History of Feminism
Related: About this forumFriday fun with feminism, Faber and Faber and a f-f-f-f-ucking hell
Well it turned out I couldnt. But I gave it a good go. Can you do any better?
http://hetpat.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/friday-fun-with-feminism-faber-and-faber-and-a-f-f-f-f-ucking-hell/
(I especially like the "Intercourse"cover parody)
Thought I should add some context here
The Bell Jar is a searing semi-autobiographical look at Sylvia Plaths struggle with mental illness. But its publishers Faber seem to want to attract a new readership for the troubled poet who died with her head in an oven in 1963. The 50th anniversary edition of her cult first novel, published shortly before her death, has been repackaged as chick lit according to a host of appalled readers.
The anniversary edition is a far cry from Shirley Tuckers 1966 design for Faber in cream and green concentric circles, or the later paperback version of a woman resembling Plath but with her hair and skin unnaturally colourful, the edges of which bleach out and bleed into one another distorting the portrait.
Today's cover is a bright bubblegum pinky red (above), contrasting with a 1950s photo of a young woman patting powder from a compact onto her face, her ruby lips reflected in its mirror. For its stylised, and "Vintage", attractiveness - recalling the glamour of the 1950s and 60s so in Vogue thanks to Mad Men and Call The Midwife - , the cover has provoked a huge backlash, with many calling it an insensitive choice for a book ground-breaking for detailing the suffocating power of gender stereotyping.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/an-insult-to-women-everywhere--sylvia-plaths-the-bell-jar-gets-a-chick-lit-makeover-8477220.html
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)I'm especially amused by "The Second Sex" one... "A hilarious must-read for Sex in the City fans"...
The real new "Bell Jar" cover, not so much.
Fuck it, it's over, we are officially back in the 1960's.
Sexing up "the Bell Jar" is pretty fucking sad.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)
i think we are worse than the 60's. then there was a respect in a way as they made the rules for behavior.
today, .... it is all about being mens porn. and no, it does not give us ownership of sex.
reading that stupid ass study about men getting more sex if they do not do the womens work and the many posts talking about men getting it, i wondered if we were on a progressive board and in 2012 where women claim the have sexual ownership.
sounded more like men were doing the depriving and the women were not getting the sex. but, it was all about men, and their all important sex. women were totally dismissed in the subject unless referred to as "allocating" the interaction.
just. so. odd.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)The parodies are hilarious, but fuck me, what does this say about the state of feminism today?
Lord, lord... we have backslid all the way to the 50's... except for sex. Porn is mainstream.
Wonderful combination. Awesome state of affairs.
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)At least the 'The Independent' is pissed.
Of course you know what's coming----ahem---- 'lighten up'. 'it doesn't change the contents'. '
'This will allow a release of an important book to reach a wider audience, isn't that more important than a cover?'
*sigh*
redqueen
(115,103 posts)'Shut up, feminists. The patriarchy is here to stay, you might as well find ways to like it.'
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as i was saying above, i think it is worse. i do not think there was hate in the 50's. i think there is real hate today.
what i found interesting in another thread talking about your use of the term that you later found out came from the porn industry on what they call the women in porn. the outrage. yet, it is how they refer to women in the industry. and this is the industry that is so protected in such a manner demanding, crying, insisting it is not disrespectful to women.
so much disconnect going on.