readmeanything_'s review against another edition
i remember wanting to fling this book at the door because of how much i disliked it and just how much it reeks of privilege (and a very superficial understanding of feminism, imo)
robinlm's review
2.0
Blah. I had high hopes for this book and I was disappointed. The authors took about 280 pages to "get to the point" and start writing their manifesta. They spent most of the book talking about feminist magazines and feminist authors, etc. I kept thinking, why are they talking about media soooo much? Aren't there bigger issues than Ms. magazine's continued lack of commercial success? About 15-20 pages of the book were real content of what to do, how to do it, and why.
The other thing that really grinds me up about this book is the continuous waffling. Oh, group a is feminist, and so is group b, and so is group c! We're all feminists! I'm not saying that feminists shouldn't be an inclusive group, but constantly going back and forth to qualify every statement for every possible person/group was tiring to read and weakened the point. Rather than focusing on all the differences between feminist groups, shouldn't we point out how we all want the same basic things?
Overall, disappointing, boring, tedious. I wouldn't even call it feminism 101, I would call it feminist magazines and media 101. There are much better books out there.
The other thing that really grinds me up about this book is the continuous waffling. Oh, group a is feminist, and so is group b, and so is group c! We're all feminists! I'm not saying that feminists shouldn't be an inclusive group, but constantly going back and forth to qualify every statement for every possible person/group was tiring to read and weakened the point. Rather than focusing on all the differences between feminist groups, shouldn't we point out how we all want the same basic things?
Overall, disappointing, boring, tedious. I wouldn't even call it feminism 101, I would call it feminist magazines and media 101. There are much better books out there.
kpeninger's review
3.0
Quite enjoyable. Some nice points made, good for thinking over your own views.
somechelsea's review
2.0
It had it's moments, but nothing special. I knew it was outdated going in, but it showed, mainly through pop culture references - specifically discussions of zines rather than websites - and the glaring lack of any commentary on Hillary Clinton. (She doesn't even make the index, though I could have sworn she was at least mentioned.)
The prologue (A Day Without Feminism) was a pointed, exaggerated look at what life was like in 1970, the year both authors were born, and their message is very clear - forget a debate over parental consent for abortions, back then a single woman would have trouble finding a landlord who would rent her an apartment. They certainly highlight all the low points, but they're not making anything up.
Unfortunately, the prologue got me all good and fired up and then rest of the book meandered around, petered off, and finally got plain old boring. There's good information here, but there's not much fun in the reading of it.
The prologue (A Day Without Feminism) was a pointed, exaggerated look at what life was like in 1970, the year both authors were born, and their message is very clear - forget a debate over parental consent for abortions, back then a single woman would have trouble finding a landlord who would rent her an apartment. They certainly highlight all the low points, but they're not making anything up.
Unfortunately, the prologue got me all good and fired up and then rest of the book meandered around, petered off, and finally got plain old boring. There's good information here, but there's not much fun in the reading of it.
foolgal's review
2.0
Nah.... Nah. I had to read this book as a textbook for one of my Women and Gender Studies' courses. I'm really glad I didn't have to read the whole thing, to be honest.
Somehow in its Tenth Anniversary Edition, and yet very glaring and blatant misogynistic and racist blunders still haven't been edited out. Jennifer negating younger feminists to being "Jell-O-shots versions of feminism" being a very ironic statement, considering the numbers of this movement wholly rest on the younger generation (lets not even go into the devaluing of women's work because of their age!). Their 'dinner party' is a complete goddamn travesty, in my opinion, as I feel like either their words are exaggerated/twisted to fit the narrative, or these are shitty feminists. I mean, really, using the r-slur in the same sentence you're talking about dating women just because it'd be more convenient for you...? ("Sometimes I think about dating women because the men I've met are so emotionally r*t*rd*d.") Talking about cheating as if it's just something that happens....? ("I fell much more comfortable flirting now that I'm married, as long as it's very clear that I am married...") Just flat-out shitty biphobia that completely ignores the fact that bisexuals don't stop being bisexuals when they're not in same-sex relationships, and the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people who don't subscribe to the gender binary. ("I think if you're bisexual, there just has to come a day when you choose one or the other- and, face it, it's easier to be straight...").
I mean, really, this book is riddled with biphobia (and this is just from the ~100 pages I've read of it)! "Many bisexual women eventually choose to identify as either gay or straight." What, like bisexuals are Schrodinger's Sexuality, and can only be bisexual when they don't have any partner...? Yeah, if a bisexual settles down, they're gonna be with someone of some gender (or no gender).... That doesn't erase the fact that they're still bisexual- the gender of their partner has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's not choosing sides- stop acting like it is.
Also, passive lesbophobia... Since Jennifer is bisexual, I'm honestly surprised as how much anti-Sapphic shit is in this book. "Findlen also points out the odd way that some straight women reconcile themselves with this threat: by arguing that feminists aren't all dykes. (Which implies, among other ignorant assumptions, that all gay women are inherently feminist.)" ??? No, definitely not the immediate implication- that being a lesbian or a woman that loves other women is something Awful and something Not to Be Associated With. No one's going to think that all gay women are inherently feminist- that makes 0 sense.
They call Native Americans "American Indians", and (even though they're quoting a Native American woman, they still definitely shouldn't have said this) use "the 'red roots of white feminism'". On the same page, they refer to black people as "blacks" ("Acknowledging that the forces working against both women and blacks were white men [...]"). Oh, they also blame all black people of the time for creating the Black Power, because it wasn't the previous "more egalitarian and racially integrated civil-rights movement, which meant not only that whites were kicked out but that, generally speaking, black women were demoted from being organizers to simply being 'nation-builders' (mothers)". First off, the fact that they're mad at black people for starting to spearhead a movement intended for them. Secondly... What rights do they have to say that black women became breeders- if they'd done any of their research, they'd know how heavily steeped in white-supremacy and how racist that sentiment is.
There's also the discussion of "Girlie" culture, which I have honestly never heard of, but it really just sounds like a bunch of women enjoying traditionally feminine things, but are being infantilized for it. "Girlies have reclaimed girl culture, which is made up of such formerly disparaged girl things as knitting, the color pink, nail polish, and fun." Yeah... just normal things women can do as hobbies, though.
Oh, remember how I brought up them devaluing women's work? What really pissed me off is how they champion the idea that we need to Get Out There and Make A Difference, they denounce women with liberal arts degrees, and essentially say it's their fault that there are male-dominated fields. ("While our own liberal-arts educations appear to have furthered us in our own professions and were even the sites of our feminist awakenings, we think that women should be pioneering the tech world along with men, not simply going after those liberal-arts degrees.") Cute sentiment, but as a girl in the STEM field, I can say that there are way more factors contributing to the lack of women in these fields (how about the fact that I'm put to a higher standard because I'm a woman, and, when I fail, I somehow represent my whole gender?).
Again, haven't read the whole thing (I feel like I got a pretty good taste of it, though!) but, to sum it up: two white women act as if they're the lynchpin to the entire Third Wave Feminist movement, all while degrading women of color and queer people.
Somehow in its Tenth Anniversary Edition, and yet very glaring and blatant misogynistic and racist blunders still haven't been edited out. Jennifer negating younger feminists to being "Jell-O-shots versions of feminism" being a very ironic statement, considering the numbers of this movement wholly rest on the younger generation (lets not even go into the devaluing of women's work because of their age!). Their 'dinner party' is a complete goddamn travesty, in my opinion, as I feel like either their words are exaggerated/twisted to fit the narrative, or these are shitty feminists. I mean, really, using the r-slur in the same sentence you're talking about dating women just because it'd be more convenient for you...? ("Sometimes I think about dating women because the men I've met are so emotionally r*t*rd*d.") Talking about cheating as if it's just something that happens....? ("I fell much more comfortable flirting now that I'm married, as long as it's very clear that I am married...") Just flat-out shitty biphobia that completely ignores the fact that bisexuals don't stop being bisexuals when they're not in same-sex relationships, and the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people who don't subscribe to the gender binary. ("I think if you're bisexual, there just has to come a day when you choose one or the other- and, face it, it's easier to be straight...").
I mean, really, this book is riddled with biphobia (and this is just from the ~100 pages I've read of it)! "Many bisexual women eventually choose to identify as either gay or straight." What, like bisexuals are Schrodinger's Sexuality, and can only be bisexual when they don't have any partner...? Yeah, if a bisexual settles down, they're gonna be with someone of some gender (or no gender).... That doesn't erase the fact that they're still bisexual- the gender of their partner has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's not choosing sides- stop acting like it is.
Also, passive lesbophobia... Since Jennifer is bisexual, I'm honestly surprised as how much anti-Sapphic shit is in this book. "Findlen also points out the odd way that some straight women reconcile themselves with this threat: by arguing that feminists aren't all dykes. (Which implies, among other ignorant assumptions, that all gay women are inherently feminist.)" ??? No, definitely not the immediate implication- that being a lesbian or a woman that loves other women is something Awful and something Not to Be Associated With. No one's going to think that all gay women are inherently feminist- that makes 0 sense.
They call Native Americans "American Indians", and (even though they're quoting a Native American woman, they still definitely shouldn't have said this) use "the 'red roots of white feminism'". On the same page, they refer to black people as "blacks" ("Acknowledging that the forces working against both women and blacks were white men [...]"). Oh, they also blame all black people of the time for creating the Black Power, because it wasn't the previous "more egalitarian and racially integrated civil-rights movement, which meant not only that whites were kicked out but that, generally speaking, black women were demoted from being organizers to simply being 'nation-builders' (mothers)". First off, the fact that they're mad at black people for starting to spearhead a movement intended for them. Secondly... What rights do they have to say that black women became breeders- if they'd done any of their research, they'd know how heavily steeped in white-supremacy and how racist that sentiment is.
There's also the discussion of "Girlie" culture, which I have honestly never heard of, but it really just sounds like a bunch of women enjoying traditionally feminine things, but are being infantilized for it. "Girlies have reclaimed girl culture, which is made up of such formerly disparaged girl things as knitting, the color pink, nail polish, and fun." Yeah... just normal things women can do as hobbies, though.
Oh, remember how I brought up them devaluing women's work? What really pissed me off is how they champion the idea that we need to Get Out There and Make A Difference, they denounce women with liberal arts degrees, and essentially say it's their fault that there are male-dominated fields. ("While our own liberal-arts educations appear to have furthered us in our own professions and were even the sites of our feminist awakenings, we think that women should be pioneering the tech world along with men, not simply going after those liberal-arts degrees.") Cute sentiment, but as a girl in the STEM field, I can say that there are way more factors contributing to the lack of women in these fields (how about the fact that I'm put to a higher standard because I'm a woman, and, when I fail, I somehow represent my whole gender?).
Again, haven't read the whole thing (I feel like I got a pretty good taste of it, though!) but, to sum it up: two white women act as if they're the lynchpin to the entire Third Wave Feminist movement, all while degrading women of color and queer people.
More...