You know, part of me is grateful to Nina Power, author of One Dimensional Woman, for writing that my “desperate,” “tired” feminism is nothing more than consumer-friendly navel gazing. Seriously! Because Power’s criticism is indicative of a larger feminist elitism that is stunting the growth of the movement ““ and now I have a good excuse to write about it.
I came across Power through this Guardian book review:
She has harsh words, too, for upbeat “consumer”/”self-help” feminists such as Jessica Valenti, who subsume “the political and historical . . . under the imperative to feel better about oneself”. In this logic, “Almost everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ ““ shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate” ““ and feminism is sold as the “latest must-have accessory”.
First of all, why anyone wouldn’t want feminism to be the latest must-have accessory is beyond me ““ because that would be awesome. If fighting for gender justice were as popular as jeggings, women would be in pretty good shape. (Sadly, they would still be wearing jeggings.)
In any case, I found it hard to believe that anyone familiar with my work would write that I adhere to an anything-goes kind of feminism (since I frequently argue the opposite), or rely on hackneyed depictions of younger feminists as always-shopping pole-dancers, so I checked out excerpts from Power’s book myself to see if her words were taken out of context. Yeah, not so much.
Stripped of any internationalist and political quality, feminism becomes about as radical as a diamanté phone cover. Valenti “truly believes’ that feminism is necessary for women “to live happy fulfilled lives’. Slipping down as easily as a friendly-bacteria yoghurt drink, Valenti’s version of feminism, with its total lack of structural analysis, genuine outrage, or collective demand, believes it has to compliment capitalism in order to effectively sell its product. When she claims that “ladies, we have to take individual action’, what she really means is that it’s every woman for herself and if it is the Feministâ„¢ woman who gets the nicest shoes and the chocolatiest sex, then that’s just too bad for you, sister.
What I find most offensive is that the premise of Power’s book assumes that no one (except her, of course) has been doing the hard thinking and research necessary to tackle issues of sexism. Yet in her mean-spirited criticism, Power cherry picks quotes and makes sweeping generalizations that indicate she’s either not done very good research or deliberately ignored the bulk of my work.
In fact, in the same breath that Power bemoans the lack of deep thinking and context in contemporary feminism, she manages to limit the scope of my work to some quotes in a Guardian article and the first few pages of Full Frontal Feminism. She conveniently omits the fact that I co-founded Feministing, a community of more than 600k people a month who have successfully rallied around issues like reproductive justice, media accountability, and legislation (collective demand, anyone?), co-edited Yes Means Yes (genuine outrage if I ever saw it) and wrote The Purity Myth, a, yes, structural analysis of the way American religious, political and cultural institutions use women’s sexuality to limit their rights. My bonafides go far beyond pointing out that feminism can be fun, but that wouldn’t support her thesis and therefore goes unmentioned. It’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Power’s focus on FFF and things I’ve written evangelizing feminism to younger women is telling. (If you’re not familiar with the book, its purpose was to make feminism more accessible, so the writing style is conversational.)
A common critique of FFF, and of Feministing when it first started, was that they weren’t “serious” enough. For some reason, some people think that if you’re making feminism palatable or giving it mass appeal, you must be doing something wrong. Better that feminism is limited to an elite few, and that anything written about gender justice is reserved for those lucky enough to go to grad school or who live in a world where feminism is readily available and discussed often.
Power also takes issue with me being too “upbeat”, and suggesting that feminism can make women’s lives better. (We like our social justice movements dour, not joyful!) By ignoring how important and transformational it can be for women to see the world through a feminist lens and recognize everyday personal inequities, Power disregards how this kind of individual realization often leads to collective action and activism.
Are theory and political history important? Of course. But there’s more than one feminist project and accessibility, substance and radical thought aren’t mutually exclusive (something Power would know had she read my books or or any of the amazing blogging at Feministing). A huge part of my work has been creating entry points for young women to become involved in the movement; I’ve made deliberate, strategic choices about the language and tone I’ve used in my writing and the topics I’ve covered. And guess what? That shit works.
Thanks to that approach and the incredible people I blog with, Feministing has over half a million readers from all over the world and our traffic keeps growing. And as proud as I am of my more recent books, it’s FFF that young women email me daily about. They don’t write about how the book made them understand how capitalism and patriarchy support each other (though the book does indeed cover that) – they email me about how they see the world differently, about finally identifying as feminists, and about the joy of having the language to describe the injustices they’ve often felt and seen.
Everybody ““ whether or not they take Women’s Studies, have read Judith Butler or heard of Foucault ““ deserves to have feminism in their lives.
People like Power – who think the only kind of important work being done is in their own head – ignore the reality of women’s lives and eschew the practical thinking it takes to create more feminists and subsequently, more feminist power. But perhaps that’s the point. Because if feminism were available and accessible to everyone, then writers like Power wouldn’t be able to feel so superior.
And that’s what really irks me about this kind of elitism – how some people talk of breaking down power structures while simultaneously using feminist rhetoric to place themselves at the top of a new intellectual feminist hierarchy that does nothing to further justice.
At the end of the day, I don’t want to be part of a feminism that’s so “serious” that only 2% of the population can relate to, or understand it. I’d rather be part of the movement that understands that talking about feminism as cool, fun and interesting is a political act, that something being accessible doesn’t mean it’s not radical (and in fact the accessibility itself may be part of what makes it subversive); and that getting mainstream attention for a marginalized cause is smart. Because the last time I checked, a fairly integral part of progressing a political movement is building popular support.
And, yes, I am proudly someone who tries to convince women that feminism will make their lives better – not only because it’s the truth, but because then those same women go on to change their families, communities and even country. So while Power waxes dishonest about contemporary feminism (it’s not just me she bashes), I’ll continue to be upbeat, accessible and active, and other feminists will continue on with their work – be it academic, online, on the ground, in an organization, or even just in their own personal lives. Not because of any of us believes our way of doing feminism is the “right” way, but because we have a hierarchy of our own: we trump creating change and furthering justice over making ourselves feel more ideologically righteous than the rest of the movement.
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
YouTube
42 Comments
I read the Guardian article and thought, “has this woman read Jessica’s work?” I’m only half way through the Purity Myth, but I’ve read lots of your blogs and….yeah, not so much getting that “consumerism” or “slipping down as easily as a friendly-bacteria yoghurt drink” vibe. Thanks for this response, because your blogs and work have made feminism much more accessible to me, and it’s something I’ve become lots more interested in over the last year. So, keep doing what you do.
I don’t have anything profound to add, just an “Amen!” When I saw the article, I thought something similar to the other commenter – “Has she actually every ready Jessica on Feministing?”
Keep up the good work!
Couple of things (1) isn’t the point of feminism to make women’s lives better? That’s like criticizing a professional sports team for touting the notion that winning is important. (2) It strikes me that not only is Power’s self-righteousness ignorant and condescending, but it’s indicative a larger generation and ideology gap that if younger feminists, or any feminists for that matter, don’t agree with the dominant narrative then we’re either dumb, naive, or confused misogynists. (3) I think the point of Full Frontal Feminism is crucial to getting people involved in demanding more accountability for our needs. One of the most damaging things to some critical movements of our time (including media justice, environmentalism, and even gay rights) is that it doesn’t seem relevant to people who don’t identify themselves as affected. Cheers to you Jessica for actually trying to make a dated, obscure narrative make sense to women who have never attended an all women’s college or had to fight a glass ceiling in a wealthy corporation.
It’s the traditional frame of mind that feminism cannot exist outside the prescribed confines of a handful of early thinkers that is really the disgrace.
Thanks for writing this Jess. Well said!
Power seems to be an example of hegemonic feminism at its worst. Its sad that there are people out there who don’t see the value of diverse discourse within the movement.One thing I would like to see is a critique of how hegemonic feminists contribute to promoting white privilege and class privilege through their elitist bantering.
Exactly! You always know how to put it into words.
This is what has been making me uncomfortable at times with some older feminist professors or writers, where young feminists’ efforts are discredited in favour of framing the youth as a collective disappointment. I feel like there is a growing generational divide, but I hadn’t thought to describe it as elitism. Its like the “who’s a better feminist” game, in the end everyone loses.
Name it, claim it. Thanks Jess!
Kudos to you, Jessica, for your response to Power’s book, and you are right to strive to make feminism accessible to everyone, even if that means writing in conversational style or encouraging personal revelation (which, indeed, may very well lead to community action).
What I take issue with is labeling Power as ‘elitist’ and problematic because of her ‘elitism’. It feels like another Palin-esque bashing of education and highly educated people. I don’t feel that making something accessible to the masses means we have to ‘dumb it down’ for them, and i don’t feel that we should draw a line between feminist discourse that is ‘non-elite’ (i.e., for the masses) and ‘elite’ (i.e., for the grad students, or WS majors, or brainiacs). Feminism on the ground requires some seriously deep thinking, and individual feminist revelation (even teenage-angst-driven) means that you have to think about and deconstruct social structures *while* you are also learning to identify them and recognize their role in your development. Feminism on the ground *is* educating oneself, it *does* make you smarter. We devalue the educative effects of feminism by labeling the more (traditionally) educated among us as ‘elitist’. Yes, not everyone can (or wants to) understand Judith Butler, but why not acknowledge that to take the first step towards understanding your own oppression is to take the first step towards understanding Judith Butler, Power, and all those high-falutin’ feminist thinkers?
Brutal
Don’t you think it’s a bit childish to come back with hollow accusations of elitism instead of solid arguments against Power’s point of view? Who cares if she’s elitist, is she right about your brand of self-empowerment focused feminism or not? And if she’s not, where is the pudding from which we are to get proof?
Aren’t you kind of just playing into her hands when you say that making feminism cool is a major political act ["and you're just an elistist!."] What evidence do you have that you aren’t just making the label of “feminist” cool without necessarily any substantial feminist thought?
@littleshotlarry Pretty much the whole first half of my post disputes her claims about my “version of feminism.”
I don’t know – my whole career? If you follow any of the links, you can decide for yourself if you think my work is substantive. My whole point is that Power didn’t do her homework when it came to the work I do – and clearly, neither did you.
@Anna Banana
I hear you, Anna – and I think you’re right that there’s a thin line when talking about elitism and feminism in academia. I don’t think that theory or academic feminism is elitist in itself; hey I got my MA in Women’s and Gender Studies and theorists have absolutely informed my work. But I think when you deride any kind of feminism that isn’t theory or insinuate that it’s dumb – then that is w/o a doubt elitist.
@littleshotlarry Just one more point…it’s not my job to defend my work in this case, it’s Power’s job to honestly and accurately portray it, if she chooses to write about it.
i cannot *believe* how inaccurately she portrayed your (much needed, much appreciated) career, but damn, you served up QUITE a deserved ass-tossing in return. all points taken — bravo!
Who cares if you aren’t taking feminism “seriously enough” (which I do not at all agree is the case)? You are making it accessible to many women who would maybe never even consider it an option for themselves. On that alone I applaud you, and from a journalistic standpoint, I’m appalled at Power’s lack of research and misrepresentation of you. It’s almost like she was looking for a name to attach to her example and thought, “Here’s a young, popular feminist – I’ll use Jessica Valenti!”
“the nicest shoes and the chocolatiest sex”
lol
i think this is just some good old fashioned british grumpiness coming through. i love nina tho!
Ms Valenti,
It sounds like Nina Powers hurt your feelings because she dissed your website, and this whole article reads like a tantrum by an 8 year old, rather than a serious ideological article by a college educated grown woman.
Perhaps it’s time to learn how to take constructive criticism – because not everybody in life is going to be a cheerleader for you, and oftentimes it’s PRECISELY those folks you can learn the most from, if you can get over your hurt feelings.
@Gregory, perhaps you need a bit of reading comprehension help. Part of my point is that Power didn’t even MENTION my website – which is not only the bulk of my work, but also flies in the face of her argument that my “version of feminism” is not substantive – let alone “dis” it. Asking for intellectual honesty is a pretty simple thing…
As for learning how to take “constructive criticism” – I’m all for it! I take a good deal of it often online and off. But there’s nothing constructive about misrepresenting someone’s work, or deriding them using tired stereotypes of young feminists pole dancing and the like.
On “hurt feelings.” There are websites out there that have photoshopped my face to look like there’s ejaculate on it, blogs that have called me a whore, people who have threatened me with rape and death. I’ve been dealing with harassment you couldn’t imagine for over five years – someone criticizing my work is like a fucking warm bath at this point.
(Also, I just have to point out that two commenters have called this post “childish” which is pretty much one the top ten go-tos in sexist dismissals. I’m pretty sure it’s right behind ‘hysterical’.)
Jessica- I just submitted my application to the WMST graduate program at Rutgers last night and wrote in my personal statement about how YOU specifically, with Feministing and your books, have made me feel reconnected to the feminist community I left when I graduated from Vassar in the spring and inspired me to pursue as a career what I’d originally only seen as a set of beliefs.
“Everybody – whether or not they take Women’s Studies, have read Judith Butler or heard of Foucault – deserves to have feminism in their lives.” You couldn’t have put it better.
My whole point is that Power didn’t do her homework when it came to the work I do – and clearly, neither did you.
Yeah but, to be fair, you haven’t actually read her entire book, only excerpts and a review, so it’s a bit pot-kettle-black at this point. In fact if you read the whole thing you’d realise she’s far from elitist, and the commenter who thinks she is a ‘hegemonic’ feminist would realise that this doesn’t even vaguely characterise her approach. Considering the text is written by an academic philosopher it is nothing short of amazingly accessible and conversational, and most reviewers have picked up on precisely this point.
Quite seriously, I would like you to read you responding again after reading Power’s book in earnest. It might be an interesting discussion.
Yeah. It kind of irks me that anyone would criticize Jessica for being too light, or too upbeat. I found myself in the bookstore a few weeks ago in the gender studies section (which doesn’t really have that many books, but does carry the purity myth and yes means yes), reading “the essential feminist reader”. Essays from Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan and other important feminist voices filled the pages, and I found myself struck with this kind of down and depressed feeling. I realize that in order to understand a movement like feminism, to ignore (for lack of a better word) seminal feminist works like The Feminine Mystique would be wrong, but I think it is so crucial for young women to have a sense of hope; I think Jessica’s brand of feminism helps to give us just that. I think that feminism should be about empowerment. How can any woman feel empowered when she is constantly bombarded with what is wrong with the world, without also being taught how to transform that world? I don’t know. I just think it’s really important to stress that feminism doesn’t always have to focus on the bad.
I can only agree with the quote above as a description of most of the Feministing website.
BUT – Yes means Yes is one of the best books I have ever read in my life and everybody should read it. Shame Nina Power obviously hasn’t. I have yet to read Full Frontal Feminism and The Purity Myth, and look forward to them.
From what you have shown here it seems that Power is scapegoating you a whole website, and that just ain’t fair!
“In this logic, “Almost everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate†– and feminism is sold as the “latest must-have accessoryâ€.”
Dear Ms. Power,
bell hooks has covered the “if feminism is everything it means nothing” arguement already and her answer is “feminism is the end to sexist oppression.” And she doesn’t bitch about which-ending-of-the-oppression is the best.
Now, if you read some feminist theory, you’d know that.
Sincerely,
Athenia
Anyway, it sounds like she has problems with popular media and marketing rather the actual feminist community. People, left, right, middle etc want to use feminist language because it’s so un-PC, and not cool not to. Those are the people who haven’t read any theory, so attack them, my dear.
Feminism is cool? Where can I get some? Will it go with my shoes?
The funny thing is, One Dimensional Woman isn’t *elitist* in the slightest, it’s completely accessible. Aren’t you just attacking the book because the author is an academic? Do you not worry that by rebranding feminism as something hip you might be playing into the hands of consumerism? I understand that making feminism appealing to young women is important, but I think that maybe this is what Nina Power is worried about, the idea that buying vibrators and so on is somehow feminist. What do you think?
Let me second one of Casely’s points: the line “Everybody deserves to have feminism on their lives” is one of the simplest, most beautiful statements about politics and empowerment I have ever heard.
@Casely, aw – that’s awesome!! Best of luck with Rutgers!
@Sarah It’s not the book I’m calling elitist – from what I read of it (all I could on Google Books, a good deal) I think it’s well written and definitely accessible. It’s the idea that there’s only one correct (academic) way to do feminism that I find problematic and elitist. And I would never attack something just because the author is an academic!! I have nothing but love for feminist theory.
I think there’s an argument to be made about whether making feminism too mainstream plays into consumerism – and I think you see a lot of that in terms of the way feminism has been appropriated by consumer culture (think Pussycat dolls, Dove). But to my mind, that’s been a really strategic move by companies who realize feminist rhetoric is appealing to women – it’s not the same thing as feminists who are trying to make feminism more accessible.
And just to be clear – I’m not arguing (nor do I do so in my books) that we should start calling everything feminist just because women do it. If you read FFF, for example, I make pretty standard feminist arguments (pro-choice, anti-violence, pro-intersectionality, etc), I just write it with an informal tone – that’s a far cry from touting pole dancing and such as feminist.
When I read the article by Power I knew she was not telling the whole story about your work. One of the reasons that I like your books is that you do break it down and make it easier to understand and therefore more accessible to people like me who are in high school and might not yet know about all of the academic theory’s (yet, I really want to major in women/gender studies). High schoolers do deserve to know about feminism and have it in there lives. And to have it in there lives they have to understand it first.
I don’t think One-Dimensional Woman thinks there is only one way to do feminism; I think it’s more that there’s a suspicion that it’s convenient that certain kinds of feminism end up defending the kinds of attitudes that are useful for certain kinds of jobs – well-groomed, positive and so on. The book is more an attack on capitalism than it is on you: it’s also a polemic, funny and well probably grumpy in that British way someone mentioned before. Power also says nice things about your piece on Sarah Palin in the first part of the book. Isn’t your annoyance more that it’s unfair to focus on one book of yours rather than all the books and the website? I’m not sure it is unfair, you can write a critical response to one book if it is also supposed to stand on its own terms, can’t you?
@RDP
Well, I’m writing a post about one specific criticism – she wrote a book in which she characterizes (or mischaracterizes, more accurately) my entire “version of feminism.” Those are quite different things.
Yes, but part of the argument of your post relies on moaning that Power hasn’t read enough of your work to make certain judgements, and I’m sure you can see the irony here…
I seriously think you should buy the book, and I think many readers of your blog would be interested to see what you think of it as a whole. All proceeds go to the Fistula Foundation, so you don’t have to worry about whose pockets you’re lining. I’m sure you’d have more to say about Power’s arguments, which range much more widely and have quite a different tenor than you’d think from reading some of comments above. Like Sarah says, it’s funny and grumpy… and not exclusively horrible about you!
What?!
Reading about feminism in accessible ways such as Feministing and Feministe were 100% of why I soon after got into serious feminist theory.
Yeah, I certainly can’t buy that feminism should NOT be inclusive! How the heck does she expect anything to change in society as a whole if only the intellectual few are involved in making those changes? Isn’t it just common sense that the more of us who become enlightened and involved (including *gasp* men!) the more likely things will change for the betterment of us all? This woman obviously has her dour elitist head pretty far up her own derrière and really just wants to swim in her little word of idealism and judgment instead of make real changes that the whole of humanity can benefit from.
This whole thing is very unfortunate, as there are some substantive issues at the core of the feminist project that could be debated fruitfully between Power and Valenti. It seems that this could eventually become a much needed re-hashing for a new generation of the merits of radical vs. liberal feminism.
First we need to get past the superficial mischaracterizations, Valenti is not substance-free, as Power wrongly asserts. But Power is hardly an elitist, nor is she “not young” as those who claim she’s attacking “young feminists” don’t seem to understand. She’s not angry at “young feminists,” she’s angry at what she sees to be fruitless, unsubstantial feminism. While you may disagree with her take, it’s not a stupid thing for feminists to be worried about the types of feminism that are out there.
I hope a real debate can emerge from this, with honest appraisals of the core theories and practices that define each thinkers’ vision for feminism. Valenti has wisely begun that here, with a detailed defense of where precisely she believes her work is possessed of the things Power says it lacks: “structural analysis, genuine outrage, or collective demand.” I hope fans of Valenti will focus more on this substantive defense, and dig into the reasons Power might find that defense lacking, rather that mischaracterizing Power in return, or simply casting her off. In the end, I think both Valenti and Power might have a bit to learn from the other, and we’d all be better off to witness such an exchange.
Hi Jessica,
I wanted to say thank you for writing FFF and making feminism more accessible to a younger generation. I read FFF when I was in highschool and it was a great introduction to a social movement that I am very active in, and daily I educate my peers on the importance of gender equality within our society, Yes, FFF was easy to read, but that is why it was so appealing at such a young age. My generation needed a book like that.
I think you deserve a big pat on the back, for helping me and my peers discover a better way of life. I am now a women’s studies major in college, and on the way to helping other young women find a way to fight back in a male dominated society that tells them that they aren’t good enough.
Thank you for opening the door to a better life for me and other young women my age.
You have made a significant impact, and don’t let these elitist women make you ever think otherwise.
@Nikoel
How the heck does she expect anything to change in society as a whole if only the intellectual few are involved in making those changes?
As should be obvious, she doesn’t. Read the book for yourself.
Her response to your response is ridiculous. She clearly STILL hasn’t done her research.
I don’t know, I think she sounds quite friendly. I think Nina and Jessica should have a debate! There’s an interest post on this site about the misunderstandings between US and European feminism here: http://anodynelite.blogspot.com/2010/01/american-feminism-is-not-monolith.html
Why doesn’t Nina review The Purity Myth and Jessica One Dimensional Woman? I’d read that.
“Why doesn’t Nina review The Purity Myth and Jessica One Dimensional Woman? I’d read that.”
Actually, I’d like to see Nina review ‘Yes means yes’, too, but all-in-all, I think this is a very good idea.
Power’s sourpuss attitude towards Jessica’s work (aimed at young women) reminds me of the common 2nd-waver complaint that either 1) there are no young feminists or 2) if there are young feminists, they don’t appreciate or comprehend the work of the 2nd-wavers enough. I guess I’m saying it sounds generational.
Also, Anna Banana above mentioned that it’s anti-intellectual to even discuss making feminism more accessible because the suggestion that academic jargon may be exclusionary creates a divide between grad school feminists and everyone else. (Which I guess hurts the feelings of academic feminists?)
I view using accessible language an imperative. Multi-degreed feminists enjoy great educational privilege, and it is incumbent upon them, if they care about feminists outside of their in-group and who lack their educational privilege, to bend over backwards to ALWAYS use accessible language.
Academic jargon hurts feminism. Feminism is a people’s movement. If not, I want out. To argue that academic jargon is sometimes okay is to argue that there are parts of feminism that are just too complicated for “the people” to understand, and it doesn’t matter because they would never understand those concepts anyway.
Additionally, if you examine which sections of the population are over-represented in the upper echelons of education, and which are under-represented, you begin to uncover the cause of the stereotype of the “white college-educated middle class” feminist.
Looking at these comments, I’m wondering if anyone has read Baumgardner & Richards’ “Manifesta”–yes, it was written in 2000 before blogging, vlogging, etc. really took off, and its a bit too caught up in the language of second/third waveism than I would like, but there’s an interesting portion of the book dedicated to what I think Power and Valenti are arguing about: today’s feminists are, according to our foremothers, ‘not serious enough.’
The notion that today’s feminists are doing something wrong because we haven’t necessarily established a unifying discourse is preposterous, least of all because the WST classes I’ve taken so far lead me to believe that actually, we’ve never been able to establish a unifying discourse. I think it’s precisely this sort of Gen X bashing that damages feminism’s otherwise healthy debates. How is personally attacking Valenti’s feminism doing anything to help further the movement, and, moreover, if Power is suggesting that NOT making feminism accessible is her goal, I want no part of her personal discourse.
I think Valenti did a lovely job defending her position. As someone who subscribes to academia, I’m still all for accessibility.
I don’t understand this, isn’t the point of feminism that we support each other. Isn’t the point that we live and let live with the option to help empower other women and make a movement to overcome gender issues? Why is it that if the goal is the same different paths can’t be taken? I don’t understand how people expect to make progress at all when they are fighting amongst each other instead of fighting the injustices that women face.
can i just say that this is appalling! There is NOTHING wrong with making feminism more accessible. In fact, if more people tried to make feminism accessible how Jessica does, there would be a lot more avid supporters, especially younger ones. FFF was the first book i had ever read on the subject of feminism, and it opened me up to an entirely new way of thinking. Thank you, Jessica.