Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Full Frontal Feminism

By Laura Barcella, AlterNet. Posted April 24, 2007.


Jessica Valenti's new book aims to make women's rights cool again -- to make feminism a lifestyle as well as a movement. Read an excerpt from the book and her conversation with AlterNet.
04242007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Laura Barcella

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor's Note: An excerpt from Full Frontal Feminism follows the interview.

As executive editor of the popular blog Feministing.com ("by and for young feminists"), Jessica Valenti has schooled millions of readers on the issues that affect everyday women. Her cadre of feisty female bloggers cover everything from breaking news (the heartbreaking federal abortion ban) to pop culture indignities (sexism in reality TV) with smarts, passion and political aplomb.

As the public face of Feministing, 28-year-old Valenti has helped bring third-wave feminism to the masses. But she doesn't only want to reach the stereotypical feminist suspects (women's studies majors and middle-aged, middle-class white women). In her new book, "Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters," Valenti hopes to pass the political torch to younger women who might feel and act like feminists but be too freaked out to call themselves that. The book is written in a light, sometimes sarcastic tone that aims to make women's rights cool again -- to make feminism a lifestyle as well as a movement.

AlterNet spoke with Valenti via telephone.

Why was writing this book important to you?

It was a natural extension of the stuff I've been doing at Feministing. I've wanted to write something like this for a long time. It was a book I wish I had when I was in high school. So much feminism out there isn't accessible to younger women who aren't in women's studies classes. I [see the book as] a fun, easy intro for younger women who might buy into the stereotypes; something really accessible that girls can talk about with their friends ... So many young women are afraid to get involved in politics; they think they don't know enough to get involved. They have the views but don't have the language.

So you mainly wrote the book for young women who aren't necessarily politically active?

Yeah, I'd say so. But I hope the book will be a refresher for women who already think of themselves as feminists.

Why do you think so many young women hesitate to call themselves feminists?

I think younger women have bought into the stereotypes because the stereotypes are so intense and pervasive. I think most younger women have feminist values; that's where the whole "I'm not a feminist, but ..." syndrome comes in. The language and the word [scares women away from using it]; that's how effective anti-feminist rhetoric has become. It's strategic; they're trying to keep you away from something. What's the best way to keep young women away from something? To tell them it's ugly and uncool, and that boys won't like them if they do it. We need to frame it as someone trying to pull the wool over young women's eyes, or get one over on them.

When did you first start identifying as a feminist? Have you always been politically active?

I've always been a feminist, but I didn't have the language to say so. My mom was a feminist. I didn't start identifying as a feminist until college, in women's studies classes. I was afraid to identify as a feminist at first, partly because I was [afraid of] people confronting me about it, asking what it meant. Then, in college, it was a feeling like 'I wish I had known about this, or gotten involved in this, earlier.' It would have affected my life.

In high school, I talked about feminist issues with my friends, and we were politically active in the ways that high schoolers are. But when you're a younger woman who is loud and opinionated, speaks her mind and is candid, you fall into the trap of believing people when they say you need to quiet down, be ladylike and not talk so much. Finding something that told me it was OK to be loud and candid would have been positive ... something that validated who I was.

What are the three feminist issues you're most passionate about today, and why should people care about them?

The idea of the care crisis: childcare and work/life issues. For younger women, that hasn't been as much of a political priority. It needs to start with younger women, though, instead of us worrying about it later on ...

Also violence against women, which has become so normalized that I find it intensely disturbing.

Also close to my heart is the sexual double standard, and how that affects younger women when it comes to repro rights and violence against women. The abstinence-only education thing falls into that, as well ... the idea that women shouldn't like sex; creating legislation that enforces traditional gender roles, or legislation that says that women shouldn't have a say over what happens to their own bodies ... like the case where the girl was gang raped on video in California.

What's one of the more outrageous or scary pieces of information or research you came across while writing this book?

I don't think anything was that shocking to me. But if you've been posting about different issues every day, writing about this stuff on a bigger scale is intense and horrifying. You'd like to think we had come so far, but as I was putting the book together I was like, "Jesus Christ, this is depressing."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: full frontal feminism, feminism

Laura Barcella is a former associate editor at AlterNet. Her writing has appeared in the Village Voice, Salon.com and the anthology "BITCHfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
**Round of applause from me**
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Apr 24, 2007 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fantastic stuff!

And tell me, do you think Rush Limbaugh (what sort of fucked up name is that, by the way?) would stop ugly women from "accessing mainstream society", if he could? What sort of a fucked-up comment was that??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: **Round of applause from me** Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me** Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: **Round of applause from me** Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: **Round of applause from me** Posted by: Aussie Kim
Get behind me, Feminist!
Posted by: GoldenAss on Apr 24, 2007 2:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Feminism has a place today. Without connecting itself to rationalism, however, it will be only a useless, symbolic enterprise.

I confess to only reading the last few paragraphs. I'm writing a paper. Yet:

"Harvard can say that maybe women are naturally worse at math and then have people actually take him seriously. Or why a teacher can still get fired for being pregnant and unmarried."

Judgment here is twice spurned. In the Harvard case, I think he ought to pose a hypothetical that has no obvious theoretical blocks--is it not possible? And is it not possible that, in turn, women excel over men elsewhere? But if it is false (and this goes for everything, such as "Holocaust deniers") then fight with fact! Throwing a tantrum proves nothing but your sensitivity.

And secondly, if your Feminism is going to fuck with context, damn it. I believe you're referring to a teacher at a CATHOLIC PRIVATE SCHOOL. She was being paid to teach the kids--scholastically and spiritually. She became a walking contradiction. If she were a public school teacher, she would be untouchable--but she was being paid to play a certain role. Being unable to fulfill that role, she was fired. Feminism has nothing to do with her. If anything, it has to do with the Catholic Church.

Careful--Feminism is a curse word, you need to watch yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The whole Harvard thing... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Straw-woman arguments Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Or maybe... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Sigh, here goes... Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: fork
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: H_H
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Link to his speech Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: H_H
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: fork
» RE: Link to his speech Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sigh, here goes... Posted by: fork
» RE: Get behind me, Feminist! Posted by: talkville
Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 24, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Feminism needs more than a few curse words and a feisty tone. It needs to stop being feminism as we know it. Equality in the workplace, domestic violence, sex slavery, the status of women in Middle Eastern countries, etc. are justice and rights issues. If you feel you have a mission to help women, do some housecleaning and focus on what matters. The PC obsession, the whining, the self-indulgence, and the girls' club mentality seem like counterproductive, alienating distractions from legitimate causes.

2. She's right that men are not only interested in sex and beer. We're also interested in sports and motorcycles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Comments Posted by: Cruella
» RE: Comments Posted by: H_H
» Maribelle, you rock Posted by: Beck
Daily dose of propaganda
Posted by: H_H on Apr 24, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl."

Absolutely untrue.

And she complaints about "tired, crappy" arguments?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Daily dose of propaganda Posted by: Cruella
» For effect... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» O RLY? Posted by: zettaichan
» RE: O RLY? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: O RLY? Posted by: fork
» RE: Daily dose of propaganda Posted by: Dave Belden
» Nah, the WORST is "Girlie Man" Posted by: AdamSelene40
» But, of course... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Hurray!
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 24, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book is so needed in the world right now. Over here in the UK too. I'm just about to start a stint as guest blogger for the F Word (UK young feminist blog) and I really hope this kicks off a whole new movement round the world. www.cruellablog.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hurray! Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
Bravo
Posted by: Greg on Apr 24, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to buy a copy for my college-age daughter. She has the intelligence to enjoy the tone of the book!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bravo Posted by: bornxeyed
» BRAVO Posted by: Donna_Darko
Hopefully, they'll listen to you, Jessica
Posted by: 4equalrights on Apr 24, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jessica has put in her book ideas I have been discussing online, in forums and in my advocacy presentations since I returned to this country in 1998 after an almost 20 year absence. Even mid-aged feminists who live outside the northeast and DC encounter that cult of feminist sorority headed by the triumphrate (NOW, Feminist Majority, National Council of Women's Organizations) who won't do anything constructive, who are out of touch, who won't build bridges to those feminists in their 40s and 50s from other regions, but who won't get off the throne either. AND they won't listen to our new ideas because we are a threat to their "nobility" (and their livelihood). Hopefully, they will listen to you, Jessica.

My regret about this book (only having read the excerpt) is the crude language. Firstly, it plays into the stereotype feminist that the Right likes to bash (and that puts off others who might be otherwise interested) because it portrays feminists as foulmouthed, "unladylike" (the very things Jessica acknowledges, but then ignores for herself and her book). This language might work for a particular group of young women, but if we REALLY want to enlighten those who think they aren't feminist or REALLY want to reach younger women (high school age) and get them to read this then perhaps Jessica and her publishers might consider producing a "cleaner" version? One that maybe a high school might consider appropriate? I know I want my 15 year old daughter to hear these ideas from someone other than her mum, but since I don't condone the kind of crude language Jessica uses, then I can't very well give her this book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree! Posted by: lindsay
Feminism already is an accepted lifestyle; it's the name people don't like
Posted by: Beck on Apr 24, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've met some women who claim to distance themselves from feminism, yet they are free to enjoy the benefits, like voting, wearing what they like to wear, keeping their own paycheck, getting a divorce if they feel they need one without the guarantee of their kids being removed from them, keeping possession of their house if their husband dies (before American feminists, it would have gone to the oldest son). Feminism is a big wrench in the works, disturbing enough to a longstanding status quo that the name has been thoroughly trashed, although even those who claim to reject the movement still take part in the benefits, and mostly everyone knows this. The name can be rejected, but if the benefits are still claimed and cherished, the movement succeeded, and is now a normal part of life. We all know it, and all the outcry against the name is evidence of the movement's effectiveness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out that hot book cover!
Posted by: goldmarx on Apr 24, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Full Frontal Feminism, a la Full Frontal Nudity?

I'm sure this book will do brisk sales among men, and it doesn't hurt that Ms. Valenti's quite the looker. Heck, the only thing missing on the cover is a tattoo and a navel pin!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check out that hot book cover! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: It's a play on words: Posted by: oregoncharles
Any "REAL" Feminist Would Fight for "the 9/11 Widows, the Jersey Girls" and "Rosie O'Donnell"
Posted by: BillDouglas on Apr 24, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Jersey Girls are 4 9/11 widows who've been thru hell trying to get a real 9/11 investigation. See the documentary "9/11: Press for Truth."

Rosie O'Donnell has supported their demands for 9/11 truth, and on MSNBC, a guest suggested she was "fat" and a "*itch" and should be hung by a rope for wanting truth.

Any woman or man who is not repulsed, and does not rush to these courageous women's defense, in demanding the truth about 9/11 . . . is a fake feminist.

See PatriotsQuestion911.org
and google "9/11 Mysteries" to get educated about why these brave women are national heroes in demanding a new real 9/11 investigation.

Women's rights can never take the forefront of a national dialogue so long as the Republicans have the lies of 9/11 to cow the American public in fear, any time they seek to better the lives of Americans by diverting funding away from militarism.

Health care, fair wages, a good environment, are all ultimately the most important issues for women. 9/11 has and will be used to divert funding that could pay for women's education, better wages, etc. . . . to the fake "endless war on terrorism."

We've all been lied to. Brave women have been the heroes trying to dis-assemble the lie. Stand with Rosie and the Jersey Girls if you really want to defend women's rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not divide camps
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 24, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not divide camps.

We middle-aged, middle-class white women need an infusion of youthful energy into building a just society. The young women coming up (of all colors and classes) need the financial and experience "support" of established women's groups.

Youth does not remember a time when it was all about "peace, love and understanding."

This younger generation grew up with sluts, bitches, hos, bling, violence, subduing your enemies by any means possible, etc...

And in truth, if the younger generation of men don't embrace the "peace, love, and understanding" model, we're doomed.

I'd love to see a generation of young women withhold sex from ignorant-rude-emotionally distant-violent-type guys in a Lysistrata movement. It's the men who are ruining the world with their greed, selfishness, self-absorption, lack of responsibility and abuse towards the planet, animals, women and children.

No pussy until the war is over...

Cursing (from the excerpt, although I have no problem with cursing personally) seems to be a tool used to bring in women from the hip-hop generation and younger but cursing only makes us all look uneducated and uncouth in the public arena.

Just remember, young sisters and daughters, we middle-aged middle-class white women are your grandmothers in this movement.

The exhuberance and freedom of youth easily dwidles with life-responsibilities taking over.

Strength in numbers. Only intergenerational movements will bring about true change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Calm down, Joshua Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» We're all in this together Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Let's not divide camps Posted by: oregoncharles
» Aristophanes was joking. Posted by: dwatkins9
Men are assholes: My second AlterNet opinion today about gender difference.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 24, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I commented on another AlertNet thread today, after raising three daughters who are in their 40s and have worked since college, I can tell you numerous second-hand stories about incompetent men who make more money than women in comparable jobs.

I witnessed the institutionalized bias as a pilot at Continental Airlines where many male cockpit crewmembers took the term literally -- that flying the “big iron” like 747s required a penis.

One of my joys at Continental was flying with the first lady pilot employed who was better qualified than some of the men in her new-hire class, simply because she had to meet applicant standards that were more stringent. Now, 30 years later at Continental, the gender difference between cockpit crewmembers only matters on layovers. Hopefully someday, male bias against women in other U.S. industries will disappear as well.

As for men who argue against feminism -- grow up and get over it!

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

witholding sex=good idea, except they'd use it as an excuse for rape
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 24, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than it being "men" destroying the world, I'd say it's the worst of masculine values, whether they are held by a man or woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» totally true Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Women's Studies
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 24, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So much feminism out there isn't accessible to younger women who aren't in women's studies classes. "

Somehow, I don't think Women's Studies are anything but an academic deconstruction of the patriarchial society. Feminism is this?

Why is it Women's Studies produce pretentious bitches instead of feminists? This is my question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women's Studies Posted by: fork
» RE: Women's Studies Posted by: Ghoulman
Wake up!! Time for a new feminism.
Posted by: alfalfa friend on Apr 24, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the tone of the excerpt included in this article, Valenti's book harkens back to the unproductive, strong-women-versus-tyrannical-men sentiment that gave second-wave feminism a bad name. The "we're pissed, dammit, you assholes" vibe turns people off, but more importantly, it ignores the fact that feminism has evolved substantially in the past few decades. In order to talk about contemporary feminism, we have to question what gender is--who qualifies as a "woman," anyway? We have to talk about the many differences and perspectives that encompass those who identify as women, instead of speaking as a clump unified by our anatomy. Queer issues also play a major role in today's feminism, and much of the discussion in this interview and Valenti's excerpt centers around women's romantic/sexual relations with men. Is Valenti afraid that she will alienate potential teen readers by writing less smarmily and addressing gender in a broader, less dichotomizing way? If so, she's probably underestimating the intelligence of the younger crowd--girls, boys, and everyone in between.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great, interview, great excerpt
Posted by: McJulie on Apr 24, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I quibble a bit with this:

"Have you ever heard of a Republican saying, "Oh, don't be a Democrat; they're all ugly"?"

Actually, yes. That seemed to be exactly Ann Coulter's take on the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in her short-lived series of columns for USA Today.

Of course, when Coulter or Limbaugh or whatever imply that Democratic women are "ugly" they are essentially invoking anti-feminist stereotypes.

Do they imply that Democratic men are ugly? Not exactly, but they do imply they are "wimps" or homosexuals, and sometimes imply they are badly dressed.

Which doesn't negate the larger point at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like the cover
Posted by: sweetlou on Apr 24, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trim and undressed! I hope this new feminism continues to so closely align itself with male fantasies...great job...

I guess all those girl gone wild videos are really just feminist manifestos...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I like the cover Posted by: H_H
» RE: I like the cover Posted by: The Wise Synic
Red Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Apr 24, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Topics like this keep popping up because thay contain energy and information that does not get resolved. Feminism has a herstory to be proud of. Political rights is an example. However, feminism has not gone deep enough into nature. There is sound historical research but the interpretation of it lacks universal, in depth language resonance, based on ontology. Feminism is a rather weak word to begin with. The Red Brown and Blue Party uses the word "womam" [spelling intentional]. The Lover Government is its womamifesto, which places womam at the center of its ontological, political and cultural structure. RBB takes the radical view (getting to the root issue) that womam is superior to man. Man comes from womam. Nothing in nature is absolutely equal; that notion is a mental construct; for example, the yin yang symbol. Ironically, equality can be male propaganda which acts as a red herring to distract from the true facts. I don't know if it's true but I heard that the CIA funded Ms. Magazine to get more womem into the workforce so they could be taxed, and children into daycare so they could be indoctrinated. Sounds farfetched but it makes sense from the moneyist point of view. Patriarchy has rewritten natural truth to serve its power needs. Feminism, blackism and all the other isms are monolithic, fundamentalist mentalisms. There is no "womamism." Womam is a fact of nature which has been almost totally obfuscated by the patriarchic rewrite of herstory. The language of our culture is patronizing and brainwashed. A womam's consciousness is far deeper and broader than physical gender. Men can play womem who can play men, as in Shakespeare. A womam's consciousness is about love which alone can save our patriarchic, hijacked world. RBB supports a red blooded, brown skinned and blue skyclad earth and earth people. Until men and womem know who they are in relationship to each other, the war of the sexes will go on, and topics like this will spin their wheels on shifting sands because they have not touched the solid ground where the Lover stands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ed Brown and Blue Party comment Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
I'd be interested
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 24, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to know what Valenti has to say about non-white women and their place in the feminist movement.

One of the problems in contemproary feminism -- hell, even that in the 1960s -- was that it was primarily white, middle-class women talking about stuff that didn't always connect with their darker-skinned sisters' lives well.

Not that they didn't try to address it, but it is too bad when the representatives of the feminist movement -- and Valenti can be included here -- all seem to come from the same mold. It's still relatively rare to hear a black or latina woman's voice in these debates (though thankfully, less so than it was).

I went through the mill of a Lesbian Literature class (I was the only male, and I thought that was too bad. Maybe the others got scared off). I found that while it was really interesting and I learned a lot (and this was a multi-ethnic group) so much of what many academic feminists had to say wasn't really connected to day-to-day stuff. Almost all the stuff we were reading was French intellectual tradition theory. It was fun, but some of it was just plain wrong (because while the theory itself was interesting, it often fell apart when pushed up against the real world. I single out Adrienne Rich, Jacques Lacan and Gilbert and Gubar here).

Valenti's excerpt here seems to go in that practical, real-world direction, which is nice. Seeing oneself is a pretty day-to-day concern and she touches on the labor issues that also affect so many nonwhite women.

But I think one reason the right's campaign against feminism was as successful as it was is the fact that I could hear, on the campus and even off it, people seriously talk about how patriarchy comes from phallocentric language processes.

To which I said, what the hell does that matter to the women I and my dad knew on the factory floor at GE? What the heck does that mean to the Filipino caregivers who populate New York?

The same is true about things like eating disorders, which is very much a feminist issue (it goes to the heart of what Valenti is talking about). Anorexia is primarily a disease of white women. Specifically middle-class women. Even accounting for some detection bias. (I remember this documentary on eating disroders -- they were all in a rehab center and there was not a single black. latin or asian face in the group, not one).

That white-woman centric view I think has hurt the movement as a whole.

This isn't to say there isn't a feminist movement among nonwhite women -- far from it. But I find that it is often disconnected from the one Valenti represents. Some of that is the old problem of priviledge, and that a white woman is still a few rungs up and as such many of her concerns won't dovetail with a balck woman's.

That's too bad, because, as the old hokey saw goes, in unity there is strength. And many of those white women's concerns do connect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: fork
» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I'd be interested Posted by: fork
Lovely, absolutely lovely!!
Posted by: janvdb on Apr 24, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're beautiful, Jessica!

This is EXACTLY what young women need to hear.

I totally agree that the "man-sex-love" obsession is a tool to keep women confused and vulnerable. Our culture rants repetitively on the "romance" channel, and women fall for it!

Men are NOT the answer.

Most of them simply don't make enough money to resolve your financial problems and 70% of men are emotionally so screwed up, self-obsessed and sexist that they are sure to make your emotional situation worse, not better.

If we generously say that 30% of men are non-sexist, reasonable, sharing, stable and self-supporting, and I do think that that is generous toward the male sex, that means that 70% are NOT.

100% of women cannot "choose well" if only 30% of men are good choices.

Lots and lots of us are better off single. It's simple arithmetic.

Of course, it would be nice if we could all get into reasonable relationships with nice guys so we can forget about the "man problem" but since that is arithmetically impossible, we need to resolve to be happily single and celibate and not let trying to find a man absorb too much time and energy. We need to get on with building assets, buying homes, preparing for enjoyable, worry-free retirements and fulfilling careers.

There's a LOT to life besides men, emotionality and sex.

Focussing on men is a recipe for failure in life.

Let's get on with that all -- making money, getting financially secure so we can retire and relax, travel, philanthropy, intellectual development, making a difference, helping the world, giving to the needy, contributing to humanity.

Sex and men are overrated.

And, another thing that is totally overrated: MOTHERHOOD.

Childlessness should be embraced as a live, positive, fulfilling alternative to the drudgeries, subservience and environmental degradation caused by children and mothering.

People talk about buying carbon offsets for their vacations and SUVs, then they have two and three children. One child will create as much pollution in its life as we have in our life, not just that one carbon-offset vacation to Belize -- all our vacations, all our consumption, all our housing, heating, commuting, everything. Add it ALL up -- that is equal to the likely impact of the choice to have ONE child, let alone two.

Then, if that one child replaces him/herself and that child's child does the same, ad infinitum, the impact of that child is multiplied indefinitely into the future.

In 1000 generations, that one child has created 1000 times the environmental impact of EVERY consumptive choice, EVERY not-recycled soda bottle, EVERY automobile mile you imposed on a suffering globe in your entire life.

The decision to have a child has 1000 times the environmental impact of every other decision you make in your life, PUT TOGETHER.

So, voluntary, happy celibacy, childlessness and the prioritization of financial security, philanthropy and other pursuits OVER the pursuit of sex, emotional "fulfillment" and men -- that's where feminism needs to lead young women.

All this is exactly the opposite message women are getting from the "media" and all its consumption-promotion, population-promotion, debt-promotion, work-promotion, insecurity-promotion and sex-promotion.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!! - YES Posted by: MartianBachelor
» sexist absolutely sexist. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: romantic obsessions Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: romantic obsessions Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Lovely, absolutely lovely!! Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
A blunt and/or 'hip' approach to feminism might be what we need
Posted by: tlCampbell on Apr 24, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand where people are coming from on the idea that this author is too aggressive or anti- or divisional in her approach, but really, when has the last subtle and non-inflammatory movement of progression made any real change? In a day and age where we’re blowing people to bits, mowing down infants and children, exploiting every commodity (human/animal/mineral and otherwise) known to the planet, and all while we mill about with apathetic attitudes, racking up charge cards and paying homage to the latest Hollywood and/or television flick, how can we expect thoughtful and all-inclusive writings about the need for change to be heard?

Every single piece of mainstream media is so horribly saturated with skewed concepts that even the most educated person has to stop and rethink the ideas being promoted before coming up with their own conclusion, so expecting the general populace to be able to grasp a new one without it being in your face and blunt, is unwise. We need people to start telling young women that you don’t need to define yourself in xyz roles as it’s harmful to everyone, female, male, and society as a whole but unfortunately we have to accept the fact that it’s going to take portraying it in a positive, hippish way to make this happen… regardless of how we may feel about the method. It's comparable to Schwarzenegger's(sp) philosophy on making global green movements 'hip' and/or 'chic' in order for people to take interest. The bottom line is we know there's a need for change but it's going to take compromise otherwise we have elitism and inner-squabbling which inhibits progression.

I’m curious to read this book as I myself am one of those who’d rather call themselves a humanist than a feminist as I have the stereotyped domineering feminist image/persona in my mind, which to me screams ‘patriarchal domination minus the penis.’ I know it’s untrue but when everyone around me gives the exact same arguments mentioned in the article against feminists, it makes me second-guess where I truly stand.

Maybe a fresh and non-convoluted way of discussing this information might just work, maybe it won’t but it surely doesn’t hurt to have alternatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ugh
Posted by: hellofriends on Apr 24, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article is like negative 6th wave feminism. it could easily have been in Teen Vogue if it weren't so absurdly reliant upon curse words to keep the reader's attention and adrenaline fired up and righteous in a vague and immature way.

who is this author talking to when she says "you"? you this you that, you are beautiful, you are perfect, even though i've never even seen you. it's like an advertisement and it's manipulative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In this case, you can tell a book by its cover.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 24, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She says the cover design is a trick--to lure readers by giving them the wrong impression. That's the traditional female gender model for women. On the stage, it's called T&A.

No mention is made of the fact that it is the phony trickery of women who know that they have an innate, natural capacity to attract men that is usually ignored and denied by feminists.

Instead, the endless talk about "less money for the same work." Even two people shoulder to shoulder on an assemblyline don't do the "same work," but if they belong to a union they do get the same pay.

I admit that the publishing business (whether books or blogs) depends on sensationalism to get noticed. Some women are really good at that, have you noticed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's all the hubbub, bubs?
Posted by: cokane on Apr 24, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's telling that there has been such a strong reaction to this insightful interview and book excerpt. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what's good and bad for feminism, or what feminism is or should be. Full Frontal Feminism is simply one expert's message to young women who are feminists, but who don't know it yet. She breaks down the issues for newcomers, and she keeps a positive tone in the face of what is often a very depressing reality. I think it's a great idea, and bravo to her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs? Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs? Posted by: The Wise Synic
» RE: What's all the hubbub, bubs? Posted by: freeda'all
splendid, but what about class and race, and male feminists? gender fluidity? LGBT rights?
Posted by: dikjosef on Apr 24, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i think this approach is boisterous, accessible and eye opening for those with little or no experience with feminism other than the mainstream anti-feminist discourse. however, from what ive read, it seems a bit moderate and priviledged.
many people in the online community forget that the internet is, in many ways, a class priviledge. so its wonderful that they are taking this linguistically accessible approach to feminism and putting it into print for "the masses", so to speak. when she mentions that unless you are being served breakfast in bed, you are not priviledged, i laughed. the middle class in this country is incredibly priviledged. however, income disparities not only among males and females but among classes lead to gender oppression as well. it is true that college campuses are at risk places for womyn, but what about those womyn who cant afford to go to college? in many cases they are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted, refused birth control, even refused abortions (south dakota anyone?).
I also wonder how Bell Hooks would feel about this approach, considering the ignorance of race and how mainstream feminism glosses over it, and has done so for years. In a documentary i recently saw, there was a statistic that brought me to tears: 1 in 4 african american womyn between the ages of 18 to 30 have been raped. WHY IS THIS STILL HAPPENING?

lastly, i have a strategic proposition for bringing mainstream feminism back into the mainstream, and hopefully bringing more radical feminism back as well. I was raised by a feminist, and have always considered myself so. And growing up in a racist, sexist, classist suburb, i recognized my priviledges as a white middle class male, unlike 99% of the other white middle class males. My first year in college I was one of two people, and the only male in my intro to gender studies class to raise my hand when the professor asked who was a feminist. after that, the other males in the class refused to talk to me (the class filled a requirement, and they wanted to meet womyn, i guess?... i dont know why else they were there). For some reason, oftentimes leftist males are intimidated by feminists. But they feel a lot more comfortable when they see other males carrying the flag, proudly. I myself fly the anarcho-feminist flag, but in order to hold it i had to learn and recognize tons of new concepts. And heres the problem. Most feminist literature is geared towards womyn. Not that this is a bad thing, because womyn, for shits sake, need to learn how to rise up against their patriarchal oppressors, and need to fight for their own social justice. But im sure there are plenty of males who are willing to or, if educated in feminist discourse, would lend a hand in the fight against the genderfied oppression in our country and this world.

So, to all you hetero feminists: don't put up with men unless they are willing to call themselves feminists, fight the fight along side you, and live a life where gender equality is the name of the game.

And this opens up another point ive been considering: what about gender subversion and its fluidity? thats an incredibly important aspect of feminism as ive learned, in fact it was