|
|
 |
 |
| 25 Apr 2008 07:52 |
| OH NO AMANDA MARCOTTE |
| Public |
 angry |
|
So. Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, whom I used to adore, wrote a book. Marcotte has been in the spotlight because she wrote a blog entry on the racism and sexism suffered by immigrant women that (supposedly innocently) parallelled work by brownfemipower. (Link is to an essay, because brownfemipower has taken her blog down.) Whether or not the parallel work was accidental [It wasn't. See comments.], Marcotte didn't link or refer to any of the bloggers of color who are have spoken on these issues for years. She presented as original thought concepts that have been identified and contested by bloggers of color for years.
Now Marcotte's new book has come out, and the chapter headings contain appalling racial stereotypes from old comics. (Hat-tip Holly of Feministe; go read it.) There the beautiful blonde white woman is, being menaced by stereotypical spear-chucking black people.
Marcotte would have seen these images in the page proofs; apparently it didn't occur to her that they were problematic. She should have known better, because the first cover proof for the book also contained an image with unfortunate racial connotations. (Sorry, no link, the image has vanished from Marcotte's site.) This caused a flamewar. When called on this, Marcotte could have said "Gee, the press and I didn't think; I'm sorry."
What she said was, "I think nowadays retro imagery used by avowed liberals can safely be assumed to be at least an attempt at coy irony. I’m not committing to whether it’s successful or not. I think it’s a fool’s errand to lay claim to definitive interpretations of archly ironic imagery."
Which is where the OH AMANDA MARCOTTE NO comes in. No. Liberals do not get a free pass on racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes, ethnic stereotypes, or the whole carnival. Liberals are, rather, expected to pay attention to all of the above because it's part of equality. You can't wave your liberal card to Get Out Of Screw-ups Free. You just lost your liberal card. The only way to get it back is to apologize, promise not to do it again, and follow through.
Marcotte has fallen flat on the follow-through. Seal Press should have known better than to use the chapter-heading images, and Marcotte should have drawn on her recent experience to object.
P.S. On the question of irony, I highly recommend ebogjonson's Should I use blackface on my blog?
Late update: Seal Press have made a full apology, are pulling the images from the second printing (now in progress), and will be looking for racial-awareness classes.
70 sounded | Sounding Spheres | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
 |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) violetisblue |
| 25 Apr 2008 15:24 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Violet Is Flippin' You Off |
|
"I think nowadays retro imagery used by avowed liberals can safely be assumed to be at least an attempt at coy irony."
So It's Okay If You're A Liberal, is that it? Oh, fuck you, AM. Phil Ochs had your number a long time ago.
Edited at 2008-04-25 03:25 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| londonkds |
| 25 Apr 2008 15:42 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| asshats (ann1962) |
|
I would expect far better from Marcotte than the makers of Piurates of the Caribbean when it came to blankly replicating racist past pop culture and claiming harmless nostalgia, and I was pissed off enough with them.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| violetisblue |
| 25 Apr 2008 15:48 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Violet Is Bastard |
|
No no, see, she's not blankly replicating it, she's ironically reappropriating it. The question of how a white person could in any circumstance think such imagery was theirs to "reappropriate" is another matter entirely, and one I'm somehow not the least shocked she's failed to address.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| misscam |
| 25 Apr 2008 15:37 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| What the bloody hell? |
|
I only vaguely read a discussion about what happened, so I don't feel fully informed, but...
It always wigs me out a bit when people do the "but my intention wasn't to hurt so why are you taking offence" dance. Because no no no. Actions that might not be intentionally out to do wrong you're still acountable for. (Heck, the law has manslaughter charges.) You can get a bit more slack and understanding if your intentions are good, but it's not the free-out-of-jail card.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| neadods |
| 26 Apr 2008 02:22 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
It always wigs me out a bit when people do the "but my intention wasn't to hurt so why are you taking offence" dance.
Intent doesn't mean jackshit. The Titanic wasn't intended to sink. (Something which, in another context, I'd really love to say to Paul Cornell.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| cofax7 |
| 25 Apr 2008 16:09 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Marcotte's commenting in response to what she calls "the dust-up" (!!) on Feministe, basically saying it was the publishers fault and not responding in any way to the content of the complaints or apologizing for the content of the book she's been promoting for weeks. If she didn't realize the images were racist, she should just own that, like others have done; instead she's dodging it completely.
It's really appallingly poor behavior on all counts, and she's losing allies rapidly.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| rachelmanija |
| 25 Apr 2008 16:43 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Blog Against Racism: Sakura |
|
What blows my mind is that there was a metaphoric depiction of a black man (a gorilla) on the cover that was removed after about a billion people protested... and then they went ahead and used non-metaphoric depictions of "natives" in the chapter headings! I think we have a new definition of chutzpah.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| spiralsheep |
| 25 Apr 2008 16:59 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| starry_couture Truth Make You Fret |
|
Whether or not the parallel work was accidental, Marcotte didn't link or refer to any of the bloggers of color who are have spoken on these issues for years. She presented as original thought concepts that have been identified and contested by bloggers of color for years.
There's no "whether or not" about it. Marcotte publicly admitted to appropriating the work of Nina Perales without credit.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| lenadances |
| 25 Apr 2008 17:16 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Grrr puppy |
|
I've said it once and I'll say it again: if she were driving with a blind spot like that, she would have been pegged as a menace to the community and her license revoked. If I were driving a car and going to change lanes and a more observant passenger noticed that I was about to plow into a motorcycle, the response to "DO NOT CHANGE LANES, THERE'S A GUY IN YOUR BLIND SPOT!" is not "You're entitled to your opinion, I'm sure, but as a feminist I do not HAVE a blind spot." The correct response is "Crap! Thank you for saving us from a collision-- I didn't even know I had that blind spot! Next time I plan on switching lanes I'll ask if you can check that spot first, and I will totally listen to you on it. Thank you thank you!"
If she can't figure that out, the feminist blogosphere needs to pull her license. Boot her off the shared blogs. Do not link to her. Do not mention her book. Do not mention her appearances. Period.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| debg |
| 25 Apr 2008 17:29 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Nodding like a plastic bobblehead on the dashboard of a Corvette, over here.
Yes, and yes, and yes. Is she nuts?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
| morchades |
| 26 Apr 2008 04:59 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
If she can't figure that out, the feminist blogosphere needs to pull her license. Boot her off the shared blogs. Do not link to her. Do not mention her book. Do not mention her appearances. Period.
Here Here.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| liviapenn |
| 25 Apr 2008 17:41 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
The original cover was this.
Amanda's response at the time, to the criticism of the original cover?
I am saying that my sense that these flamewars erupt in good faith disappeared a long time ago, since it appears that there’s exactly no way to avoid them. ....... Big things create long threads and long threads tend to flamewars. Anything outside of that, I won’t commit to. But I am going to point out that the inevitability of this makes it a lot harder to take it on good faith.
IE, "shut up, you're all just making things up 'cause you're jealous of my book deal."
Charming.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| nestra |
| 25 Apr 2008 18:03 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Even though I shouldn't be, I am astonished at how unremittingly nasty and dismissive she is, over and over again.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
....ohhhhh puke.
//pokes around thread
Wow, and then she just flat-out SAYS it!
I keep finding myself in “messes” like this because I’m a blogger with a lot of traffic and a book deal. If it was another person in my shoes, this would be going on—scurrilous, unfounded accusations of “stealing” because I write about the same issue as someone else, routine blow-ups that work only because the goal posts move every time the accusers are demonstrated to be full of shit. Like all good attacks, it’s not really that personal. You happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you get mugged, it’s not that the mugger hates you. You were standing in the wrong street at the wrong time.
....did....she....REALLY....just compare this to....getting MUGGED? Ohhhhh the little loaves and fishes.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| lenadances |
| 25 Apr 2008 19:19 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Egad |
|
This just in, on that thread at Feministe:
We’ve just posted the following public apology on the Seal blog and want to address it here as well:
To Our Readers, Our Friends, Our Critics,
We are taking action immediately to remove the offensive images from It’s A Jungle Out There. We are currently reprinting, and we will make these changes now. We apologize for any pain or concern these images have caused.
We do not believe it is appropriate for a book about feminism, albeit a book of humor, to have any images or illustrations that are offensive to anyone.
Some have asked the valid question, “What were you thinking?”
Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author’s humor. That is all. We were not thinking.
As an organization, we need to look seriously at the effects of white privilege. We will be looking for anti-racist trainings offered here in the Bay Area. We want to incorporate race analysis into our work.
In the meantime, please know that all involved in the publishing of It’s A Jungle Out There, from editorial to production were not trying to send a message to anyone about our feelings regarding race. If taken seriously as a representation of our intentions, these images are also not very feminist. By putting the big blonde in the skimpy bathing suit with the big breasts, the tiny waist, and the weapon on our cover, we are also not asserting that she is any kind of standard that anyone should aspire to. This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.
We also extend this apology to the author, Amanda Marcotte, who did not select these images for her book. Writing humor is very difficult. While our intention was to complement your words, we see that these images have had the opposite effect, and for that, we are sorry.
Sincerely and humbly,
Krista Lyons-Gould and Brooke Warner
Link here.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| cryptoxin |
| 25 Apr 2008 20:19 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.
WTF???
And, like, 5 paragraphs until they can even say "racist" instead of euphemizing about "offensive images"?
And writing humor is very difficult. Very, very difficult. That is really something we all need to keep in mind here for some reason.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| cryptile |
| 25 Apr 2008 23:36 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| make it work |
|
Way to be classy and ironic, Amanda. I hadn't read Pandagon for a while now, but it's sure off the bookmark bar now.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| maga_dogg |
| 26 Apr 2008 03:41 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| YOU ARE ALL WRONG |
|
As a liberal, I am goddamn entitled to behave as if I live in Future Post-Revolution Utopia Land where nobody has any hangups about anything whatsoever because everything is so awesome. Kant demands no less.
Reply | Thread | Link
Liberals are, rather, expected to pay attention to all of the above because it's part of equality. You can't wave your liberal card to Get Out Of Screw-ups Free. You just lost your liberal card. The only way to get it back is to apologize, promise not to do it again, and follow through.
May I present you with this Internet? or at least this giant sign that says "WORD"?
Reply | Thread | Link
|
|
|
