Lets put aside the naked woman on the cover for the time being. Obviously it makes me angry that a thin white naked woman is pictured on the front of a book about feminism.
While I understand that Jessica Valenti wants to reach out to women who shy away from the word feminist, she really doesn't know how to represent it right. Yes she makes really good points and her book is accesible to a wide audience, but the way she goes about trying to sell young women and girls on feminism is to try and make it "sexy."
The second chapter in the book is all about how being a feminist leads to better sex. The opening sentence is this:
I'm better in bed then you are. And I have feminism to thank for it. Now, feminists having better sex is true, but really the second chapter? Aren't there more important things to talk about instead of expounding about what great sex you're having now that you're a feminist? Sure it's a happy consequence, but it shouldn't be the reason that someone becomes a feminist. Sex is not the be all end all of life. Sure it's great, I myself really enjoy it, but it's ridiculous to make that the first thing you present in your book. I mean is Cosmo somehow now feminist because it has tons of articles about how to have great sex? (But keep in mind most of those are of the "how to please your man in bed" category.) The way to get women and girls interested in feminism should be by accesibly written books, like this one, talking honestly about the problems we face in a patriarchal society. Women and girls should choose to be feminists for the fact that there are so many things that are anti-women in society. Are you going to be a real feminist if the only reason you call yourself one is to have great sex? I think not.
Also, one of the reasons she cites for women not becoming feminists is that when they hear the word feminism they think we're hairy. She goes on to explain how sexy and fun today's feminists are. What's not sexy about being hairy? I've been hairy since I was 17 and no one has ever been turned off by it. Well a few, but obviously they were idiot frat boy types that I wouldn't want to be with anyone, since who wants to date moronic sexist assholes? Not I.
In her third chapter, Pop Culture Gone Wild, she critiques the media system and talks about how women's sexuality has been commodified and pornified. Yet in her blog, feministing, she talks about the sex industry like it is just good old sexy fun. She never invites radical feminists, many of us who have actual first hand experience of working in the sex industry and who speak out about the horrors and abuses we suffered in that "sexy good fun" industry. But this follows from the focus of the book on how "sexy" feminism is. It's such a shame and a horrible effect of many people in the so-called "third wave" accept porn's humiliation, exploitation, and abuse of women as fun because it has the appearance of being sexy, unlike hairy legged prudes like me. ;)
Obviously what bugged me about this book is how it is shaped around selling feminism the way we sell everything: with the promise of sex and sexiness. Should we really be mimicing the current media landscape that is unquestionably racist and misogynistic and uses sex to sell everything? I would hope not, but that is exactly what Valenti does in her book. She does make great points about the media and the beauty myth, she then goes on to talk about how today's feminist wear lipstick, heels, and sexy clothes. Us hairy legged feminists never tell women they can't do these things, all we ask is that people examine why they do wear these patriarchal beauty standards. I wear them sometimes too, but I am fully aware of how society views this. I admit that now I do it more for fun now, because I feel free to do so since I realised that I previously wore them because society told me that's what women do. Yeah it's fun to wear fun makeup (it's always very extravagant, which is what I see the point of makeup is) and I certainly do appreciate a well made shoe, heel or no.
Another thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is when she went on The Stephen Colbert Show, one which, like The Daily Show, makes light of things light pornography and exploitation of women, she gave him a shirt that said "Feminist Chicks Dig Me." It's bullshit. Chicks on a feminist shirt to describe women? It's bullshit as I do not feel that being compared to a baby chicken is particularly empowering. I've always found the shirt to be bullshit, but the new "spokeswoman" of feminism condoning it on national television? Yep, there's nothing more empowering then being compared to an animal. And not just an animal, but a BABY animal. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bah humbug.