Posted by Bitch Lab at 2:47 pm and filed under Bitchin' ::
Share with social bookmarking sites or email this post
:: 1 Views
Numb ass Pro-woman line Transwomen ain’t got no class
Possibly Related Posts
For what it’s worth, I don’t like Bitch Lab, I don’t read her, I don’t think she’s very bright, and I think the main thing she piggybacked on recently was a comment thread to a post she didn’t author. Nice appropriation, that.
So: Don’t like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and don’t read her. Read the women she rips off instead. They’re better.
So: Don’t like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and don’t read her. Read the women she rips off instead. They’re better.
05-14-2007
Just go ahead and bitch
Skip all this. Take me straight to the comment form »
Trackbacks
Leave a comment, a trackback from your own blog, or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry.
Leave a reply
Crikey. I think most, if not all, of these were published after I posted a similar roundup of blogger’s reviews of Full Frontal Feminism for BlogHer.
It’s like waiting for a bus — you wait half an hour and then three of them come in a row.
Good roundup post.
I don’t have a defense of my opinions about the book, because it’s honestly not the biggest thing in my radar at the moment. Perhaps it’s lax of me to comment on something I haven’t read, but I’m pretty open about what my commitments are at the moment (if not that I have no disposable income to actually buy new books, no credit card to buy online, and I live in Australia, where new books, especially those from select feminist presses, are much more difficult to come by), and I have reasons for not having read the book. No accountability, I get that.
But have a bit of perspective: the two posts I made to the blog discussion on Truly Outrageous weren’t a formal position paper or even a blog post. Not sure why you’re singling out my meagre contribution to it, but there you go.
I’m also not a big-time blogger and have no desire to be. Hence, Ring of Gyges + internet = safety. Nobody even responded to my comments in the thread (AFAIK). They’re really not as significant as, say, Blackamazon’s analysis, PP’s analysis, Donna’s analysis, or BfP’s comments.
But again, the Gyges story is about an invisible guy being an arsehole, so it’s not an excuse, just a contextual issue.
I also have perspective: I didn’t make a Last And Final Statement about the book, because like I said I haven’t read it. I.e. my opinion is liable to change, and quite likely given that I have a brain. By calling me out and shaming me (as a person) on that, you’re making that process less likely, and me more defensive and hostile towards you and your arguments.
That said, you’ve mischaracterised my comments. The first never said the book lacked “hard facts,” merely that an approach that centred hard facts would be likely to reach the target audience — without specifying what those facts might be or how they might be used. The comment about Cosmo drew on what several other bloggers/commenters have said about it. The second was squarely about what I saw in other peoples’ comments about it, and I made no pretence that it was about anything else.
So I’m honestly not sure what your problem is with those comments, cos it looks to me like you’re nitpicking. I’m sure if we both let it go both the book and the discussion would be all the better for it.
FF–
I didn’t single out your comments. I did my best to objectively lay out the criticisms, regardless as to whether anyone read the book or not. The exception was JK’s comments and clearly noted that I had no patience for his position. Let me be clearere: no patience *because* he appears to have no understanding of sex positive feminism or even that there are many feminisms and thus spoke as if there was one single way to be feminist and that way meant that he couldn’t fathom why that book cover doesn’t necess. undermine feminism. Nor could he fathom that Valenti may be well aware of the issues and made a decision.
I introduced a quote from you with this sentence, “Firefly thinks the book lacks ‘hard facts’ and is a lot like a Cosmo magazine.” I used quotes because “hard facts” was your phrase. The quotes weren’t intended to indicate snark. I can see, tho, that you might have thought they were snark quotes. They’re not.
I can also see why the last quote might be confusing. But, again, I didn’t convey a judgment there. I noted at the top that I was laying out the criticisms, regardless as to whether anyone had read the book.
That is only because, lacking time for extended analysis right now, I’m doing it in chunks. The first thing *I* did was exactly what I said I was doing: laying out the criticisms of the book thus far. I had intended to move on to RenEv’s post and then BAs, but lost connectivity.
Does “objective” mean decontextualised and mischaracterised? Because that is what I feel you’re doing here. I’m not going to go into the issues that woc have with the book, because like I said, I refuse to comment any more on a book I haven’t read. But I don’t think it’s fair to restate the comments from one thread on one blog in your own words and call that a round-up of opinions. Nor do I think it’s “objective” to say what you understand by those comments and use that as a basis for criticising those comments. You are, of course, entitled to interpret those comments in ways they weren’t intended, but making a post with restatements of them doesn’t make your interpretation definitive.
As for the expression “hard facts”, it was used to describe an approach, not a type of data. That’s not, strictly speaking, the most correct way to use the term, and that’s why I used quotation marks.
And given that the last comment wasn’t about the book itself, but about issues raised in commentary on the book, I don’t see why you included it at all since you stated that this is what you wanted to do with the post:
to gather together all the claims that have been made about the book, whether the author of the claim read the book or not
FF - how did QD mischaracterize your criticism? From where I’m standing it looks like she simply put it out there.
Hi,
To respond to your criticism of my argument:
I’m sorry that I don’t happen to have the text right in front of me to give you page numbers, direct quotes, etc. etc. I do have instances of her “vera vera” annoying style. You know. All. Of. This. Yeah.
(If you remember from reading the book, there are these sorts of ellipses where, rather than emphasizing a point with someone else’s personal narrative or elaborating on a point or restating her argument, JV does that word-as-a-sentence thing.)
Also, I have to tell you, I read the book’s chapters out of order. I read the intersectionality chapter and the history of feminism chapters first, and then started at the beginning. I remember reading in one of those later chapters a parenthetical “hello” to a man, first and last name. I thought, “who’s that?” Then I read the chapter about women and beauty standards(again, don’t have the book with me so I can’t exactly quote the chapters’ name without the book in front of me–does that preclude me from commenting?) and low and behold, man’s name, first and last turned out to be the boy in 8th grade who told her she’d be pretty if she had a different nose. When I realized what the context of the man’s name was in the chapter I was reading, I felt it was too much. I didn’t want to engage in any more JV ego-appeasing. That is just the most obvious example to me of too much of the personal.
Honestly, though, at Truly Outrageous, I didn’t really feel that I needed to support my argument with support, since we were commenting on a post that encouraged brevity and wit by it’s own.
Now, to my issues with you: I wish that you had countered these arguments at the site where they were posted. I’m a shithead commenter who rarely evers clicks on the links of the websites of other commenters. In fact, if you hadn’t personally addressed me in one of your comments, I never would have come here to see myself mocked without context (we can get into the context of that thread at PP’s site, if you’d like.)
The other thing (and this is just my internal therapist) is that at the PP thread, you seem to identify very strongly with JV and I’m curious as to why that is. From reading your posts here, you obviously don’t uncritically accept the work; you find very real problems with it. Yet at Truly Outrageous, there’s anger and hurt in some of those posts (awr shit, gonna have to quote):”And I was deeply offended by statement about Valenti that could have been made about me and HAVE been made about me, including by you in the past BA[Black Amazon]. You spoek of crying. what the fuck do you think I did when I read that?”
I’ve read through the comments several times, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what anyone said about JV at that thread that was a spurious attack of her and not knowing you all that well or really having read your blog other than that i got name-checked here, I don’t know what your stake is in all of this.
Anyway, e-mail me if you want those page citations or my thesis, “When the Personal Ceases to Be Political: Digressions That Undermine Feminist Arguments.”
Just to clarify the soundbyte you gave for my criticism of the book, I didn’t like the language, no. I thought it tried too hard and came off sounding more condescending than familiar. I thought the cursing was too gratuitous, I thought some of the claims were trivialized in an attempt to be sarcastic, and to make her points it looked like a lot of information was glossed over. I say all this speaking from the perspective of a young woman, and I have a whole collection of concerns surrounding that notion alone. But I wrote all I care to write about that and the book on my blog. There are other discussions for another time, but they’re more from what I’ve learned while watching the “dialogue” take place. So there you have it.
B|L, I’m honestly a little surprised at you.
Yes, some of these criticisms are sophomoric or by people who haven’t read the book. But you’re treating substantive arguments the same way as the idle sniping. I don’t care whether or not you agree with the critiques offered, but some of these are people making real points in good faith, and you’re mocking semantics, calling people out for not footnoting blog comments, and giving people how-dare-you wrist slaps, from where I stand.
I haven’t read Jessica’s book yet. I’m glad she wrote a book, and I look forward to seeing it, and it’s nice to see a feminist get ahead. But you know what? She’s not above criticism. She’s not so very much “one of our own” that nobody gets to argue with her–especially other “our own” that happens to include most of the prominent feminist bloggers of color I could easily name. These aren’t anti-feminists, MRAs, or people out to hate on feminism. These are feminists from different branches of feminism–less mainstream ones–offering criticism and argument. It seems especially pertinent that some of those critiques are race-based, and nearly all the people of color are lined up on one side. Right or wrong, that’s worth paying attention to.
It feels to me like even if Full Frontal Feminism doesn’t condescend to them, this here–as well as other well-I-never responses to the notion that anyone would dare have a problem with Ms. Valenti’s book–certainly does.
I don’t know what my opinion of the book is yet. But when a list of people that includes brownfemipower, Donna, Belledame, nubian, petitpoussin, Sylvia and Blackamazon all are offering similar critiques–people I respect and whose opinions I have learned to trust, who all work hard in the feminist movement–I’m inclined to sit up and listen, not act shocked that someone said something rude from the kids’ table.
Little Light,
How is QD “treating substantive arguments the same way as the idle sniping?” Where did anyone ever claim that JV was above criticism? That would be ridiculous. What makes you think QD isn’t listening? This post and all the others she’s written on the topic make it pretty clear, to my mind, that she is actively listening and engaging.
Look, maybe I’m reading too much dismissiveness into this post. If that’s the case, QD, I’m sorry. I hope you know how much respect I have for you.
I’m just trying to make sense of all of this, and I think there are a lot of old rifts and wounds being brought up on all sides. Even with–maybe especially with–that said, I just don’t get the apparent shock that anyone would have a problem with this book.
I’m not that swayed by criticisms of Jessica’s writing style. I don’t think I’m her target audience, and I don’t think most of us around here are, either. And if it’s just the way she writes, not an affect, well, it’s just the way she writes. I think there’s a lot more substance to concerns over her privileging of certain narratives of feminism and feminist history, though. I’ll evaluate those concerns for myself when I read it, but I don’t think they come out of nowhere, you know?
I’ll evaluate those concerns for myself when I read it, but I don’t think they come out of nowhere, you know?
Obviously not since I made them myself. Before I ever read BA on the topic. Capiche? I was doing my damnedest to not be snide or dismissive above. And yet, I’m still being told that I don’t get the concerns of women of color. I fucking made some of those criticisms myself. I repeated them in the post.
So, as much as I have real respect for you, not the liberal, flabby pluralism of respect Valenti appears to espouse, will somebody just fuck me up the ass sideways with a red hot poker. It would be far more pleasurable.
Never mind about someone else doing it for me. I forgot I splurged and bought a horny devil vibrator, like the rabbit, only it’s on fire baby, it’s on fire.
And by the way, I fail to see why everyone is in a tizzy over this post. I’d forgotten about the comments ’til LL’s comment.
I gathered them together so I could think about them and address them in my review, regardless as to whether they were illustrated or not. I wasn’t sure about whether I would use the unillustrated posts. In two places it was clear what I thought: my comments about JK and my “ahem”.
Why did I hesitate over the commentary without illustration? Because, how can I understand what exactly is being criticized without illustration? You may have a fucking point, but so far I haven’t been able to read minds! So, how could I possibly address whether it was a matter of a different interpretation or what?
I can do that with BA’s work, because sheused examples. I can’t do that with commentary that goes unillustrated. E.g., in the book review, Valenti was described as bratty. LEt’s assume that ad hominem is acceptable criticism. I have no idea what it is that makes Valenti’s work “bratty”.
Was it the word “puke”? Was it the “What. The. Fuck. Evers”? Was it her discussion of her fifth grade critic? Her thoughs about Jerry Fallwell?
Those would all be illustrations. I would know how to address them. I would know whether I disagree or not or somewhere in between.
It would be a waste of my time to try to discern someone’s meaning without illustrations since I could easily be wrong.
Nonetheless, I thought it might end up being worthwhile to consider the various things people have said since, garshes, I might happen to agree with them and write about it in my review.
E.g., I might write soemthing like, “Biddy Barber thought that Valenti’s tone was snide at times. While I don’t know exactly what parts of the book Barber refers to, I’d like to offer my own examples of Valenti’s snide commentary, to wit:”
Considering that I made, quite clear, when I thought someone was completely full of shit — e.g., JK — then you all have to trust me that I can read my mind better than you. I realize that some of you’ve made clear that you think you know my mind better than me.
Awesome. Could you please pick out my outfits for the work days for the next three months? It’d take a load off.
Obviously I’ve stepped on a landmine here.
QD, part of my earlier surprise was that I know you’ve made those criticisms before, and read you as dismissing points from other people that I’ve seen you make before yourself. That looks like my mistake.
I hadn’t yet seen the threads where there’s a whole ‘nother layer of argument going, and I had no intent to discredit you or your work personally or to back up jabs at you. I’ve been missing some context, and I’m sorry.
as I said above:
…i probably shouldn’t have made the “Feminism 4 Dummiez” comment in that context. I don’t know if that accurately describes JV’s book; I was going off what seemed to be most peoples’ take on its tone, and my general impression of What Sells These Days. and my own slight irritation with what felt a bit (from the excerpts I’d seen) like a reinvention of the Third Wave wheel.
that said, i really shouldn’t say anything else unless/until i read the thing in full, I expect. I never really gave that much of a damn about the cover–although I do get that to go from the flat white tum to critique of “body image in the media” is, well, ironic; and I’ve got no bone to pick with JV personally. as LL notes, a lot of people I respect have bones with the book as well as what they see as patterns (wrt her, wrt what the book represents, or rather doesn’t but purports to, purportedly), and I do take that under advisement.
and yeah, i wish BfP had the/a book deal, too, along with a lot of other people who really don’t get their props, and frankly I think that is a lot of this, and there’s nothing wrong with that. it’s not -envy.- it’s a natural desire for well-deserved recognition that doesn’t seem forthcoming; meanwhile accolades get heaped on this one rather mainstream white feminist who’s by all accounts not written the most in-depth book; and any critiques get received in the framework of “yer just jealous” and “sex negative” and so on and so forth; so, in for a penny in for a pound…
and actually, you know, it isn’t even so much about “oo, strokes,” you know, as frustration as what’s perceived as a missed opportunity/responsibility, with the platform that’s been made available to her. as I’m reading it.
meh.
I think mostly a number of people are about reaching boiling point with the general atmosphere of “play nice and eventually the goodies will trickle down to you; if they haven’t, or they weren’t enough, it’s because you weren’t nice enough,” you know…
and, I didn’t say, I don’t believe, that -Valenti- has forgotten how intelligent and capable young women are; it wasn’t what I had meant to say, at least. again, going along with the thrust of the conversation and the frustration of the younger women there. and my observation, which didn’t come off as neutrally as it appeared in the context, I get that, but it really is just that: that we, -I- tend to forget how smart and evolved people -can- be by what -now- seems to me (creak, groan) like an impossibly young age. ’twasn’t always thus.
First, let me say, I’m not in a position to comment on the central issues of these discussions.
And since the way my schedule works, I read one chapter a day, the discussion will have ended before I have even read the whole book anyway.
But after reading two chapters, I do want to say a word about one of the secondary topics, the tone and diction. As I was reading, I kept thinking, I’ve heard this voice. I went to school with Jessicas. In high school, I rode the bus with Jessicas. I have dated Jessicas. Just not ones who ever went to college, let alone graduate school. This voice sounds more culturally specific and less contrived to me than its seems to to most other commenters.
F4D — actually, if was as in depth about a topic and as long as a F4D book, it would be a better book. :)
That said, and since I will review the book from the perspective of someone who’s looking at books to teach women’s studies, I am also acutely aware of how difficult it is to address all the important issues. Listen Up is the book I used, but most of the time, they all sucked so badly or included topics I thought were a waste of time for my thematic/narrative approach, I ended up excerpting articles and making my own anthologies. Which was great b/c I could, when I tutored people at my alma mater, teaching women’s studies, I could create an entire set of readings tailored just for that individual. It was one helluva lot of work for $100, though, which was what I got paid for tutoring someone for a semester.
At any rate, Listen Up was great for addressing a variety of issues. It was very focused on body issues, the edition I used, though. But I could understand that since that’s what animates people at that age. And they did well by brining in writers from many perspectives to speak to various kinds of body image issues — including speaking to racial aspects of the topic. I can’t recall right now, but Valenti didn’t do that, did she?
Anyway, one thing that occured to me is that, perhaps Valenti could use her experience to write a short field guide to how she got published. An abridged diary of the process, some discussion of her process as a writer, or bring together published feminist writers in a forum in which they speak to those issues.
I know this will do nothing for the situation. Hell, I’m pretty sure from BA’s latest comments that she’s written me off given her comments about my class analysis in the Faux Real post, but it would be a useful way to demystify the process of getting a book deal. It’s a lot of work and it takes some knowledge to work the system. One of the things we have to do is stopkeeping that knowledge to ourself, those of us who manage to get those deals. Not speaking about it out of some sense of propriety or fear that you’ll jinx yourself or annoy publishers so they’ll never publish you again, does us little good.
And such a field guide would be a start — a way to show each other how to work togther, rather than at odds.