And yes, men are constrained in their gender roles. But there’s as much reason to call them on it as there is to call the wealthy white women on their privileged desire to have someone else carry their burdens. It’s not some chance coincidence that the gender that’s expected to care for the babbies (ideally without pay) is the same one as the gender that gets oppressed in so many other ways. If they could drop the privilege for long enough to raise their own kids, poor women wouldn’t have to do it for them. If they think that’s not fair or economically realistic - *shrugs* - it’s their world, their nuclear family, they broke it, they take it home and fix it.

Not all men are slackers. Many are just as constrained in their gender roles. Many blogs have pointed out that women entering “male” fields are dismayed at the lack of family flexibility. It’s tough to do kindercare after 12 to 20 hours of breadwinning (either sex).

I just noticed that many white women feminists assumed women of color and poorer women would be the workforce for childcare. You too can work at WalGod, QuikeeMart and then do eight hours of childcare for “Jenna Bush” so she can achieve a gentlewomen’s D. This class difference has been one real reason that progressives get nailed in some areas. Why should I give up what little I have so some rich bitch can avoid changing her own brat’s diaper? Ain’t nobody but family and friends helping me so why should “Jenna” get free childcare that my taxes paid for?

One thing that bothers me about it and it’s been discussed a lot already by women much better and often in hostile circumstances due to many White feminists’ defensiveness on the subject, in these discussions is that Jessica Valenti is really chatty, first-person, prosy with “women” (read White women) but when it comes to women of color, it’s like she puts them at a distance, in the third person. And the racism, classism and homophobia of feminism is literally defined as an “aside” in her book.

It may be worthwhile for some people but in my opinion, what’s been written about the book in blogs like bfps, Black Amazon’s, ABW, Donnas and others about it and many of the analyses and discussions that have taken place at their sites is much more worthwhile reading but these discussions often come about because of what Valenti relegates to the “asides” of her book, both in terms of the book itself serving perhaps unintentionally as an example and from the venom of White feminists on some blogs to any criticism of Valenti and her book. So what’s “worthwhile” perusual comes at a price that is paid very unequally.

The main problem I have with it is the title and cover. “Full Frontal Feminism” implies that the book is a) comprehensive, full, complete and inclusive b) sexy, all about sex. While there is quite an emphasis on sex and reproduction (an over-emphasis IMO) there is an under-emphasis on other feminist issues, including the assumption that feminist = white woman.

I think I give Jessica a slight pass on the title an cover simply because I know a bit about the book business and I know it can be difficult to get the cover and title you want. So, I’m not entirely sure about how involved she was in the cover and title. It’s certainly a problem with the book, but it may have more to do with the publishers than with Valenti.

The comment is that many comfortable white feminists want child care and then assume that the minority or poor whites will fall over themselves volunteering to work for no pay or status. Her career should not be held back by kids. The “lower orders” can work two part-time jobs and then do kindercare so she might be fulfilled.

Feh, most of the working proles feel that the “Barbies” can do their own damn baby sitting as most “Barbies” have far more flexible and less physically taxing work.

Any solutions?