Scan barcode
quenchgum's review against another edition
2.0
I’m stunned. This would have been a thoughtful, well-argued, and often convincing book if the premises it assumed and relied upon -- that, in general, subconscious bias doesn't materially cause certain groups to be discriminated against -- were well-founded. But Murray, frankly kind of unbelievably, seems to mostly think that we basically do live in a society that’s grown past discrimination based on race, gender, and sexuality. If you assume those issues away then the book is fantastic. But if you don’t, and I don’t think we should, then you’ll see that the book fundamentally declines to engage with the necessary conversations. Many of its logical conclusions seem irrelevant when they aren’t wrestling with what I see and have lived as a reality.
I took a ton of notes and at many points I wanted to engage at a more specific, minute level, but it got too overwhelming. Maybe at some point I will. FWIW - in a shock - I think his section on the transgender rights movement was his most compelling. You shouldn’t have to be worried about losing your job because you questioned whether it makes sense for a 10 year old to start HRT (though I will say that I think the admittedly often kind-of rabid liberal response to any arguably transphobic comment is so rabid in large part *because a ton of people are often actually transphobic* (in ways that are actually hateful and not just.. raising logical questions about how to handle children with gender dysphoria)). I also think Murray’s obviously right that liberal cancel culture online can be insane (although nobody really disagrees with this) and that we’d all benefit from more thoughtful dialogue. But I think Murray completely misunderstood the liberal POV on the vast majority of points he addressed. Among MANY other topics, I think he completely misunderstands intersectionality and the tensions that exist within it: those tensions don’t delegitimize it but rather are an acceptable and expected result of having honest discussions about the ways our “identities” lead others to treat us certain ways. For example, the fact that black people with darker skin on average face more discrimination than black people with lighter skin doesn’t prove any meaningful contradiction in the way Murray seems to think it would, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak thoughtfully about the ways that subconscious bias manifests itself.
I took a ton of notes and at many points I wanted to engage at a more specific, minute level, but it got too overwhelming. Maybe at some point I will. FWIW - in a shock - I think his section on the transgender rights movement was his most compelling. You shouldn’t have to be worried about losing your job because you questioned whether it makes sense for a 10 year old to start HRT (though I will say that I think the admittedly often kind-of rabid liberal response to any arguably transphobic comment is so rabid in large part *because a ton of people are often actually transphobic* (in ways that are actually hateful and not just.. raising logical questions about how to handle children with gender dysphoria)). I also think Murray’s obviously right that liberal cancel culture online can be insane (although nobody really disagrees with this) and that we’d all benefit from more thoughtful dialogue. But I think Murray completely misunderstood the liberal POV on the vast majority of points he addressed. Among MANY other topics, I think he completely misunderstands intersectionality and the tensions that exist within it: those tensions don’t delegitimize it but rather are an acceptable and expected result of having honest discussions about the ways our “identities” lead others to treat us certain ways. For example, the fact that black people with darker skin on average face more discrimination than black people with lighter skin doesn’t prove any meaningful contradiction in the way Murray seems to think it would, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak thoughtfully about the ways that subconscious bias manifests itself.
djmcewen's review against another edition
5.0
Intersectionality is covered in decent depth through the use of historical and anecdotal evidence. The ultimate conclusion is that it's destructive to humanity rather than helpful. Shades of gray are all but gone in exchange for black and white, with outrage coming from the Left over everything. Be sure to understand that "Left" is not the same as "Liberal".
A lot of assertions are made in this book and I largely agree with them, with one big disagreement. I do not for a moment believe straight men are threatened by gay men for holding a "secret" that only straight women have. It's silly.
A lot of assertions are made in this book and I largely agree with them, with one big disagreement. I do not for a moment believe straight men are threatened by gay men for holding a "secret" that only straight women have. It's silly.
anadriga14's review against another edition
3.0
some interesting points were made but overall it is a tiring rant
I had some expectation for at least some sort of solutions to all the situations presented, something that can sort of bring some sort of conclusion, or open a conversation for the left and right to see each others point of view. Instead this book just does what the far left does, points the finger
I had some expectation for at least some sort of solutions to all the situations presented, something that can sort of bring some sort of conclusion, or open a conversation for the left and right to see each others point of view. Instead this book just does what the far left does, points the finger
codosbankarena's review against another edition
4.0
This book gets 4 stars on the sheer ability it had to make me think and form my own opinions on the vast and diverse range of subjects it covered.
It feels a bit ironic for me to find ways to disagree with Douglas Murray's views on gay people as "always being the people - especially the men - who know way too much." Murray's conclusion in chapter one argues that there will always be a "strange and threatening" aroma surrounding homosexuals, which is perceived by me as an opinion driven by fragile masculinity. I find it hard to agree with the said statement having learned some valuable emotional lessons from gay people, and having attempted to be an ally to the LGBTQI+ community. Murray highlights the extremist consequences in a way that seems to blame the entire group of people when a lot of them seem to just want to get by.
An interesting point I do agree with is: rather than meaning "men are trash" when said, what it really means is "masculinity is in transition, and it is not moving fucking fast enough." But who knows if men, as a collective group, will ever be what women want them to be? The last century's idealism for manhood no longer retains any purpose in this day and age, and the lack of evolution caused by the undeviating transmission of behaviourisms from parent to child is causing dissatisfaction and harm to many citizens. Society is playing to the percentage who fuck it up for everyone, hence the recent movements. We are not allowed to say "not all men" for political reasons, and the current rules of the patriarchy mean that a man is far more likely to get "cancelled" for an unspeakable and unforgivable act rather than a woman, which ironically touches on the book's theme of relearning the art of forgiveness.
I believe in letting the voices of those who are disabled, of a different ethnic background, or in the LGBTQIA+ community be heard and legitimised, but the evident paradox is that a certain amount of people will not choose to listen, thus the movement of people being offended on behalf of others and taking a stand for something that they do not understand themselves, in attempts to be a rally partner and an ally. However, extremists take this too far and become a nuisance on behalf of those trying to do good and be genuinely passionate for their cause. Much like Facebook vegans and their impact on veganism.
Concluding my braindump review is the truth that suffering in and of itself does not make one a better person. I'm not sure if Murray's views on retaining an interest in politics in order to distance yourself from the madness of crowds are the best idea, even if you do not rely on it as a source of meaning. To commit an entire life trying to learn and understand identity politics would be misspent., in my opinion. For gender, race, and sexuality to mean nothing would be ridiculous; for it to mean everything would be fatal. A two-hundred-page paradox of a book has caused me to think to this extent. You're welcome to take it on if you wish.
It feels a bit ironic for me to find ways to disagree with Douglas Murray's views on gay people as "always being the people - especially the men - who know way too much." Murray's conclusion in chapter one argues that there will always be a "strange and threatening" aroma surrounding homosexuals, which is perceived by me as an opinion driven by fragile masculinity. I find it hard to agree with the said statement having learned some valuable emotional lessons from gay people, and having attempted to be an ally to the LGBTQI+ community. Murray highlights the extremist consequences in a way that seems to blame the entire group of people when a lot of them seem to just want to get by.
An interesting point I do agree with is: rather than meaning "men are trash" when said, what it really means is "masculinity is in transition, and it is not moving fucking fast enough." But who knows if men, as a collective group, will ever be what women want them to be? The last century's idealism for manhood no longer retains any purpose in this day and age, and the lack of evolution caused by the undeviating transmission of behaviourisms from parent to child is causing dissatisfaction and harm to many citizens. Society is playing to the percentage who fuck it up for everyone, hence the recent movements. We are not allowed to say "not all men" for political reasons, and the current rules of the patriarchy mean that a man is far more likely to get "cancelled" for an unspeakable and unforgivable act rather than a woman, which ironically touches on the book's theme of relearning the art of forgiveness.
I believe in letting the voices of those who are disabled, of a different ethnic background, or in the LGBTQIA+ community be heard and legitimised, but the evident paradox is that a certain amount of people will not choose to listen, thus the movement of people being offended on behalf of others and taking a stand for something that they do not understand themselves, in attempts to be a rally partner and an ally. However, extremists take this too far and become a nuisance on behalf of those trying to do good and be genuinely passionate for their cause. Much like Facebook vegans and their impact on veganism.
Concluding my braindump review is the truth that suffering in and of itself does not make one a better person. I'm not sure if Murray's views on retaining an interest in politics in order to distance yourself from the madness of crowds are the best idea, even if you do not rely on it as a source of meaning. To commit an entire life trying to learn and understand identity politics would be misspent., in my opinion. For gender, race, and sexuality to mean nothing would be ridiculous; for it to mean everything would be fatal. A two-hundred-page paradox of a book has caused me to think to this extent. You're welcome to take it on if you wish.
t_shaffner's review against another edition
4.0
Note: I'm using the spoiler tag here to allow collapsing of addition detail/examples in places where they should be optional. In this type of book spoilers don't really matter so ignore the meaning of the tag; just use it as a "more detail" expansion.
This is an important book. As a thoughtful, methodical, and rigorous discussion of our political moment I've rarely found anything this incisive, and in some ways I found it incredibly useful for understanding the topics better as a result.
That is of course ironic because the purpose of the book was in many ways to critique how the movements themselves are actually advocating for these causes, and while I found the issues themselves more important for the reading, I was also fairly convinced that many of the current efforts being made under the guise of supporting the causes of race, gender, orientation, and general identity issues are incredibly lacking in nuance and often actively counterproductive. They work against one another, sow confusion, and come with a degree of judgment and certainty that does a great deal to increase suffering.
Related to this, large portions of this book were, quite simply, incredibly hard to read. A number of them were almost painful. These portions of the book were particular demoralizing as they leave one with the sense that truth or rationality are not recognizable in our world anymore, and that the dynamic Trump displays on the right is actually as actively at play on the left. They also solidify pretty hard the degree to which a core paradigm of our time is in fact the encouraging of new forms of racism as long as they are directed in certain ways, and the examples at play and inherent hypocrisy in them are, at times, jaw dropping. These portions of the book were thoroughly demoralizing and the reason a star is taken away; they make the theme more important but they're so hard to get through it makes the experience rather torturous.
Notes for my future self; the end results here were severalfold but two points in particular jumped out:
The first was a claim that a careful analysis of the current manifestations of many rights movements, seem to imply an underlying effort not to convince but to divide. The claim is that the movements as currently used are being actively wielded as a bludgeon to splinter, sow doubt, and foster division and strife, in particular with a goal of deconstructing the society we live in and to open pathways to offer radically different visions of society as "solutions." This statement immediately resonated with me as often, currently true. I will be paying attention however from now on to see how much this claim rings true in current manifestations of all these issues.
The second point he makes is that the inherent question that is not present and should be introduced into discussions that are critical of our societies is "in comparison to what?" Underlying so much of these critiques is an implicit idealized view either of some past or other society or some unsullied state at birth. His point is that an analysis of the comparison either enables a discussion of where things are in fact better or forces us to face the reality that, for all the remaining faults in our world, the societies being critiqued are often the best humanity has managed to create. These discussions need this anchoring in reality to avoid reasonable critiques of societies destroying the best solutions yet found.
For these two things in particular I'm glad to have read the book as I will continue to reflect on them as useful tools going forward to help understand and keep more grounded in all such discussions. And particularly on the trans issue I'll be glad for a thoughtful analysis as having helped me understand why this matters from someone whose fairness and thoroughness left me convinced I can trust him as an honest broker on the issue.
For the rest of the book and how painful it was at times to experience, I'll be glad when the experience has faded a bit from memory.
This is an important book. As a thoughtful, methodical, and rigorous discussion of our political moment I've rarely found anything this incisive, and in some ways I found it incredibly useful for understanding the topics better as a result.
Spoiler
For example, for all the advocacy recently I have remained relatively uninformed on intersex/trans and found myself rather moved both with a deep sense of compassion for the complexity and difficulty of intersex people and for the profundity with which the trans urge can manifest (I was left particularly interested in reading the book [b:Conundrum|553103|Conundrum|Jan Morris|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320522156l/553103._SY75_.jpg|540336] as the description of it and excerpts from it alone were powerful and touching). Prior to this I couldn't have told you the difference, and after this I'm left with both an understanding and a sense of both as being important issues meriting more attention.That is of course ironic because the purpose of the book was in many ways to critique how the movements themselves are actually advocating for these causes, and while I found the issues themselves more important for the reading, I was also fairly convinced that many of the current efforts being made under the guise of supporting the causes of race, gender, orientation, and general identity issues are incredibly lacking in nuance and often actively counterproductive. They work against one another, sow confusion, and come with a degree of judgment and certainty that does a great deal to increase suffering.
Related to this, large portions of this book were, quite simply, incredibly hard to read. A number of them were almost painful.
Spoiler
One example was the casualness of trans movement workers actively supporting efforts to convince children they're trans and enabling them to undergo life-changing and irreversible medical procedures while actively working to suppress honest and unbiased discussions of whether this is the right choice. It shouldn't be hard to get on board supporting trans people in many cases, but it should be just as easy to recognize that children do not always jump to the correct conclusion in their very first thought as 8-year-olds, and encouraging irreversible decisions based on kneejerk reactions is child abuse, not wisdom. Other examples were the various outrage mobs/incidents that have occurred, most of which I already knew of but many of which I had somehow missed the extremity of.Notes for my future self; the end results here were severalfold but two points in particular jumped out:
The first was a claim that a careful analysis of the current manifestations of many rights movements,
Spoiler
particularly the choice to focus the trans movement not on intersex first but on the extremes of trans,Spoiler
This of course doesn't, at least in my mind, apply to other aspects of these movements; the traditional women's rights movements up to and including things like [b:Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead|16071764|Lean In Women, Work, and the Will to Lead|Sheryl Sandberg|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1364250803l/16071764._SY75_.jpg|21865596] and the gay rights movement prior to gay marriage being legalized in the US strike me as prime examples of equality movements that truly were positively focused and well grounded.The second point he makes is that the inherent question that is not present and should be introduced into discussions that are critical of our societies is "in comparison to what?" Underlying so much of these critiques is an implicit idealized view either of some past or other society or some unsullied state at birth. His point is that an analysis of the comparison either enables a discussion of where things are in fact better or forces us to face the reality that, for all the remaining faults in our world, the societies being critiqued are often the best humanity has managed to create. These discussions need this anchoring in reality to avoid reasonable critiques of societies destroying the best solutions yet found.
For these two things in particular I'm glad to have read the book as I will continue to reflect on them as useful tools going forward to help understand and keep more grounded in all such discussions. And particularly on the trans issue I'll be glad for a thoughtful analysis as having helped me understand why this matters from someone whose fairness and thoroughness left me convinced I can trust him as an honest broker on the issue.
For the rest of the book and how painful it was at times to experience, I'll be glad when the experience has faded a bit from memory.
richferret's review against another edition
2.0
Didn't really change my mind on anything although some of the anecdotes (and all of the arguments he made relied almost exclusively on anecdotes) were interesting/entertaining. I think this book was written mostly for the purposes of preaching to the choir. If it aimed to do anything else I dont think it did a very good job