I resent this constant insinuation by Hugo and Amanda that Jessica Vallenti is selling a soulless, issueless, pointless form of “populist” feminism in much the same way LaHaye & Jenkins are selling Evangelical Christianity in their “popularist” Left Behind series of books.
While there are a great many issues with regard to the ethnocentrism, classism, racism and sheer dumbness of both FFF and the concept for this new upcoming litearary catastrophe which I generally agree with, the accusation that Jessica Vallenti is raping the the most fundamental and basic concepts of feminism (pluralism, helping women, not slut shaming the victims of rape, holding men responsible for their actions etc…etc…) for the sole goal of making a quick buck.
I also object to the implication that Vallenti is aiming her books at some kind of stupid and superstitious proletariat who would, if exposed to a form of feminism that was explictly inclusive and which didn’t rest on and perpetuate the exploitation and persecution of our non-white sisters, promptly shit themselves and run away, screaming and tearing their clothes off as they attempt to escaape the curious and new sensation of “markings on paper that also represent abstract thoughts as well as sounds” that has burrowed deep into their heads, not least because it is exactly the same kind of classism that Vallenti herself engages in, but also because she is really marketing her book towards mouth breathing middle class people who object ot anything that at all threatens their preconceptions and who also prefer to spend their free time raping mexicans rather than read books.
I am all for criticisms of Vallenti’s books, but I think that we should all stop engaging in the tit for tat name calling and accusations of selling out that we indulge in when repeatedly accusing Jessica Vallenti of being like some kind of popularist evangelical writer who’s only writing so that she can make a quick buck and who advocates the mass extermination of any jew who doesn’t convert to her brand of christianity.
I mean, come on Mister whiteperson and some woman who’s name I can’t even bother to copy and paste, why should anyone take your irrational, Godwin’s Law breaking hyperventilating hysterics seriously if you can’t even be reasonable with your critcisms? It won’t cost you money to be civil now and again.
Thing is, you invented the dichotomy to begin with
Actually it’s an old dichotomy that’s been used to silence and erase leftwing and liberal evangelical voices so as to effectively kill American Christianity’s ethical roots and replace them with selfishness and superiority that better allowed evangelicalism to become an effect tool for the corporatists back during the rise of far right nationalism. Schwyzer however is under the bizarre misapprehension that the evangelical church’s criticisms of popularist evangelism that actually “dumbs down” (a sneaky term itself, considering that “dumbing down” down is really more often a form of censoring of ideas that are deemed “controversial” by authoritarian power structures who are most threatened by the ideas being censored) amounted more closely to the arguement put forth by the catholic church to the translation of the bible into local languages, such as in the case of the KJV bible.
The reason I bring this up is that the KJV is notable because it is a remarkably faithful rendition of the bible and omits almost nothing from the source texts. In fact I’m somewhat surprised that someone who has read the KJV and surely has the education to know its history didn’t bring it up. Of course, unlike the idea that Schwyzer is putting forth here; that pluralism requires (implictly) some form of “dumbing down” (a patronizing idea even if true), the basis behind the KJV’s “pluralism” was to spread both the faith and the organisational trapping of the anglican church, and wrt to the faith, the translators felt that for it to accurately spead Vox Dei it would, far from being a mere abridged translation of the latin texts used as canon up until that point, would have to be a basically complete retranslation of the greek original text into english, to ensure that the ideas contained with the KJV were as representative of the metatext as possible.
Now if we overlook the mass execution of catholics and the occupation and slaughter of the Irish by those “subtle” anglicans, the basic idea behind the KJV would strike me as a far better approach to “spreading the word” than some silly “Rape Culture For Kids” (or NAMBLA for short) or even a well written “Horrible Sociology: The Revolting Rape Culture” - and while my taoist and chan philisophical background does somewhat bias me towards the idea that you’re not really teaching a person if they don’t feel somewhat challenged to think or have their core ideas threatened if their core ideas are Wrong, a book designed to teach feminist ideas should, imho, at the very least contain something representative of the feminist ideas it’s trying to teach.
9% of the wrong philosophy, for instance the patriarchy freindly, unthreatening, unchallenging and racist aspects of white feminist thought, is worse than none of the philosophy, in much the same way advocating, as most fundamentalists tend to, that we should throw out all of the bits of the canon that we don’t consider “relevant” and focus in a monomaniacal way on a few key passages that miss out, via ommission and lazy thinking, the deeper meanings inherent to the faith in question, is worse than teaching them nothing of the faith at all.
And least ignorance can be readily cured by a complete education and a sincere willingness to learn, but a false belief is far harder to shake once it’s gotten rooted.