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.Tbh, Slumflower is right in the sense that it is so frustrating as a black women when someone white does something similar and gets a lot more traction and praise for it.
She comes across as someone who is unable to control her anger and frustration to the point where she’s just flinging everyone and everything into the fire. She will never concede. I doubt she’s even willing to talk to FG.
Surely she knows she’s put FG and everyone else in an impossible position?
There’s no strategy to her anger here, just vibes.
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.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.
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.In these times of uncertainty, I hope no one is leaving themselves short this month to fund her "top tier essentials". It's really bothering me that some of these women who feel guilted into paying her money might be low paid, working class women.
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.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.
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".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.
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 opinionI 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.
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 inventionCE just looks like an idiot with her response to Ash Sarker, attached public responses too
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.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.
I agree. Chidera’s clearly not very good at doing her work when it comes to feminism.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.
holy shit, 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.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 fucking 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.
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.
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.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 fucking 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.
Is her message that you should only date/marry rich men so they can pay for your shit? That’s so dangerous. You should always be earning or have enough money for yourself and your children.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.
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.Is her message that you should only date/marry rich men so they can pay for your shit? That’s so dangerous. You should always be earning or have enough money for yourself and your children.
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.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.
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?