ehershkovitz's review against another edition
4.0
"Women are always guilty, either of having too much human agency, or not enough"
caris96's review against another edition
3.0
My issues with this book have nothing to do with its content and everything to do with how it was composed. I feel like this book would have been better marketed as a loose collection of essays on feminism or cultural critique in general. I don’t really enjoy the journalistic style of Rose’s writing here, although some might. I admit I had to graze through certain parts because the writing was just… abrasive. I love that Rose dedicates two whole chapters to trans issues, but she uses some very outdated or problematic terminology in these discussions. For example:
“Despite much progress, transsexuality, or transsexualism as the preferred term, is still treated today as anomaly or exception” (89).
There are other examples that make me wonder whether she consulted any trans women in the process, with frequent uses of terms like “transgender-identified” or “male-to-female” (outside of clinical contexts).
It seems that most reviews of this book are accurate; that is, Rose’s technical choices detract from her argumentation. I would have preferred to read an entire work of her philosophical ideas regarding violence against women. For example:
“Case after collapsing case in the courts had shown that if you take as your starting point the idea of a pre-existing, God given difference between the sexes, then it becomes much more difficult to prove discrimination, even in cases of harassment. Because men are different, you will be told, they are just behaving as normal (they cannot help helping themselves)” (46).
This is the direction Kate Manne takes in The Logic of Misogyny; and while unlike Manne Rose takes an intersectional approach to violence against women, combining these two outlooks (as one suggestion) would make for a great book.
“Despite much progress, transsexuality, or transsexualism as the preferred term, is still treated today as anomaly or exception” (89).
There are other examples that make me wonder whether she consulted any trans women in the process, with frequent uses of terms like “transgender-identified” or “male-to-female” (outside of clinical contexts).
It seems that most reviews of this book are accurate; that is, Rose’s technical choices detract from her argumentation. I would have preferred to read an entire work of her philosophical ideas regarding violence against women. For example:
“Case after collapsing case in the courts had shown that if you take as your starting point the idea of a pre-existing, God given difference between the sexes, then it becomes much more difficult to prove discrimination, even in cases of harassment. Because men are different, you will be told, they are just behaving as normal (they cannot help helping themselves)” (46).
This is the direction Kate Manne takes in The Logic of Misogyny; and while unlike Manne Rose takes an intersectional approach to violence against women, combining these two outlooks (as one suggestion) would make for a great book.
maddilino_'s review
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
2.75
I shouldn’t need a master’s degree in psychoanalysis to understand half of what the author is writing about.
temwani_alexandra's review
challenging
dark
slow-paced
2.0
I am a firm believer that a book no matter the genre or the intent has to be somewhat enjoyable or entertaining. This rule holds true for academic texts as well. As much as I enjoy learning about the violent ways the world fucks women over I do not enjoy reading it through stuff and wooden language.
The topic itself isn’t niche and lends itself to being very much accessible and within the cultural zeitgeist; however something about this book felt gatekeepy without being explicitly so. There certain books and authors you have to have read it seems extensively to even know what she’s going on about for vast swathes of the book. I don’t like this if you’re writing about a topic that is this pertinent to modern day and you want it to reach and affect the masses why write like this??
Personally it’s was mostly a flop except for the part about Oscar Pistorious which was interesting because I remember living through that cultural moment. Everything else was blah blah blah, sorry.
The topic itself isn’t niche and lends itself to being very much accessible and within the cultural zeitgeist; however something about this book felt gatekeepy without being explicitly so. There certain books and authors you have to have read it seems extensively to even know what she’s going on about for vast swathes of the book. I don’t like this if you’re writing about a topic that is this pertinent to modern day and you want it to reach and affect the masses why write like this??
Personally it’s was mostly a flop except for the part about Oscar Pistorious which was interesting because I remember living through that cultural moment. Everything else was blah blah blah, sorry.
miles's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, Sexual violence, Rape, Transphobia, and Death
michellehogmire's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.0
TL;DR--I really thought I'd love this book, but boy was it not for me...
Thanks to FSG for a free finished copy of this title, which was published on May 18, 2021. I'm writing this review voluntarily.
Jacqueline Rose's On Violence and on Violence Against Women is a wide-ranging collection of essays on the subject matter of the title, mostly adapted and updated from previously published work and/or spoken lectures from around 2014 to the present. Rose tackles a lot of diverse subject matter: from literary accounts of violence written by women, to the rise of the #MeToo and #AmINext movements, to a specific focus on trans rights and racial injustice. As a feminist, I should be totally into this, right? So, why didn't I like it?
I think I can split my critical beef with this book into two main categories. The first is that Jacqueline Rose constantly focuses on outdated ideas, despite the fact that this book came out in 2021. The second is that she tends to make contradictory statements that undercut her best points. All of these problems leave me with a lot of questions about the editing of this book!
So to start with the first idea: Rose's sections on trans rights are a good initial example of the outdated issues that I'm talking about; the chapters are an odd mix of decent contemporary analysis (ex. the erasure of nonbinary people as members of the trans community by the mainstream) with a lot of incredibly outdated terminology and ideas that the trans community no longer uses (ex. use of "FtM" and "MtF"). Now, I'm not saying that we should shame members of the LGBTQIA+ community for adhering to old terms, particularly tons of elder members who still identify with these monikers. But Rose isn't trans. I'm really surprised that an editor didn't suggest changes, especially because the pieces were updated to reflect current events.
Another example is Rose's constant discussion of Freud and psychoanalysis. Of course I think therapy is essential, and I agree with Rose that the world would be better off if we were more psychoanalytically-minded, but this perspective seems like it comes from decades ago. In our current aggressively online age, with the transition from a liberal humanist perspective to more of a post-humanist perspective, it's odd to see such a focus on individual psychology without an equal (or greater) focus on a more sociological viewpoint: systemic oppression, networks/links/connections of oppression, etc. Rose also doesn't really delve into the harmful aspects of this kind of individual focus (i.e. how rugged individualism goes too far and dips into the exact kind of toxic masculinity she's speaking against). Oddly enough, I'm currently reading the first volume of Foucault's "History of Sexuality," and it was strange to see Rose's reverence for psychoanalysis contrasted with Foucault's constant questioning of the confessional as a structural method of power.
Lastly on the outdated front is Rose's obsession with literary modernism being the best artistic method of delving into stories of trauma and abuse. Look, I love literary modernism, and all the writers Rose mentions, but there's equally good work going on in post-modern and African/Afrofuturist writing, not to mention solid genre books--especially from women writing horror. Rose holds up Eimear McBride as the be-all-end-all of sexual abuse writers, but you could easily point to Emma Glass instead. Rose also loves the fragmentary nature of literary modernism, but some of the best work of that kind comes from more post-modern texts about violence (ex. Kate Zambreno's experimental and hybrid works, or the literary terrorism/piracy of Kathy Acker). Some of the best recent fiction on abuse, to my mind, has come from genre authors like Nalo Hopkinson, Nnedi Okorafor, Joanna Koch, etc, I could go on and on.
Shew, OK: now shifting to my second problem. There are multiple points in this book where Rose makes over-correcting statements that go against her main points, particularly when it comes to trying to distance herself from radical feminist TERFS and attempting to criticize the state from a leftist perspective. For example, as I mentioned previously, she offers a great analysis of why wealthy and more gender-passing trans people are highlighted by the mainstream media, despite the fact that many trans people are poor and more genderfluid/nonbinary in presentation. This is an essential point, especially when it comes to trans people being able to define themselves and their identities outside of the binary. But then Rose makes an odd statement like, "Transition does not mean so much crossing from one side to the other as hovering in the space in between (in the United States, only about a quarter of transgender women have had genital surgery," which seems to uphold the opposite perspective--that being "fully" or "really" trans is defined by surgical intervention.
Another one of these moments comes when Rose is discussing Hannah Arendt's ideas about the divide between power and violence. In order to, again, distance herself from radical feminists who believe that masculinity is inherently violent, Rose explains her differing perspective: violence actually occurs in moments when those in power are losing power, not in moments when they hold power strongly. Of course this makes sense on the surface, in terms of oppressive governments lashing out violently to quell outright rebellion, but it also undercuts Rose's smart focus on Rosa Luxemburg's ideas about more hidden violence in quiet moments. The state is always engaging in systemic violence, even during times of so-called peace, which is why it's such a toxic apparatus of oppression. Similarly, in abusive personal relationships, an abuser tends to react with violence long before their power starts to slip--instead, they wear their partner down, to prevent the power balance from tipping in the first place.
At its worst, this kind of argument about the violence-power dichotomy can be used as a victim-blaming tactic: saying that a survivor provoked violence by acting or speaking out, or taking power from their abuser. It can also be used to justify the actions of the state, as Rose herself does when she falls into the liberal trap of praising women world leaders for handling the coronavirus pandemic better than male leaders. Just because this is true about the women leaders mentioned doesn't mean that they're ultimately not upholding the same violent and oppressive global capitalist system as their male counterparts. Like Luxemburg says, there's always violence occurring under the capitalist state, even in moments of supposed tranquility--even when a woman is leading.
Thanks to FSG for a free finished copy of this title, which was published on May 18, 2021. I'm writing this review voluntarily.
Jacqueline Rose's On Violence and on Violence Against Women is a wide-ranging collection of essays on the subject matter of the title, mostly adapted and updated from previously published work and/or spoken lectures from around 2014 to the present. Rose tackles a lot of diverse subject matter: from literary accounts of violence written by women, to the rise of the #MeToo and #AmINext movements, to a specific focus on trans rights and racial injustice. As a feminist, I should be totally into this, right? So, why didn't I like it?
I think I can split my critical beef with this book into two main categories. The first is that Jacqueline Rose constantly focuses on outdated ideas, despite the fact that this book came out in 2021. The second is that she tends to make contradictory statements that undercut her best points. All of these problems leave me with a lot of questions about the editing of this book!
So to start with the first idea: Rose's sections on trans rights are a good initial example of the outdated issues that I'm talking about; the chapters are an odd mix of decent contemporary analysis (ex. the erasure of nonbinary people as members of the trans community by the mainstream) with a lot of incredibly outdated terminology and ideas that the trans community no longer uses (ex. use of "FtM" and "MtF"). Now, I'm not saying that we should shame members of the LGBTQIA+ community for adhering to old terms, particularly tons of elder members who still identify with these monikers. But Rose isn't trans. I'm really surprised that an editor didn't suggest changes, especially because the pieces were updated to reflect current events.
Another example is Rose's constant discussion of Freud and psychoanalysis. Of course I think therapy is essential, and I agree with Rose that the world would be better off if we were more psychoanalytically-minded, but this perspective seems like it comes from decades ago. In our current aggressively online age, with the transition from a liberal humanist perspective to more of a post-humanist perspective, it's odd to see such a focus on individual psychology without an equal (or greater) focus on a more sociological viewpoint: systemic oppression, networks/links/connections of oppression, etc. Rose also doesn't really delve into the harmful aspects of this kind of individual focus (i.e. how rugged individualism goes too far and dips into the exact kind of toxic masculinity she's speaking against). Oddly enough, I'm currently reading the first volume of Foucault's "History of Sexuality," and it was strange to see Rose's reverence for psychoanalysis contrasted with Foucault's constant questioning of the confessional as a structural method of power.
Lastly on the outdated front is Rose's obsession with literary modernism being the best artistic method of delving into stories of trauma and abuse. Look, I love literary modernism, and all the writers Rose mentions, but there's equally good work going on in post-modern and African/Afrofuturist writing, not to mention solid genre books--especially from women writing horror. Rose holds up Eimear McBride as the be-all-end-all of sexual abuse writers, but you could easily point to Emma Glass instead. Rose also loves the fragmentary nature of literary modernism, but some of the best work of that kind comes from more post-modern texts about violence (ex. Kate Zambreno's experimental and hybrid works, or the literary terrorism/piracy of Kathy Acker). Some of the best recent fiction on abuse, to my mind, has come from genre authors like Nalo Hopkinson, Nnedi Okorafor, Joanna Koch, etc, I could go on and on.
Shew, OK: now shifting to my second problem. There are multiple points in this book where Rose makes over-correcting statements that go against her main points, particularly when it comes to trying to distance herself from radical feminist TERFS and attempting to criticize the state from a leftist perspective. For example, as I mentioned previously, she offers a great analysis of why wealthy and more gender-passing trans people are highlighted by the mainstream media, despite the fact that many trans people are poor and more genderfluid/nonbinary in presentation. This is an essential point, especially when it comes to trans people being able to define themselves and their identities outside of the binary. But then Rose makes an odd statement like, "Transition does not mean so much crossing from one side to the other as hovering in the space in between (in the United States, only about a quarter of transgender women have had genital surgery," which seems to uphold the opposite perspective--that being "fully" or "really" trans is defined by surgical intervention.
Another one of these moments comes when Rose is discussing Hannah Arendt's ideas about the divide between power and violence. In order to, again, distance herself from radical feminists who believe that masculinity is inherently violent, Rose explains her differing perspective: violence actually occurs in moments when those in power are losing power, not in moments when they hold power strongly. Of course this makes sense on the surface, in terms of oppressive governments lashing out violently to quell outright rebellion, but it also undercuts Rose's smart focus on Rosa Luxemburg's ideas about more hidden violence in quiet moments. The state is always engaging in systemic violence, even during times of so-called peace, which is why it's such a toxic apparatus of oppression. Similarly, in abusive personal relationships, an abuser tends to react with violence long before their power starts to slip--instead, they wear their partner down, to prevent the power balance from tipping in the first place.
At its worst, this kind of argument about the violence-power dichotomy can be used as a victim-blaming tactic: saying that a survivor provoked violence by acting or speaking out, or taking power from their abuser. It can also be used to justify the actions of the state, as Rose herself does when she falls into the liberal trap of praising women world leaders for handling the coronavirus pandemic better than male leaders. Just because this is true about the women leaders mentioned doesn't mean that they're ultimately not upholding the same violent and oppressive global capitalist system as their male counterparts. Like Luxemburg says, there's always violence occurring under the capitalist state, even in moments of supposed tranquility--even when a woman is leading.
More...