I have such mixed feelings about this book! That said, I overall enjoyed it and would definitely recommend it to others. As others have noted, Prisca Dorcas Mojica Rodriguez takes an assertive and unapologetic tone on many things—from the mundane to the controversial. This assertiveness I didn’t mind, even if it isn’t a posture I’d necessarily feel comfortable using in my own toolkit. One of the best observations I think the author makes is when she discusses subjectivity vs. objectivity, and how we all make the choices we need to make in attempt to survive and thrive. Whether this is around aesthetic choices—eg. her red lipstick and growing her hair long—or social postures taken—eg. deflecting oppression with humor or making oneself invisible—she is spot on in this observation that we aren’t all walking the same walk and don’t all have access to the same choices and tools. My favorite part of the book is how Prisca reminds the reader often that this is *her* truth, her trauma, her manifesto, etc—and that maybe before dismissing her we should consider that this book might not be for *us*.
Some specific insights I loved and related to in this book: the intersectional violence of academia, the way Prisca describes her aesthetic choices to be defiantly feminine in patriarchal spaces, and to embrace/reclaim the chonga aesthetic, the labor of dating outside your race and ethnicity, etc. Some insights I didn’t particularly relate to but learned a lot from: the author’s experience with religion and how that intersected w/her family structure, gender, and abuse, the chapter on voluntourism and her experience with it in Nicaragua, etc. The chapter on decolonizing knowledge and how that helped the author with her relationship with her mother was amazing.
My main critique of this book is that it I don’t think is necessarily for “brown girls” as it claims to be—rather, for a specific subset of them with access to a certain type of privilege that I do not think Prisca Dorcas Mojica Rodriguez sufficiently engages with the fact that she has. This wouldn’t be an issue I think if it was just marked as a memoir, but her labeling of this book as “for brown girls” makes it I think come off as naive at times. My other main critique is that I think this book engages in anti-Blackness despite its attempts to be intersectional—through erasure, through appropriating, through attempted solidarity, and through equating. The author discusses anti Blackness in how her family identities as mestizo, and talks about how this construct erases her indigenous and Black relatives—grandparents and great grandparents. She proudly claims her indigenous ancestry and her indigenous facial features as a way of defying the mandate to aspire for whiteness and white adjacency—but not once does she talk about claiming Blackness or acknowledging Blackness and its erasure in her family’s line. I’m aware that claiming Blackness is controversial when one does not look sufficiently “Black”—but I would have liked to see this topic engaged with more. In the chapter about colorism, I was disappointed that Prisca engaged eagerly with the ways she’d been harmed by this system but not the ways she benefits from it. She noted the choice to grow her hair out as defiant, and to embrace her nose which marks her indigenous descent, and her brown skin through wearing her teeniest bikini. However I would have liked to see her discuss more not just the ways she has been oppressed by colorism and featurism, but the ways she’s benefitted and benefitting from it—the way her white classmates assumed she’d be less radical than their Black professor, the way she is presumed to be racially ambiguous and can therefore claim what aspects of her identity she pleases, or the way she is able to date and marry outside her race, or the way she is able to wear her hair however she wants and a bikini if she wishes without being policed for it—teased, sure—but not put in danger for it. These are privileges that can coexist with the harm the author has experienced, and in a book that is a feminist call to galvanization, you need to equally engage with both sides of that coin. Additionally, in this vein, the author makes reference to a lot of theories which have originated in Black queer feminist circles as a way of claiming her own liberation, but does not engage with the fact that in many of these theories, the call would be for someone like her to examine her *own* privileges as well as the oppression she has experienced.
Overall, I think there is a difference between processing and healing from one’s personal trauma and turning that into a feminist manifesto. I liked this book a lot as a memoir and as an account of the authors own experiences, but as an intersectional feminist call to action I found it difficult—in some ways amazing, and in others not sufficiently self reflective and surficial.
I am very glad I read this book, and overall enjoyed it in all of its complexities, contradictions, and wisdom.