Jessica Valenti is a popular, outspoken blogger from the feminist website Feministing.com who has taken her column to print in her new book, “Full Frontal Feminism”. The book touts itself as a wake-up call for a generation of young women who have grown up in a world spurred on by feminists but where the actual word “feminist”, carries for them a negative social connotation of pushy, angry, self-absorbed, man haters. While some view her book as an excellent primer for a group of girls not yet versed on the basics of feminist theory, others see it as an immature hodgepodge of dumbed down, self-help sound bites that neither educates nor adequately portrays neither the feminist struggle nor the ideals to which the fore-mothers of the women’s suffrage and feminist portions of the civil rights movement gave their passion, sweat and blood.

Yet, in the face of many feminist books and treatises speaking to a largely adult audience and the up and comings who are meant to continue fighting the good fight, not only misunderstanding the mission but blatantly refusing the torch at all, there is more than enough incentive to bring the discussion back to basics. Yet, is this “Back to Basics” campaign being used as a genuine opportunity to bring feminist ideas to the 21st century girl, or is it only presenting one woman’s view of what she wants society to look like?

The New Face, erm, Torso of Feminist Theory

The controversy over Ms. Valenti’s book began before anyone had the opportunity to get a look at the first chapter title. The provocative title, “Full Frontal Feminism” brought with it the expectation for an audacious and perhaps even insolent cover. However, critics panned the use of an unusually thin, naked female torso, which to some, inappropriately used the symbol of female objectification not to point out its misuse, but to ironically lure potential sales. Many felt that this was “Calling the Kettle Black” in terms of pointing the finger at the advertising and media monster of U.S. consumerism for creating an unrealistic female body. If objectifying the female body is the only method that Valenti’s publishers can think to use to appeal to the younger generation of consumer’s, what then does this attest to her ability to produce fresh ideas for presenting feminist theory in a way that can bring them back from the brink of self-imposed misogyny? The question also remains as to the whiteness of the woman’s body on the cover. It is quite appropriate to the timbre of the chapters inside however, which seem to apply quite narrowly to the middle to upper-class white populations of the United States than it ever makes to speak to the varying cultures and issues faced by women of color in communities around the country. 

Not Your Mother’s Suffrage

In recent years, like many of the Civil Rights that were fought for in the United States, there are those who question the continued relevance of a need for a cohesively defined “movement”. After many of the initial goals appear, at least on the surface to have been accomplished, it is vital that group leaders take the time to redefine goals as the objectives evolve along with the achievements. With every accomplishment there is created a hole in the message of need. What is communicated outwardly must progress along with the changes that are made in order to stave off critics whose support has begun to waver.

The feminist movement could always be summed up from the very beginning in a single word, choice. From its inception to the present day, the struggle for women to be free to make choices on their own behalf has been the backbone of every issue that finds its way to the picket line. However, while Full Frontal Feminism may appeal to a number of women on one side of an issue, it does not do well by stating such opinions as the golden rule of the movement at large. There are large gaps in information for women of minority groups and cultures.

Many of the affecting issues revolving around religion and stay at home parenting seem to be a blind spot when it comes to what constitutes an opinion or what a woman may honestly make as a lifestyle choice. Critics of her book question her objectivity and the wisdom of teaching vulnerable young girls that the choice of being a stay at home parent is no choice at all because if it were, all the great men would make it themselves.

Aside from this statement ignoring the thousands of men who choose to stay at home to be primary care givers, it undermines the very essence of the feminist movement by demoralizing the women who make the choice to stay home with their children as though it were anti-feminist, when it is merely an opinion pined by the author.

Don’t Mix Her Politics, Your Religion, and Sex

While some people may espouse exclusively voting along party lines, in Full Frontal Feminism, Jessica Valenti takes it a step further and equates religion and politics with Feminist Theory. She passes judgment on religious movements she considers “wacky” without considering the fact that women who participate in those religions are doing so of their own volition. It seems somewhat counterintuitive to advocate opening the minds of young women while at the same time seeming to inform them on which topics they are to be closed-minded about.

For example, she blatantly instructs her readers not to sleep with Republicans, period. This is hardly an ideal that belongs in an instruction manual that champions itself the savior of the next generation of women. If the women’s movement has become so entrenched in such a singular view of religion and one side of the political arena, it seems little wonder that a new generation of young women from a spectrum of individualistic archetypes would feel alienated from its message.

While Valenti may feel that the young feminist is an exceptional find, perhaps it is because the faces of feminism are far more diverse than those which fit inside her narrow definition. While some consider her book a fine primer for the unschooled in Feminist Theory, it is a worthwhile question to explore whether this was the intended purpose or merely the result of the author having only a rudimentary knowledge of the subject herself. If this be the case, it leaves one wondering whether based on this assessment, if the need to go “Back to Basics” needs to begin further back in the generational gap.