Comments on: Girl, Undressed (2008)

By: reactions v | After Hours

reactions v | After Hours — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:09:42 +0000

[…] the review of Girl Undressed, Caty and Red lightly touch on the author’s trotting out her credentials before she started […]

By: Caty Simon

Caty Simon — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:39:33 +0000

In reply to Robin D.

This was all in response to another commenter–Samia Shoaib. And I was saying that “speculations on Fowler’s psychological health” was meant flippantly/sarcastically, not as a diagnosis.

By: StikkiNikki

StikkiNikki — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:45:29 +0000

So, I have not read the book in question, and having read every single preceeding comment and the initial review here I do not intend to.
Maybe I’m way off and completely wrong, but, what it looks like to me is that this book was written years ago. Perhaps at this time the author did have racist ideas, did have internalised misogyny, was hating on other sex workers bodies, was bigoted in a multitude of ways, ways that are all too common in society at large.
Perhaps Ruth Fowler has grown in a different direction, perhaps Ruth has been de-schooling from those bigoted thought patterns and ignorant assumptions about others written as though they are her own views (going by the extensive quotes found in this extensive thread). If this is the case, perhaps it is highly embarrassing, or otherwise difficult to admit, from Ruths present position that though no less mean-spirited is still more politically, uh, progressive at this stage. Losing face is a big deal, admitting to shitty behaviour is hard, especially if being nasty is (possibly a large part of) whats gotten you through so far.
Being responsible and accountable to (what were) peers is probably one of the hardest things someone can do who has really fucked-up on the bigotry front (and others of course), it feels humiliating and requires some level of humbleness that some (possibly including Ruth Fowler) may not wish to engage in, but in my opinion it is an incredibly brave thing to do, and I also still believe in love, which in my experience involves putting myself at the mercy of anyone I’ve done wrong to. But this is not meant to be about me. It’s just my thoughts at 4:46am after reading these screed and screeds of tos and fros.

By: Robin D

Robin D — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:14:04 +0000

I mean I did not mean to defend the book, I have not read it and am neutral. Leaning “it sounds terrible.” I wasn’t trying to comment on the book just this review. By the people obsessed with the CV thing – I hope you did not think I was talking about you (Ruth is also in her thirties).

By: Robin D

Robin D — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:07:38 +0000

In reply to Caty Simon. Oh no Caty, I have no doubt the book was a lot worse. Sounds terrible. What was flippant/sarcastic? Their dumb CV and grammar stuff?

By: Caty Simon

Caty Simon — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:47:14 +0000

In reply to Samia Shoaib. Read the book, seriously. I was wondering what someone who sounded as reasonable as you do was doing defending it. Whether or not we descended to Ruth's level by writing this, which is something I'm seriously going to think about, the level to which we had to descend was pretty damn low.

By: Caty Simon

Caty Simon — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:45:22 +0000

In reply to Moon. ...obviously flippant and sarcastic language, not a diagnosis.

By: Caty Simon

Caty Simon — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:44:34 +0000

In reply to Moon. Ah, right, how could I *possibly* get that you value one set of accomplishments more from what you said? I must obviously be projecting based on my own insecurities. And look, I misspelled "judgments"--how dare I critique a literary work when I occasionally misspell words while writing internet comments.

By: Samia Shoaib

Samia Shoaib — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:44:34 +0000

As with the stripper/sex worker culture, my nation (Pakistan) has only relatively recently been allowed a voice on the international stage. The ensuing scrap amongst those who insist on having exclusive copyright to a diverse experience would be comedic if it weren’t so dangerous – requiring as it does a degree of pandering to stereotypes and a dismissal of alternative p.o.v.s via a “my experience is more authentic than yours”. The inability to account for nuance, to condemn that which we don’t understand and worst of all, to presume ownership of universal issues, is endemic of the pulling the ladder up behind us syndrome and ignorant of the possibility that there’s enough empathy to go around. Try that on for size.

By: Samia Shoaib

Samia Shoaib — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:44:05 +0000

In reply to Howard Campbell.

Criticizing a single word isn’t pedantic – though assuming ownership of it based on your cultural context is elitist. I enjoy “mean spirited purple prose” on occasion when it’s smart and honest – but that’s just a question of personal taste. My objection was clear: this was not a book review, it was a personal attack. That much was obvious to me as an impartial observer – although I must say that as a woman, I was appalled by the nastiness of it and I have every right to be without being told what language is “appropriate for me”. (The cheek.) Authorial intent is redundant for a reason; because somewhere along the line we figured out that it was the height of hubris to deign to know what lay in an author’s heart and mind. Having not read the book in question, I can assure you I am none the wiser for having read this blog. And Howard, it’s unseemly for a man to discuss a woman’s weight – besides, what makes you assume a “petite frame” is preferable? Or having a “book on the shelves”? I understand these are common definitions of success in our society but has it ever occurred to you that not everyone shares that value system? I for one appreciate a writer who’s brave enough to take risks and to speak her truth; something I find sorely lacking in the current hyper homogenized landscape. And if it ruffles feathers so be it. The last time I checked that was the point of art.