Sat: Apr 19 2008

"I rarely write book reviews, but…"
4 comments, it seems

Afterthought: Partial review, as I have only just started the book… more like book discussion.

I picked up “Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters” (Jessica Valenti) on my occasional (ahem) online book-buying spree. The last book on feminism I read was… well, I haven’t finished it. The past few months I’ve been reading “The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women” (Naomi Wolf) on and off.

The latter book is very… intense in its content. I never had to read books that contain reference lists until coming to university, and even then that was only in my third year, in my History of Computing course.^[1] So, when diving into the pages of The Beauty Myth, I really had no idea what I was in for. I was swayed^[2] by the theories, claims and conclusions. This is a well-known book, and I admire it, though according to its current Wiki entry it seems that perhaps The Beauty Myth could be both a “sloppily researched” but “vivid and impassioned” polemic. Whatever the accuracy of the facts in this book, the two things I got from it were: (1) many, many theories regarding women’s obsession with ‘beauty’, and (2) an awareness that there was a lot of literature out there about feminism and gender studies. Call me naive, but my world opened up.

So, after having experienced the epiphanic (maybe) whirlwind of The Beauty Myth, I thought I should perhaps start over and get a grip on what feminism is - and who, where, why and how. The Beauty Myth made me feel like there was lots of stuff out there I should be reading - it really does cover a lot of ground, and is almost saturated with information, but in a good way. And so, somehow, I came across Full Frontal Feminism. Which is a lie. It had actually been on my wishlist for months before I started reading The Beauty Myth. But really, looking at the Amazon.co.uk reviews during my aforementioned shopping spree, I thought, ‘Why not?’. An average rating of 4.5 stars from 4 reviews, and perhaps the re-introduction I was looking for.

Here’s a lesson: don’t depend on one website for reviews, even if it just means going to the Amazon.com counterpart. That should have been obvious, and I would have thought twice about buying - there are 45 reviews and an average rating of 4 stars, but there are also two interesting 1-star reviews (currently - by them and her) on the main product page.

For my part, I was initially put down by certain aspects of the book, but after recognising such weaknesses, the book became easier to read. I think from the outset I was put off by what has been described in some reviews as “accessible” language. It strikes me more as condescending. If an argument is well thought-out, I don’t need slang or swear words to be convinced by it. You don’t need to write as if you’re actually speaking to me:

“And I promise this is the only time I’ll be quoting the frigging dictionary.”

I wasn’t expecting an academic book, but I do want to be treated as a reader - someone with a natural curiosity for things, who likes to look things up and find out more. So when you tell me something that may be a common myth or urban legend:

“actually, [burning bras] never happened - total myth”

… or inform me that, actually, you may shy away from being called a ‘feminist’ but may be one of many women who believe in ‘feminist’ values:

“recent polls show that most women support feminist goals”

… then appreciate the fact that your throwaway sentences might have some interest or value to me - especially when I have not heard about them. Burning bras never happened? Wow, that’s new to me, give me a reference. Some recent study reveals a new aspect about women? That’s interesting, tell me who did the study. I want to know. This book has been described as obviously targeted for younger women who haven’t read much feminist literature. Assume they also believe in popular myths and stereotypes, assume that they might be suspicious about feminist propaganda. Shouldn’t such a book make sure to put such readers at ease?

This is the first chapter, and, as one reviewer put it, I found myself “longing for something a little meatier”.

That was yesterday, and now knowing such faults of this book (reading any of the one-star or more balanced Amazon reviews will also point to other faults, that I don’t feel at a position to judge, such as “brattiness”, “shock value”, or not being in-depth enough), I find the book a little less annoying, although I still wish that, in some places, the writing did not give off such damned “I’m down with you, let’s talk” vibes.

Its very premise is noble: a lot of young women nowadays do not identify as ‘feminists’, even though they might well be feminists, due to stereotypes surrounding feminism (“I’m not a feminist, but…”), or because of a lack of knowledge in current issues surrounding women. Hence this book seeks to ‘convert’ them. I’ve gotten past the first chapter, and because I’m not reading up on this stuff everyday, it’s nice to be reminded of why I call myself a feminist and why I should be interested in feminist issues.

Also, a flip through the book tells me that, unless I read through all the feministing.com archives, unless I educate myself through the always-questionable Wikipedia, unless someone hands me a better-written introduction to feminism right now, I have no other handy read-it-on-the-bus-or-on-the-toilet book that would enlighten me on past and current feminist issues (as long as I keep an open mind). I would be missing out if I gave away this book today. Until I read enough of the book to make a better judgement on its quality, the book stays.

So for those of you who hesitate to call yourselves feminists, Jessica Valenti points out that the “frigging” dictionary definition doesn’t cover man-hating, and to dispel the stereotypes:

Most young women are feminists, but we’re too afraid to say it - or even to recognize it. And why not? Feminists are supposed to be ugly. And fat. And hairy! Is it fucked up that people are so concerned about dumb, superficial stuff like this? Of course. Is there anything wrong with being ugly, fat, or hairy? Of course not.

(I would like to think that only younger women would need something like that to persuade them, but The Beauty Myth tells me that women of all ages are affected by superficiality. Sigh.)

One of my pet peeves with young women nowadays is how they themselves promote the double standards surrounding ’sluts’ and ‘players’. If I may suggest another book - “Promiscuities: A Secret History of Female Desire”, another Naomi Wolf work - less-celebrated than The Beauty Myth and, I seem to remember, criticised for being more memoir than academic, but with a chapter called “Sluts” that stayed with me. What makes someone a slut? What makes someone not a slut?

Also, not all types of feminists promote sex or ‘promiscuity’. Valenti is not one of them, so if you are, the feminism you embrace may not be the same as that advocated by this book. But to readers in general, it is good to remember that feminism, like many religions or idealogies, are split into different schools of thought. So I’m going to agree with Valenti here, taken slightly out of context:

If we don’t approve of the porn culture that tells us our only value is in our ability to be sexy, we’re prudes. If we accept it and embrace it, we’re sluts. There’s no middle ground to be seen.

The book ‘review’ was officially over a couple of paragraphs ago, but I couldn’t resist imparting to you the above quotes.

To anyone considering getting this book - think about what you’re expecting from it, then read reviews, remembering to read in between the lines. Though if you’re like me, and once in a while splurges on something they’re not that sure about, I would forgive you for making the same mistake.

My last message to anyone who might be a feminist and wants a little push - get reading (not this book necessarily, just information and news in general), and join us. To the established feminists in the audience, forgive my foolishness in my choice of reading, and please enlighten me to the better stuff out there.

*

1 - Computer scientists don’t often have such books in their reading lists, it seems.
2 - I am easily swayed. I have watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash“, and both times was convinced that the world was going to end soon.

 
//Comment?  // Permalink

categories(?): not_so_girly, books_etc, that's all :)
Tags(?): feminism, feminist, book discussion, books, the beauty myth, full frontal feminism, promiscuities

Wed: Jul 11 2007

"avoid the creeps like Monique"
0 comments, it seems

(This post was broken off from this one which was supposed to be a mere link dump. I wrote this with the website Asking For It in mind.)

I had a disagreement once with some friends that girls who dress ‘provocatively’ deserve any lewd male attention they get. Only very recently I learnt about the whale tail though and I have to admit that in this case there is no question that sometimes the, er, call to attention is deliberate. I’m sure when ladies are dressed to impress they would appreciate (maybe in secret) the occasional male eye lingering an extra second or two, though as usual it is easy to cross the line where your mind goes from “Ooh yes I’m hot” to “Ew the dude’s a creep” and you decide to clear off. A couple seconds longer is clearly staring. The turning of the head to watch you walking past. If there’s more than one of them and they’re all looking at you, that’s an obvious nuisance. Of course the attractiveness (looks, age, status) of the staring party is also under consideration - admit it, you would be more flattered by a young creep than an old creep. But I don’t think it’s fair that wearing less automatically means you deserve more of any stares and comments you may possibly get from an admiring (not always in a good way) public. And no one, no one deserves to be made to feel uncomfortable by comments given to them by strangers based on the way they look and dress.

 
//Comment?  // Permalink

categories(?): thoughts, not_so_girly, angry_rants, that's all :)

Sun: Jun 03 2007

"super smash sex ed stupid seasons blah"
1 comment, it seems

I just recently discovered all the hullaballoo about sex ed in the Bruneian blogosphere. Woo me for being lagging again. Anyhoo, I’ve read some good stuff out there, and some not so good stuff, and I’ve got my own opinions, but I don’t want to say what’s been said so I’ll just direct you to Ummi’s Sex Ed for the Bruneians, which I think is an awesome idea.

This is a Link Dump. =P So…

• A 2003 game girl advance article about female characters in video games. Also, read some of the comments. Interesting insights.
• Super Smash Sisters: Flash movie. Self-explanatory? ;D
• I like the idea of this House-off Switch. Also, if it could solve the mystery of my household’s outrageous electricity bills over the winter-spring period… -_-

On that last point. Does anyone feel that the UK climate is swinging back and forth between winter and summer lately? I mean, seriously. It was so cold three days ago that I wished to turn the central heating on instead of shivering in my room feeling demotivated to study for my exams. Yesterday it was so hot I could wash and dry two batches of laundry in the space of 4 hours.

 
//Comment?  // Permalink

categories(?): eye_candy_maybe, not_so_girly, reads, oh_brunei, that's all :)