How many stories can someone postCan people just leave out if she did or didn’t descend from slaves. I’m not sticking up for CE but if we don’t know HER family history or background personally I’d leave whether she did or didn’t alone tbf. It’s not up to us to decide.
I also agree with the posts above. She has cancelled herself! In the beginning of this I actually was more on CE side due to having the books and following her for some time.
I did believe the thoughts that FG did copy her book but the more this has dragged it’s probably not the case.
To the person who said CE hates white people at this point I reckon she hates anyone who isn’t adoring her or backing her points. Black white asian etc, straight, gay the lot!
Lastly how many stories can someone post? What is the limit? I was up as I couldn’t sleep at 3 and she had like 50 stories. It’s now 9am and there’s more I’m tired!
I agree with this - I don’t see what CE is seeing at all. Yes the books cover the same topics, and the artwork looks inspired by the same era (artwork FG has been producing years before the release of this book), but how on earth has this argument gone from one based on potential plagiarism, to arguments over racism.How many stories can someone postthey’re all SO dense too, I honestly can’t keep up and am not smart enough to form an opinion so have loved just reading this thread tbh!
Re the books & plagiarism, I haven’t read either so can’t say but they both feel like entry level feminism made beautiful? CE says she made the first aestheticTM version of this book & I believe her, but I can’t imagine there was this sort of beef when the second illustrated kiddies book came out...? Like isn’t it inevitable in the publishing industry? Couldn’t a scholar / academic come for both of them saying they’ve ripped and simplified their life’s research? I genuinely don’t know but what a palava
Yep yep yep. Like a few years ago when those Goodnight Stories for Rebel Girl books became popular there were suddenly all theseRe the books & plagiarism, I haven’t read either so can’t say but they both feel like entry level feminism made beautiful? CE says she made the first aestheticTM version of this book & I believe her, but I can’t imagine there was this sort of beef when the second illustrated kiddies book came out...? Like isn’t it inevitable in the publishing industry? Couldn’t a scholar / academic come for both of them saying they’ve ripped and simplified their life’s research? I genuinely don’t know but what a palava
They haven’t bought ad space under Chidera’s books. The reason Florence’s book appears is because that’s how google and Amazon algorithms work. They combine ads for things which are frequently purchased together or by someone looking at that item, to maximise sales. It is also based on a person’s previous searches, the things they engage with on social media etc (remember they’re always watchingThere seemed to be a lot of emphasis put on the fact that Florence stole "we don't owe you pretty" from Chidera. But Chidera stole that from Erin McKean so where do we stop...?
It's like any "self help" book, it's just repackaging of the same things in a different order and a new font. It's rare you come across anything that isn't a reworking of a previously shared idea.
It's just that Florence's rehash of old news was on the same management and publisher as Chidera's so it's caused all of this trouble. Also the fact that they bought advertising space in Chidera's name which is a pretty low blow and completely unnecessary.
I would like to know how much money Florence made from the book in comparison to Chidera. And how much of that money Chidera feels she is entitled to in reparations?
This is feminism at it's finest though hey?
If this is fact and nothing has been paid for to promote Florence over Chidera then the whole thing is utter bullshit. To me that was the main low-blow because in terms of design and graphics, I think the two books are not alike and I keep wondering what I am missing with that, the aesthetic and graphics are worlds apart, from different decades!?. The premise is always going to be very similar because they are writing about the exact same thing.They haven’t bought ad space under Chidera’s books. The reason Florence’s book appears is because that’s how google and Amazon algorithms work. They combine ads for things which are frequently purchased together or by someone looking at that item, to maximise sales. It is also based on a person’s previous searches, the things they engage with on social media etc (remember they’re always watching) There’s a number of screenshots in this thread that show Florence doesn’t always appear when people search Chidera’s name.
My best guess is that if someone has paid for the ads in google search, then it would’ve been Amazon. When Florence’s book does come up, it’s the link to buy it on Amazon. The amount of money it costs to buy a top ad on google is pretty big and publishers usually don’t have a big advertising budget. Especially when someone like Florence has half a million followers she can advertise to on her own Instagram. Amazon on the other hand has enormous budgets. If the publishers were going to advertise her book under Chidera’s then I don’t see why they’d do so on behalf of Amazon (since that’s where it links to), an enormous corp.If this is fact and nothing has been paid for to promote Florence over Chidera then the whole thing is utter bullshit. To me that was the main low-blow because in terms of design and graphics, I think the two books are not alike and I keep wondering what I am missing with that, the aesthetic and graphics are worlds apart, from different decades!?. The premise is always going to be very similar because they are writing about the exact same thing.
An actual academic would either be happy that young people are writing about feminism in an accessible way that introduces people politely to the subject, and/or would be annoyed at how complex ideas have been simplified down to pithy statements. They would *not* be calling plagiarism because Chidera’s definition of plagiarism isn’t... it? (Said cause I’m an academic!)How many stories can someone postthey’re all SO dense too, I honestly can’t keep up and am not smart enough to form an opinion so have loved just reading this thread tbh!
Re the books & plagiarism, I haven’t read either so can’t say but they both feel like entry level feminism made beautiful? CE says she made the first aestheticTM version of this book & I believe her, but I can’t imagine there was this sort of beef when the second illustrated kiddies book came out...? Like isn’t it inevitable in the publishing industry? Couldn’t a scholar / academic come for both of them saying they’ve ripped and simplified their life’s research? I genuinely don’t know but what a palava
CE has shared images of both books post it noted up with headers like dump him etc so I assume she’s done that work, I’ve not seen her shared page by page comparisons on her stories yet but admittedly I do skip when the top bar is like: .......Can anyone find any links to images, pages or sections of text that Chidera has cited as outright plagiarism?
I think Chidera clearly hates white people and just sees them as a monolith and we've all done awful things and owe black people money.
Now I'm fully aware of white privilege and the fact that we live in a racist society and that white people and white passing people like myself have it much easier. We have a role in making sure this changes! But white privilege does not mean that we cannot challenge black people because guess what? People of all races can be horrible people and do horrible things. We should not give people a free pass to be awful because of their race, thatsmsdness, disagreeing with a black person does not make you racist!
I completely agree with a lot of what you’ve said, but Florence has pretty widely acknowledged and referenced the work and writing of prominent feminists who have inspired her. I think she’s been specific about her awareness that she didn’t come up with the theories in her book. Unless I’ve just completely misinterpreted what you meant!As well as this, both of them talk about plagiarism as if their ideas aren't just repackaged from bell hooks, Kimberle Crenshaw and a whole bunch of other feminist theorists and academics. I get that making feminism accessible is important but not like this.
Yeah I get this completely, and I also understand that it's really hard to come up with original things and ideas these days, I must admit I haven't read enough of her book to know exactly how much she's referenced. I'm also hella used to academic spaces where you need to be saying something new that adds to the conversation productively in order to get anything published so that probably skews my views on these things.I completely agree with a lot of what you’ve said, but Florence has pretty widely acknowledged and referenced the work and writing of prominent feminists who have inspired her. I think she’s been specific about her awareness that she didn’t come up with the theories in her book. Unless I’ve just completely misinterpreted what you meant!
Yea I totally agree with you about the issues surrounding placing too much importance on a particular individual in a movement. You’re definitely right about how it can distract from the actual focus of the feminist movement.Yeah I get this completely, and I also understand that it's really hard to come up with original things and ideas these days, I must admit I haven't read enough of her book to know exactly how much she's referenced. I'm also hella used to academic spaces where you need to be saying something new that adds to the conversation productively in order to get anything published so that probably skews my views on these things.
I think I'm just seriously critical of this kind of Instagram feminism in general, they both push it so badly, it's all very focused around idolising particular individuals and assigning way too much importance to people who don't really deserve it (although that's something that takes way more unpacking) - and I guess it's not inherently a bad thing because at the end of the day both of them are introducing more people to feminism but to me it just comes across as highly performative, and above all provides a huge distraction from communal feminism because communal feminism doesn't sell. Like, women building each other up doesn't cause controversy therefore doesn't make news therefore doesn't make money. Ya know?
(I have so many thoughts I'm so sorry I think a lot of what I'm saying makes no sense lmao)
oh my, I missed that part. What did she actually do? Does anyone have screenshots?Fatpheebs: *starts campaign about stopping the online abuse which lead her to attempt suicide*
Also fatpheebs: *fans the flames of an online dispute she knows nothing about, contributing to a massive pile-on against the accused person and endangering their mental health*
*sends her followers after black and trans individuals who are also not involved with the situation, where they spew racist and transphobic abuse at said individuals, endangering THEIR mental health*
*fosters online abuse against others*
*apologises and asks not to be sent.... online abuse*
You couldn't make it upyet more examples of why this individualistic Instagram model of learning about liberation movements through individuals with no experience or expertise - individuals with nothing more than a smartphone and an internet connection - is toxic and helps no-one learn anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?