- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It’s a valid point, but let’s not get it twisted her books have been a major success -she’s been a Sunday times bestseller. I don’t think she has been overshadowed at all - I just think Florence has more ”appeal” from a generic bland feminist view. You just have to look at her normal engagement and figures - she talks and saves a lot, look at her story highlights alone.
She just seems to refuse to maybe look at her own strategies to make sure her book was as successful as possible - it seems from the multiple people calling her difficult to work with that she’s not been the best with networking either.
watching SFs bring back the bush now while I munch my dinner and just for a laugh lol
I think there's something in that FG was already merchandising and selling stuff, she already had an audience who were buying her art work, tote bags, and t-shirts etc built up over a few years so a book is very natural. People who've gifted her pieces to friends and family over the years, who had friends see them out with bags etc, all of that was raising her profile and establishing her as credible. SF jumped straight into a book from nothing, that makes a difference.
Having said the above though, I do agree that her whiteness, class, and thin privilege did a lot too.
100%, so many of the people messaging her mention having to wait for payday or sending her literally all of their disposable income, it's actually disgusting that she's rinsing people less economically well-off than herself, not intersectional at all. She bangs on about race but has nothing to say about where she fits into the class system other than she was raised in Peckham. But Chidera would NEVER admit to her own privilege because her entire worldview depends on victimhood.
(Double post soz) I can't remember which of Chidera's billions of essays on her story I saw this on (think it was one of the WhatsApp messages with Munroe), but she said something along the lines of how Florence had stolen her ideas and "sprinkled queer on it".
That really bleeping rubbed me up the wrong way. Being queer is often traumatic and constitutes an almost entirely different life experience, worldview, and relationship with yourself and others around you - for many being queer is one of (if not THE) most defining features of their life and it's not just some trifling thing people say about themselves to make themselves sound interesting or edgy. You can't just "sprinkle queer" on something, it's not an addition, it's an IDENTITY - e.g. a lesbian book is a lesbian book, not a book with lesbianism sprinkled on top. "Queer" literally means unusual, strange, different from the accepted norms, it refers to something altogether and fundamentally apart from the default, straight, cis world most people inhabit - Chidera really let her cishet privilege get the better of her when she acted like queerness is something you could "sprinkle on" to feminism. No hun, queer feminism is its own respected and established field and you clearly don't have the first clue about it.
But Chidera will 100% never do the work to engage with queer theory or be an effective ally to us, because she's only interested in identity politics when it benefits her.
Last edited:
My verdict on the bring back the bush thing was that it was incredibly western centric. For someone who behind closed doors seems to harbour quite a bit of disdain for white women, the women that joined her in the self experiment were majority white with one exception. It takes a separate interview with a girl who is at the time having a full body wax (and who is of ethnic origin with darker features darker hair and more visible body hair sorry I don't actually know her heritage so I don't want to make a faux pas here) to talk about how much more difficult it is being a woman with more visible body hair than the average white girl.
But yeah very surface level really. I will say she did come across pretty likeable though and very amicable so she has it in her but it did seem like a bit of a departure from the usual vibe she's given off on twitter and Insta over the last 4 years.
But yeah very surface level really. I will say she did come across pretty likeable though and very amicable so she has it in her but it did seem like a bit of a departure from the usual vibe she's given off on twitter and Insta over the last 4 years.
CE just looks like an idiot with her response to Ash Sarker, attached public responses too
Attachments
Long time lurker first time poster!
I agree that privilege definitely plays a part in FG’s success, she is pretty and white and very palatable for most audiences. But her artwork is what sets her apart and it’s how I came across her initially - she is a genuinely talented artist imo. Her illustrations were her USP and her book had lots of unseen art in it alongside easily accessible gcse feminism. I have read both books and didn’t like either but Idk how the slumflower can compare the two when she has no art? Just big bold yellow and pink text? I personally think it’s a baseless claim and she’s just a bit bitter that FG’s book did better than hers
I agree that privilege definitely plays a part in FG’s success, she is pretty and white and very palatable for most audiences. But her artwork is what sets her apart and it’s how I came across her initially - she is a genuinely talented artist imo. Her illustrations were her USP and her book had lots of unseen art in it alongside easily accessible gcse feminism. I have read both books and didn’t like either but Idk how the slumflower can compare the two when she has no art? Just big bold yellow and pink text? I personally think it’s a baseless claim and she’s just a bit bitter that FG’s book did better than hers
Referring to Florence as “Pretty and White” is making me feel uneasy. Partly due to the whole “western ideals of beauty” which often includes Whiteness in some places.
I’d just say she has the “look” of the Instagram market and it’s her whiteness that attracted people to buy her books.
That said does anyone recall or have been able to find the sales quotas for each book? I reckon CE’s are flying off the shelves by the looks of her stories. BUT then can they even be trusted?
I’d just say she has the “look” of the Instagram market and it’s her whiteness that attracted people to buy her books.
That said does anyone recall or have been able to find the sales quotas for each book? I reckon CE’s are flying off the shelves by the looks of her stories. BUT then can they even be trusted?
Last edited:
Sorry yes I didn’t mean to imply at all that the two were synonymous! But for the global market she is easier to digest I suppose especially as she dumbs down a lot of work from white feminists before her. She defo has the Instagram “look” tho which is a better way of putting itReferring to Florence as “Pretty and White” is making me feel uneasy. Partly due to the whole “western ideals of beauty” which often includes Whiteness in some places.
I’d just say she has the “look” of the Instagram market and it’s her whiteness that attracted people to buy her books.
That said does anyone recall or have been able to find the sales quotas for each book? I reckon CE’s are flying off the shelves by the looks of her stories. BUT then can they even be trusted?
This sums it up perfectly tbh.
Also I suspect this veers into respectability politics but FG’s book is far more giftable to a young female audience than SF’s, in my opinion
I don’t agree with the secure the bag feminism & the idea of exclusively dating rich men, it’s just not achievable for the majority of women? There’s a finite number of rich men, who will be clustered in cities, for starters but I would worry about a niece (only one is old enough to date tbf 
) putting themselves into a situation with such a power imbalance? Also we’ve all known women to be completely shafted by blokes in divorce so you’d hope that dating advice went beyond pick a rich one & was more about growing your own flee fund and an equal partnership but That sort of content has a small delusional audience on Insta and that’s it.
Same here. I loved her art and it has, from the beginning, centred around a very specific colour palette and anyone who knows anything about art, can set apart the two books very, very quickly. I bought FG's book PURELY for the art (I've never read it because I am n my 40s and most of it is irrelevant so I am saving it for when my daughter is a bit older). I had heard of CE from her hairy fanny documentary but I had never followed her to begin with so knew nothing about her books prior to this "war".
When it first kicked off, I though maybe the content of FGs book was almost identical to CEs but there seems to be a lot of emphasis on the look of the book and I cannot see any similarities at all between the two. Some have commented on the size of the pages which is bleeping laughable.
There also seems to be a lot of anger about CEs likeness being one of FGs illustrations, but it's obvious from the start that FG was in awe of CE, she is mentioned on the very first page and therefore I saw the illustration as a tribute to her rather than trying to rip her off.
Is this seriously what she writes about? How about earn your own riches and date whoever you like? Where is the happiness in being with someone who PAYS for your time? Is this not the same as being given "house-keeping" from the 1950s? I am really hoping I have misinterpreted this because if this is her radical and groundbreaking message then she's an absolute joke.This sums it up perfectly tbh.
Also I suspect this veers into respectability politics but FG’s book is far more giftable to a young female audience than SF’s, in my opinion
That sort of content has a small delusional audience on Insta and that’s it.
The first time I can see CE mention her "art" is in Feb last year. You can go back 4 years or so on FGs Insta and see that that is where she came from. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but to me CEs art just looks like she's been playing around on Illustrator for half an hour to make herself seem arty.
Last edited:
CE telling an academic lecturer to Google something, just wow. Scientists use academic journals to understand the concepts they're talking about, lol. Also if CE googles scholar instead of googling she might eventually notice that feminism isn't her invention
I think the fact it was surface level was why I really didn't enjoy the documentary. Instead of criticising beauty standards and how the patriarchy works by making women feel self conscious about their bodies and how capitalism sells us the "solution" to these "body problems", she points the finger at porn and goes "it's the porn that's doing it!". No, pornography is just a subsection of a wider issue. And the laser beam focus on "growing it out" as the sole solution also denies the feminist teaching that women should have choice, but SF clearly had an agenda going into this documentary that she wanted to play on the shock factor of doing something about pubic hair.
I agree. Chidera’s clearly not very good at doing her work when it comes to feminism.
holy tit, off the back of this comment I looked up her art and it is...so bad. So bad. Oh wow. It also looks nothing like the aesthetic of her book.
to the rest of your comment, yeah, she got into essentially advocating for sugaring/escorting, telling tales of men showing up to dinner with her and handing her an envelope of money, demanding to be taken to the most expensive places etc or that anyone she dates should give her an allowance, all of that. It’s what put me off her. It also seemed COMPLETELY detached from reality, any woman who’s been in a relationship with a power imbalance like that knows it’s not exactly all plain sailing. If you go to the success story highlight on her insta she’s got women claiming they were dating broke guys and now are swimming in diamonds and jewels after demanding men pay them to go on dates. This is the stuff she ripped off of Imani Yvonne.
Just found these screenshots on Twitter - check the dates on the FG tweet with Megan and SF shop tweet...
and then a couple more involving another artist
Attachments
Last edited:
She says you should be paid for your time on a date and only date rich men etc. The thing is the sort of men who will entertain this are the £600 pcm Land Rover leasers, the Moncler via Klarna, with maxed Barclaycards and Metrobank overdrafts where they went to Dubai for the gram.
Her understanding of wealth is very limited, there’s a huge difference between the genuinely wealthy and high income individuals and ... the Instagram set lol.
the old Archie comics from the 70s had ads for tee shirts that look exactly like that. You could send in a money order to purchase. Basically brings me back to the notion that there is no such thing as original though. SF thinks someone launched a book similar to hers so has started a social media harassment campaign against that person and anyone who has seen to support them. In what world is that ok. Meanwhile she is talking about buying highend goods, 12.5k advances and going to Annabels. She has joked about that person being hospitalised for mental health issues as a result of her abuse, jokes about suicide, stood by while her friends were called co*ns, said intellectual property theft is the same as rape and been a gate keeper over how people identify. I don’t see how people can still be defending her.
Is her message that you should only date/marry rich men so they can pay for your tit? That’s so dangerous. You should always be earning or have enough money for yourself and your children.
Exactly. My daughter asked me only this week why I have to go to work when Daddy can afford to pay for us and I responded with "but what would we live on if Daddy and I split up?". It's an awful thing to be talking to an 8 year old about because I don't want her worrying that we are ever thinking about splitting up but then she needs to understand that if we do, we will be fine financially.
How is dependancy on a man's earnings feminist?
I have to say, this idea of only dating rich men offends me hugely. It is the antithesis of feminism. It sends a message that instead of trying to fight against gender equality, trying to pull down the patriarchy and gain women their deserved equal pay and opportunities, just fall in line and find a well paid man to pay for your body and mind.
Do these girls (because that’s what they are) even understand how much women have fought to have the opportunity to go beyond finding a rich husband and have choice, and make money for themselves? Do they recognise how easy it is for men to take advantage of them with such a power imbalance in a relationship? Do they even realise how much they can be fucked over when their rich husband leaves them in the lurch? Even if she were to meet a great, rich guy who was totally devoted to her, does she understand the pressures and sacrifices that can come with that? Well-paid careers and successful businesses involve a lot more than just a 9-5pm. They take dedication, they can take everything from a person, and it can be extremely lonely for their partners. Does she realise that?
Honestly, it’s so friggin shallow and naive. All she wants is a lovely cushty life without effort, but it doesn’t work like that. I don’t think she even understands how wealth works, or how most well paid men behave.
I will say now that my partner is extremely well paid; probably the income level Chidera is looking for. Hilariously, I met him when we were both penniless students! He asked to buy me a drink but had no money left so I bought them - imagine Chidera’s reaction to that!
Anyway, he has never taken me on a date to a boujie poser bar, he doesn’t drive a flashy car or wear an expensive watch, he just looks like a totally normal guy. She would probably assume he earns a 10th of what he does by looking at him, because she’s assuming that all well paid men (and women, I guess) live like celebrities or Instagram influencers. The only indication you would get of our finances (I haven’t done too shabbily either, although Covid killed my business 
) is our house, and even then, it’s not like we live in a mansion, because that’s just not who we are.I also think it’s actually hilarious she rejected that guy for wanting to go to the pub... does she even realise that many wealthy men will be on the lookout for women who only want their money, so will “test” them by taking them on lowkey, non-glam dates to see if they’re interested in the man and not the bank account?! I genuinely know a man with a LOT of family wealth who did this - hid his inherited wealth from his potential girlfriends because he wanted love and not an opportunist. Not all rich men want a transactional relationship.
- Status