I read Amy Schumer’s book “The Girl With the Lower Back Tattoo”, because I was, and am still partly, a fan. I’ve laughed endlessly at her press appearances, her movie Trainwreck, and at her comedy show which I saw live with my roommates. While, yes not everything she said was for me because I either didn’t agree or didn’t find it funny, what comedian or art form ever is 100% for you 100% of the time? I appreciated her openness talking about female sexuality and body positivity. I also have think she has positively contributed to conversations about issues like Gun Control, Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. So, I proudly posted a Snap Story of the back cover, that features her infamous lower back tattoo, and got to reading. However, throughout reading her book I found myself stunned, angry and confused about a variety of statements and ideas Schumer propagated. While I knew there would be vulgarity and polarizing statements in her book, I did not know what I was truly in store for. I wanted to stop reading at many points but I kept on keeping on in the name of feminist research.
What is the language and attitude we should be using to discuss topics like orgasms, weight, gender, etc? This is what is most productive for the Amy’s primary audience, which is probably a lot of young women, as well as the unintended audience that will ultimately reap the effects of the information that its readers will internalize.
I think a lot of what Schumer says is feminist. Amy is not imposing her beliefs onto anyone, but I don’t think you can write a lot of what is in this book and call yourself a feminist. As the wise feminist scholar Bell Hooks once said, “If feminism is all things to all people then what is it? …. We do have to be clear about, what are the boundaries? What is the line you can cross when you can in fact say I am feminist?” That being said I am still skeptical to flat out say she is not a feminist, but here are some reasons why one might swing in that direction. I’m not going to get into the counter argument here, but I do think it exists.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned as a Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies major it’s that you can’t generalize anything or anyone. I mean, you can’t say “All women want X” or “ Every man feels Y about Z”. While sometimes these statements MAY apply to CERTAIN people, it will almost never (I don’t want to say definitely because I don’t want to generalize this either), be true for that entire category of people. Schumer makes A LOT of generalizations.
One of the sweeping generalizations that really got me is as follows, “I have thoughts like, Should I get a French manicure? HE DOESN’T CARE. HE WANTS TO JAM HIS WIENER IN YOUR POOPER!” (196) In this moment she is describing how women try so hard to look attractive for men, but that is silly because the only thing ALL men want ALL of the time is anal sex.
I think this is particularly counterproductive to feminism. Schumer’s prerogative is to liberate female’s sexual agency. If you want to have sex in the way’s that it is accepted for men in our society, go for it, and if you don’t want to don’t. This is a great message. But in order for this to be a feminist argument it has to be the same for men too and any people who identify as any other gender. Sure, there are men out there whose sole priority in life is to engage in anal sex, but it certainly isn’t for all men. Schumer is generalizing the desires of anyone who identifies as a man. Not only does this tell people who identify as female that wanting to look attractive for a person their interested in is useless and pathetic, it tells any man that doesn’t feel that this way that they are not normal.
Not all men want to have sex as much as portrayed and accepted in society, just as not all women want to a sex as little as portrayed and accepted in society. In one of the chapters that is in the form of a list entitled “Things That Make Me Insanely Furious” the last thing on the list is “36. Guys who don’t like to have sex a lot. At least twice a week or get out of here. (I know I should be sympathetic, but I have no patience for that)” (189). While this is Amy Schumer’s book and this is her list of things that make her furious, it bother’s me to think about someone reading this of any gender, and not feeling sexually adequate. Although she is clear that this her personal opinion, those men do exist and that doesn’t make them “less of a man” and they don’t deserve any less respect or love, nor do the people in relationships with them who might be satisfied by having sex twice a week or never! People who are asexual often still have relationships that don’t involve sex and merely companionship of another in whatever form that takes.
Another generalization that became a reoccurring motif in Schumer’s prose was her disdain for men who don’t ensure their female partner’s achieve orgasm. The generalization isn’t this statement in particular, but that reaching orgasm should be the sole goal of sex for everyone.
Now, I agree with her that communication is essential in any relationship and that to express to your partner how to be pleasured optimally is a great tip for anyone. However, I do think again she is essentializing the whole act of sex as one where the ONLY goal is to orgasm. She focuses this apparent horrendous phenomenon a variety of times throughout the book and she dedicates and ENTIRE chapter to it called “Times Its Okay for a Man to Not Make a Woman Come During Sex.” I think Schumer’s emphasis on this is problematic for a few reasons. First, it’s not that simple, Amy. Communication is not that simple especially for young girls, people in college and even adults. This concentration also implicates that any sexual encounter where you don’t come is a failure! Any person reading this book may immediately be put into a place of feeling defeated or shamed for their lack of chutzpah in the bedroom physically if they haven’t quite figured out what works for them, or emotionally like the sexual relations they are having (which they still could be enjoying) are worthless. Sex is about more than just the moment of an orgasm and while I know Amy knows that, I’m not sure her audience does. Placing the orgasm on such a pedestal also increases the pressure for both partners of achieving such a place instead of enjoying the experience and seeing what happens, especially for newbies.
Schumer has a whole chapter on virginity, which I thought was a fantastic portion of the book as it describes sexual assault in a light that is not often spoken about, but I’m not going to get into that here. She rightfully says in this chapter that you should only have sex when you’re ready and just her saying this shows she knows who she is writing to. She knows young girls who haven’t had sex yet, in whatever terms that means for them, will be reading this and now they’ll probably measure the quality of the sex their having on whether or not they’ve achieved orgasm. For the female body it isn’t that simple and it definitely isn’t that simple for young women who are unfamiliar and nervous about something that is very personal. It’s Amy’s book, it’s not mine, but I think she should have been more careful about how she spoke to the young, malleable minds of the girls who look up to her about sex and its complexities.
Moving on, Schumer later spends the chapter entitled “Letter to the Editor” explaining why she has a problem with magazines for the negative and unrealistic ideals of women that they consistently depict. ON BOARD. Yasss girl. Preach. Amen. Then, as I read on I was confounded to find the very next chapter contradicted this one in a plethora of ways.
The next chapter was about a summer when her and her sister got “really fat” and she hooked up with her trainer who ended up being a massive hoarder. Yes this was a fantastic story, but the language she uses in this chapter completely contradicts everything she JUST said she wants to “shout from the fucking rooftops.”
One sentence reads (and I’m not making this up) “…I’m shaped like a cactus and when I don’t shave for four hours I feel like one too.” (215) I’m sorry, but I’m confused. How is this benefiting a conversation on body positivity?
Continuing to the next page. Amy and her sister signed up for a Cross Fit style workout that she says is “completely over-the-top and unnecessary unless you’re a runway model or about to compete in the Hunger Games.” (216) I actually just took a deep breath after typing that. She just spent an entire chapter trying to reverse the ridiculous standards people in and on magazines are held to (and resultantly the rest of us) and I’m pretty sure runway models are often the people on the magazines. She even acknowledges this in that earlier chapter saying “Why can’t girls above a size 4 walk a runway?” (209) Therefore, using the theory Amy claims to be fighting for, extremely intense workouts should not be excessive for everyone BUT runway models or those competing in a battle to the death.
Once I realized this, I noticed it’s kind of her thing. Putting herself down, often saying “I’m trash from Long Island.” I get it. She’s owning these things before people have a chance to do it for her, but don’t claim to be this advocate for “beauty comes in many forms” and then six pages later say “without makeup I look like Charlize Theron in Monster”. That is just hypocritical and also not helping any of the young women she seems to be so concerned about. Two of the points on her list of things that make her furious mentioned earlier include “11. People who say ‘I eat to live. I don’t live to eat.’ I wish all ten plagues upon your house,” and “32. People who eat impeccably healthy, Fuck you!!!” (187,188) Schumer’s rhetoric is feministic hypocrisy because if you want to make sure women of all sizes are treated the same you have treat ALL women the same even those who enjoy eating healthy. Just as she says she doesn’t want people to judge her as a sinner in the variety of ways people do, she shouldn’t be demeaning people who eat healthy as sinners by the same token.
Also, something that surprised me because of things like when Amy compares herself to “a weird dude” on the Ellen show was the fact that Amy actually made money for a large part of her young adult life teaching group exercise classes. I think that is extremely positive and I was confused why that wasn’t something that I knew. I think many young women could benefit from knowing Amy was a fitness instructor, but that isn’t something that’s been highlighted in any of the work she’s created that I’ve seen. (PSA: I am not an Amy Schumer expert, nor did I do any additional research than the YouTube videos and articles on the author that I’ve previously viewed. Maybe she has a series of fitness DVD’s I’m not aware of, if so let me know.) It surprised me that this was not something that’s ever come up in any of her stand-up or press because of the focus that is put on her body (by her and the media).
Yoga Teacher, Body Positivity Advocate, Writer Jessamyn Stanley
I came into this book as a fan and while I am coming out of this book feeling differently, I also know there was a lot in this book that I do think is productive to a lot of feminist conversations. I know I laugh a lot when she’s on Ellen and I’m still going to watch those clips. However, I do know that it is important to analyze and critique work in order to make sure what succeeds is simply better. I also felt that Amy’s intentions come from a place that was always sisterly and never purposefully harmful toward someone like me (a young, white, cis gendered straight identified female), but I also am a #feministkilljoy and can’t just let these things go.
Source Credits: 1, The Girl With the Lower Back Tattoo by Amy Schumer