Our Shared Shelf discussion
Apr—How to Be a Woman (2016)
>
Problematic Tweet
Well, I can give the context. She interviewed Lena Dunham about her series "Girls" back in 2012.Afterwards she wrote on Twitter that she'd met and liked Lena Dunham. That was the tweet that lizzie c first responded to.
And the question she responded to with the "literally couldn't give a fuck"-quote was whether she'd asked Lena Dunham about the lack of POC in "Girls".
For me the only good thing here is someone's response: how can you literally give a shit about something? ;DAnd yeah this kinda sealed my decision not to read the book. There can be sometimes excuses for unintentional exclusion, but not this kind of blatant disrespect.
I have not heard about the tweet until today I wish I knew about it before buying her book. That is really disappointing, I am not buying anymore books recommended by Emma Watson without researching the authors first.
Marina wrote: "For me the only good thing here is someone's response: how can you literally (not) give a shit about something? ;D..."
Sounds like a medical condition. ;-)
I would really love to hear her elaborate on that. The replies were plentiful, but I didn't see her respond to any of them. I so hoped to find something like "Ermergerd you guys. I meant I didn't give a shit about...." Please Caitlin. Please...?
Maybe I'm way off base but I did not take this as she doesn't care about WOC or lack thereof. I more took it as she didn't feel the need to condemn Girls for the lack of WOC. I took it as for her that didn't detract from the overall message.
Whatevr she meant (imo, that people are placing "too much burden" on her or something), that was a very disrespectful way to say it. And in general I'm sure she doesn't reply every single tweet she gets so it would've been much better to at least stay quiet.
Hello Everyone!I get how this tweet, when taken out of context, can be shocking... But I read "Moranifesto" and I feel like some of the reactions here are a bit exagerated.
First of all, let's just remind us that this is a TWEET (I don't use them but I know that you can't write a lengthy argument explaining your point of view...)
Then, in Moranifesto, Moran talks exactly about this issue (not about the tweet but how some people say that there aren't people of color in Girls HBO).
On page 177-179 (in a piece called 'Women keep fucking things up'), she says how, when a woman has the courage to try and make a difference; instead of celebrating that contribution, we point out the things that she didn't do.
Here is what she wrote about Girls:
"Twenty-seven-year-old Lena Dunham, meanwhile, writes, directs, produces and stars in one of the most talked-about shows of the last ten years - HBO's Girls. She tackles abortion, STD's, pornography, masochism and her generation's parlous reversal of fortune. [...]" "But as the first series of Girls began to air, it became sadly apparent that Dunham hadn't included a single non-white character in the show. 'They should call it White Girls', was the common pay-off to angry pieces about it. Dunham screwed up."
And she goes on saying that it seems that everytime a feminist screws up, "make some error, or miss something out, [they're] making feminism look foolish". She says that "everytime she reads about Sheryl Sandber, or Lena Dunham, or Beyoncé, the core complaint seems to be: why haven't these women done EVERYTHING? Why haven't they addressed all problems women face?".
She then goes on saying that this expectation is not put on men but always on women (and often by the feminists themeselves).
So she vehemently critics these expectations put on people (mostly women) trying to do something positive and then being attacked for not having done everything.
What I liked about this piece in Moranifesto and that make me wholeheartedly understant her tweet is that "it really is okay if a woman comes along and does just a little bit of pioneering. [Such as] write brutally honest sitcoms about self-obsessed girls!".
My favourite quote from that piece is when she says:
"We are all working on a massive patchwork quilt called 'A Better Future' here - anyone can pull up a chair and haave a go. The only rule of Feminism Quilt Club is that we don't expect one woman to sew the entire damn thing herself, while bitching about her to her face. Oh and Crips. You have to bring crips".
So to come back to that tweet: No Moran doesn't give a Shit about that issue because she doesn't want to point out everything that Girls HBO didn't do but rather talk about the ways in which it is pioneering (Body image, mental health, sex, abortions, etc.). She could have said it differently. Clearly. But let's try and stay in the context. All she wanted to say was: why talk more about the fact that Dunham didn't do anything against the lack of diversity in the western television industry, when we can talk about all the ways in which she makes the industry move forward.
And to be honest, it opened my mind, that I too am sometimes expecting too much from some feminists and that I should rather celebrate and be thankful for what they have done, that they kept the discussion moving (for instance, I am not sure that, if it wouldn't have been for series like Girls, Master of None would be on aire...).
Then it is your free choice to not read an author so I am not saying that you should absoulutly read Moran, but I just wanted to give a bit more informations for you to make a choice about an author.
PS. From the discussions on the other threads, I feel like Moran is also being a victime of this expectation on outspoken feminists to talk about EVERYTHING, to tacklel EVERY problem, like otherwise they are not relevant.
Donika wrote: "Hello Everyone!I get how this tweet, when taken out of context, can be shocking... But I read "Moranifesto" and I feel like some of the reactions here are a bit exagerated.
First of all, let's jus..."
Thank you for your response and including what Moran says about that tweet in Moranifesto. (I unfortunately cannot read Moranifesto right now since I'm in the US and the book is not available here until later this year.)
I had seen this tweet a while back, and it rubbed me the wrong way. But, since I had read How to Be a Woman a couple years ago, I felt like Moran's tweet was maybe taken out of context. I think the 'couldn't give a shit' was (very) poorly worded, but after seeing what she says about it in Moranifesto I see where she was going with it. And that is kind of what I had thought when I first saw this tweet. I have seen this kind of thing a lot with feminists: say something 'wrong' and immediately you're dismissed. I see it here on OSS and in other places as well. I don't agree with Moran's wording in the tweet, but I was not ready to write her off completely based on that alone.
Donika wrote: "Hello Everyone!I get how this tweet, when taken out of context, can be shocking... But I read "Moranifesto" and I feel like some of the reactions here are a bit exagerated.
First of all, let's jus..."
Thank you for this! I also have not read Moranifesto but absolutely want to now. This is exactly what I was trying convey in my above comment about not condemning Girls. You just put it so much better than I did.
Was it a bit tactless to put this way... maybe. But speaking as someone who often said tactless things that some probably find offensive (if I'm being honest more than some at times), I don't want to be judged entirely on the things that come out of my mouth. I get passionate and often say the first thing that comes to mind (which sometimes could be that I couldn't give a shit). Before we condemn Moran for saying this maybe we should take a long look at ourselves and make sure that we aren't saying something that others would find offensive also.
Plus, if she had asked about the lack of WOC in Girls, somebody else would have jumped all over it with that detracting from the other important messages in the show. We can't have the whole cake all the time.
I've read Sheryl Sandberg and there are so many reviews focusing on tearing her down due to privilege. It is frankly rather boring to read them, because what they all have in common is the intense focus on her networks, and the complete failure to acknowledge the huge amount of work she - her and nobody else - has done to not just reach positions but stay in them in a successful way. Yes, she has a great network, but no, none of them did her work for her. She turned up every day to put in the hours herself.She is empowering thousands of women through her Lean In networking site, she has given a TEDtalk that a lot of people across the globe have watched, and she has encouraged us to claim responsibility, 'lean in', through her wonderful book. It is all fine and dandy to keep complaining about the system, but if we do nothing at all to improve our own situation, is that only the system's fault? Don't we have to do our own part as well? In particular as long as we are facing gender inequality in the workplaces still? Of course.
Sandberg writes a bit about feminism and concludes the work is nowhere near done. But can we expect her to fix everything with one book? No, that is ridiculous. It is exactly the same with any other feminist, like Caitlin Moran, nobody holds the ultimate source of power to tip the scale permanently in a balanced manner toward equilibrium. All attempts make a change and they all are important, even us here, our words are important, but change is slow.
Should we spend that time criticising and complaining, tearing down for the occasional bold word that we ourselves might never use? Should we forget all the good already done, or to come in the future? Should we keep taking stuff out of context, seek with magnifying glass anything and everything that other feminists are doing not to our exact liking? Should we expect and accept nothing but perfection? Are we without fault ourselves? Or should we perhaps allow the occasional misstep or crude word, without becoming some kind of mob all of a sudden, ready to tear to pieces a public figure? This group already condemned Steinem quite successfully, Moran is currently in the limelight - who's next?
Why are we not up there, exposing ourselves? It is so very easy to criticise when we never have to take the spotlight, actually risk something. Imagine the whole world recognising your name, following every step you take, ready to jump at the faintest whiff of a mistake. Sound appealing? I'm appalled by the holier-than-thou mob mentality quite frankly. It makes us veer off on irrelevant sidetracks that do nothing to further the main cause.
Thanks Donika for a most informative post!
The question is whether the main cause is the same. White feminists (TM) do contribute to the oppression of less privileged women/afab people. If something supports white cishet women while alienating and marginalizing the rest, do the benefits really outweigh the negatives? By this logic, any man who makes the life of just one woman better (his mother/sister/wife), while treating the rest like shit, deserves to be praised as a feminist???
I'm seeing a lot of all or nothing thinking on both "sides" of this debate. How about this? Noticing problems with some aspects of a thing doesn't have to mean saying that it is irredeemably awful and its author should never speak in public again and probably hide at home under the bed forever. Saying that you like something also doesn't have to mean that you intend to approach it utterly uncritically and refuse to acknowledge that there is a single way in which it is not perfect.Maybe an author could be really funny and charming and also sometimes kind of a jerk. Maybe one reader can be more bothered than another by the jerk behavior. Maybe it doesn't have to be not so all or nothing, and we call all cut each other a little more slack.
Rome wasn't built in a day. It was done in increments. But they got there eventually.One has to choose one's battles, and unless we sit inside another human's head, we can't know exactly all the factors becoming part of the equation. We have bad days, we say idiotic stuff. Some are incapable of apologising, others aren't. Sometimes it's easier to let something slide than start explaining, and possibly making it even worse. Some days we are ready to tackle all the injustice in all the world, others we can barely get out of bed. It is normal.
In general, I prefer hope and realistic optimism. Also, people awake at different speeds to awareness. This takes time. Patience from those already awake. Alienating newbies by undermining everything that they say does no good. Again patience is needed, but maybe their process will be faster if we refrain from shitting all over them when they stumble and fall.
Nelson Mandela told us to count the number of times he got up after having fallen down. That has been my strategy my whole life, pick myself back up, brush off the nasty, and continue. Rinse and repeat. Usually the hurt goes away after a while.
Let's celebrate the successes without forgetting honest self-reflection.
One thing I've been thinking of, since we are on Goodreads reading books. I hear POC have difficulties finding publishers for their books. Why not do a Kickstarter campaign or microloans like Kiva or something, rather than sort of wait. Wait for what? Inequality won't go away in the next decade, but during that time god knows how many books could be published. Aren't there POC readers wanting to read stuff by POC authors? I'm a white reader and I want to read stuff by POC authors. If everyone donates or borrows five of their own currency, it is a lot. Someone has to take initiative, though, take a risk. Start doing rather than waiting. Show some entrepreneurial spirit, take matters into one's own hands.
@Bunny How much of her humour doesn't marginalize the less privileged though? I'm honestly asking, because the things people praise enthusiastically tend to be problematic. (with the exception of the abortion chapter) I'm all for liking whatever you like while recognizing its imperfections, I just see very few people who actually understand the criticism and don't get defensive.
I agree Marina. There's a lot of defensiveness.
Marina wrote: "How much of her humour doesn't marginalize the less privileged though? I'm honestly asking, because the things people praise enthusiastically tend to be problematic. (with the exception of the abor..."Maybe you're using words that are distancing others rather than bring them closer? Maybe you need to change strategy? Did you ever consider that?
You keep saying basically the same thing in a number of threads, so perhaps it is more a matter of people disagreeing with you than being defensive. Just because you think you see defensive reactions everywhere, doesn't mean all of them are. I should think it worth finding out, but the topic is delicate and a bulldozer might not be the right tool. Sorry for being so frank, but we've already concluded that many have white fragility. Did you take that into account when forming your strategy?
Marina wrote: "@Bunny How much of her humour doesn't marginalize the less privileged though? I'm honestly asking, because the things people praise enthusiastically tend to be problematic. (with the exception of ..."
I agree. I am definitely willing to understand that people can like her/her work because it is relatable and humorous; I would not want to deny someone that or her ability to express that. That so many people -- especially in this group -- can "see" themselves in her writing and experiences is awesome. Her work on de-stigmatizing abortion is also appreciated.
I do not understand, however, those who are not able to extend the same respect and consideration to those of us who find her/her work to be largely problematic otherwise. They do not have to agree with us, but I do struggle to understand those who are easily able to brush off those criticisms.
For people who are able to -- is it a matter of scale? In the sense of -- the majority of what she says is good, so while these slip-ups are bad, they do not negate her main points? Is it a matter of just not seeing the problems with the language she uses, or her viewpoint(s)? Or, is it an issue of humor, as I've seen some say -- well, she's offensive, but that's her style, and that's that.
Those are great questions Laurelei! I really like them.
Aglaea wrote: "One thing I've been thinking of, since we are on Goodreads reading books. I hear POC have difficulties finding publishers for their books. Why not do a Kickstarter campaign or microloans like Kiva or something, rather than sort of wait. ...Someone has to take initiative, though, take a risk. Start doing rather than waiting. Show some entrepreneurial spirit, take matters into one's own hands. ..."Are you under the impression that this isn't already happening? Please don't do that. Please don't tell people to start doing rather than waiting when you don't actually know what they are doing. Why would you assume that people are just sitting around waiting and not taking any risks or showing any entrepreneurial spirit? Where's your evidence for that idea that people aren't doing anything?
This is the same kind of arguments anti feminists use against women. Stop complaining about the gender pay gap and go start your own business if you aren't happy. Women owned businesses increased at one and a half times the national average in the US between 1997 and 2007 and at five times the national average between 2007-2016. We are doing the things they say we aren't doing.
Its harder for POC to get published. Its also harder for women to get published. Women are moving into self publishing because of this. Women make up sixty-seven percent of the highest-ranking self published titles but only forty-nine percent of the highest ranking traditionally published titles on Amazon.
Here is an article from School Library Journal about Black Authors and Self Publishing.
http://www.slj.com/2015/03/diversity/...
Here is a link to a New York library system panel discussion about diversity in literature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f0K...
I particularly want to point out something that happens beginning at about 21.25 on that panel, which I think is an excellent example of how people can respectfully discuss something they find problematic in a work. Daniel has a problem with something in one of Sophie's books and he says so without demonizing her. She then responds without demonizing him, and an actual difficult conversation about a painful and problematic thing is had.
Laurelei wrote: "Marina wrote: "@Bunny How much of her humour doesn't marginalize the less privileged though? I'm honestly asking, because the things people praise enthusiastically tend to be problematic. (with th..."
I chalk it up to brashness. Caitlin Moran is brash - as lots of comedians/comic writers are. However, it doesn't mean we have to like everything they say or do. There are plenty of things I disagree with Moran on, however, there are things I think she gets right.
I think this is mostly down to human nature. Humans mess up - say things they don't mean, insult people, alienate people, hurt other peoples' feelings. No, they can't get everything right all the time, and no, we shouldn't just forgive transgressions.
I don't think of things like this as being on a scale of acceptability - There are times that people we like disappoint us. And Moran is right - we can't solve all the problems, and we can't continually guard our speech from everybody's feelings, or else everyone would be too frozen to write/say anything. It's all a matter of letting people know when they're coming off badly, but not in a way thats negative.
As for not reading something because that person says things you don't like/disagree with - it's important to be fully informed of a person before making an opinion. The best way to be informed is by reading what they've written, as that is straight from them, they're not hiding behind anything. Then you know where they stand and can decide, definitively what you think of them - and, I'm pretty sure, there will still be things you don't like, but there might be some things you do. People are shades of grey, not black/white in their opinions.
The purpose of this book club is to expose readers to all kinds of works. Whether those works jive with us or not, it's informative. I, personally, did not like bell hooks' work, but I read it and now I can actually say what I disagreed with/had problems with. But I also found things that were thought-provoking and did ring true to me. I won't ever read that book again, but at least I know what the fuss is all about and can give my fully informed opinion.
I'm a big fan of the Nancy Pearl rulePeople frequently ask me how many pages they should give a book before they give up on it. In response to that question, I came up with my “rule of fifty,” which is based on the shortness of time and the immensity of the world of books. If you’re fifty years of age or younger, give a book fifty pages before you decide to commit to reading it or give it up. If you’re over fifty, which is when time gets even shorter, subtract your age from 100—the result is the number of pages you should read before making your decision to stay with it or quit. Since that number gets smaller and smaller as we get older and older, our big reward is that when we turn 100, we can judge a book by its cover!
Life is short, books are many. If I read fifty pages by an author and I'm not feeling it, I get to bail.
Yeah, that was a strange assumption that we do nothing. I'm a moderator of a language learning forum and I've done a lot to make sure discrimination is noticed and punished (and I'm definitely familiar with the challenges of a varied international community). I've also helped lots of people in online comms learn to use menstrual cups - fortunately the comms have guided me by requiring gender-neutral language before I understood why it matters.Separate activism is awesome, but it's also important to be intersectional in what you already do.
I'm mostly disappointed because writing is Moran's main work. If she was an actress or musician, and the book was just a side project, I'd be less critical. But as far as I can tell, she pretty much managed to make feminism her job.
also, found a couple more articles about this specific incident:
http://mic.com/articles/17824/lena-du...
https://bitchmedia.org/post/why-i-did...
Great rule :) If you look at my shelves it's pretty clear why Moran didn't get even that in my case :D 50 pages is a lot to me tbh.
I have a modified Nancy Pearl rule, which is that authors get fifty pages. They don't get fifty pages for each new book, they get fifty pages total. If I read 50 (well actually 46) pages by an author without feeling it I get to bail unless and until someone I trust tells me they feel that the author has really changed something and is due another chance. So I bailed before How to Be...
Also that bitch media piece is great and this part really made me laugh:regarding "censorship," "silencing," and "policing": The reason anyone knows about this "kerfuffle" is because I told Lorraine she could take the interview somewhere else, which she did. And can you really "silence" someone who has two books out, regular columns, is published in the Times and the Guardian, has nine times the amount of Twitter followers Bitch Media has, and furthermore has plenty of websites and fans willing to post, summarize, and selectively quote her? Asking for a friend.)
They decided not to publish an interview with Moran and suggested the interviewer shop it elsewhere, she did, it got published. Not precisely silencing.
This is something that comes up on social media a lot. Freedom of speech means you have the right to speak. It does not mean you have a right to use my platform to speak from. Editors get to decide what they want to publish.
Type delete. I'm out.
No, you know what. Bunny could have asked me a question, but instead I got word twisting and schooling - once again. Would just stop doing that already?I've talked to a POC who clearly doesn't have all the information about the state of global publishing houses. If my words were twisted into being crap again, I can't do anything about that, but I sure as hell can correct this mistreatment - once again. And since she didn't paint a wholesome picture, I clearly couldn't either.
But instead of picking out the merits of my comment - crowdfunding and the fact that this group alone could raise 620.000 EUR (a bit more in USD, a bit less in GBP) if everyone pitched in with 5 EUR on average - I got shat on and talked to like I'm some sort of really, really stupid evil person.
It's convenient that the second part of the comment were masked as "helpful", but it doesn't negate the condescending first part. Now I'm done, go crap all over someone else.
I had Aglaea on block for awhile to give us both a break from annoying one another. But pretty much the same day I took her off, we are back in the same place where she's furious because she thinks I'm twisting her words and blaming her. So back on block again, and I will probably leave it that way. Aglaea I would really advise you to do the same and put me on block so I can't bother you. Some people are just oil and water and why fight it?So to other people in the thread for future reference I can't see what Aglaea is saying any more so silence does not mean consent or agreement.
@Sara, I thought the trend was changing? like the expression that nowadays we listen to politicians to laugh and to comedians to think of serious things. idk if george carlin is a good example, because i do recall some ableism/fat phobia and he made fun of religion, but he was definitely less problematic than moran in the monologues i've seen.
Mod
@Bunny: the 50 page rule is an interesting one. I guess it also all depends on what you're reading for, and what your criteria are. That rule probably wouldn't work for me. But I can see that it would be a useful tool for others!
I've said it before, I absolutely condemn the things that Moran says that are exclusive. I think those points are up for debate, and we can discuss them without one side being considered "white feminists." I find myself analyzing these moments in the text most of all, not necessarily to find reasons to forgive her for them, but to make sure I am fully understanding them in context. I respect others for having personal reasons that certain words are completely off limits, but that's not my policy. I don't go around using words likely to offend people, but in my reading, I try to keep an open mind and examine why certain words are chosen. As I've said elsewhere, people deciding not to read a book is perfectly fine, but it does, to some extent, seem that there is a level of judgment being directed toward those who have been able to see the good in this book, and I think it's important to simply recognize that it doesn't mean they've ignored the bad. Like Bunny said, it is entirely possible to see both and still engage with the text on both a critical and conversational level.
Well for me certain words are more a symptom than a problem in themselves. This book is not intersectional, Moran doesn't care about intersectionality. @Bunny I haven't watched the video you posted, but I do know that Moran is not open to this criticism and has for example blocked people for tweeting her about her usage of "tranny" and "retard". I did say I see very few people (who liked the book) that actually understand the criticism and don't get [too] defensive. You're certainly one of them, Katelyn ;) I'm mostly bothered by comments like "she's funny and awesome, I enjoyed it. of course i disagree with some of her opinions but that's normal", implying that the rest of us are overreacting. also likely implying they'll recommend it to their friends without noting the concerns about intersectionality.
Basically, if you're not the problem then you're not the problem :-)
BTW do you see any reasons besides her "style", carelessness and lack of intersectionality? It's pretty clear that she loves so-called bad words, but by using them she often either ignores or appropriates oppression (if she's privileged in this dimension, as a cis person with no disability). I do think that women can choose to use words like slut or bitch, though they should also be aware if for example WOC get a label disproportionally often (like the stereotype of a "angry black woman").
also, these words are more than fine in fiction (mostly in direct speech). in a memoir, though??? let alone one that encourages (some) people to be feminists.
Oh I agree Moran is not at all open to criticism. I was just pointing out that toward the end of that video there is an awesome example of some people who actually ARE doing it pretty well. So if we wanted to do better there are better role models out there.
But OMG this thread has helped me realize where my own negativity comes from. Over the past couple of years I've read several books that bothered me in this regard - a Finnish musician's book which is basically a compilation of blog posts (my review is in Finnish) and also Romanian and Czech fairy tales, which I read for language learning purposes. I didn't really have anyone to discuss these with so I've kept these feelings inside for a long time. And what horrifies me most is that I know I had read a lot of such stuff before, and it didn't bother me (or at best I couldn't pinpoint what was annoying or upsetting me).So that's my sigh of relief then.
As for comedians, I mostly meant that I love when they make fun of racist, sexist or homophobic people (etc). Rather than of the groups that are already marginalized.
Aglaea wrote: "Rome wasn't built in a day. It was done in increments. But they got there eventually.One has to choose one's battles, and unless we sit inside another human's head, we can't know exactly all the ..."
That's a fantastic idea Aglaea. However, with all things in the world, there needs to market for it. A kickstarter gets the book in print, and then there are distribution and marketing costs to worry about. A lot of well-known publishers already have wide networks and entrenched connections through which a publication sees the light and is read. Consider majority of the people, including this group and others on Goodreads, how many will actually read a book not vouched for? Many a times, we (myself included) would purchase a book if its a bestseller or has won an award (/is nominated) or has great ratings.
Therefore, books written by POC go unread as widely as those compared to Western others, in particular those of women.
Fiza wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Rome wasn't built in a day. It was done in increments. But they got there eventually.One has to choose one's battles, and unless we sit inside another human's head, we can't know e..."
I think it's quite frequently that self-published authors give a book away for free for the first x number of days when it's launched. Before that they have posted ads in social media, including here on Goodreads, so that they will be found. I'm under the impression that mainstream publishers aren't as savvy yet, but they choose to do marketing as they have in the past. (And it kills me to hear of containers full of paper books to be burned when bookshops send the unsold books back - something is very very wrong with that industry still.) I suppose I just wanted to encourage people to think outside of the box, because the readers truly are there :)
Hm, I've written a whole sermon in the "what's intersectionality" thread, but after reading this one, I am wondering if I rather should have posted part of it here.*So I thought I would write something short instead, but ended up with another rant... bear with me please...*
I find it a bit depressing how this whole debate about the ‘value’ of Moran’s book and work is discussed in several threads on OSS. My impression is that one the one side there are those who really dislike the book. Among them there are those who didn’t read the book and discouraged others from reading it and those who read it, but now kind of regret it and think it is just a waste of time
On the other hand there are the readers – mainly white cis-women like me – who appreciated the book. Among them are those who just can’t stand any criticism of the book and those who say it is okay to criticise it, but in the end seem to the think that the criticism doesn’t really have to be taken seriously.
There seems to be little middle ground – very few commenters (most prominently Katelyn as a Moderator) – have argued from a middle ground. The debate about the book and about her twitter feed seems oddly polarized.
One side is accused as being ‘too defensive’ and the other one as being ‘overreacting’. Hell, maybe you are both right. I think it could be helpful to assess why people get very defensive and why people might be overreacting.
While I share the criticism of Moran’s lack of intersectionality and inclusiveness wholeheartedly (I wrote about my own criticism in that other thread on intersectionality…), I too got a bit defensive when reading the comments in that “appreciate it for what it is” thread. And I am not the only person reading several threads on this. There have one-on-one debates crossing thread borders and people reacting furiously in this thread might have read other ones before… In the “appreciate it for what it is thread” as well as in this one it seemed to me that the more extreme parts on both sides just haven’t acknowledged each other’s realities:
Yes, it can be annoying to read another book by a white cis-woman when you really would like to see a more diverse crowd of people getting published and talked about as much as Caitlin Moran’s work has been talked about. Yes, hers is a pretty narrow take on feminism.
On the other side, it is annoying to have not too many female role models as a cis-woman – women who speak up, who are not afraid to be loud, funny and maybe even brash – and get the impression that as soon as one emerges, she is totally crushed by people who look down on you because in their eyes you have the wrong definition of feminism.
There should not be a mandatory marching order for the fight for equality. ‘Cis-women first and the rest will take some time’ is total bullshit as far as I am concerned. However, I also want us to acknowledge that Lena Dunham writing and making Girls, Caitlin Moran publishing “How to be a woman”, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler and Amy Schumer getting influential is some serious progress. With a very autonomous emphasis on ‘some’ and ‘serious’ each. At the same time, it is a total shame that pop culture is still dominated by white people who fit the gender binary – and still mostly men. One doesn’t negate the other. (And we aren’t even talking about the political domain where everybody other than white cismen are of course still dramatically underrepresented.)
I think Moran’s tweet was put very badly – so badly that it is actually kind of insulting. She is taking her blunt, brash way of putting things very far and I think sometimes too far. She is getting divisive, sounding very much as if she doesn’t care about whether WOC are being equally heard and represented. I still give her the benefit of the doubt though. In that Youtube interview Sarah posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtFT7...), in the very end she is ‘asked’ (truly an overstatement given the annoyed apathy of the interviewer) about the issue of this thread. She says:
“I say if Lena Dunham wants to write a show about spoiled white girls in New York because it is semi-autobiographical, that’s her experience that’s what she knows about, those are the jokes she feels comfortable about making that then you can do that. We cannot say that you are not allowed to just simply talk about your personal experience. She is not a perfect person, but she says some incredible things and is an inspiring person for generations of people who will come along and make incredible shows – that have been liberated by the template that she has put on[?] I just see a lot of female bloggers that are thirteen or fourteen going: “I am a feminist and I want to write about these things, but I see that if you make one mistake, you will have come everybody come down on you. Now, that’s not conducive to building a political movement and changing society and changing culture. There is so much work to be done in the world and I got two teenage daughters and I can’t have them deal with a third of the shit that I dealt with at their age, because it would just break my heart to have them be told the things that I was told and to go through the experiences I went through, so I really am on a mission to make sure that by the time they go to university *laughs* the world is perfect. *laughs*”
Now, I think you could (and probably should) criticise the first part of her statement by saying that yes, Lena Dunham should be allowed to talk about her personal experience, but when she has that platform, she should also take into account her own privilege and get people involved who are less heard and raise awareness about issues beyond her own very personal experiences. (As I understand it, even Lena Dunham herself has acknowledged that.)
For the second part about young (white) feminists being silenced or at least discouraged, I would be less critical of Moran. I actually think she has a point. I assume that some of the ‘overly defensive’ reactions were due to the fact that white cis-women want and badly need female role models. I certainly want to celebrate a woman as outspoken, funny and clever as Caitlin Moran. I felt empowered by parts of her book, not only the chapter about abortion was empowering. (view spoiler) this can be empowering. Maybe not for everybody, but apparently to the ‘overly defensive’ people – I would guess that’s what they want to defend. (I do not think that their reaction must only be due to fragility, but that’s another thread.)
To this point I would like to quote an article by Lily Bolouran that was linked earlier (I think by Marina): ‘For women of color, being labeled “slightly overweight” by a white male-dominated industry, where beauty is often defined by whiteness, is not the foremost issue in our lives. If that is the issue that consumes their time. must be nice for feminists of privilege.’ Now, that just sounds to me like she is trying to set off the downsides of being a white woman in the patriarchy to being a woman of colour in the patriarchy – all in a racist society. Of course intersectionality is a thing, of course it is terrible that WOC are at least doubly discriminated against – but how does this make discrimination against white women any better or supposedly comfortable? Why is it suddenly no longer a real problem, a valuable reality, to be discriminated against as a white woman? Would it be a problem again if the white woman was double the size and five times as poor as the woman of colour? When we go down this line of argument insanity enfolds… It is not ‘nice’ for feminists of privilege – they live with privilege, however, and they need to acknowledge that. We all need to acknowledge each other’s realities – as well as our own privilege if we have any (and most of us do). This is not a one way street. It is just a street where white women have started driving on and far more WOC are still forced to try to hitchhike. (I might be taking this metaphor too far, but I hope I am getting the main point across…)
I feel the main reason for these debates getting pointlessly heated with nobody being any wiser at the end is that we may not be listening very closely because we are all just too excited to make our own point. Take me for an example – again writing a pointlessly long rant… But really, there is nothing wrong in being radical and excited and having very strong opinions. Go ahead and angrily criticise me if you please. I would just hope that people first get the benefit of the doubt, that we all first listen closely, trying to understand where exactly they are coming form.
That’s what from over the pond (I am in Germany) I wish would happen in American media. Instead, polarization seems to increasingly arrive in Europe again. On migration related issues I already often feel I can’t really talk to people, because after half a sentence they assume I am in some sort of imaginary camp like the ‘doo-gooders’ or the ‘liberalists’ or ‘unrealistic hippies who have no clue’, just because I used a word like ‘vision’ or whatever so they don’t really have to listen to what I am saying. As the debate is getting more heated, I start to see the urge in me to react similarly and to tune out if I have heard certain trigger words. It’s natural and we should all fight it. This is doing us no good in no area of politics and society. It is not really helping anybody but the patriarchy if we angrily label each other as ‘white feminists’, ‘cissexists’ (why not simply stay with the bad old ‘sexist’?) or ‘those radicals who talk down to us’. It is easy, but boring to only really listen to people who have the same opinion as we do. It makes us go banana, a bit fundamentalist and simply dumb over time – no matter what position we start from or how conscious we think we are of our bias anyway.
I really like your comment :)Just to clarify about cissexism - this doesn't mean cis people who are sexist or anything like that. It's much closer to heteronormativity, it's the idea that all people fit one of the two categories, consistent between their chromosomes, genitals, secondary sex characteristics, self-expression etc. For example when a celebrity gets pregnant, the media's obsession with "will it be a boy or a girl" is cissexist. I use this word because she's generally not being actively transphobic, she just generalizes about women and vaginas and periods, which alienates even a subset of cis women. cissexism is what happens when people speak about gender issues but don't bother to put on their trans ally cap (or have none).
(note that i'm cis myself. I encourage everyone who's not very familiar with cissexism to see what actual people who identify as transgender and/or non-binary write about this)
I do think that person was a bit dismissive of thin privilege/fatphobia, thanks for pointing out! This is something that I'm indeed comfortable calling a mistake. In Moran's case it's a whole pattern though. Even a pattern of patterns.
So far there's very little feminism that's not at the expense of something else. But if we agree that feminism shouldn't be about women being better than men, how can we accept ignoring black experiences? making ableist jokes and cissexist generalizations? Why is it generally a higher priority to make feminism fun and encourage men to be feminists?
As for girls' magazines, I think it's very difficult to discuss this topic without resorting to "not like other girls". Did Moran succeed? Feminism should be about choices. Just like you're not a bad feminist for wanting kids, you're not a bad feminist for wanting a new handbag :) Just don't judge others if they don't care.
As long as it doesn't harm other people, of course.
Donika wrote: "Hello Everyone!I get how this tweet, when taken out of context, can be shocking... But I read "Moranifesto" and I feel like some of the reactions here are a bit exagerated.
First of all, let's jus..."
Great take on the context and overall message. I wasn't familiar with the article or tweet and you provided great insight into the perspective Moran was taking. This is a classic problem women place on other women in all kinds of realms- feminism, motherhood, etc. There is no perfection and we are ridiculous to expect it.
Sarah wrote: "@erika she was asked a question about it in this interview:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtFT7..."
thank you for sharing! I don't know that she totally addresses it, but I feel like that is kind of the best she is going to do
Amanda wrote: "I want to know what you guys think—there's been a lot of discussion about how this month's author is exclusive in her feminism. I was looking through articles about Moran and came across this tweet..."Amanda wrote: "I want to know what you guys think—there's been a lot of discussion about how this month's author is exclusive in her feminism. I was looking through articles about Moran and came across this tweet..."
It is statements like this that made me quit the women's center in college. "is this the sort of author we should be reading?" All woman are allowed their own point of view. I certainly don't agree with everything Moran writes in her book but it is entertaining and her point of view as a woman. If you want other points of view, write a book and we'll read it!
There is no black and white in the world, but everything is grey. But that doesn't mean we can't critizise or not like somebody.I haven't read the whole book yet, but I must say that I really think it is bad to "give a shit about poc." I mean, if we are realistic, white people are the minority. I know that not everybody can include EVERYTHING, but to not include pocs is a big omission. I mean, we don't ALL have to fight for it, but we at least have to acknowledge the problem, and help in the one or the other way to further solve the problem. We don't have to actively fight it, but we shan't further encourage inequalities.
Please, do consider what I said from the point that I'm white( therefore privileged in one way at least), an Austrian resident and 19. I hope by saying this, you will better understand my arguments.
MeerderWörter wrote: "There is no black and white in the world, but everything is grey. But that doesn't mean we can't critizise or not like somebody..."
Well put.
Donika wrote: "Hello Everyone!I get how this tweet, when taken out of context, can be shocking... But I read "Moranifesto" and I feel like some of the reactions here are a bit exagerated.
First of all, let's jus..."
Don't know "Girls" (not gonna watch it tbh, because HBO Shows suck IMO - and this sounds like the typical let's get us some ratings, let's be provocant), however, reading the description it sounds like a situation in which she couldn't win.
If she were to include a PoC character they would point out how x* is attributed to PoCs.
*Insert any taboo topic for x: Abortion, Adultery, Masochism, Sadism, Homosexuality, whatever...
there's also the option of making your POC as diverse as the white characters and having more than one token POC...
Marina wrote: "there's also the option of making your POC as diverse as the white characters and having more than one token POC..."Sure, they could, but if they wanted to, they would begin with hiring PoC writers in the first place - which I don't think will happen anytime soon.
However, I'm not sure if can blame anybody for not wanting to get into this discussion - although her choice of words could have been better.
Then again, her choice of words could, judged by her tweets, be better, period (she really doesn't seem to know what "literally" means).
https://twitter.com/caitlinmoran/stat...
where Caitlin remarks that she "literally couldn't give a shit" about the lack of WOC in an interview she did. I don't know the context of the interview, but does anyone else? I wonder if she's the kind of author we should be reading in a group that strives to be as inclusive as possible.