BrownFemiPower blogs about the book Full Frontal Feminism, on teaching it at university women’s studies classes, her own experience as a woman of color in such classes, and the overall arch of teaching feminism in general:
It’s time for all of us, but in particular, women’s studies departments, to stop pretending that these interactions between women of color and white women never happened or don’t count. It’s time to stop pretending that the voices of white women speaking about women of color is sufficient enough of a history for women of color. It’s time to stop pretending that universal agreement between women of color is necessary before white people can interact with an engage with a particular critique of women of color. It’s time to stop pretending that any critique by women of color exists within a timeless vacuum that demonstrates some ancient racism of a feminism from time past.
Hi,
The comment is that many comfortable white feminists want child care and then assume that the minority or poor whites will fall over themselves volunteering to work for no pay or status. Her career should not be held back by kids. The “lower orders” can work two part-time jobs and then do kindercare so she might be fulfilled.
Feh, most of the working proles feel that the “Barbies” can do their own damn baby sitting as most “Barbies” have far more flexible and less physically taxing work.
Any solutions?
Get men to take more responsibility for their own freaking children?
I followed the link thinking it was something new, but I’ve already read all about it. I completely agree that FFF is not the best book out there and that it’s seriously lacking in many ways. But I also think it’s very accessible and because of that it’s worthwhile.
The main problem I have with it is the title and cover. “Full Frontal Feminism” implies that the book is a) comprehensive, full, complete and inclusive b) sexy, all about sex. While there is quite an emphasis on sex and reproduction (an over-emphasis IMO) there is an under-emphasis on other feminist issues, including the assumption that feminist = white woman.
I think I give Jessica a slight pass on the title an cover simply because I know a bit about the book business and I know it can be difficult to get the cover and title you want. So, I’m not entirely sure about how involved she was in the cover and title. It’s certainly a problem with the book, but it may have more to do with the publishers than with Valenti.
I’m slowly working my way through it. It’s just that each time I try, there’s not much that is relative to what many women face and there’s more interesting books out there including feminist books. No offense, but I can’t think of one young woman (the so-called target audience of the book) that would get anything out of it except perhaps to feel excluded from this brand of feminism. And that has to do with more than just the book cover or its marketing. It’s for a much more specific group of readers than has been claimed.
One thing that bothers me about it and it’s been discussed a lot already by women much better and often in hostile circumstances due to many White feminists’ defensiveness on the subject, in these discussions is that Jessica Valenti is really chatty, first-person, prosy with “women” (read White women) but when it comes to women of color, it’s like she puts them at a distance, in the third person. And the racism, classism and homophobia of feminism is literally defined as an “aside” in her book.
It may be worthwhile for some people but in my opinion, what’s been written about the book in blogs like bfps, Black Amazon’s, ABW, Donnas and others about it and many of the analyses and discussions that have taken place at their sites is much more worthwhile reading but these discussions often come about because of what Valenti relegates to the “asides” of her book, both in terms of the book itself serving perhaps unintentionally as an example and from the venom of White feminists on some blogs to any criticism of Valenti and her book. So what’s “worthwhile” perusual comes at a price that is paid very unequally.
Damn, I can’t edit my comments. I meant “I can’t think of one young woman that I know”.
Thene is correct. Women still do the majority of childcare.
Not all men are slackers. Many are just as constrained in their gender roles. Many blogs have pointed out that women entering “male” fields are dismayed at the lack of family flexibility. It’s tough to do kindercare after 12 to 20 hours of breadwinning (either sex).
I just noticed that many white women feminists assumed women of color and poorer women would be the workforce for childcare. You too can work at WalGod, QuikeeMart and then do eight hours of childcare for “Jenna Bush” so she can achieve a gentlewomen’s D. This class difference has been one real reason that progressives get nailed in some areas. Why should I give up what little I have so some rich bitch can avoid changing her own brat’s diaper? Ain’t nobody but family and friends helping me so why should “Jenna” get free childcare that my taxes paid for?
Jack: not to nitpick, but BFP was not talking about white feminism. She’s talking about how whites teach feminism and interpret feminism for WOC. Or, in other words, how whites teach WOC feminism to WOC.
Mold – I very much take your point. I think that wealthy women, feminist or not, are keen on expecting the market to solve all the misogyny they have to deal with – they buy the privilege of being free to both work and have children instead of facing up to the fact that this is a burden men have forced on women – on some other woman if not them.
And yes, men are constrained in their gender roles. But there’s as much reason to call them on it as there is to call the wealthy white women on their privileged desire to have someone else carry their burdens. It’s not some chance coincidence that the gender that’s expected to care for the babbies (ideally without pay) is the same one as the gender that gets oppressed in so many other ways. If they could drop the privilege for long enough to raise their own kids, poor women wouldn’t have to do it for them. If they think that’s not fair or economically realistic – *shrugs* – it’s their world, their nuclear family, they broke it, they take it home and fix it.
I find the term Barbies used to refer to women, even white wealthy women, incredibly offensive.
I’m completely confused with what mold’s comments have to do with brownfemipower’s post, or even this post. Is this a separate conversation?
Pingback: Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters | Mordant Belle