Perhaps I shouldn't have expected anything else, seeing that the opening line goes something like "I write this book with enough rage to fuel a rocket," but I was hoping that it wouldn't be just a "rage read." Sorely disappointed. That said, it certainly makes some good points... but rageaholic women on a diatribe regarding society's ills feed into the stereotype of the "angry feminist," irrespective of any other demographics, which isn't helpful, or attractive to even many women who may otherwise be more sympathetic. In fact, it often leads to gaslighting of women, who are then painted as irrational, overly-emotional creatures by those who are incapable of negotiating female anger, so this self-described "manifesto" was less than helpful in that regard, understandable (if not "righteous") anger notwithstanding. The author would likely state that that's the problem: patriarchy has bludgeoned women into "politeness," if not silence, to perpetuate its existence, but I'm not sure I agree completely. There is such a thing as civility, which should be expected of both males and females alike, and destroying politeness and civility does not, in my opinion, advance feminism or dismantle the patriarchy; in fact, it's often counterproductive to those ends.
My other observation: this book purports to "show[] women and girls how to defy, disrupt, and destroy the patriarchy by embracing the qualities they've been trained to avoid." For many of the aforementioned reasons above, in short, it doesn't. I am unconvinced by the author's recommended methods. Simply stating that women need to embrace "qualities" such as rage, violence, lust, et al., does not equate to demonstrating how to change an individual's behavior. And, based on the above list, I'm glad it doesn't.
The chapter on anger troubled me on a number of fronts. Perhaps the most perplexing to me was the author's statement re: "There are plenty of other books that...urge men that it is in their own interest to join forces with women to dismantle patriarchy. I refuse to focus on and will not plead with those who benefit from my oppression to join a fight against a centuries-long systemic oppression that not only hurts women and girls... but kills them." However, encouraging all to acknowledge the struggles women have endured, and still face, is instrumental in bringing about systemic and long-term change. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg once stated, "fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you." I don't think she would qualify that statement to mean just women. I would instead argue that this definitively includes men, and raging at them is counterproductive, at least.
In addition: is this book really "teaching" women HOW to be angry. or encouraging them to be so? That anger should be the natural state of being, and to fail to display an appropriate degree of righteous anger is to be complicit in the subjugation of women and girls? I acknowledge that we all get angry and lose our temper from time to time, especially when we have been unquestionably wronged, subjected to prejudice or bigotry, misogyny, or other mistreatment. However, anger is not the binary opposite of "constraint" and "fear," nor the natural state of being, for anyone. And, as in most books of this type, someone's personal "manifesto," there is no real plan of action to implement here, or to inspire anyone to adopt. The author repeatedly advocates, for example, "teaching" women how to be angry, but nowhere is there a structured method for how that would happen, other than allusions to some potential curriculum inclusions. Instead, generalities, along with empty platitudes, abound. I've yet to see a feasible, implementable action plan from anyone who writes along these lines, so she's definitely not alone in this regard, but it's frustrating. If all this change is supposed to come about... how do we actually do it? There's never a good answer.
I also don't like the puerile vernacular littered throughout. The author addresses the reasons in her chapter on profanity, specifically that certain words denied to women should be used to challenge patriarchy, but, again, there is such a thing as civility (and age-appropriateness, although I do agree that words simply have the power we give them). Just my opinion: that often repels potential allies who see no need to resort to the vulgar (i.e., words referring to genitalia) to make a point, and there are far more eloquent ways to express yourself than to resort to language reminiscent of a fifteen-year-old high-schooler's five paragraph essay - a fifty-something woman constant use of neologisms like "fuckery," an almost universal term in the feminist lexicon, just irks me.
In my opinion, much of this "manifesto" is an individual woman's reaction, perhaps an appropriate one, to repeated incidences of sexual assault and discrimination, and writing is clearly therapeutic for her as a way to work through her emotions stemming from a lifetime of horrific experiences. However, encouraging negative emotions, and, many, including myself, would argue, embracing and even advocating serious personality flaws such as "anger," "violence" and "lust," the dark side of traits which can be attributes, such as justice, conviction and sensuality, is going to lead to other women being just as angry and miserable. And, yes, anger is a negative emotion that one shouldn't advocate using as a weapon; anger should be acknowledged, not stifled, but its roots should be addressed in a positive way which leads to change that doesn't alienate other people or make enemies: that makes the challenges to achieving true female equality all the more difficult.
Don't get me wrong: we have a lot to do in terms of achieving that laudable goal the world over, so some of the lessons herein are valuable, as are the personal experiences. To that end, the chapter on power was the most instructive, for me, and the least rhetorical and problematic, which also demonstrates that there are many paths to the same goal, but that women with diverse backgrounds and life experiences use different methods to get there. It also notes that women are sometimes equally to blame for the persistence of patriarchy, in essentially working for and voting against their own interests, which the author does a good job of describing and demonstrating.
I'm sure some will label me a traitor to the cause for the above opinions and viewpoints, a "foot soldier of patriarchy," as the author labels those who don't agree with her wholesale, as someone enabling the patriarchy and accepting the crumbs from men who allow women only so much circumscribed power, but those accusations don't bother me. The so-called "sins," herein aren't necessary; they're counterproductive. With regard to bringing about real systemic change embraced by the totality of a population: the author's admonitions just ain't the way to get that done.
My other observation: this book purports to "show[] women and girls how to defy, disrupt, and destroy the patriarchy by embracing the qualities they've been trained to avoid." For many of the aforementioned reasons above, in short, it doesn't. I am unconvinced by the author's recommended methods. Simply stating that women need to embrace "qualities" such as rage, violence, lust, et al., does not equate to demonstrating how to change an individual's behavior. And, based on the above list, I'm glad it doesn't.
The chapter on anger troubled me on a number of fronts. Perhaps the most perplexing to me was the author's statement re: "There are plenty of other books that...urge men that it is in their own interest to join forces with women to dismantle patriarchy. I refuse to focus on and will not plead with those who benefit from my oppression to join a fight against a centuries-long systemic oppression that not only hurts women and girls... but kills them." However, encouraging all to acknowledge the struggles women have endured, and still face, is instrumental in bringing about systemic and long-term change. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg once stated, "fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you." I don't think she would qualify that statement to mean just women. I would instead argue that this definitively includes men, and raging at them is counterproductive, at least.
In addition: is this book really "teaching" women HOW to be angry. or encouraging them to be so? That anger should be the natural state of being, and to fail to display an appropriate degree of righteous anger is to be complicit in the subjugation of women and girls? I acknowledge that we all get angry and lose our temper from time to time, especially when we have been unquestionably wronged, subjected to prejudice or bigotry, misogyny, or other mistreatment. However, anger is not the binary opposite of "constraint" and "fear," nor the natural state of being, for anyone. And, as in most books of this type, someone's personal "manifesto," there is no real plan of action to implement here, or to inspire anyone to adopt. The author repeatedly advocates, for example, "teaching" women how to be angry, but nowhere is there a structured method for how that would happen, other than allusions to some potential curriculum inclusions. Instead, generalities, along with empty platitudes, abound. I've yet to see a feasible, implementable action plan from anyone who writes along these lines, so she's definitely not alone in this regard, but it's frustrating. If all this change is supposed to come about... how do we actually do it? There's never a good answer.
I also don't like the puerile vernacular littered throughout. The author addresses the reasons in her chapter on profanity, specifically that certain words denied to women should be used to challenge patriarchy, but, again, there is such a thing as civility (and age-appropriateness, although I do agree that words simply have the power we give them). Just my opinion: that often repels potential allies who see no need to resort to the vulgar (i.e., words referring to genitalia) to make a point, and there are far more eloquent ways to express yourself than to resort to language reminiscent of a fifteen-year-old high-schooler's five paragraph essay - a fifty-something woman constant use of neologisms like "fuckery," an almost universal term in the feminist lexicon, just irks me.
In my opinion, much of this "manifesto" is an individual woman's reaction, perhaps an appropriate one, to repeated incidences of sexual assault and discrimination, and writing is clearly therapeutic for her as a way to work through her emotions stemming from a lifetime of horrific experiences. However, encouraging negative emotions, and, many, including myself, would argue, embracing and even advocating serious personality flaws such as "anger," "violence" and "lust," the dark side of traits which can be attributes, such as justice, conviction and sensuality, is going to lead to other women being just as angry and miserable. And, yes, anger is a negative emotion that one shouldn't advocate using as a weapon; anger should be acknowledged, not stifled, but its roots should be addressed in a positive way which leads to change that doesn't alienate other people or make enemies: that makes the challenges to achieving true female equality all the more difficult.
Don't get me wrong: we have a lot to do in terms of achieving that laudable goal the world over, so some of the lessons herein are valuable, as are the personal experiences. To that end, the chapter on power was the most instructive, for me, and the least rhetorical and problematic, which also demonstrates that there are many paths to the same goal, but that women with diverse backgrounds and life experiences use different methods to get there. It also notes that women are sometimes equally to blame for the persistence of patriarchy, in essentially working for and voting against their own interests, which the author does a good job of describing and demonstrating.
I'm sure some will label me a traitor to the cause for the above opinions and viewpoints, a "foot soldier of patriarchy," as the author labels those who don't agree with her wholesale, as someone enabling the patriarchy and accepting the crumbs from men who allow women only so much circumscribed power, but those accusations don't bother me. The so-called "sins," herein aren't necessary; they're counterproductive. With regard to bringing about real systemic change embraced by the totality of a population: the author's admonitions just ain't the way to get that done.
