Why should not having finished them stand in the way of denouncing them?

I was given yet another business book to edumacate me in the ways of big business. Needless to say, I got about one page into the book before I got incredibly angry, skimmed the rest of the chapter and then gave up. I decided to review the book on this blog, then wondered whether that was completely fair, given I hadn't read anywhere near the whole thing. After a moment's pause, I came to the conclusion that if the first chapter - where they lay out their theory for the rest of the book - is a load of shite, it is somewhat unlikely that it will get any better. So it's fine. It got me wondering about other business-books-I-have-hated-without-reading-them-all-the-way-to-the-end.

Here is my top three:

(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.

Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.

I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.

I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.

2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.

3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.

The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.

The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.

Read it and Weep

Rather than start the year with my usual moaning, I thought I'd start with a list of some of my favourite feminist reading - if the state of the railways this week is anything to go by, we'll all have the chance to catch up on a bit of reading...

1) The Women's Room
Definitely worth reading - if you're only going to read one feminist book, I'd read this. Not only did it resound within myself and my own experiences, it also illustrates that feminism is not just one theory, but lots of different strands of thought grouped together. It's one of my favourite books of all time and I've read it over and over again.

2) The Second Sex
Simone often gets overlooked, but it's not a bad book. You might want to pick and choose the chapters you read (rather than grimly plough through the whole lot) but some parts are bizarrely relevant, for all society is thought to have moved on.

3) Feminine Mystique
Yes, Betty did go a bit bonkers towards the end, but this is a good read and it's great to see what all the fuss is about. Not perfect, obviously (but who, or what, is?) and some parts are a bit outdated, still - I'd recommend it.

4) The Golden Notebook
I know Doris Lessing is a bit edgy in terms of her feminist credentials but this really is a great book. Perhaps all of you are more sane (or together) than I am, but I found some parts of this book very insightful.

Other books worth reading:
Germaine Greer - Female Eunuch
Naomi Wolf - Beauty Myth
Bell Hooks - collected writings
Imelda Whelan

And of course there are others; the only trouble with doing this when you're supposed to be doing something else (and preferably more productive)is that time is somewhat limited.

To head off the criticism that all/the majority of these are (a) middle class and white and (b) fairly old; I am myself middle class and white and I haven't been all that taken by recent books on feminism. Still, I will try to do better next time.

And the heat is on...

How long until I crack and read the online leaked Harry Potter final installment?

Must... wait for... book (claws at face) but its not out until *saturday*... (much wailing and gnashing of teeth - the SO is upstairs reading it RIGHT NOW)

teh internets are a bad, bad thing.

Why I'm not a third wave feminist and other, equally riveting, stories.

Having indulged in some explicitly feminist reading recently, I’ve been thinking more closely about what I believe *my* feminism to be. More particularly, I’ve been trying to process why I feel so uncomfortable identifying as “third wave”. You know what? Really I’m not third wave at all. Yes, yes – shock all round I’m sure.

I’m going to try, in my next few posts, to explain why this is. I don’t want it to sound offensive, or as though I am being disparaging of other feminists (many of whom are of my generation) who *do* choose to identify this way. Feminism needs support, from as many people as possible. However, I do want to make it clear that I do not think that one type of feminism is more “feminist” than others – feminism, like most schools of political thought, is made up of many variants and the most sensible thing to do (rather than dogmatically picking one theory and sticking to it) seems to be to pick up the bits that work, acknowledge the bits that don’t and think about why that is.

Sooo… that is the mammoth task I have set myself. We shall see how I manage. I’m a little rusty on the ole constructing-a-valid-argument type thing so you’ll have to cut me some slack/hound me mercilessly until I get better at it.

In other news, I’m completely flabbergasted by the whole Jacqui-Smith and her amazing cleave story. I have to say, in the blanket coverage of news I was subjected to over the terrorism-weekend (the perils of a politically aware SO), I completely failed to notice it. The cleavage that is. I certainly noticed the *story* in the papers over the next few weeks. Christ almighty – this is the Home Secretary being calm, unflappable and apparently competent, yet all some people seem to have noticed is her cleavage. She was wearing a suit, as far as I can remember. I think I admired her necklace (yes, charmingly *female* of me). Boobs? No.

The only conclusion I can come to: too many people are dangerously obsessed with breasts. Interesting as they can be – I should know, I have grown some – really, it’s time to seek help.

Less of a bang, more of a whimper...

I’m currently reading “Full Frontal Feminism” (review to follow once I’ve finished it) and I was struck by one of the comments on the back of the book, which referred to it having the “sassiness” to keep people reading. I don’t quite know why I found that so troubling but I do (which is a lie really, as I’m about to tell you why).

The reason is this: the expectation that young feminists have to be sassy and full of “fuck you!” to have their opinions considered valid is unhelpful. It creates a stereotype which is, in some ways, just as damaging as the whole man-hating-hair-legged-bra-burning schtick. Sassiness can be just as alienating as it is inclusive and sassiness, whilst it may be enjoyable to read, does not close the wage gap or lead to greater rights in the work place. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that sassiness does not *contribute* to any of these things – indeed, it may well give the kick start needed – I’m simply pointing out that it is not the be all and end all. And I think we might be in danger of dismissing the contributions of those people who do not express it in a recognised way, which would be detrimental to what we’re trying to achieve.

Perhaps I am only noticing this because I myself, at the current time, am not at all filled with sass. I’m exhausted, fed-up and completely shit-scared because work is a nightmare. However, I’m still a feminist – and I don’t think my opinions are in anyway less valid because of it. Well, relative to usual, given that they are of course *opinions*.

Critical Raunch

Today in the post I received my brand-new copy of Ariel Levy's book on raunch culture and the rise of the female chauvinist pig. I'm always really excited when I get a new book on feminism (or of that kind of genre, should I say), because you never know what you're going to find. Will I have moments of bizarre self-realisation as with Simone? Will I be petrified with fear over the thought of ending up an unfulfilled housewife as Betty described? What about the glorious highs and lows brought on by my all-time favourite read the Women's Room? Of course, it's not all great: the Beauty Myth was something to get angry about I guess, but it left me with an uneasy sense of disappointment. A bit too superficial perhaps? Anyway, she's gone completely bonkers now it seems, so she doesn't get stuck in the same category. Unfair? Who cares, this is *my* blog.

Anyway, after reading part 1, I have a feeling that Ariel is in the Naomi category (although not the mad-Naomi category, I hasten to add). I don't want to sound dismissive, because I think Ariel is right, but for me the argument feels a little shallow. Too many anecdotes, not enough actually getting to the point. Perhaps this is because I come from the hit-them-round-the-head-with-a-shovel school of thought, but generally, I think that arguments never suffer from actually being made, rather than alluded to through socially-available commentary. However, in all fairness, this style of writing has been, arugably, what has got her read by people who wouldn't usually touch a traditional feminist text.

Is this a good thing? Certainly it's a difficult question to answer. Yes, it is good that the message is going out there and, more importantly, getting people *debating* * (see the Kate Taylor article and comments in the Guardian comment is free section). However, I do think that the movement suffers a bit at the same time. Mainly because the media likes to seize upon "new voices" - as in - Ariel Levy is the new voice of feminism. Obviously, this is simply not the case, but it makes people on the outside feel more comfortable if they can lump feminism into one box. Also, shallow polemic is easily dismissed, whereas a heavier, more intimidating read is not. But then we have the problem that the latter might not reach the mainstream and circle right back round to the beginning again.

It seems then, that we're left with a compromise. Accept media-friendly feminism in the form of Ariel Levy and, at one time, Naomi Wolf and find some comfort in the knowledge that they will actually get read by a wide range of people, or be serious and alienated and ignored. To be honest, I don't believe that this really is the choice that we face (although it may feel that way occasionally) and I don't think that it's asking too much to say that we'd like a bit of respect and attention for every single one of the diverse and interesting voices at work in the movement, even if they're not as "sexy" (heavy sarcasm, but forgive me Ariel anyway) as some.