Oh, I was hoping you would be smiling in it. But still it is lovely.

Jessica, I really respect your intelligence and your abilities as a writer, as well as all the great work you do here. So I really do hate to say something negative before the book is even out, but I do want to demur a little bit on the cover. The title, though perhaps a little saucy for my tastes, is I think fine because it has a double meaning, a sexy one and a confrontational one. But the cover picture just looks to me like Objectification 101. I don't see any of the ironic reappropriation of the obscenely gesturing mud-flap girl. (Maybe if the belly-button had at least been an outie.)

Again, I'm sure it will be a great book, I just think you're too intelligent to need that kind of marketing. But, quite seriously, feel free to dismiss this as the dyspeptic rumblings of a gingivitic insomniac. And, again quite seriously, I freely admit to being probably the biggest prude ever produced by "the male species," to paraphrase Gerardo (that's right, of "Rico, Suave" fame). So I may just have the wrong perspective. (Or maybe I'm just upset that you didn't pick picture #3.) In any case, I want to end by underlining again that I think it will be a great book, and my dyspeptic rumblings have nothing to do with the content.

Cool--when's it coming out? (Make sure to send Ann althouse plenty of smelling salts first...)

I have to agree with hera about the cover. I'm a little uncomfortable with it. However, since it's a) unlikely indicative of the feminist nature of what's between the covers, b) has the potential to draw in readers who might pass on a more, eh, "demure" cover, c) owns that sexuality is in fact entirely feminist and d) suggests that women should be proud (not ashamed) of their bodies, I can get behind it nonetheless.
Also, given the title, you could have conceivably gone with a pair of giant breasts (with the nipples strategically covered by the lettering).
I'm sure Althouse would have loved that.

You know, I figured some people wouldn't love the cover. But I'm really trying to reach out to younger women who are freaked out by the "f word" and who aren't all that familiar with feminism. I think that an edgy cover is a good way to grab their attention.

That said, I'm hoping folks will like the content of the book more than the cover... :)

I'm not that crazy about the cover either. Truth be told, I don't like it. I do like your explanation of your choice though: younger women who are freaked out by the word feminism would probably NOT be freaked out by the cover.

It still doesn't totally reconcile my own freak-outedness, but I respect your choice (and its risk) and understand that the book isn't necessarily for me.

That being said, I can't wait to read the content!

Just to counterbalance the reactions here, I really, really like it.

I am personally exploring the class action false advertising angle concerning the front title/cover.

As for grabbing attention, I would have suggested maybe a group picture of young feminists of all body types and colors... clothed, of course, in their everyday wear.

Whitney is mostly right here. The purpose of the title and cover illustration is not to live up to any movement's ideals, but to sell more copies of the book.

I love it.

Feminism with alot of 'tude.

It is ironic because young women are already superexposed like this and reappropriating it with some rad feminism is subversive.

/done with "ironic" and "subversive" trips

I think the cover works. The hand on the hip to me signals a matter-of-fact nudity not a titilating one.

I feel incredibly torn. On the one hand, you are explicitly using a sexualized image of a woman's body as advertising to grab attention. Which is... the sort of thing I would usually see mocked and criticised on this blog. I mean, Althouse is awful, but she thought there's something wrong with photos of women in t-shirts and this site's ironic finger-flipping logo. Here, the pun in the title suggests the image is at least partly *meant* to be a way of using sex to grab attention.

On the other hand, if we didn't live in a society that objectified women's bodies such images would not be degrading, and after all isn't there something sexist about finding a photograph like this to be sexual and offensive, as opposed to just a form of expression that identifies the book with women? And besides, the cover is subversive in that someone prompted to skim the book by it might then see it in a different light. The book's cover might be remembered as an ironic icon of the work.

In conclusion, I look forward to actually reading it. ^_^

I like the cover, and I think it will help draw readers who are new feminism.

* new TO feminism

My problem is not with the nudity but with the fact that it is a standard, conventionally beautiful body, just like the ones on women’s magazines.

I have several reactions to the cover.

Some men will buy book that otherwise might not. To the extent they get past the first few paragraphs, realize it is not a titalating tale, and consume the actual content, that's a good thing.

Some people, looking for serious reading, won't buy the book because the cover and title are clearly sensational.

Some will like what they take to be the irony between the cover and the subject matter. Others will find that obvious and tiresome contemporary marketing.

The cover will get a mention in every book review -- and will be featured in the negative reviews.

On a personal level as a 50 year old man I'm quite tired of being assaulted by sexual images and phrases used to market everything from soup to nuts, but I'm also aware that publishers will do anything to make a book stand out from the crowd. In the end, it's the content not the cover matters.

Go, Jessica, I hope your book is a great success.

I like it a bunch, but then, being a guy I would. Given the popularity of magazines like Vogue, I doubt it will chase off many women readers, and it will definitely catch the eye of most men readers strolling by in the bookstore. Us males should read up on this feminism business too, it's good for everybody.

Okay, here's a completely unsolicited idea for your next book cover. The book could be called "F-bombs," and the cover could feature a fighter jet from WWII with one of the those pin-up girls painted on the nose. But, upon closer inspection, one sees that the pin-up girl is pointing a machine gun or some such thing at the viewer. Then again, this may not be so popular with the rest of the world, which seems to lack my 4:1 ratio of Thanatos to Eros.

A question: do we think men will read this just because it has a picture of an attractive female body on the front? I mean, I know many of them *claim* to read girlie magazines "for the articles" but quite honestly I have doubts about the literacy of many such men. What I can *see* happening is them picking it up, like "oo, shiny" and maybe even buying it, but once it gets into anything too substantive or hard for their pea-sized neanderthal brains, using it as a paperweight.

Not trying to criticize, just saying I'm not sure it will draw in male readers. Although I do agree, interesting enough, it will likely draw in female readers. Just my two cents' worth.

All that said, go Jessica!! :)

I don't know if the book will bring in male readers, but I do think it'll bring in those females who see feminism as a "bad" word. It'll give them an avenue to understand why being a feminist matters and should matter to them. And as the old saying goes, "Don't judge a book by its cover."

I agree with sojourner. The cover makes me very, very sad.

I sympathize with sojourner's point. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the bare skin (I think we go down a weird road when we say nudity in a commercial context is always antifeminist), and I don't think the cover speaks badly of anyone, but this was a missed opportunity to put a real woman's body on the cover. A little bit of pubic hair sticking up at the bottom, if nothing else. A navel ring. A scar. A birthmark. A tiny bit of a paunch. Something. Heck, at least she could have been a woman of color--or a white who didn't have exactly the perfect amount of tan, with no tan lines. I've just never tickled a naked tummy that looks like that. I don't think the vast majority of people have.

So I suppose what I'm saying on this, which happens to be Love Your Body Day, is that while the cover certainly doesn't make me sad, and the person the abdomen belongs to is probably a happy, confident woman we might all be happy to know, it had the potential to make me--and, more importantly, to make a lot of people--happy. It doesn't send a bad message, necessarily; it just doesn't send a good one either. It sends no message. It's not shocking or provocative in any way. If it were your belly, it'd be different, but it's not.

People talked, during the Althouse mess, about your friend in the tank top. I love that picture because there's a woman, a beautiful, confident woman, who actually looks like people I know--no photoshopping, none of that silly stuff, but a real, living, breathing person.

Then again, I don't know how much control you have over cover design. I remember one of my books was going to have a cover that I strongly objected to--I can't say why here, because I'm reasonably sure I signed a confidentiality clause about this--and I had it replaced with one that was much blander, probably cost us a few thousand sales, but one that I felt better about. I almost lost that fight, and if I had, I wouldn't have been at liberty to say so.

I'll still be buying the book and reading the book and helping to draw publicity to the book, anyway; I'm sure that the stuff inside it will be much less bland and cliched than the cover. And I'm sure that given ten minutes, you could easily find some truly great books with worse covers. But you usually do much better than this, and I suppose one of the drawbacks of setting a high bar is that when you thaw out the frozen meatloaf, people are more apt to notice.

Cheers,

TH

(One thing that may take some of the sting off this for some people: The photo is "objectified"--e.g., no face--for a very good reason: Any face would be presumed to be the author's. Most readers casually looking at the book would assume, I suspect, that this is the author's belly, and seen as such, it doesn't send the same kind of message that it would if it were, say, a Calvin Klein ad, because people are going to associate the picture on the cover with the author photo and the text inside and assume they all belong to the same, whole person. So in practice, this is not really a good example of objectification. What it is, I think, is a missed opportunity. But this is only Jessica's first book. Cheers, TH)

Although I expressed dissent above, I think that I "get it" after hearing Jessica's explanation. My sense (although I could be wrong) is that the book is aimed at young women repelled by what they think feminism is, and maybe even young women who aren't especially reflective or critical about "society" or such things. These women would be turned off by even a slight bit of symbolic politics, like a hair or birthmark or what have you. The cover is supposed to look like a generic fashion photo (right down to the white-breadedness), to send the message, you can be a feminist without giving up Vogue and whatnot. Then, once they let their guard down and start reading, whammo! Jessica will radicalize the hell out of them, to the point that they realize that if they wax their hoo-haahs, they're antichristos. Okay, that last part was a joke, but my sense is that the book is aimed at young women who would be put off by a book cover that telegraphs the kind of concerns we've been discussing. It's meant as bait to lure them in.

At least that what I'm extrapolating from what Jessica said above, but I could be wrong.

I'll just quote one of the civil servants in the pilot of Yes, Minister (I think Sir Arnold but I'm not sure). When asked by the Minister's private secretary why the civil service's new memo is entitled Open Government when the civil service intends to implement nothing of that sort, Sir Arnold explains (rough paraphrase) "You always get rid of the difficult bit in the title. It can do less damage there than in the body."

I don't know. I read Jessica's defense, and I understand the point she's making. But I still can't swallow that tired standardized-beauty-pill on this issue. Younger girls who are afraid of the f-word are still seeking validation for the bodies they have - and they most likely don't look like that one. I love the pose, I don't object to the belly-shot, but give it a few more grams of fat or something. I think it can make your point even better without selling out.

Come to think of it, that should be "antichristas" above.

So my take on it is that it almost entirely depends upon at whom the book is aimed. The title and Jessica's explanation seem to indicate that it's for newbies to feminism. Hooray! What a sorely needed book! I can see where Jessica's highly intelligent and engaging writing could really appeal to and affect this audience (amongst other audiences). And I can agree that the cover will not freak I'm-not-a-feminist-but type people out so much.

Too bad, though, that a picture like that is so... culturally uncharged. A picture of a 'real' person would be so political, but fembots are totally normal. I don't know whose body this is and if it actually has been digitally altered, but it looks so similar to the Clinique ads and Target underwear inserts that I assume it is.

I think that this is a good marketing choice, especially concerning the stated demographic, but a difficult compromise. The cover made me, personally, very uneasy, and I admit that I'd likely pass it on the shelves simply because of what I perceive as another brainless (no head!) sexualized woman's body on the cover. That is, if I didn't know that the author was amazing!

However, I think that since this is Jessica's book and she is (we all agree!) a very intelligent and self-aware woman, that there must be more to it than my outsider's perception. Jessica, I really hope to hear more about the book, the cover choice, and the conception of the book. I will most certainly be buying it for myself and then probably passing it on to my little sister, who needs it more than me!

Congratulations, and I really look forward to reading it!

A Young Woman's Guide To Why Feminism Matters. If this is for teens the cover makes sense. I see them at the bookstore or mall and what they read and are into. Teen girls seems shallow, to put it bluntly so I think this will bring results which is what matters.

I like the cover. The picture shows a part of the body that is uniquely feminine -- the curve of the hip. It is a symbol of femininity without being boobs or butt or some other "uniquely feminine" body part that is usually depicted as large, perfectly tanned, barely clothed, and just waiting for the man to come along and get off on it.

I don't mind that the stomach is nice-looking. First of all, I'm not the target audience. I'm already paying attention to these issues. A member of the target audience would look at a too-fat or scarred picture of a stomach and squeal "EEW! Gross! Look at that ugly [scar, fat, whatever]!" and then put the book back on the shelf without reading it. The book won't really do much good if feminists are the only ones who read it.

I'm also a bit perplexed by the implication that if you are publishing something feminist that includes a picture of a body, that it MUST be imperfect. I'm just as sickened as everyone else here about how advertising and the media brainwashes people to think that female bodies must be flawless. But I thought that feminists made it a point to not push women into one box or another.

The only thing that turns me off about the cover is the font. It's not, um, "serious" (I guess) enough for me. But then I'm not the target audience.

why didn't you just call it, a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism.

this is wack.

i'm sorry. the naked torso of a woman is offensive AND the naked WHITE torso of the young woman pisses me off.

I can't say I like the cover because it's too reminiscent of chick lit, and if I saw that cover in a bookstore, I likely wouldn't take any of its contents to heart or buy it. Check it out at a library, maybe, but I wouldn't buy it.

But, since I'm familiar with some of your treatments on feminism, I'll read it before deciding to buy it when it hits the library shelves. (That's actually how I make most of my book selections.)

But piggybacking off Nubian, the very white, very thin stomach on the cover would shut out a significantly large portion of the young women of color demographic.

News flash: we can read, and we wouldn't necessarily identify with that. And if feminism is for all women, a picture like that allows women of color to assume for whom feminism matters and what type of issues the book will probably treat. Just from that picture.

nubian and skyanide, I understand your concerns, but see my comment above about the cover as camouflage (if you're so inclined). I think the cover, including the white-breadedness, is intended to allow it to pass for the sort of advertising that appeals to young women. And I assume even with the disproportionte amount of white skin in such adverts, they're aimed at and effective among young women of color. So I think this cover photo is like a Trojan horse, getting the book into the young ladies' hands. Then, the feminists arguments slip out and hack their attachment to patriarchy to pieces. Well, okay so maybe it's not quite that dramatic or violent. But something like that.

I realize I'm sort of speaking for Jessica here, but that's not my intent. I've just become attached to the theory I presented above (and I'm procrastinating).

nubian - If it was a black torso, would you have called it "A Young BLACK Woman's Guide To BLACK Feminism"? Does the appearance of white skin automatically exclude all other races?

Nubian goes on to explain why "this is wack".

http://blackademic.com/?p=155

I'd love to hear Jessica respond to nubian's complaint, actually, because I think it's legitimate; even if what one wants to do is to appeal to 'young people' (and I understand the need/desire to choose one's audience), why choose to use an actual body at all if part of what that will inevitably do is get fewer people who don't identify as the person on the cover to read the book? Is it worth the 'extra' readers you may get by having something 'edgy' (uh...is bare torso edgy, really?) really worth the readers who are people of color that you will lose?

I'll probably get the book and read it, because I really respect Jessica's opinions and writings, but... please please please change the cover. I'd prefer it to be changed to something else, but even just changing what you've got a leetle bit would at least help -- get a more centered, confrontational angle, not this coy barely-in-the-picture stuff. Put some suggestion of pubic hair where there should be some. Give her an outtie belly button, stretch marks, freckles everywhere, give her -something-. (And maybe make the text a little less doodled-in-my-9th-grade-bio-notebook?) For my part, I kind of wish this could be disposed of entirely and replaced with a much more matter-of-fact cover...

(N.B. -- I'm saying this as a 23 year old, with a fair amount of friends as young as 18. The kinds of marketing that goes on towards my demographic is always condescending and insulting to our intelligence, please please please do not fall into that trap. We are not this dumb).

At the bookstore, I see teens leave Teen People and Teen Cosmo and much worse everywhere. Maybe I haven't talked to many of them lately.

If I were in my teens or early twenties and aware the white cover would hurt my feelings a little. On political awareness, I never see teens or early twentysomethings in the women's studies, ethnic studies or current events section. Feminism is a hard sell.

"why choose to use an actual body at all if part of what that will inevitably do is get fewer people who don't identify as the person on the cover to read the book? Is it worth the 'extra' readers you may get by having something 'edgy' (uh...is bare torso edgy, really?) really worth the readers who are people of color that you will lose?" - jpjesus

This is really interesting. Does the appearance of white skin really mean "people of color" won't read it? Isn't that kind of racist (them, not you)? I can't imagine choosing not to buy a book that would otherwise interest me just because the cover model is a different race then me.

I usually agree with Nubian, but in this case I'm not sure where she's coming from. She says it wouldn't be any better if it had been a woman of color; that being the case, why complain about the model being white? I mean, I happen to think it would have been better if the model had been a woman of color, which is what I would imagine Nubian to be suggesting if she's saying that the issue is that the woman is white. The argument just doesn't make sense to me.

She also seems to be zeroing in on the bare flesh, which also strikes me as weird. The bare flesh is not a problem unless we're supposed to say that the use of women's bare skin in advertising is always antifeminist and always wrong--in which case some of the images on some of the blogs Nubian has linked to, including one that featured a completely nude woman as a background image, would certainly run equally afoul of this standard. As would an image she had on her own site of a person's naked back.

I'm sorry, Nubian, you know I love you and your blog to pieces, but your argument in this case makes no blooming sense to me at all.

Cheers,

TH

It's not about racism; it goes back to what Tom was talking about in the Clinton blogging luncheon comments. If you want non-white people to come to your meeting/read your book, you have to market it to non-white people and make it inviting, not just assume that black women will pick up your book in a sort of tacked-on way after you market it to white women (Jessica, please note, I'm not accusing you or your book of this--as I hope I'm gonna make clear in about a minute!). White people have the privilege of not caring about race, because we have the illusion that it doesn't affect our lives. Black people don't have that luxury; consciousness of the effects of racism is inescapable, so in the same way that I, as a white woman, do not feel included by a movie or ad or book that addresses the plight of "everyman," because I'm not a man, so, I imagine, do black people not feel included by images of "average" or "regular" folks who, surprise surprise, are white.

Part of this is the place of not only privilege but normalcy that dominant groups occupy. We talk about "the man on the street"--"man" is the default, normal setting. Similarly, the default racial setting in our culture is white, and everything else is treated like some kind of deviation from a white norm.

But I can see why Jessica would not want to put a non-white woman's body on her book. As a white woman myself, I would feel like doing that would imply that I consider myself to be able to speak for black, Asian, Latina women, when I have no right to that position. It also would feel like using a black woman's body, for instance, to sell something, would be a kind of appropriation, in that historically, in this country, white people have made use of black people's bodies for their own benefit (white people's benefit), and that's not a dynamic I'd want to be invoking.

Um, by "It's not about racism," I meant to be responding to noname, and saying that non-white people who feel excluded by marketing that uses white models only aren't being racist.

I think nubian didn't care for either the patriarchally prescriptive nudity or color.

"Um, by "It's not about racism," I meant to be responding to noname, and saying that non-white people who feel excluded by marketing that uses white models only aren't being racist." - EG

How could it not be racist? They would be making a decision based purely on the race of the model.

Anyway, it is not a very big deal, so I'll drop it.

Congratulations on the book, Jessica.

"This is really interesting. Does the appearance of white skin really mean "people of color" won't read it? Isn't that kind of racist (them, not you)? I can't imagine choosing not to buy a book that would otherwise interest me just because the cover model is a different race then me."
No, it doesn't mean that people of color won't read it--if people of color restricted what they read to books with covers that didn't depict white people, they'd severely cut the list of things they might read. But I think it does mean that it's likely that fewer people of color will read the book than if there had been no picture of any person on it at all, for instance.

We are visual creatures to whatever degree, and representation means a lot--consciously and subconsciously. You may in fact not use identification in your choice of books to read, but some people do; furthermore, you may think that such imagery has no effect on what you read, but it may very well have a subconscious effect on what you *notice*.

"How could it not be racist? They would be making a decision based purely on the race of the model."

I disagree. They're not making a decision based purely on the race of the model--they're making a decision based on the race of the model within a larger social context that places people of some 'races' above people of other 'races'. They include not only the race of the model, but other facts about the world, such as the fact that white is the default.

(By the way, I'll be buying the book. Complaining about the cover doesn't mean I don't think it is likely to contain lotsa good content. Congrats on the book!)

nubian: i'm sorry. the naked torso of a woman is offensive

The sight of a woman's body offends you. Now there's a Taliban sentiment. Do you bathe in the pitch dark?

AND the naked WHITE torso of the young woman pisses me off.

I'm so God damn sorry to have offended you with my involuntary white-itude.

why do i even bother commenting here? everything that i say is always misconstrued, negated, and eventually called "racist."

i never said this image was racist. i don't tend to use that word lightly, yet, people love to assume that's what i'm always saying.

tom--at this point, i don't care if you love me or not and whether or not you agree with what i say. the point of the matter is, i don't feel that the book cover needs to sexualize ANY female body in order to represent feminism. look at this image--it's so highly sexualized it's insulting. it's not the fact that it is "bare flesh" that upsets me, it is the fact of the ideas that are attributed to that particular bare flesh. in this case, ideas of "real" femininity are once again atrributed to the white body.

but the fact of the matter is, there IS a body on the cover and it is a WHITE body--that is not going to change. therefore, it upsets me that a white female body symbolically represents feminism.

and never once did i want it to be a woman of color on the cover. i don't know where you got that from because those words were never spoken by me.

Jessica - it seems you really don't even need to release the book. Just release the cover and we will all talk about it incessantly. We'll talk about the symbolism of the model and the female form. How maybe you did or didn't have any choice in the cover. And how each of us would have obviously done it better. Maybe later you could release different versions of the same cover and we could talk about how each applies to society from every imaginable view of feminism.

Can't wait to read the book.

Huh. Go away for a day and all shit breaks loose on this thread. Well I'm sorry to all who don't feel like the cover is appropriate or that I'm "selling out" to the patriarchy by having a (white) woman's body part on the cover. I don't agree.

It's one of these situations where I can't make everyone happy. My cover choices were limited as it was, but I think I went in the right direction. I just think it's unfortunate that folks could extrapolate so much about the content of my book through the cover.

To those who are disappointed or who think the cover (and title apparently) sucks: Sorry, I do the best I can every day to make feminism accessible and interesting to younger women and this book is part of that work. If you don't like it, or think I do a poor job, that's cool. I'll continue to do the best I can. Thanks.

For what it's worth, I still love you Jessica (in that I just like reading your website and respect your opinions sort of way).

:)

"My cover choices were limited as it was"

What were your other options?

Given all the kerfuffle over the blogger luncheon photo,I find your choice of cover photo appropriate,as is the title.
I would used the one of you,but your call.

I think the cover, including the white-breadedness, is intended to allow it to pass for the sort of advertising that appeals to young women. And I assume even with the disproportionte amount of white skin in such adverts, they're aimed at and effective among young women of color.

But are those advertisements with white as default effective for the right reasons? Does it reinforce positivity about being a member of any race or having any shade of skin color? Or does it end up elevating one racial standards as the ultimate beauty/intellectual standard?

I mean, unless Jessica has written some kickassed deconstructive essay explaining the symbolism of her cover, I think the point of her using it will be lost on the young women, especially the young women of color. I'm not trying to be denigrating; I'm being realistic.

"It's one of these situations where I can't make everyone happy." - Jessica

That is always the danger of putting something like this out for public consumption. It's all good in the end, though. I figure when one of us publishes a book, we can brag about how much better our cover is. ;)

Hi, Jessica, I'm sorry if any of my comments gave the impression of thinking that you "do a poor job" of anything, or even that the cover "sucks." I, and I expect most of the people raising scruples about the cover/title, were just making some minor points about it, not suggesting that it somehow invalidates anything else you've done, or reflects some kind of feminist crapitude on your part. I know that certainly wasn't my intent, and I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise.

"i never said this image was racist. i don't tend to use that word lightly, yet, people love to assume that's what i'm always saying." - Nubian

Did someone claim that you said this image is racist? Who? Where?

skyanide, I understand and completely agree with you. My only point is, first, I don't think the cover is meant to exclude or turn away young women who aren't white. I obviously don't know the details, but I'm sure the book isn't designed to leave its readers in some sort of mindless enthrallment to mass media and its commodification of women (which includes, or is included by, its commodification of race). So I agree with everything you're saying, I just think that this particular image is meant as a Trojan horse. Like I said above, my sense is that the book is aimed at young women who would be turned off or annoyed by a cover that telegraphed the kind of concerns we're expressing here (which obviously doesn't make them irrelevant or wrong-headed, just not the right ones to foreground on the book cover).

Nubian writes:
tom--at this point, i don't care if you love me or not and whether or not you agree with what i say.

Good to be talking to you again, too.

Frankly, if you're willing to turn against the Feministing team and stab them in the back like this, I don't really want you to acknowledge my support. You have their private email addresses. You didn't have to use this as an opportunity to pull an Althouse and promote your own blog at Jessica's expense.

And enough with the self-contradictory argument. Seriously. Either the fact that it's a white body is a problem or it isn't, but if you say it isn't for the first half of the argument and is for the second, don't throw around racially charged language if someone says that makes no fucking sense--because it doesn't, period, and the fact that I'm a privileged white male doesn't change that fact.

I have backed you up pretty consistently in the past, but you are so far off base here--and with so much cruelty and betrayal thrown in for shits and giggles--that I can't support you, and am frankly beginning to wonder if I had the wrong impression of what you were doing all along. I am an incredibly stupid and gullible man, and my obviously unappreciated loyalty to you and to your blog is Exhibit A.

Cheers,

TH

So...did anyone see that baseball game?

Heraclitus, I'm wondering what those young women would think of the cover once they're influenced by what's inside the book.

Yeah, I see what you mean, skyanide, but I think they could then be critical of it while still realizing that it was necessary to draw them in. I'm sure I would burn with endless shame if I could remember what I was actually thinking when I started reading all the books that have really been influential to me.

What were your other options?

As far as I can tell, the other option was not to publish the book. I happened to meet Lindsay just after the Althouse shitstorm broke. I don't remember the exact words she used to describe how much Jessica fought with her publisher to try getting a better title than Full Frontal Feminism, but "incessantly" and "always" come to mind.

I don't see what's wrong with the title. I do see a problem with the cover photo in that it's a missed opportunity--it's a McBody, basically--but you know, the nastier and more unfair the criticism of Jessica gets, the more it grows on me. If this keeps up, I'll absolutely love that cover by the time the book goes to press.

Cheers,

TH

"So...did anyone see that baseball game?"
aren't the cardnials going to the world series or something like that? ...My roommate was all up in arms.

Okie dokie, first off Nubian's points weren't racist. They were legitamite criticism, imo. Second, this whole thing with 'using a body to attract buyers' is a 'so what?' situation.
Jessica is trying to sell the book to young woman, as a young woman, I'd pick the book up. and the picture matches the title of the book.
Sure there are a million different picuters that could be on the front of the book - but the fact of the matter is, *this* is the one that is there, and it doesn't change the content of the book one bit (which I'm sure is going to be great, and I can't wait to read).
This shit storm that starts up every time a feminist shows her belly button or shaves her legs is down right freaking ridiculous.

Alon, I love the title of my book--I didn't try to fight to get another one.

I've said all I have to say about the cover; I'm not going to discuss what my other options were because this is the option I chose and I stand by it.

I knew that I would take heat for my decision, and all of the things that are being discussed are all things that crossed my mind before. That said, I'm pretty much done on this topic. :)

I appreciate the conversation going on, though, and I think it's an important one--I would just ask that people be respectful of each other.

Heraclitus, thanks for the clarification--I don't feel that way about any one comment, but I appreciate the support.

While I know that a person can't respond fully to every legitimate criticism, and I know that Jessica has responded by noting that she was thinking of her audience when she chose the title and cover, I am still disappointed with the "I knew I would take heat for this but I'm done with this topic" line of thought.

I can't wait to read the book, I love Jessica's posts and look forward to them, but I think it's very strange to ignore a conversation that one thinks is and "important one". If it's important, why not join it? By not engaging in the conversation, there is a sense in which you are implying that nubian's criticisms aren't worth responding to, which seems at the very least dismissive.

jpjesus, I don't know if she's saying nubian's comments aren't worth responding to, just that she's already explained why she chose this cover, and she understands that some people just aren't going to agree with her on it. But that doesn't mean there's much to be gained by thrashing out all the reasons why they disagree. I think she has acknowledged and responded to nubian's criticism and those like it; what else is there to say other than to reiterate the point in ever more excruciating detail?

Another angle is that the book is probably like Feministing which attracts a number of male commenters. Male pro-feminists will have an important role in dismantling patriarchy.

There are twelve male commenters on this thread alone. The feminist blogosphere has succeeded in bringing in allies.

I dunno; I think "A Young Woman's Guide" kind of establishes the target audience for the book, though I of course will be reading it.

Frankly, I find this whole conversation painfully reminiscent of the whole Althouse thing. Feminism should not be about creating some kind of Benedictine code for women who identify with it.

And while I never called Nubian's criticism racist, I do find it hypocritical. She had a muscular naked back on her web site, and once linked to a blog whose background image was photographic full frontal nudity of a woman. But let Jessica put a tummy on the cover of her book, and all hell breaks loose--even if Nubian can't seem to decide whether or not it matters that the belly belongs to a white woman.

I am witnessing in this criticism a certain amount of non-constructive "how dare you"/"you sellout" anger, which is actually par for the course for any blogger who gets a book deal, whether they're blogging sports, politics, or anything else.

I was the recipient of a heck of a lot of that anger back in 2000 when I got my first book deal as an education writer, when I was primarily known as a contributor to distance education forums. It's a nasty dynamic, and if I had my wits about me, I never would have said anything negative--even constructively negative--about the cover. This is a great joy, the book will be a great benefit for feminism, and it will be the start of what I hope will be vastly increased national exposure for Jessica and Feministing. This should be a happy time, and any criticisms that are made should be made gently and with an eye for making things better, not for inflicting unhappiness on a wonderful and conscientious advocate for feminism.

And as I said during the Althouse thing, there is a legitimate discussion that we all could have had if it weren't for the vitriol. What is objectification? When is it acceptable to use a woman's body on the cover of a book? What makes it acceptable or unacceptable? But instead of trying to iron out these issues with mutual warmth and respect, folks have brought out the big heavy clubs and are just very casually bludgeoning Jessica with the "sellout" label. How very depressing, and how very typical of how online communities when a local makes good. A feminist prophet is clearly not without honor except in her home country.

Cheers,

TH

Donna, I count three male commenters. Do you know something I don't?

Cheers,

TH

"And as I said during the Althouse thing, there is a legitimate discussion that we all could have had if it weren't for the vitriol. What is objectification? When is it acceptable to use a woman's body on the cover of a book? What makes it acceptable or unacceptable? But instead of trying to iron out these issues with mutual warmth and respect, folks have brought out the big heavy clubs and are just very casually bludgeoning Jessica with the "sellout" label."-TH
I agree with a lot of the feel of what you say here, TH; I think that, as a good rule of thumb, feminist-identified people who criticize feminist-identified people ought to take some care in acknowledging common goals and such--which is why I tried to be very clear that I will buy the book, that I respect Jessica a lot and look forward to her posts (and am thankful for this site); that said (and I don't think you're arguing against me on this point), I think there is room for some criticism. It doesn't have to be heavy-handed, and I don't think everybody on this thread has used a heavy hand in their criticism--there are several comments that I think are very careful in their criticism.

I don't think that responding more to criticism would be a rehash, but I'm obviously of the minority opinion on that, on this thread, anyway. I've sort of taken nubian's complaint(s) and run with them, perhaps in directions that she wouldn't, and I think points have been brought up that Jessica hasn't responded to: For instance, why put a body on the cover at all if part of what that might do is alienate some people from reading it? Is this something she considered, and rejected because....because? It would be nice to know why, specifically because I have no doubt that Jessica did think about that.

That said, like I tried to make clear, I understand that one can't respond to every criticism. And I'll admit that I don't (yet?) understand what nubian means by making a point that the cover makes her think it's for 'white' feminists (although it does make me think that) but saying that it's not racism...but even given that, I would love a response to that question. Other objections aside, why chose to have a body when one knows that is likely to cut down on the number of people of color who will want to pick it up?

Wanting an answer to this question doesn't mean I think Jessica owes me one or anything--we've all got lives and there's only so much time in the day. But I think the discussion might continue to everybody's benefit. Plus, given that feminism is often (rightly) accused of being a white woman's domain, maybe the answering of that complaint would do more to further the discussion than saying "I'm done".

Sorry to be hijack-ish, but y'all might just check out the comments over at nubian's blog regarding this issue. I think they are mostly insightful and sincere, and worth a response.

Nubian has been so consistently nasty to Jessica in recent weeks that I can't really blame her for saying "I'm done." It's a waste of time to argue with people who are full of hate and uninterested in a two-way discussion.

This is not to say that I don't think other criticisms of the cover are valid--including my own! But let's be fair here.

Cheers,

TH

jpjesus, the ones I saw earlier today were vicious and hateful, concluding with a comment by Nubian to the effect that she would never visit Feministing again anyway (which kind of undercuts the whole "she just wants a dialogue" argument--she doesn't, she wants to make one-way smears). If the discussion has improved since then, that's great, but I'm in no mood to waste time on the blog of somebody who has specifically told me that she doesn't give a damn what I think and has dismissed me out of hand. What would be the point?

Cheers,

TH

You mean where I'm called a patriachal submissive, a patriachal whore, a waste of time and a sell out? Yeah, you'll excuse me if I stay out of that.

By the way, I will say this--because it seems that people are making assumptions about the content of the book based on the cover. This book is very much me...my thoughts about feminism and it's very much in my voice and about my experiences. It's not meant to be some sort of "I speak for all feminists and this is what feminism is" book. Which is why I rejected several other book covers that had kind of a WASP-y looking blonde girl with "full frontal feminism" written across her shirt. Cause I'm not a skinny blonde. The tummy pic was more "me." That may not make sense to folks, but that's why this one was chosen over others.

As for the comments about "objectifying" women by using a body part--I'm sorry I just don't agree. I don't think that all use of womens' bodies (especially when used to convey a feminist message!) is automatically objectifying.

When I said I was done with this conversation, it wasn't because I was trying to be dismissive or don't think the conversation is important. It's because I'm fucking exhausted. Exhausted from having to constantly defend myself (whether from conservatives or other feminists), exhausted from finishing the edits on this goddamn book that are due this weekend, exhausted from keeping this site up and making it my fucking life while making no money, and exhausted of feeling like shit and like a bad feminist because I can't make everyone happy.

So, please, break me off a little compassion as do the best I possibly can by this site while trying not to burst into tears every time someone calls me a fucking sell out.

For whatever it's worth, I would think you were a bad feminist if you did make everyone happy. The tummy on the cover of your book is nothing compared to the guts you've displayed on this site time and time again.

You've always had, and will continue to have, my support--in no small part because you've always included and supported me in this movement when other people have tried to push me out. You have always spoken for the imperfect, struggling human beings who make up real on-the-streets feminism, not the hateful and purely abstract blogging community. I'm sure none of the people who participated in Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Summer '06 would be satisfactory to Nubian either. She has already made it clear that I wouldn't.

Once your book is published, the criticisms will get nastier and more frequent. All I can think of is that time my grandmother got a rolling walker and kept running over her feet with it. When she complained about that, I casually responded "You'll get used to it." I was referring to her level of familiarity with the walker, but what I'd really said of course was that she'd get used to having her feet run over. We still laugh about that!

Cheers,

TH

There's probably no reason for me to show up here again, except that I feel a little guilty for, in some sense, having kicked off the carpfest 06, albeit whilst allowing that my comments were likely just the dyspeptic rumblings of a gingivitic insomniac, and one with unusually prudish senibilities to boot.

But jpjesus, while I understand your concerns and arguments, I think it just comes down to the following impasse. The good of using the picture is that it will likely draw in young women who are intelligent and somewhat media-savvy (savvy enough, for instance, to see through the politics or symbolism of having, say, a hairy mole somewhere on the woman's body), and who respond to such images in other advertising contexts, but have not yet learned to be very critical of the kinds of images featured on the cover. The book is meant to teach them, among other things, how to be critical in this way.

The good of not using such a picture is that it would not feed into the larger dynamic of objectifying women's bodies to sell things--and of privileging white-breadery, and such a picture can't turn prospective readers away, including young woc, if it isn't used.

Jessica clearly thought the first good outweighed the second good. Maybe she was wrong, but I don't know how anyone is going to establish that. In any case, I don't know how restating the good of both options is somehow going to help us establish whether the decision was right.

So, I don't think that she's trying to ignore or dismiss anyone by not responding. I think she's just saying, I've explained my reasons, and there's really nothing to add. Nor is there really anything to add to the other side. I think she's aware of the objections and her own reasons. It doesn't seem to me, at least, like a situation where she's not understanding a counter-argument or complaint. There's just not really any way to adjudicate between the two perspectives or goods without begging all the questions at issue. That's how it seems to me, anyways.

*Sending a lot of love and compassion to Jessica*

Good luck on finishing the edits. And when you're done, sit back with a giant frozen margarita (or your favorite whatever your favorite drink may be) and just say to yourself (or scream out your window) "Screw 'em, my book and it's cover kick ass!"

I'm sorry you're exhausted and feeling poorly treated, Jessica. Maybe the following will cheer you (and anyone else) up. It's the best You Tube clip I've ever seen, and probably the best thing to come out of 1970's pop culture (well, this and the Godfather movies). And, yes, this be the blog-whoring:

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2006/10/prepare.html

And I do not think he's being ironic.

We are all burning out our respective fuses, up here alone.

"When I said I was done with this conversation, it wasn't because I was trying to be dismissive or don't think the conversation is important. It's because I'm fucking exhausted."

I can completely understand that. Thank you for explaining it--and I see now that perhaps I should have already understood that was what was going on, and started with more of a benefit-of-the-doubt frame of mind.

I still think that the racial aspects of this discussion are worth understanding better, but that doesn't mean anybody has to understand them better at a cost to your sanity...thanks for responding.

You'll excuse me when I play devil's advocate, but when you say this:

This book is very much me...my thoughts about feminism and it's very much in my voice and about my experiences. It's not meant to be some sort of "I speak for all feminists and this is what feminism is" book.

...then what is the purpose of the misleading subtitle?

I'm a little late to this post, but as (ostensibly) a member of the target market for such a book, I have some beef with this cover.



The use of a slender, perfect white torso (and all the attendant baggage that's been pointed out) has been justified as reaching out to a market. What kind of market are you trying to reach? Pre-teens? This kind of marketing might work for young women in middle or high school. From a design perspective, that kind of faux-handwriting font says "teenager," not "young woman." The cover absolutely sets the tone for what people expect from the rest of the book. If I were to see this book on the shelf, I would assume it was for a younger audience and move on. I am less than a year out of college and I find it tacky. I would be embarrassed to read a book with a cover like that on the subway. I cannot think of one friend of mine who would like this cover, though I know many of them would certainly be interested in reading about why feminism matters. Now, if your target market really IS teenagers, well, I think it'll make its mark. But if it's anyone over 18, I'm sorry, but this is a poor choice.

skyanide, i don't think the subtitle is misleading at all! "a young woman's guide to why feminism matters." the "young woman" is me!

curiosita, i DO hope that teenagers buy it as well as women a bit older.

ok, now i'm really done. i need to get to editing. thanks to all for their opinions, good and bad. feministing's readers are a big part of why i was able to write this book in the first place so i'm happy to explain my choices to those who made this possible. but i think i've explained about as much as i can. i hope you'll all understand why i'm bowing out of the thread. thanks again.

I think that one important point that nubian makes is this, and I hate to engage in criticism with peoples whose work I'm not entirely familiar with (I lurk here and in the blogosphere in general);

We're forgetting one very important aspect of talking about feminism and that is history.

Historically feminism has a bad track record when it comes to race/ethnicity.
The combined image of white skin + the words "full...feminism" and "guide to why feminism matters" *do* have a different kind of signification depending on the context of the reader as an image. Part of that includes the history of feminism ignoring issues of women of color.

On the same note, that probably has nothing to do with content, but again, I don't think it was racist of nubian to point it out.

Similarly I take issue with the use of the word "feminism" as a unitary object (something that is more or less monolithic). Its just a personal preference, but there are multiple feminism(s), and some of them I agree with while others I take issue with.

That said, congratulations on the book, I hope it works out well for you
-m

Jessica, I can't blame you for it. You must feel like PZ Myers back when his blog was pelted by stupid creationists demanding equal time and squalling about how he ought to treat them seriously.

Tom, sorry, there are ten not twelve (heraclitus, scott, tom, alon, ron, andy, w kiernan, noname, jpjesus and bear).

--eagle eye dd

I hasten to add the woc blogosphere has been very successful in bringing in white allies so I wasn't insinuating anything.

"This book is very much me...my thoughts about feminism and it's very much in my voice and about my experiences. It's not meant to be some sort of I speak for all feminists and this is what feminism is book."

This reminds me of a few years ago when a half-Asian, half-white guy made a kick-ass movie called Charlotte Sometimes. Ebert is all over this guy. The all Asian guys crucified him because he made the stud a half-Asian, half-white guy *just like him*. The nerve! lol. His response was "Make your own damn movie." His second movie made the all Asian guys studs.

So give Jessica a break on her first book!

Congratulations, Jessica! I'm sure it's amazing.

skyanide, i don't think the subtitle is misleading at all! "a young woman's guide to why feminism matters." the "young woman" is me!

I honestly think your saying this puts the cover and your choices into perspective. And no, that's not meant to be an attack.

When other people read "A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters" without any intimation of what specifically lies behind the covers of the book, it sounds like a more general statement -- like it's any young woman's guide or primer to why feminism affects them. And certainly it still can be interpreted that way, but once it crosses into that interpretation, it's susceptible to criticisms that the way it's publicized would not cater to any young woman. Like nubian, jpjesus, and I pointed out, we don't necessarily think the bare white stomach would attract young women of color or young women in general. To be honest, even women who do not self-identify as feminists can pinpoint objectification in body part isolation. (From in-depth analysis to just the bare question of "well, God, where's her face?")

In fact, when paralleling the cover to a fashion magazine, while women of color may scan them, most of its recommendations and articles attract women of a certain race and class.

Like fashion and its tendency to create status symbols, your cover leans in the same direction in creating a "status symbol" for the people who would/should think feminism would matter. And a lot of women who think feminism doesn't matter would not necessarily fit that mold. Pointing that out as an identification disconnect is not the same as saying, "Jessica, don't write books again."

if you're willing to turn against the Feministing team and stab them in the back like this, I don't really want you to acknowledge my support. You have their private email addresses. You didn't have to use this as an opportunity to pull an Althouse and promote your own blog at Jessica's expense. -TV

Just for the record, I don't think stating one's opinion and trying to engage in discussion is necessarily a "stab in the back." It's disagreeing.

Just for the record, whitney, I think that handling this the way Nubian is handling it--where she is saying some truly ugly stuff, and has made it clear that she is making one-way accusations and does not want to have a discussion--is mere "disagreeing."

But it's just as well anyway. As I said in the previous email, Nubian would probably never accept me, or most feminists (of any ethnic background) who actually do activism, as real feminists. It's visibly all about her own purity--as demonstrated by the fact that she can put up faceless naked skin on her own blog, and it's only objectification if Jessica does it. As demonstrated by the fact that it matters very much that it's a white woman on the cover...except when it doesn't. Nubian is doing a shady and intellectually dishonest hatchet job here. Don't mistake that for disagreement.

Cheers,

TH

Tom, her three criticisms weren't dishonest. The cover portrays normative sexuality (I disagree because Full Frontal Feminism is subversive oxymoron), whiteness and normative white sexuality. She didn't promote her blog either. noname posted a link from her blog. A couple commenters on her blog may have conflated things I said. They aren't "dumb" and it's not "shallow" to bring up racism. I said most teenage girls are shallow and apolitical not Feministing readers such as themselves.

It's not shallow to bring up racism, no...except that Nubian said, several times, that this was not what she was doing. She even said that it wouldn't have been any better if the body belonged to a woman of color, which would seem to invalidate two of the three criticisms you mention above, leaving only normative sexuality as the remaining concern--and, here again, since Nubian has portrayed that on her own blog to at least the same extent as Jessica's book cover, she has absolutely no room to talk.

Nubian knew she'd be linked. If she had an honest criticism of the cover, she would have either posted it in this thread or emailed Jessica quietly with an alternate suggestion. She would not have immediately launched into public protest mode, particularly when she is doing so without having worked out an internally consistent criticism of the book's cover.

Cheers,

TH

Tom, I can't find the images on her blog and wonder. I wonder they were heteronormative and if she wasn't mocking them. Anyway, the criticisms didn't cancel each other out. It bothered her that the cover normatively sexualized any body and because it was already there it also bothered her that normative sexuality is always white. Femininity and feminism were once again attributed to whiteness.

why didn't you just call it, a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism.

this is wack.

i'm sorry. the naked torso of a woman is offensive AND the naked WHITE torso of the young woman pisses me off.

and then later, in this same comment area...

the point of the matter is, i don't feel that the book cover needs to sexualize ANY female body in order to represent feminism. look at this image--it's so highly sexualized it's insulting. it's not the fact that it is "bare flesh" that upsets me, it is the fact of the ideas that are attributed to that particular bare flesh. in this case, ideas of "real" femininity are once again atrributed to the white body.

but the fact of the matter is, there IS a body on the cover and it is a WHITE body--that is not going to change. therefore, it upsets me that a white female body symbolically represents feminism.

Nubian's criticism is an honest criticism, and it was posted here. You're disposing of it because you disapprove of the tone and her disagreement with you about the cover's effectiveness. There's a difference.

When I showed the cover to my boyfriend, he reacted with a "Whoa!" and he asked me honestly if the book would have sex tips in it before he read the title.

So yeah: deeper meanings = 0; sexuality undertones = 1.

Donna, the image I'm thinking of is no longer on her blog--she used to have a muscular naked back (I can't remember if it was a man or a woman, but it was definitely a faceless, "objectified" and conventionally attractive shot) in the left column. I never saw any problem with the photo, but then I don't see a huge problem with Jessica's cover, either.

skyanide, you win points for selecting the parts of Nubian's posts where she ambiguously discusses race, but I saw her write (I am not going to read her blog again to get an exact quote) that she did not see the cover as racist, and did not believe that the situation would have been improved at all if a woman of color's body had been used instead.

I am disposing of the argument because it is self-contradictory bullshit. The only thing holding it together is hate and a vague sense that Jessica is not being a real feminist, or real antiracist. If Nubian says that it's a WHITE woman's body over and over again, then says that it would have been no better if it were someone else's body, then she's essentially demonstrated that she is just throwing ugly non-stated accusations around rather than trying to make a meaningful criticism. It's very much what Althouse was doing when she simultaneously kvetched about breasts and presented herself as being above kvetching about breasts. I don't dignify those kinds of smear jobs by treating them as if they were legitimate criticism.

I have learned exactly two things from Nubian's criticism. First, she hates Jessica. Second, she hates me. Third, she is not interested in seeing either of us redeemed in her eyes through dialogue. That being the case, I'm done with Nubian and her Althouse impersonation. I have better things to read.

Cheers,

TH

Whoops. I have learned three, THREE things! (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition--an ironic Monty Python reference, under the circumstances.)

Cheers,

TH

Don't sweat the two/three thing. My own blog's littered with typos of that sort.

I didn't select parts. I quoted the entirety of the comments she made here with criticisms to the cover. I only omitted the parts saying that her complaints didn't accuse the cover of racism, because they didn't. They lodge legitimate criticisms. I think you're caught up in her tone.

She specifically said it's not just the issue of a white woman's stomach, but of ANY woman's stomach being used to market feminism. She specifically said the color of the woman doesn't matter, though women of color would not necessarily identify with it. Then she specifically said that using the patriarchal tools of objectification and sexual commodification undermines the thought processes of the target audience and that there should be a better way to market the book.

She makes a point, and the fact that this is becoming a who-hates-who/who-is-the-best-feminist fest is detracting from that point.

Her only issue was not the that the stomach was a white stomach. She went beyond that; whether you choose to go there with her is another matter. You took a reductionist knife to her argument -- since she pointed out white, she must want black; since she pointed out the stomach, she must want covering. And that's not where she's coming from, where I'm coming from, or where other posters are coming from when talking about this cover.

Your response is incredibly personal in a matter where I don't think it's warranted. She never directly attacked you or Jessica personally, in her blog entry or otherwise. So this "it's us or the Althouses" rhetoric seems incredibly overdramatic.

skyanide writes:
Her only issue was not the that the stomach was a white stomach. She went beyond that;

Fine; you want an exact quote? Here's the exact quote:

why the WHITE NAKED torso of a woman? of course, i wouldn’t have prefered a black body, or any other woman of color either.

In other words, Nubian went WHITE body, WHITE body, WHITE body, and then it doesn't matter if it's a white body, then WHITE body and WHITE body again.

Just like Althouse went BREASTS, BREASTS, BREASTS, and then she's not the one talking about breasts, then BREASTS and BREASTS again.

In both cases, it's criticism by innuendo followed by a disclaimer followed by more criticism by innuendo. That approach should not be mistaken for legitimate criticism.

And no offense, but when Nubian starts throwing around phrases like "capitalist whore" and says to a longtime vocal reader and supporter "at this point, i don't care if you love me or not and whether or not you agree with what i say," it IS personal. I wasn't the one who made it personal; Nubian was. I was more than happy, as you will see if you read up, that I was more than willing to respect Nubian despite her incoherent smear against Jessica--until she disavowed Feministing in her own blog comments, and essentially flipped me the bird for not blindly siding with her in this strange little jihad.

Cheers,

TH

Tom, I agree that the race issue goes back further than this post. If you followed the woc blogosphere it's put up with alot of racism in the last ten months. She left the blogosphere for a while because of racism. What would it be like to have to have to leave the blogosphere? So her complaint was about both race and normative sexuality and they are both valid. I disagree with her however that the cover doesn't work and I also think Jessica can do whatever she wants with her book. The cover represents Jessica so it makes sense.

I don't think nubian hates anyone. She has much better things to do than hate people.

Donna writes:
Tom, I agree that the race issue goes back further than this post. If you followed the woc blogosphere it's put up with alot of racism in the last ten months.

Oh, sure. This is how I ended up backing Nubian up in the first place. But Nubian is not the WOC blogosphere in its entirety, and the fact that she has been treated badly by white commenters in the past does not change the nasty and, frankly, self-contradictory nature of her criticism.

Either it matters that it's a white body or it doesn't. Either it's a race issue or it isn't. Either it's a nudity issue or it isn't. Nubian can't jump all over the map in every category depending on what nasty comment she wants to make next, and then expect me not to recognize it as a smear rather than a legitimate criticism.

I respect your loyalty to Nubian, but she owes Jessica an apology here--which we both know will never happen.

Cheers,

TH

If you insist on paralleling nubian with Althouse...God help you.

Never -- in her entry or on here -- did nubian call anyone a "capitalist whore." Perhaps you're reading something I'm not? Jessica referred to a "patriarchy whore" when she posted, but those weren't nubian's words.

And I only got that she didn't care about the love and the agreement because it seemed like an attempt to placate a legitimate criticism. And I don't see how it's incoherent. She doesn't like a disembodied stomach representing feminism. And she doesn't like the idea of a disembodied white stomach representing feminism. One counters the assertion that the image is subversive; the other challenges the assumption that using a white body would not alienate young women of color in learning about why feminism matters.

I think you're overreacting.

Crossposted at blackademic:

I think it takes a fundamental distrust of feminism to get to the point where one could be talked into thinking this was a good tactic to sell a book about feminism to anyone. I don’t know her at all, but maybe that’s the world Jessica lives in.

This cover tells me that the contents will have nothing to offer for people of color, poor people, fat people, people who don’t like porn, people who are struggling to be taken seriously. It’s not against these people, it’s simply ignoring these people. It’s a fun book for fun people who want a fun look at a tiny little fun corner of fun feminism.

The obvious question for me is, why? What will the feminist community gain by having empty-headed fun-loving people added to our ranks? People who respond to these kind of covers aren’t going to become serious allies, are they? Why bother?

1. i don't know who ann althouse is nor do i care.

2. tom--i don't hate anyone and it's really immature of you to even claim so when i never mentioned anything of the sort. offering up a critique and REJECTING the patronizing tone of a man..."i love you but...." does not equal hate.
are you serious? i am a grown woman. come at me like and adult, not like a child. if you disagree with me fine. don't try and negate the seriousness of my opnions by talking down to me.

3. i can have more than one reason to dislike the cover of the book. gasp!

(really, we folks of color CAN, indeed, see the nuances of exclusion---trust)

I am really bothered by how this argument has gone... Why is criticism of this cover meeting with such dismissal? And I couldn't even list all the really dangerous logic that has permeated all of this conversation *about* (not with) nubian. Please, TH and everyone else, calm down for a little while, don't feel like you need to come riding in in full shining armor to Jessica's rescue or anything -- then seriously look at this book cover and the commentary on it, and reconsider how it makes you feel, what assumptions you would make about a book that looked like this.

(And don't give me any of that "judging the content by the cover" crap, that's what cover design is *for*).

Tom, I understand your frustration, but I don't think it's fair to compare nubian to Ann Asshat. Asshat--okay, Althouse--made a transparently petty and catty remark, then when she was called on her behavior, tried to pretend there was some principle lurking somewhere in what she said. nubian made a perfectly straightforward and clear criticism of the book, that, so far as I saw, contained no element of personal attack.

Also, as nubian herself has noted, her comments weren't really self-contradictory. She just had two different problems with the cover, but one wasn't supposed to follow from the other.

Finally, and for what it's worth, I actually applaud nubian for specifying that she wasn't calling the book cover "racist." People often throw that word around when they mean something much more subtle and complex. nubian made a point of saying she wasn't doing that.

I am also disturbed by how this conversation has gone. Instead of listening to people's concerns and taking them seriously, a few people (one of the more outspoken of whom is a man) are picking on "logical fallacies" and other inconsequential details instead of listening to the message that folks like Nubian are putting out.

If you want to be a feminist ally and an ally to people of color, you need to listen to what they say and take it seriously instead of minimizing them because their truth is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I do agree that people should be taking Nubian's criticisms seriously--they're valid. And I don't want this thread to devolve into personal attacks or quibbles about the logic of someone's argument.

I also hope that the personal attacks directed at me in the thread at blackademic will be stopped. Calling me a patriarchal whore and lobbing out insults like “you’re not half as cute as you think you are,� is pretty uncalled for.

I don't think Nubian's criticisms make any more sense than Althouse's, but if y'all see something to them, I guess I should respect that. I'm backing out of this thread. For my part, I'm disappointed in Nubian and will not be participating in blac(k)ademic again. I have seen a side to her that has surprised me.

I have a long and distinguished history of backing up friends of both genders, so the "chivalry" smears are not really appreciated, but I guess those loyal to Nubian are understandably upset at me for my criticisms of her.

This thread has really been an education for me, on so many levels, on where I really should be spending my time. It would probably make more sense if I put time spent blogging on national/international feminist blogs into the Jackson Area and Mississippi NOW web sites instead. There is something to be said for face-to-face relationships; the friendships I've made over the Internet seem strangely ephemeral, and I have been hurt many times by how expendable other people consider those friendships to be. This week it was Nubian. Next week, it could just as easily be Jessica. I need to invest less of myself in this sort of thing or I'm going to be hurting for a long, long time.

Cheers,

TH

(That was, BTW, my last post in this thread. After being essentially called a misogynistic racist by people I had considered allies five minutes ago, and watching the crickets chirp as absolutely nobody went "Well, I'm sure he meant...," speaks volumes about my misplaced priorities. Lessons learned, my friends. Thank you.)

Tom, don't feel badly. You're one of this site's best commenters and I don't want you to be discouraged.

Okay, I lied about that being my last post in this thread... :o)

Jessica, thanks for this. I'm so sorry I name-dropped you there... You've never done anything to suggest to me that you were any less loyal in this respect than I am, and goodness knows you've been targeted more than your share over the past month. I'm just generally depressed. As anyone who has followed my participation here knows, I'm a longtime member of the Nubian fan club. Being dismissed like that stung, and it's not the first time something like that has happened.

Besides, the temperature in Mississippi is dropping 40 degrees over a 36-hour period as we move from fall into winter literally overnight. That always screws up my disposition.

People who know me in person know that I'm a flawed human being, but they love me anyway. With a few exceptions. I had a few friends go nuts on me about a month ago as an indirect result, ironically enough, of my participation in pro-choice events.

Truth be told, I'm pretty much Eeyore right now and everything I say of a great-depressing-epiphany nature should probably be taken with a grain of salt. You know I've still got your back, and whether some folks want to think that's because I'm doing the chivalry thing is their business. As a 12-stepping friend once said: What other people think of me is none of my business!

Cheers,

TH

Even though I'm just some random and generally not very into the whole, "No, don't be sad, you're wonderful" thing... Tom, I really like your posts, don't be sad, you're wonderful.

Actually, I think everybody's ideas have been really important to this conversation. Emotions have been running really high because this book cover brings up a lot of personal/political issues... I think in all of the emotions, as can often happen on the internet, people have forgotten to make sure they stay respectful.

I hope that no one decides to stop posting because of this. We need all of these perspectives in order to have meaningful conversations.

Instead of listening to people's concerns and taking them seriously, a few people (one of the more outspoken of whom is a man) are picking on "logical fallacies" and other inconsequential details instead of listening to the message that folks like Nubian are putting out.

I'd say having logical fallacies invalidate an argument... wouldn't you?

Hi, Tom, I hope you didn't take my comment above as somehow impugning your motives or casting you as some sort of reactionary; that certainly wasn't my intention. In any case, it looks like this thread is (finally) dying a natural death, so we can all put it behind us now.

Just for the record, I absolutely did not intend my comment to be taken as a "smear" against you, TH. I do also think that a lot of the other commentators here (and some of those on blackademic) have, as far as I can tell, not been nearly as personally insulting as you seem to think. At the very least, I'd rather focus on what's actually relevant commentary in response to this post, not who should apologize to whom.

And, just so there's no confusion, I've been reading (and sporadically commenting) on this site for ages, and only recently came across blackademic. All the things I've been saying are said as a faithful reader of this site, which includes TH's generally articulate and thoughtful comments. It would be a shame if this whole thread continued in this bizarre-internet-drama direction, instead of coming back to the highly relevant and meaningful discussion of the cover design.

And just to recap my own opinions on that subject, which I don't recall anyone really arguing effectively against -- I think that there is a long list of problems with the cover design. Much of that has to do with how ___-normative it is. Also, as a young woman, it feels pretty condescending -- I don't need such an adolescent aesthetic to make me pick up a book and read (maybe I'm not "young" enough -- but this would've been true when I was 16 as well).

I think the argument that this will attract male readers is ridiculous, as well -- first of all, do we really want to ally ourselves with those who attract the male consumer with disembodied female flesh; and even regardless of that (which is no small thing), what man do you know in our wonderful little gender-stereotypical world who wouldn't feel at least a tad ridiculous presenting a book that looked like this to a Barnes & Noble cashier?

I actually like the title, always have -- there's something very confrontational and unapologetic about "Full Frontal Feminism," and I think it effectively appropriates the "full frontal" thing for an obviously new and perhaps subversive twist. I think some of the power of that phrase is lost when pairing it with an image like this, which is anything but "full frontal" -- instead, this is a small part of the body, as if the rest of it is unimportant, or something to hide either because head-to-toe female nudity is shameful, or is somehow too much to expect anyone to handle.

There's so much more to say, but I'll stop here -- does anyone disagree with anything in particular I've said above, and how?

By the way, please pretend I didn't write "having logical fallacies invalidate." In my defense, it was late at night and my mind was elsewhere.

Logical fallacies was in quotes because there are no logical fallacies in what she said here or on her blog. Here is the gist of what she wrote:

"why not just call it a young WHITE womans guide to WHITE feminism? it is so obvious that this book is not for my young cousin, her friends, and a number of other young women of color who believe that they should be treated the same as any other woman. but i guess, they don’t matter, do they?

why the WHITE NAKED torso of a woman? of course, i wouldn’t have prefered a black body, or any other woman of color either. my question is though, why the naked body of a woman at all? is it to sell more books? there are a number of other ways to visually depict an image of “feminism�–i am not sure why a naked body, reminiscent of the glossy images of tabloid trash had to be the way to go."

As for women's studies books, look at any women's studies section in Border's or Barnes and Noble. It's 95% white authors. Jessica would go against the grain to sell a book to the people who the most problems with feminism in the first place. Young women say they aren't feminists because they think feminists are ugly, man-haters, humorless, not fun and anti-sex. This cover counters each of these problems. My sense is this book is alot like Feministing which has a number of male allies. This site is upfront about sexuality and knowing Jessica and the staff of Feministing, the cover similarly not connote victimhood but empowerment. I think it's pretty in your face and cool knowing the staff of Feministing.

Feministing's motto is

BREAKING NEWS
BREAKING BALLS

so I think the attitudinous cover works.

Boyfriends don't buy feminist books, they read what their girlfriends already bought. As for overly sexualized covers, how about Cunt by Inga Muscio. How many were self conscious buying it and reading it in public? If you read the Amazon reviews or talk to women who have read it, it's one of the most empowering books ever written for women.

Why are we still on this?

Can't we all just get along?

The ladies once posted they thought it was interesting to see where we commented. Some of the serious issues never get comments, and then we post comment over 120 times on a damn book cover. There are definitely more important things to do with our time.

People attacked Jessica and the cover in this thread like she betrayed feminism somehow with this cover. Jessica is one of feminisms strongest leaders. That is why we all flock to this site. That is why she (among others) is getting the publicity, the invites to lunch with leaders like Clinton, the invitations to give keynote speeches as colleges start womens studies programs. She is doing it better than most. That must be why people are attacking her.

It is one thing to question her decision to do something (like put a naked tummy on a book), but it is another to questions her motives. I (a man) have been reading this site for about a year and a half now, and what I have seen is a woman tirelessly trying to address womens issues, fighting for the cause, trying to change the world for the better. She isn't, and never claimed to be, perfect.

So when Jessica takes what in your opinion is a mistep, chalk it up to a mistake. Maybe tell us how you would have done it better if you are good enough to be where she is. But please don't question her motives because she doesn't deserve that.

(Hoping that trying to change the subject actually works this time)

So...did anyone see that baseball game last night?

It is one thing to question her decision to do something (like put a naked tummy on a book), but it is another to questions her motives.

Ain't this the same thing?

Damn, if only we had more baseball fans.

No.

One is to say I would have taken this road to get to my destination, not that one. But I agree we are still headed to the same destination for a common purpose.

Another is to question if you are even trying to get to there. And maybe if you are trying to get there, are you doing it for your own personal gain.

(Trying again)

So...anyone heard any good music lately?

Motives prompt decisions, bub.

But yeah, I like Ludacris! (I don't understand how derailing the comments entirely help anything...but okay.)

Motives may prompt decisions, but the same motive will prompt different decisions in different people. People not liking the cover isn't justification for questioning Jessica's character or credentials as a feminist.

On derailing the comments, I figured if we were going to talk about unimportant things, it might as well be enjoyable. 130+ comments on a book cover seems a little extreme.

If you like international music at all, I just got CDs from Lunasa (Irish) and Ladysmith Black Mombazo. Great stuff. And the Rolling Stones concert last night was simply amazing.

bear -- I assume this means you have no response to my very legitimate, non-personal criticism of the book cover?

I expressed my displeasure over at nubian's site, but I want to say it here too: I have to back the folks that don't like this cover. Not only for feminist reasons but marketing reasons: if I were a fifteen-year-old young woman looking for a book to read on feminism, I would be embarrassed beyond belief to be caught holding a book with that cover. Jessica, do you want to be reaching out to those girls who are already over-sexualized and read Cosmo, or do you want to recruit the young women who have a sense that things are wrong, really wrong with the way this world operates, and are looking for someone to give them the tools to fight sexism and racism and classism forever? Those young women don't identify as feminists either.

Here's the other thing that's not clear -- you seem to be endorsing the cover, which means you're ok with it. Yet I've heard people protecting you and saying it's not your fault and you can't control your title or cover as a first-time author. First of all, that makes you sound more of a victim and more vulnerable than I think is fair for a strong woman like you. Second, it just further obscures whether you approve of the title and cover or not.

One final thought: what about a cover that made fun of the stereotypes, rather than "contradicted" them with a sexist image? Again, trying to think as a fifteen-year-old, I might buy something that makes me laugh, or something that is clearly laughing at itself, rather than an image that doesn't feel attainable.

becca - I agree that your comments were very legitimate and non-personal (at least not intentionally) in nature (they might be persobal to Jessica since it is her book). I also consider them well thought out and intelligent. I have also liked your comments in the past.

I don't know how to not sound dismissive or condescending here (as I feel I am doing at least the dismissive part), but that isn't my intent. I just think we have spent too much time talking about nothing. I don't buy or not buy a book based on it's cover. I buy it for what's inside. I also think Jessica is in an no-win position with this cover. If she likes it, she sold out. If she doesn't but had to go with it, she is a victim. There is no way that everyone would be happy.

We seem to want people to get the message out, but only in the tone, wording, manner, etc. in which we personally believe. And when someone deviates from that, we always seem to think they have done a great injustice, whether intentionally or not. Again, I apologize for being dismissive, but I don't think Jessica's entire book could make or break the feminist movement. I think the cover of the book has even less power.

The most offensive comments at blackademic are from Nubian's supporters, not from Nubian herself. It's not fair to put their words in her mouth.

Yes, there are some pretty hateful and vicious posts there and here -- but the worst of it doesn't come from Jessica or Nubian, but from their supporters who seem to think ratcheting up a disagreement into a flame-war helps feminism -- and the feminist blogosphere. Personally, I don't see how. Perhaps some of them can explain it.

There is certainly an inconsistency in Nubian's argument that she's not offended racially when the torso offends her, but the WHITENESS of the torso pisses her off. A torso from a woman of color would not make her happier because the torso itself offends her. But she's the one saying that it's WHITENESS is what takes it from offending to pissing off. I interpret that as a complaint about the cover marginalizing women of color -- regardless of how offensive the torso is. When she and her supporters say it's not about racism, they confuse me.

But you know, when people are offended and pissed off, it is sometimes for incoherent reasons -- reasons based in experience (such as the sorry history of mainstream feminists marginalization of women of color) and emotion (touched off by the life experience of being on the receiving end of racism).

Isn't it rather silly to insist that every single thing has to be A to Zed logical -- untainted by history or personal experience? So why not recognize that Nubian has a perfect right to take offense and voice her objection and Jessica has every right to say, "thanks, for your perspective, now here is mine." and then agreeing to disagree. If everyone agreed on everything (especially art, which is supposed to be open for interpretation), we would probably all have Feelings as the top song in the soundtrack of our lives.

It seems there is a dogmatism that defines everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do as an enemy. That's no way to build a movement and no way to win. It's the battleplan for losing everytime.

Oh, this is rich. I am a:

- "patronizing"
- "buttmunch" who posts
- "nasty whining shit," a
- racist and
- misogynistic
- "FUCKER!"

"I remember being upset," the author explains in a blog comment. Well, uh, sorry I hurt your feelings by defending Jessica's book cover, O anonymous person on the Internet, but don't you think your blogged response is just a teensy bit disproportional to the offense?

Frankly, it's stuff like this that makes me want to stay away from blogs and keep doing real-life activism, where people who call themselves feminists don't look for any excuse--a book cover, a poorly worded sentence, whatever--to throw somebody else off the island.

Cheers,

TH

jess!
I like the cover. Now...if it had been a short torso -ugh that would have been a turn-off! Congrats on the book, I would read whatever has your name on it regardless of whatever is on the cover and anyone who wouldn't - needs to smarten up.
!tris xo