncomfortable with the image choice, they know it will turn off white feminists who are aware of the way women’s bodies have been used in American consumerism and are uncomfortable with that usage on a feminist book. Their criticism is no less valid than that of POC who know that images of whites do not sell to POC, not out of a so called reverse racism, but because an assumption on our part that a book or any other product with white only advertising (cover) is meant for whites only, and perhaps she should bring these objections to her publisher to rethink the cover art.
I want to emphasize what piny is saying at 77, using WHITE in capitals like that points out a blind spot for white people, they are biased to think that white means ALL people, but to people of color white means white only.
Golly gee wilikers that is exactly how us white people are we are blind biased racists every lost one of us!
Really reverse the races here. Racism!
hujo—
get a grip. i never said being white=racist. have i ever said that??? no i don’t think so. so get the fuck on with that.
Nubians a hypocrite for having a forum all about black female perspective and then claiming Jessica’s book is discriminatory because it contains white female perspective.
also, this is not a forum all about black female perspective. yes, as a black female this is MY perspective, but i don’t claim to represent ALL feminists as well. however, in the case of feministing, it is a much different story.
NOTE: could people stop putting words in my mouth saying that i’m calling out people for being racist simply by default of being white.
I never said you said white opinion equals racist opinion. Some do espouse these beliefs.
“yes, as a white female this is my perspective, but i don’t claim to represent ALL feminists”
Sounds like J’s likley response to your post.
Really why would you want to be included in something that you feel is invalid? I agree but just confusing?
Don’t you think feminism would be better suited to include all races but allow for every races perspective even *valid* issues that effect white women?
hujo–
please read feministings about page. come back when you’re done. thanks.
I dont follow you? I do feel it is an ivalid statment that women have no voice.
off topic
I cant find contact info, do you know what this is all about, i dont.
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11403
Or do you mean they claim to speak for all women including black women and the blog is more focused on white culture?
But then to be fair…http://www.feministing.com/jen.html
Sorry so sorry to be so sloppy.
I guess my point is, if it is white women contributing heavily to feministing, there will be a large amount of white female perspective. I am no fan of many aspects of the blog but they do include black women, the majority of staff just lack the perspective of a black woman. Much of the same can be said about your blog and your statement that it is not all about black female perspective, but it is largely, because that’s your base your perspective.
Book or blog what’s not fair about it. I think the answer lies in the rest of your post, a normal healthy aversion to pop feminism, why not make that the focus and look past the race? To make issue with race and not argument is…. Distracting at least.
Hujo, in feminism we try to think about things, not merely take the superficial view. Obviously the book cover matters, otherwise publishers wouldn’t put so much time and thought into it (more than they do into editing these days, I hear). So discussion about it is in no way a distraction. It actually matters how feminism is being presented, but perhaps you don’t understand that not being a feminist.
Feminism, or rather white feminism, has a problem in that it often appears to only take white women’s perspective into account and ignores that of women of colour. This book cover is yet another example, and the fact that they have decided to use an objectified, sexualised (full frontal) woman’s body to sell the book makes it even more problematic.
She did do that. She made a scant two or three references to white feminism, and then she described using the bare stomach as a market tool as counterproductive. See paragraphs 3-7 of her 7-paragraph post.
Or did you stop at paragraph 2 when you saw WHITE in pretty capital letters? Didn’t make it to “images are POWERFUL” at the end of the entry?
I mean seriously. Hujo, you don’t have to reduce her entire argument to her one treatment of race and the cover arrangement — which I think many people criticizing her comments did because they were hot to start crying “reverse racism” where there was none.
Also, feministing does tackle issues dealing with women of color fairly regularly. The opinions aren’t always fiery when it comes to those topics (and if they are, most of the time it’s in a bad way), but I think Samhita does a pretty great job with updating on international developments in feminism involving women of color, and a few other posters (Ann, sometimes Jessica, Vanessa) report on health developments affecting women of color. The posts aren’t extremely multifaceted, but they crop up every once in a while.
[And I don’t mean to spam your comments, nubian.]
S, i acknowlage that nubian does this, i am saying her pointing out race is rather pointless. Dude try reading my posts you’re basicaly just restating what i said. ???
I’m not restating what you’re saying because I’m saying her pointing out race is not pointless. I’m also saying that it doesn’t distract from her other points.
I read the blog daily, and I must say when I saw the cover of the book all I could think was “wtf?” I was incredibly disappointed by it, to say the least.
Ah, the StandYourGround.com site.
Now it makes sense.
Well it is my opinion that making an issue out of Jessica’s race is racist and distracting from the real issue pop culture politics. Yeah a men’s site would cover a story about black women, I don’t see it on feministing though it doest have anything about boobs or designer hand guns or misogynist toilets, soooo…
Hujo wrote:
Well it is my opinion that making an issue out of Jessica’s race is racist
Well that’s good. So go find a place where people are making an issue out of Jessica’s race and argue about it there.
Perhaps she’s pointing out the segregation of pop culture politics? Meaning that if someone writes a book that says on its face it caters to all people, people in the neglected audience drop from the readership from considering other subtle symbology — for example, white stomach vs. black/olive/tan stomach, covered body vs. naked body, airbrushed vs. natural. It’s hardly distracting or racist.
Donna - “… any WOC who still might have been interested will be turned off by the fact that it is only meant for skinny white middle class airheads, the normative group of women in this country. What I am saying is that it should have been marketed to women who are more likely to buy it than the airheads who are more concerned with the new fall fashion colors; women who take feminism seriously and want to read it for themselves and then may want to pass it on to the airheads.”
Interesting that you use the words skinny, white and middle class as assumed adjectival modifiers for the noun ‘airhead.’
Ravenmn - “… The obvious question for me is, why? What will the feminist community gain by having empty-headed fun-loving people added to our ranks? People who respond to these kind of covers aren’t going to become serious allies, are they? Why bother at all?”
The book cover doesn’t seem to me to be in especially good taste, but I don’t see the inherent problem in attracting new people to feminism, whereas I do have a problem with assuming that a bunch of women you don’t personally know are airheads based on how they look and what kinds of families they come from. I come into politics more from an interest in foreign policy and the environment (not claiming to be an expert at either, just interested) and have been trying to expand my knowledge of what it means to approach it from a feminist perspective. But for the last month or so, it seems like I can hardly go anywhere within the network of feminist blogs without reading about feminists whacking at each other for not being the right kind of feminist.
Is there some way in which being in favor of more rights for women, though perhaps not in the same way that a given person would prefer, is really worse than not giving a damn about women’s rights at all? Doesn’t the questioning have to start somewhere?
As far as reaching skinnyish, white women in particular, ummm, hi there. I’d think that as the women with the most to gain from leaving things just the way they are, maybe convincing them that the status quo isn’t ‘all that’ is a fine plan. I won’t disagree that it should be done without alienating other groups of women, blackademic makes a good point that women of other races are likely to look at this cover and feel that it isn’t for them, but what I’m hearing in comments here from some people is a serious disinterest in having a particular type of woman participate in the broader movement at all. This seems reminiscent to me of the rightly discarded argument about whether or not you could be a real feminist if you were married or had children.
And in general, having been called a “humorless feminist” before, I can attest to the fact that this stereotype is something that makes pop culture saturated guys tune right out. Which is a shame, because they are in some ways better suited to listen to a feminist critique than other segments of male culture.
hat making an issue out of Jessica’s race is racist and distracting from the real issue pop culture politics.
for christ sake, where the hell did nubian every fucking say anything about jessica being white?????
You know, it’d be really wonderful to have a conversation about the structural racism in the printing/publishing world that reinforces standards of white able bodied beauty–but that conversation can never get off the ground because everybody is so goddamn sure that jessica needs protection from that evil nubian.
very very very old.
bfp–exactly!!!
i think it’s fascinating that i mention how the patriarchy has a stake in what texts are being published as representative of feminism, however, no one seems to notice that i mentioned that.
I know I’m late to comment on all this, but I read it and needed to hide out for a few days - b/c unlike many who’ve commented, I’m not eloquent when I’m angry. And of course everything’s been said. But I at least want to echo Donna in comment #58 re: Tom Head and his bullshit response over at Feministing. That is some pretty amazing shit… sorry buddy, I guess your thank-you note got lost in the mail!
And bfp, re your comment #83: of course it’s just a picture! There’s no woman behind that burqa, and there’s no woman behind that stomach! Hey, look over there, some shiny red shoes!
As I am a science fiction reader, I am accustomed to seeing perfectly dreadful, and perfectly inapplicable, covers on the books. Anyone remember some of the covers on 1970s editions of Octavia Butler novels.
As the old saw has it, freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. Publishers control the cover, as bitch|lab #56 noted above, and marketing considerations generally take precedence over author and designer ideas, UNLESS the author is established or a star. And bloggers, outside two or three Big Men, are seen as not-respectable and women of any sort without literary awards are not stars in Big Publishingland. The pressure is great to Just Go Along, particularly if the publishers are going to foot any publicity - you don’t want them to pull ads or support for tours or support from sales reps. Even academic presses are getting undignified now, though authors’ opinions are usually respected a bit more than in Big Publishingland. So one is faced with a bit of a dilemma - let the publishers tart it up a bit, in return for a shot at decent distribution - or be purist, and get the book published by a collective, an academic press, or a self-publishing venture, and do the distribution yourself on your own dime. If you want to reach a large number of people, you are going to have to let the publishers tart. The dilemma has some similarity with the choice of writing a pop-language story about domestic abuse in a general-interest magazine vs a more analytical, overtly feminist story in a “small magazine” of very limited distribution, let’s say, In These Times. Face it, Home Girls and This Bridge Called My Back were BLOCKBUSTERS considering their small-publisher origin, but distribution still has to be under 100,000 total each for all editions, and distribution has been aided considerably by these books becoming assigned college texts.
Now, I agree the cover is insulting, racist by omission, etc, but I blame the (probably male) marketing execs and other financial execs and the cover designer rather than the (probably cowed or realistic) editor or the author. Remember - junior author-level editors are now just cogs, production managers no different than the ones who oversee breakfast cereal manufacture for the conglomerates.
I have no opinion on the content. I haven’t seen the book. I usually look these sorts of books over at the public library or the bookstore, and buy if I find compelling. I have doubts about this for myself, since I am older.
re: Tom Head
well, he could go and suck a……(insert whatever you think fits)
he is not even worth my time.
“Perhaps she’s pointing out the segregation of pop culture politics?”
Um I don’t see that, but I totally agree with it. I understand that black women are underrepresented and one could say seen as second class when compared to white girls in the media. I wonder if you guys could understand that as a white male, I reject most of pop culture because I feel it portrays my race and sex like a second class gender compared to white girls, a bumbling idiot/ bad father in practically every show, that is when white men are not getting beaten on and physically bashed by hot sexy white girls in every other show.
I wonder if you could agree with me that white women are the queens of pop culture.
Honestly I think pop culture politics are dangerous and invalid, when you are taking political points out of a meaningless genra you can spin anything out of anything, this is why so often white feminist issues are non issues like “less white women on tv” “comic books are misogynist” or “shaving your pubs means your controlled by men”
Third wave Feminists NEED pop culture to survive in the now, with little legitimate oppression for middle class university educated women they have fabricated oppression by taking selective looks at the media. So for the female audience instead of thinking “gee I should probably donate some money to help educate women in the third world” It becomes “I hate Dave, he asked me give him a blow job and pandagon said that’s patriarchal control” It distracts from valid feminist issues. It distracts from reality. But it sure sells.
This is the effect pop culture politics has regardless of the race of the pop feminist.
Brownfem Nubian
I still don’t see the unfairness.
Yes Jessica’s white she wrote a book that has a white girl on the cover, if Nubian wrote a book about feminism with a black girl on the cover and Jessica did a post about how discriminatory that was how it left out white girls, it would be silly, why is it not silly here?
Nubian I was unaware that you have had books turned down because of your skin color what publishing firm was that?
Why do you say black feminist books are surpressed?
hujo–
i didn’t say black feminist books are supressed. where are you getting that idea?
I still don’t see the unfairness.
of course you don’t. but you know what? that’s your problem not nubian’s or mine or anybody elses. you can do what you will to deal with your inability to “see the unfairness,” but it’s not anybody’s job to baby you through the basic concepts of womanist theory. theory is thinking and nobody can do your thinking for you. shit or get off the pot.
Sorry Nubian
So it is strictly an image issue? You feel white women are seen as more desirable there fore they are more objectified by the media and that black women are seen as less desirable and not nearly as objectified? I agree completely in the area of visual media, but books?? And really is objectification desirable? I think the cover was a bad choice, I agree it’s hypocritical of jess, as when maxim sells it’s publication by plastering sexy female body parts all over it’s mag its wrong to her, but when she sells her publiction using the same method it’s POP FEMINISM! I can’t really agree its wrong for a white girl speaking about “feminism” from a white perspective to put a white girl on her book cover.
A space for everyone right?
In visual media I can certainly agree black women are placed behind white women, can you agree the same can be said for white men?
I guess it confuses me as I have rejected much of pop culture because of the intolerance emptiness, and I guess I had been calling it “female”, but perhaps “white female supremacy” of it all.
What I question is why your desire to be included in pop feminism or pop culture why not reject it?
Why I reject it….
“I demand you treat me with respect while I bash you in the name of equality”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRG1A8L2taU
(I never did give it much thought before but it is predominantly sexy white women that bash white men in media, sexism is more forgivable than racism I suppose)
Yes…like the visual representation of the cover of this book.
No. As nubian and others have repeatedly emphasized, the cover would not increase its appropriateness if a different stomach appeared on the book. The objectification and commodification of women, regardless of race, is wrong.
Okay, now I’m just going to assume that you’re being deliberately ignorant and stop wasting my time. This discussion keeps spiraling in ridiculous directions.
1: “That kid should stop playing in traffic. Four-year-olds — all children, for that matter — really should be supervised better.”
2: “Traffic is pretty dangerous, but why do you hate children? And what’s wrong with four-year-old children that you don’t seem to like? I don’t like when cars nearly hit me either, and I don’t even play in traffic! And I’m fifty-seven! But really…were you hit by a car before?”
The what and teh who now.
WHen did she say books were suppressed. Whose bashing JEssica personally ?
Of coursse it’s jsut apicture when you can make sure you don’t have to answer for it!
BFP i think it’s just blame brown women week . We been to uppity for a bit !
We are the downfall of races , too picky on peopel who claim to represent us and in a week
We'’ll know where Hoffas buried
CRIMINY
Yes…like the visual representation of the cover of this book.
Yes, the book written by the white girl.
I mean I basically agree with everything else. If you need clearing up I feel…
1.Its hypocritical for a feminist to objecitfy women in the name of feminsm.
2.Outside of a sexualized image ther is nothing wrong with a white girl choosing a white girl for the cover of her book.
This is why I question taking issue with Jessica’s race. It appears we disagree, I am cool with that, I have learned a lot here in a short time thank you.
Hujo.
In Dubya’s sandbox
Seriously.
“Women of color shot JFK and made bubonic plague from pot liquor. More at 11.”
Okay! Fine! I admit it!
Jessica is white.
Okay?
I didn’t want to tell her until she was older, but since you keep insisting on saying it so much, I guess we have to tell her! Damnit, see what you made us do? She’ll never get the afro now!
I hope you’re happy.
lol
BLAARG sorry the race of the woman on the book whatever
Peace
Wow. I don’t know what to say. I feel struck speechless.
The cover is really irritating to me. Of course I am obviously not in the target audience (too old, Muslim, not really into the objectification of women whether for fun or not for fun) so happily it does not matter! Only, it just makes one feel so depressed.
As for the whole white-centeredness of feminism in general and this sort of feminism in particular I continue to be amazed at how hard it is to make people understand what should be pretty obvious.
Should all white people be sent to live in some foreign country where they would be a minority in hopes that they would get the power dynamics? Oh wait, thanks to globalization and eurocentral colonialism even those countries treat white people as privileged so it will not work either.
I just don’t get why this is so hard. I am white and I am no genius. But I don’t find it hard to understand why BFP and Nubian would be annoyed / turned off by this ridiculous book cover.
Your patience at explaining this stuff over and over and over and over again (add a few hundred overs) is really awe-inspiring, Nubian. By the way I love your handle because I lived in Egypt for many years and I love Nubia and the beautiful Nubian language. Not that I can understnand it but it is so pretty to listen to.
The cover of that book trumpets, “This is not a serious book!”
That is too bad. I’m not a big fan of the Bitch PhD site, but her banner picture is pretty funny, a light touch. If the publishers wanted a light touch for marketing reasons, they could have gone for something more along those lines. And by now, everyone knows that if marketing is the issue, you’d better make it clear you’re selling to all ‘races’. There is something quite disingenous in the excuses which have been made for this cover.
Professor Zero, this is not a book from Bitch PhD, it is from Feministing, —unless I am reading you wrong.
The titles says “inclusion” (are not WOC women?) the picture says “exclusion” (is not the picture white?) It is the capitalist way of getting away with RACISM and I might add SEXISM! And it is all okay, because the coporations made her do it, and she gets to remain the pure pearl in the oyster. Thanks Black Amazon, I just cannot get enough of that. LOL!
2. Outside of a sexualized image ther is nothing wrong with a white girl choosing a white girl for the cover of her book.
Hugo, where do you come up with these things?
If you’ve decided that the fact Jessica is a white girl is important and you want to discuss it, like I said before, go somewhere where that is the topic. It is not the topic here, despite your efforts to bring it up again.
Seriously, you need to put that whole concept aside if you want to learn from this discussion.
Raven highfives Sylviasrevenge back again!
“this is considered by some to be radical!”
If by “radical” you mean “still hasn’t evolved away from patriarchy compliance, but can’t admit it” then, yes, she’s a radical.
“as feminists, we you guys are always up in arms about how women’s bodies are protrayed, and to go and reproduce those same images is ridiculous. is this what feminism is these days? is that what white feminism is these days?”
It’s not feminism or “white” feminism. It’s attempting to please the boys - even if only subsconsiously. It matters not who jessica is or how popular (and awful) femlisting is. I don’t care what her excuses are. She sold out Amp-style.
~~~
“If a woman isn’t a feminist because she doesn’t think feminism is sexy enough, I don’t WANT her to be a feminist. ”
AMEN to that.
~~~~
“It’s a fun book for fun people who want a fun look at a tiny little fun corner of fun feminism.”
Which, imo, is utterly worthless. Is it just me or does “fun” feminism sound like an oxy moron? It’s more like “Proto-feminism”
I agree the choice of image was made to sell the book, I understand the point about white girls being more marketable.
http://feministing.com/archives/005859.html
But amazon didn’t pick the cover Jessica did; she was planning on having an image of her self, if she chooses white girl, it might just be because she knows the book is coming from a white perspective and that a multicultural image or brown girl image would be misleading. The greater issue is claiming that pop feminism is feminism or that it largely includes or appeals to anyone other that middle to upper class educated white girls. I think my point is, the politics of pop are far more dangerous and illegitimate than this book cover but you guys cant get past the cover, you’re not even on page 1. I just think focusing so much on the woman on the covers race is counterproductive. I can agree white women are place first and this is done for marketing reasons and that is horrible.
I don’t think a white woman on the cover excludes other women from feminism anymore than any other woman would. A non-solo model image would be better. Bad choice but what’s the book about?
This is only my opinion.
Cheers
but you guys cant get past the cover,
Of course we can. We happen to be discussing the cover image on this thread. That’s what the discussion is about. It’s not about Jessica or the contents of the book.
Furthermore, we are discussing an image because we believe images represent something. They have meaning. They have power. And we are examining that power and its effects on people.
The greater issue is….
Listen carefully. You DO NOT get to decide what the greater issue is. Neither do I.
This is Nubian’s space and I’m here to listen and interact with her. I strongly encourage you to start your own blog since you have lots of things to say and have lots of words to express yourself. That’s a good thing and I’m not trying to stop you from expressing yourself. I am asking that you respect Nubian’s space and play by her rules here.
Here from chasingmoksha. I found nubian’s post quite clear and persuasive.
I much prefer the book _Cunt_ as a book by a young woman about feminism.
!Ay, gente! I do not think anyone is saying it would be inappropriate for an author to use a photograph of herself as part of a book cover design.
Moksha, I know this is about the “Full Frontal Feminism” book. What I meant was, if the point was to have a non-’heavy’ cover image, there are many such images available, and imaginable, which would not play into Da System in the way this one does.
Anyway - the arguments being made about why the cover is actually a good thing, why it is reappropriation, etc., etc., are very, very, very self-serving.
Ok this is my last try, I swear.
Where I am confused ….
If you can agree that pop-feminism is excluding to WOC and appeals mainly to white women, then isn’t a white girl an appropriate choice for this book about pop feminism?
Is pop feminism stupid, does it hog the limelight, does it over shadow the plight of woc (and men). YES
I personally would take issue with that.
Meh
“You have a lot of ideas and express them well… so you’re not welcome here”
Huh? I was leaving anyway?
Got it Professor Zero! I thought I may have been confused.
Someday, after the cover has been flogged to death, I would be curious to know if the book underneath is any good.
Makes one long for the days of the big-typeface-only book cover. Or the old (OLD, as in pre-1970) Penguin covers, which were standardized and type only.
“You have a lot of ideas and express them well… so you’re not welcome here”
Please take the quotes off. I never said that and you know it. I don\’t have the power to welcome you or kick you out. You do seem to be derailing the conversation, though, and that is something I\’d prefer did not happen.
If you can agree that pop-feminism is excluding to WOC and appeals mainly to white women, then isn’t a white girl an appropriate choice for this book about pop feminism?
Is pop feminism stupid, does it hog the limelight, does it over shadow the plight of woc (and men). YES
I did a search on this thread, and you are the only person who has used the term \”pop-feminism\”. I don\’t know what it is and I don\’t know what you mean by it. There are several feminisms out there, but this is not a theory I have read, so I can\’t comment on it.
If you are talking about the \”most poopular\” feminism these days, I\’d say its trending toward being more inclusive. Feminism today, as opposed to feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, has been forced to broaden itself to include GBLT ideas, women of color ideas, working class ideas, etc. Activists are still pushing those exclusionary tendencies back and we will continue to do so. The criticism of this image, for me, is not a chance to say NO to feminism. It is a demand that feminism must be more. It must keep growing and become valuable to all of us. It must include the amazing women who contribute to these blogs and make a difference every day.
Feministing, bitch magazine, are examples of pop feminism.
Any feminists that uses selective views of the media to detail women’s oppression is a pop feminist. A pop feminist could view a beer commercial with sexy half naked white women then view a commercial with a white man getting kicked in the nuts. She will ignore the denigration of the man, ignore that there were no poc and declare white women the oppressed and objectified second class because they are considered sexy. They same pop feminist would also turn around and use an image of a sexy white girl to sell her book. A pop feminist would mock male centric comic books for objectifying women and turn around and praise a comic for objectifying lesbian women.
Pop feminism is a hypocritical and invalid empty shell of what feminism should be. Quite frankly I don’t think women of color need to use pop feminism as their cause has actual validity. Third wavers that steel the word feminism to make money are pop feminists.
Why demand inclusion why not see it for what it is a money grab?
http://hottopictalk.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=240
Goodbye.
Just wanted to say, you definitely hit the nail on the head. Nice post.
White/pop feminism is irrelevant in my eyes. Wealthy White woman have taken advantage of feminism and affirmative action more than any other group and to a certain extent have overcome the glass ceiling.
We as woman of color need to grasp the reigns of feminism and use it now in ways that will benefit woman of color–especially woman in African & Arab countries where honor killings & stonings still exist. Where infanticide is encouraged, where woman are treated as chattle or property. Where child rape and the traficking of woman and children is prevalent.
WOC take the reigns!
t, they do in addressing police brutality as well, in many cities. Speaking of which, my city has had two fatal officer-involved shootings including one of a Black man in nine days. And like with the other shootings, it’s the women of color who take the initiative to get the answers. They’re even advocating on behalf of a White man who was shot to death by police officers, because of course, Whites perusual can’t be bothered to do so even when it’s someone in our own race. But I think women of color see the larger picture in terms of the shootings not being isolated incidents but part of much larger problems.
Then there are folks like this who post things on Web sites after shootings. This guy, whomever he is, comes out from under his rock after each fatal shooting. I hope he’s not a “finest” but he’s leaked out sensitive material on my site in the past, which led to a police department investigation last year.
(his “Jefferson” quote is one of his usual quotes from Black television characters in response to the Gandhi quote I put on my site. He’s quoted Rerun and Arnold Jackson as well.)
I wonder what the large-scale feminist movement thinks of things like this. The celebration of the shooting of Black individuals was common in my police department, including hi-fives done by the officers after they shot and killed Tyisha Miller, a 19 year old Black woman unconscious in her aunt’s car. She’s a woman, isn’t she worthy of the movement’s protection?
The message that cover sends to me is, “Even to be a feminist you have to capitulate to patriarchal beauty norms. Feminists who don’t look like this don’t matter as much as feminists who do.”
Not the message she was trying to get across, I assume.
White/pop feminism is irrelevant in my eyes. Wealthy White woman have taken advantage of feminism and affirmative action more than any other group and to a certain extent have overcome the glass ceiling.
We as woman of color need to grasp the reigns of feminism and use it now in ways that will benefit woman of color–especially woman in African & Arab countries where honor killings & stonings still exist. Where infanticide is encouraged, where woman are treated as chattle or property. Where child rape and the traficking of woman and children is prevalent.
WOC take the reigns!
Fuck yeah, though consider something like abortion bans or poverty in America these issues would effect white women. There is valid feminism for white women, the other 5% of pop feminism, but you are right, if the betterment of women was the goalof feminism, shifting focus from the women that already have rights and opportunity and putting the focus on the global status of women would be paramount in a valid western feminist organization.
I wonder how far women (white and women of color) would be if they didn’t spend more energy fighting each other than fighting racism and patriarchy.
And Donna, I did not misinterpret Nubian’s post. Are you suggesting that she cannot express herself clearly. My understanding is that her objection to the cover is two-fold. 1) It’s exploitive of female sexuality, adopting patriarchal norms of women’s beauty. 2) It’s whiteness marginalizes women of color.
Nubian is the one whose capitalization stresses that the cover is more offensive (some posters have said doubly offensive) because the torso is white. The obvious inference, then, is that the torso would still be offensive, but less offensive, if it were non-white.
I actually think you are smart — and it seems that you are deliberately distorting what I said, but that’s the point, isn’t it, when a forum changes from discussion to self-righteous one-upmanship.
“I actually think you are smart — and it seems that you are deliberately distorting what I said, but that’s the point, isn’t it, when a forum changes from discussion to self-righteous one-upmanship.”
Donna aint you so happy she thinks you are smart…..In the first breath she talks about women attacking other women and in the last breath she attacks….Typical.
I am so through with middle class white women feminism.
nubian is NOT upset at the torso for being white. (See how I put the word “not” in capital letters, so you can obviously infer that I’m emphasizing nubian is not attacking the torso for being white?) She is upset with the white torso representing all feminists — the difference in those views are not just linguistic.
Maybe YOU should start writing posts IN caps lock, NUBIAN, AND add lots OF colors BECAUSE that’s OBVIOUSLY where THE mind STOPS when people READ things.
How many times and how many ways does it have to be explained that white was in caps because white people are blind to it being taken as default? It is only by capitalizing it and clearly pointing out that the torso is white will white people even notice this. White people see the picture and think normative, average, all-American. They do not see all the people it excludes until you point out that it is WHITE. I bet race didn’t even register to any of Jessica’s white readers; that the photo was of a white womans torso until nubian pointed out that it was WHITE. Get it yet, Kija? White is not offensive in and of itself, it is offensive when it is the default for all women.
I wonder how far women (white and women of color) would be if they didn’t spend more energy fighting each other than fighting racism and patriarchy.
I wonder why people think they need to come to a black woman’s site to reprimand her for “fighting”–why aren’t you over at feministing reprimanding *them* for “fighting”? Is it because you only see the black woman as “fighting”? If so, why don’t you loose the fucking code language and just say. what. you. mean. bitchy horrible women of color(aka black women) ruin everything. we are all vindicitive bitches that won’t let white women feel good about themselves.
I mean, when are you going to figure out that your profound deep thinking (if we could all just get along, the patriarchy would be obliterated), has been spewed on all of our blogs for the last year and a half, and has been spewed at women of color for decades? You’re not so profound.
and guess what, it’s women of color who are “fighting racism” by insisting on bringing this shit up. it’s white women who are perpetuating racism by insisting after all these decades on ignoring and “getting along”.
and i love the wonderous phrasing as if being mild and dreamy is any less patronizing.
And i love the get behind be or you against me reasoning that happens in these discussions TWICE already on Nubians blog.
Because WOC must always sacrifice thought to the dreams of fighting sexim/racism/republicans/beautystandards/the tooth fairy.
It s not getting along if what you mean is get out your way
Heh.
“It s not getting along if what you mean is get out your way”
I want that on a tee-shirt. Or something. Poster, maybe.
[…] While the title of this post does connect indirectly to the discussion over at nubian’s blog, it also relates to an experience I had in my Contracts class today. […]
brownfemipower: I mean, when are you going to figure out that your profound deep thinking (if we could all just get along, the patriarchy would be obliterated), has been spewed on all of our blogs for the last year and a half, and has been spewed at women of color for decades? You’re not so profound.
and guess what, it’s women of color who are “fighting racism” by insisting on bringing this shit up. it’s white women who are perpetuating racism by insisting after all these decades on ignoring and “getting along”.
LOL. Yes! It’s all about you! Yeah right.
heeheee lol…
I’m laughing at the ‘I wonder how far women would be if…. line. lol!…
Well we’d be right back at square one, becuase some white women will still refuse to believe that we have very different issues than they have and will insist that we ignore what’s important to their community first. This situation will only work on the priviso that black women ignore themselves, ignore what is important to them and join the fight for the ‘great white’common cause.
Which of course is not soo common to anybody but white women.
Why are we acting like this hasn’t happened before, isn’t this why black feminism exists?. Isn’t this why seperate black interests groups exist?.
Because time and time again, white people women, men whatever.. no matter their liberal slant keep refusing to see that their agenda is not the only agenda. They want the kudos to say that they speak for everyone, even when they don’t.
they want everyone to buy into their inherent right to control and dictate under the guise of unity..
and it’s all just bloody bollocks.
I’m still laughing here, cos it was inevitable that someone would trot out that old tired cliche wrapped in a diffenrent blanket.
The ‘why can’t we all just get along line’.
Well, I’ll make a hypothesis that we will all get along fine, when you stop dismissing me or my issues for the greater good of the cause.
And this one of the reasons, why I specifially and categorically will never claim to be a feminist.
Kija said:
Nubian is the one whose capitalization stresses that the cover is more offensive (some posters have said doubly offensive) because the torso is white. The obvious inference, then,
Kija, this is actually a very crucial point in anti-racist training. What is obvious depends on what we have been trained to see and, more importantly, NOT see. In fact, Nubian’s beliefs and viewpoint have been repeatedly ignored and misinterpreted because some, mostly white, people saw the word WHITE capitalized and chose the wrong inferences.
And Donna, I did not misinterpret Nubian’s post. Are you suggesting that she cannot express herself clearly.
I’m not Donna, more’s the pity, but I am suggesting that you misinterpreted Nubian’s post because you chose not to READ her clearly. I see many interpretations on this thread of what Nubian meant when she capitalized the word WHITE. Donna’s comment was wonderfully short and sweet:
How many times and how many ways does it have to be explained that white was in caps because white people are blind to it being taken as default?
Antiracism is, in large part, the choice to see what we would normally not see. You can choose to see it. But neither you nor I get to define for everyone the obvious meaning of language and capitlization choices.
Lol, she covered her tracks.
Nubianem sounds like a case study from “Black Macho and The Myth of the Superwoman”! The foolish notions Black women absorbed about feminism (as a concept and a white woman’s movement) have kept us in the predicament we are in today. While the White feminist movement (in it’s earliest stages and in many cases today) had a self-serving agenda that both capitalized off of the Civil Rights/Black Power movements and marginalized, if not ignored Black women, there is no excuse for our lack of ability to stand up and fight for our rights as Black women. Black Power often times ignored/ignores us and abused us just as much, if not more than the white feminists. Feminism was not designed to divide women and men, but rather to equalize them. Yet sisters STILL feel in 2006 that we gotta choose between being for Blackness or being for women’s interests. It’s repulsive.
And the new “feminism” of strip aerobics, rampant promiscuity and Lil Kim….isn’t feminism. It’s as effective and empowering as the Spice Girls rallying cry of “Girl power!”
“And the new “feminism” of strip aerobics, rampant promiscuity and Lil Kim….isn’t feminism. It’s as effective and empowering as the Spice Girls rallying cry of “Girl power!” ”
THANK YOU. The sum and total of “fun” feminism is patriarchy-compliance. Period.
Sylvia of
You can see the time stamp and see that I posted before the question was called. I posted her because I am more concerned about that lack for multi-racial feminist alliances and the need for feminism to address concerns of women of color as well as white women. However, because of your sectarianism and desire to drive out all white allies so you can whine about the lack of them, I know that white women are not welcome here at all. This is not only evident in this discussion but in other discussions on this site.
You all are correct that many white feminists ignore the concerns of women of color, but when you do your level best to eliminate any and all white allies, you lose your moral ground for whining about their absence.
I know. I said you covered your tracks because you posted in both places, as the request/challenge mentioned.
You misunderstand. Prior to Nubian’s link, I was not a feministing viewer/reader. I followed Nubian’s link to that site. I am still not a reader of that blog and after this, no longer a reader of this blog. I am a solution-oriented person and hate these flame wars that Nubian’s supporters (not Nubian) seem to feed on. I prefer to spend my time on opposing some bad ballot measures (parental notification, this election) or getting out the vote. Reading blogs is just a pasttime — and you will be glad to know that you and your friends have made it clear that I am not welcome here.
And just as at feministing, I must say that it’s not Nubian or Jessica who are the vicious ones, but their supporters who compete to see who can be most self-righteous and nasty.
kija–
i don’t think anyone here was being self-righteous or nasty. if you feel that way, i apologize.
I apologize as well; my comment honestly was not an attempt to flame you, kija. It was mainly just
“hey, why don’t you go yell at them too?”
“she did say something to them.”
I don’t know where you got the implication that someone was trying to chase you away; I didn’t think that I was being venomous/self-righteous/nasty.
It’s probably cliche to say that tone does not carry well over the internet, but I do apologize if you misunderstood me.
I know that white women are not welcome here at all.
Actually, some of us who comment here are white. I usually try to stick in a “we” when I talk about white people, but I see I messed up in my reply to you.
And just as at feministing, I must say that it’s not Nubian or Jessica who are the vicious ones, but their supporters who compete to see who can be most self-righteous and nasty.
Self-righteous and nasty posts do seem to feed off of each other. People who are otherwise good and wise, will lash out every once in a while. It’s human. It’s not the worst that could happen.
Sometimes, if we’re lucky, these battles can help us learn how to communicate better. If I understand what pisses you off, I learn something more about what is important to you. Sometimes it is important to me as well, but the nasty words get in the way of our common struggle.
At 46, Kija wrote:
I agree that most most mainstream feminist organizations focus on the concerns of white professional class women to the detrment of low-income women and women of color.
Damn straight! That’s the kind of talk I see here all the time. We have that in common. Let’s build on it.
I guess I’m a head soldier of the patriarchy because I just don’t see the big deal. There is nothing pornographic about the shot. The image represents ‘woman’ of course they would use someone with an attractive shape. I find the female body (and the male body) nude, beautiful. I feel like the photo is a play on the title and the title , while referencing sex, which I have very often and not ashamed of, it also seems to suggest blutness and straight forwardness. I don’t see the problem of the particular woman being white. What? White people can’t be seen anymore? She is still a woman, white women exist too. That complaint reeks of PC policing. Maybe its a book directed at white women, so what? I have plenty of fun prenatal books directed at black women and say so even on the cover, but pregnancy doesn’t only affect black women.
Z if we were both in Nubian’s house and I physically heard you talk that above shit, I would literally give you a beat down.
Instead I am going to turn to a nice white movie to help you understand.
Stupid is what stupid does———–Forest Gump
okay meet me at the metropolitan oval, Parkchester, Bronx, NY. #6 train to 177th street parkchester, walk straight up metropolitan. Its a big giant fountain. Tuesday 7:30pm. I’ll be the very pregnant black woman with the tall mohawk and maybe a bat( I’m a little slow these days and need some help). You can’t miss me. I’ll say my ’shit’ to your face so you can “physically” hear me and give me that good ‘beat down’.
Just let me know, otherwise I’ll probably try and go to bed early that night.
Ummm…y’all are crazy.
“Woman” does not equal young, skinny, white bare stomach. You do not see that particular woman’s entire shape — just a photoshopped fraction of her body. Similar to many advertisements that do the same thing when they choose something to represent “woman.” Why can’t a whole woman represent “woman,” you know? A whole, fully-clothed woman.
Fair enough interpretation, and probably one of the more consistent defenses for this cover I’ve heard so far. Thanks.
Now this is where I have to disagree. The problem isn’t with the woman being white, and white people can be seen. In fact, they’re seen all the time. Everywhere. Especially in marketing, even when there has been a consistent presence of people of color in the area being marketed. People of color shouldn’t be an afterthought. White women shouldn’t be a default object to sell products. There are many things wrong with both scenarios, but there’s something especially wrong when the two are lumped together.
The afterthought/default problem. The poor way marketers allocate interest in a subject matter important to all people. See above.
I’m not picking on you for having your point of view, and I respect it, but it seems to reflect apathy. And this goes beyond political correctness because PC declarations and expressions are a farce.
Z I aint got time to victimize a pregnant woman. I will watch life do that and see how many of those default white women run to the rescue.
“I’m not picking on you for having your point of view, and I respect it, but it seems to reflect apathy. And this goes beyond political correctness because PC declarations and expressions are a farce.”
Thanks SylviasRevenge for saying what I meant
sylviasrevenge
To me woman can equal anything it wants. white, brown, black, slender, skinny, boney, thick, obese, etc. As a woman who has been neither white nor “slender” I’m not offended by seeing slender white women on a book about feminism. There is nothing offensive to me about the nude female body being shown in a way that is not sexually exploitive but sexually expressive. Expressive of the title,it has attitude, and seems like it might be a fun read. Clothing the woman wouldn’t play on the title so that wouldn’t make sense to me.
I don’t think slender whiteness should be banished even if it is seen everywhere. If the author identifies as white and wishes to use a white person on the cover of her book I see nothing wrong with that either.
It could be apathy on my part, but then again I’m very secure in my skin color and my figure and my being and have been exposed to such a variety of things that something like that wouldn’t get a second thought, and I would still by the book. So certain things don’t phase me and certain things do. This book cover in particular doesn’t. And I think the uproar is that too many won’t AREN”T secure with themselvs and who they are and feel they aren’t represented are so a cover like that would be something to combat. I understand that.
chasingmoksha
So don’t threaten me, you don’t know me or where I come from. I don’t tolerate threats on my person well and will respond to them. And nothing I said warranted such a thing.
That’s nice that to you many definitions of women exist, but it took a lot of complaining over things like these that made that notion important and obvious. I don’t think it’s right to underrate that idea now by saying this cover does not reflect that assertion and that feminism is notorious for making the point to those who are already feminists but showing a different face to the women it tries to recruit.
However, if this book is to reach out to women who may not feel so comfortable with their bodies and speak about how other factors like race may play into how people market to them as young women, I don’t think this cover would lure that type of woman into reading it. I also don’t think a critic’s security in her sense of self is necessarily relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of the cover.
And I think the uproar is that too many won’t AREN”T secure with themselvs and who they are and feel they aren’t represented are so a cover like that would be something to combat. I understand that.
thats a pretty bold statement, z. i don’t think that is the issue at hand. i don’t think it has anything to do with me, or anyone else feeling insecure about themselves. i am glad that this cover doesn’t bother you–great! however, it doesn’t sit too well with me, and i have every right to express my opinion such as do you, without resorting to ad hominem judgments on whether or not people feel “secure”
So maybe I’m reading into the arguement wrong and putting it into my own context. Issues with woman being made to feel insecure and unsure about themselves because they are 1. Bombarded by images of thiness and thin-ness = right
2. bombarded by white thin-ness - Which is default - which is the default standard of beauty -
3. Thin whiteness telling those that aren’t thin and white that they are somehow *wrong*
So don’t threaten me, you don’t know me or where I come from. I don’t tolerate threats on my person well and will respond to them. And nothing I said warranted such a thing.
Oh give it a rest. Seems like a priority issue. You get all passionate about a fictious cyber existence but think nothing of racism from so called white feminists that do indeed cause problem in real life.
Whatever.. You win…have the last say..you are so tough….
I prefer to remain who I am
- as there is a world out there that are totally out of sinc with reality - You World America.
The Whole wide world is totally starving, living below the bread line. War is at an all time high. Aids, diseases, natural disasters, and above all human beings indifferance to human beings is at an all time high as well.
What are you all thinking?
Are you all that shallow that you can only see into your immediate back yard?
Grow up - this planet is under threat - put your own private shit away and DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.
I am not a politician, a far left/right/communist/hater/or any religious party. I have no axe to grind with anyone - I am a simple female who has lived this earth for 40 years -
it saddens me that mankinds inhumanity to mankind will continue indefinately.
A new world order is now sought (nothing religious) we ordinary people have to claim back the sanity of the world -
we need to create a” mankind movement for peace” or something of this kind.
Stand up ladies and be counted - help change this sick world.
I agree with most of that. As far as the white woman goes, I don’t know that there is a whole lot of merit there. The white woman could be replaced with any other color and not be racist, but still hold the same level of stupidity. It has nothing to do with race at all, it’s just disgusting. “Feminism: being an attractive naked woman will get you ahead in life.”
Awesome.
you nailed it blackademic. not only is it white and naked, but it is also skinny. like, for real, skinnier than almost anyone i associate with on a daily basis. why? why why why why why?
I thought this would be best to pass along under this entry: Celina from Feministing recently did an interview with two editors of a book called We Got Issues! A Young Woman’s Guide to a Bold, Courageous, and Empowered Life. The book’s already gotten Jessica’s seal of approval, but I find the title, along with the cover, remarkably ironic as well as what the authors say in the interview. Compare and contrast, anyone?
[…] Nubian who has of course left for her sanity was right about this six months agoWHEN SHE JUST SAW THE DAMN COVERBut this has nothing to do with me.As a woman of colorAs a woman of a certain classAs a woman of a certain education level and mindsetAs a woman of a certain faithSo officially when I sayI’m not a feminist but,If this is how you will be introducing "feminism" to young women,Ms ValentiWhen I say this is not me,I would appreciate if you not be so brilliantly uninformed as to try and disrespectful as to try and dismiss offhand like I was some recalcitrant toddler or couch your condescension by only quoting the most baseless ( yet the fact it comes up in every piece you talk about ) homophobic bile in an effort to make yourself look better.As a 22 year old women reading this book , I felt disrespected. As a teacher of nearly 9 years especially of "at risk " youth, I was appalled.Young women do not need friends who reduce their problems with feminism to some issue with the coolness factor.The definitely do not need it from people who would choose a very specific half naked torso and various approximations of Valley girl lingo .I am a young woman who is NOT a feminist. I am a young woman who is one of many young women who has disagreed ,disengaged, delinked, and been disrespected by many of the feminist sisterhood.I am part of a much longer line of women who has been caricatured, stolen from, and used . […]
[…] There are a great many feminists who are pretty pissed about “Full Frontal Feminism” and about the general state of the feminist blogosphere (mainly that it is replicating problems in the larger movement: silencing/erasing voices of women of color, dealing with issues that are vapid and ridiculous when there are clearly more important things to blog). For book reviews, clicky here, and here. On the rest, try here and here for some unbelievably powerful writing. […]
[…] Nubian who has of course left for her sanity was right about this six months agoWHEN SHE JUST SAW THE DAMN COVERBut this has nothing to do with me.As a woman of colorAs a woman of a certain classAs a woman of a certain education level and mindsetAs a woman of a certain faithSo officially when I sayI’m not a feminist but,If this is how you will be introducing “feminism” to young women,Ms ValentiWhen I say this is not me,I would appreciate if you not be so brilliantly uninformed as to try and disrespectful as to try and dismiss offhand like I was some recalcitrant toddler or couch your condescension by only quoting the most baseless ( yet the fact it comes up in every piece you talk about ) homophobic bile in an effort to make yourself look better.As a 22 year old women reading this book , I felt disrespected. As a teacher of nearly 9 years especially of “at risk ” youth, I was appalled.Young women do not need friends who reduce their problems with feminism to some issue with the coolness factor.The definitely do not need it from people who would choose a very specific half naked torso and various approximations of Valley girl lingo .I am a young woman who is NOT a feminist. I am a young woman who is one of many young women who has disagreed ,disengaged, delinked, and been disrespected by many of the feminist sisterhood.I am part of a much longer line of women who has been caricatured, stolen from, and used .– excerpted from Having Read The Fine Print….: Imperative of the Life […]
[…] From Blackademic: im sorry. this is wack. for a number of reasons. why not just call it a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism? why the WHITE NAKED torso of a woman? of course, i wouldn’t have prefered a black body, or any other woman of color either. my question is though, why the naked body of a woman at all? is it to sell more books? there are a number of other ways to visually depict an image of “feminism”–i am not sure why a naked body, reminiscent of the glossy images of tabloid trash had to be the way to go. […]
[…] And here’s Nubian’s post from several months ago. […]
Yeah, I’m late to the party, as usual.
Thanks for the invite, though, because over at feministing.com, all they seemed to want from this Latina feminist was someone to serve the canapes and sweep up when the party was over.
That cover is a sad disgrace.
Thank you for that link, sylviasrevenge. I want that book for my 17-year-old niece. I don’t want her absorbing any of that white feminism = feminism crap any more than I want her reading Cosmopolitan magazine for tips on how to be a real woman.
[…] This is a big problem. Intersectionality ≠ inclusivity. Nubian’s objection to the (whiteness of the) cover wasn’t a cry for a black body instead. Quoting WOC writers and talking about their contributions to the white feminist movement isn’t the same as actively engaging the issues of WOC in and with the white feminist movement. Asking that someone honestly situate themselves and acknowledge that their perspective doesn’t cover everything/everyone is neither asking them to speak for those it doesn’t, nor asking the situated writer to self-abnegate. It’s not that simple. […]
[…] Shifting Objectifications Solve Nothing -or- How to Oppress a [White] Woman While the title of this post does connect indirectly to the discussion over at nubian’s blog, it also relates to an experience I had in my Contracts class today.Two key points: […]
[…] Aaminah, Angry Black Bitch, Angry Black Woman, Anxious Black Woman, Belledame, BlackAmazon, Brownfemipower, DeviousDiva, Elle, Holly@Feministe, Karynthia, Nubian, SlantTruth, Sokari, Sudy, Sylvia/M, WOC PhD […]
[…] Aaminah, Angry Black Bitch, Angry Black Woman, Anxious Black Woman, Belledame, BlackAmazon, Brownblackandqueer, Brownfemipower, DeviousDiva, Elle, Holly@Feministe, Karynthia, Magniloquence, Nubian, SlantTruth, Sokari, Sudy, Sylvia/M, Vanessa, WOC PhD […]
[…] Even after having it explained, even after having a minor epiphany about it this week, that scene still does not make me cringe. It doesn’t bring up a lifetime of experience, because there’s nothing really relevant to bring up. It doesn’t resonate at gut-level. But I don’t think that’s the important thing. The important thing is knowing that just because it doesn’t, doesn’t make it okay. And when someone makes another post saying, “I have a problem with this”, the important thing is to take that little voice in my head that’s saying, “But I don’t see a problem!” and tell it to go play in the corner while I listen, and reflect, and remind myself that my reaction isn’t the only possible reaction, and isn’t more important, more worthy, or more relevant than anyone else’s. […]
[…] Aaminah, Angry Black Bitch, Angry Black Woman, Annaham, Anxious Black Woman, Belledame, BlackAmazon, Bluealto, Brownblackandqueer, Brownfemipower, Cara, Cassandra, Danadocus, DeviousDiva, Elle, Firefly, Florence Craye, Holly, Ilyka, Karnythia, Lisa Harney, Luci-Kali, Lucy, Magniloquence, Naamen, Nubian, Rachel, Sadie, Sara no H., Sin Vergüenza, SlantTruth, Sokari, Sonia, Sudy, Sylvia/M, Vanessa, WOC PhD […]