Scan barcode
emmakowalski's review
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
i especially love how the choice feminism which is so rampant nowaday is being addressed. If i would be the most powerful witch or algorithm or whatever channels of transmission i could be, I'd gladly distribute this to all the women in the world.
(read this at an age where my mother got married)
(read this at an age where my mother got married)
dariasbookshelf's review against another edition
3.0
Clementine gave a really good history of patriarchy and marriage. As an Australian reader I wish she focused more on the laws/history etc in Australia rather than America. I also kinda felt like she was shoving her opinion down my throat in certain sections and that it took away from the point she was trying to make. I still this people should read/listen to this.
sabsey's review
informative
fast-paced
1.5
Let's get into it.
I Don't: The Case Against Marriage is about the institution of marriage and how damaging it has been, and is to this day, for women.
I Don’t is split into four sections, but the first two sections is focused on covering historical ground of not just the history of marriage but also the way men have used gender, money, and law to remove or undermine women’s' rights, and how marriage has been weaponised from the beginning in favour of maintaining their own male privilege.
The highlight of this read and the writing in general was, I felt, was the pop-culture sections in the last two parts of the book, and Ford’s personal anecdotes (especially the proposal chapter and the few end ones) which is where her arguments really crystallised in tandem with her writing.
However, I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. Personally, I am someone who is not only anti-marriage but very strongly preaches it in my day-to-day life, so I am more shocked than anyone that I didn't enjoy this.
There a few reasons I didn't enjoy this: the focus on America, the focus on mainly white middle-class women (the author addresses in the prologue that this is because that is largely her experience but did that mean that no research could be done/the entire focus had to be about that demographic?), the conflicting writing style, and most of all, the referencing (or lack of it).
For those latter points, those were the biggest obstacles to me enjoying or even wanting to recommend this. I think that the way the rage and information (especially at the beginning) is expressed is an interesting choice, but to me it felt like it was often getting in the way of the arguments Ford was making.
I feel like I understand, in terms of accessibility, the choice for a more colloquial writing style at the beginning but:
1) This falls away pretty quickly in the second half and
2) This actually makes the book feel less accessible to people picking this up who may not already necessarily agree with every worldview Ford has.
However, when Ford moves away from the online colloquialisms and verbose and into a more structured writing style, she really truly shines. There were also many moments where I thought Ford made some very adept and astute observations or historical tidbits, but either got caught up writing them like they were an instagram post, or wrote them well but provided little to no evidence or sourcing for those tidbits.
Which leads me into my biggest criticism: there was no footnoting, no bibliography - only a tiny section at the back titled 'Notes." The notes section for each chapter was extremely short - mainly only listing sources if they were directly quoted or Ford directly mentioned an author she was paraphrasing.
That sounds fine! Except the problem is that there were many broad historical claims or sections of the book without the above, but were stating facts about history with no evidence cited or anything to back it up. In fact, the only reason I noticed this early on, was because of the very interesting and fascinating section in Chapter 2 ('Cat Lady') which examines how the history of beer brewing originated as a female profession.
“The Ancient Sumerians worshipped the goddess Ninkasi, whose name translates to 'mistress of beer,' and celebrated her with a hymn containing what is now the world's oldest-known beer recipe, which included the soaking of malt in a jar and the spreading of cooked mash on large reed mats. Ceremonial, for sure, but also a clever way to make sure the recipe would never be forgotten. The Ancient Egyptians surpassed the Sumerians as master brewers, with smoother, silkier concoctions that could be drunk from a cup or a glass instead of the bowls 'n' straws combo favoured by the Sumerians.
This sounds like an incredible thing I’d love to learn more about! – only there is not a single source or reference to back this up or to be found anywhere. Once I noticed this, it made it very difficult for me to trust anything Ford was writing, as I quickly realised that most of the historicity didn’t have any evidence for it whatsoever.
Another example that comes late in the book, that I also wish I could have followed up on (for personal interest!):
“The original version of the Little Mermaid was written by Hans Christian Andersen in 1837, and it was an allegory for the terrible pain of unrequited queer love. Christian Andersen had fallen in love with a friend who was engaged to be married. When he confessed his feelings to the young man in question, Christian Andersen was told that they could never be reciprocated.”
I can’t tell if this is genuine fact (I couldn’t check if I wanted to!) or if this is just some very sly opinion of the author that’s being presented as fact.
There would even be throwaway lines, facts presented without any evidence that Ford bases her arguments on (and that we are supposed to just trust her on?) such as:
“Thanks to science, we know that trauma can be passed down through a genetic line.”
Or:
“Globally , the maternal mortality rate (MMR) is 810 deaths per day. That amounts to 295,650 women dying per year. Although there can be underlying causes, three-quarters of maternal deaths during childbirth are caused by severe bleeding, high blood pressure, pregnancy complications and/or complications from unsafe abortions.
Or:
“The Visigothic Code – a set of laws that brought Romans and Germanic people together under one rule in the mid-seventh century – emphasised greater rights for women than had previously existed; they could possess property and their own money, but they were also afford more protection if they found themselves being ghosted by fuckbois whose promises to marry them disappeared at the same time as their hard-on, taking the women’s virtue with them but potentially leaving behind a now-illegitimate child.”
Or:
“A recent survey of almost nine hundred women in Hong Kong conducted by the company De Beers found that, while most of these women were happy to have smaller weddings, they considered a carefully staged proposal to be of paramount important and necessary to ensure a positive experience overall.”
Or:
“They [men] live longer, they register as being happier and their mental health scores are higher. Married men also tend to be more economically secure because workplaces see them as a safer bet. On the contrary, in comparison to married women, single women live longer, report higher levels of happiness and have greater economic opportunities.”
I’m not kidding when I say there is no evidence for any of this (are they facts or opinion or real case studies??? How would I know??)
I could go on and on. It would be impossible for me to list every example of this, as it would be almost the entire book of I Don’t. There is a reading list past the notes, but a reading list is a very different beast from a bibliography.
It may seem a frivolous thing to point out to some, but I feel this is genuinely dangerous to present so much information as either assumed (and therefore in no need of referencing) or without evidence (assuming the reader will take Ford’s word for it).
I genuinely kept checking and triple checking the ‘notes’ lists for each chapter, as if I was somehow misreading the sources, as if somehow more sources would magically grow if I kept flipping back to it.
It’s a shame, because this book has real potential, and I feel like it could be much greater & useful to many people out there, but it really does fall apart under too close an examination.
Ultimately I feel it’s a dangerous read to take at face value, especially as I know many people will (and aren’t history nerds who usually read bibliographies to find their next read), and if you do pick this up, then do so with several large grains of salt.
I Don't: The Case Against Marriage is about the institution of marriage and how damaging it has been, and is to this day, for women.
I Don’t is split into four sections, but the first two sections is focused on covering historical ground of not just the history of marriage but also the way men have used gender, money, and law to remove or undermine women’s' rights, and how marriage has been weaponised from the beginning in favour of maintaining their own male privilege.
The highlight of this read and the writing in general was, I felt, was the pop-culture sections in the last two parts of the book, and Ford’s personal anecdotes (especially the proposal chapter and the few end ones) which is where her arguments really crystallised in tandem with her writing.
However, I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. Personally, I am someone who is not only anti-marriage but very strongly preaches it in my day-to-day life, so I am more shocked than anyone that I didn't enjoy this.
There a few reasons I didn't enjoy this: the focus on America, the focus on mainly white middle-class women (the author addresses in the prologue that this is because that is largely her experience but did that mean that no research could be done/the entire focus had to be about that demographic?), the conflicting writing style, and most of all, the referencing (or lack of it).
For those latter points, those were the biggest obstacles to me enjoying or even wanting to recommend this. I think that the way the rage and information (especially at the beginning) is expressed is an interesting choice, but to me it felt like it was often getting in the way of the arguments Ford was making.
I feel like I understand, in terms of accessibility, the choice for a more colloquial writing style at the beginning but:
1) This falls away pretty quickly in the second half and
2) This actually makes the book feel less accessible to people picking this up who may not already necessarily agree with every worldview Ford has.
However, when Ford moves away from the online colloquialisms and verbose and into a more structured writing style, she really truly shines. There were also many moments where I thought Ford made some very adept and astute observations or historical tidbits, but either got caught up writing them like they were an instagram post, or wrote them well but provided little to no evidence or sourcing for those tidbits.
Which leads me into my biggest criticism: there was no footnoting, no bibliography - only a tiny section at the back titled 'Notes." The notes section for each chapter was extremely short - mainly only listing sources if they were directly quoted or Ford directly mentioned an author she was paraphrasing.
That sounds fine! Except the problem is that there were many broad historical claims or sections of the book without the above, but were stating facts about history with no evidence cited or anything to back it up. In fact, the only reason I noticed this early on, was because of the very interesting and fascinating section in Chapter 2 ('Cat Lady') which examines how the history of beer brewing originated as a female profession.
“The Ancient Sumerians worshipped the goddess Ninkasi, whose name translates to 'mistress of beer,' and celebrated her with a hymn containing what is now the world's oldest-known beer recipe, which included the soaking of malt in a jar and the spreading of cooked mash on large reed mats. Ceremonial, for sure, but also a clever way to make sure the recipe would never be forgotten. The Ancient Egyptians surpassed the Sumerians as master brewers, with smoother, silkier concoctions that could be drunk from a cup or a glass instead of the bowls 'n' straws combo favoured by the Sumerians.
This sounds like an incredible thing I’d love to learn more about! – only there is not a single source or reference to back this up or to be found anywhere. Once I noticed this, it made it very difficult for me to trust anything Ford was writing, as I quickly realised that most of the historicity didn’t have any evidence for it whatsoever.
Another example that comes late in the book, that I also wish I could have followed up on (for personal interest!):
“The original version of the Little Mermaid was written by Hans Christian Andersen in 1837, and it was an allegory for the terrible pain of unrequited queer love. Christian Andersen had fallen in love with a friend who was engaged to be married. When he confessed his feelings to the young man in question, Christian Andersen was told that they could never be reciprocated.”
I can’t tell if this is genuine fact (I couldn’t check if I wanted to!) or if this is just some very sly opinion of the author that’s being presented as fact.
There would even be throwaway lines, facts presented without any evidence that Ford bases her arguments on (and that we are supposed to just trust her on?) such as:
“Thanks to science, we know that trauma can be passed down through a genetic line.”
Or:
“Globally , the maternal mortality rate (MMR) is 810 deaths per day. That amounts to 295,650 women dying per year. Although there can be underlying causes, three-quarters of maternal deaths during childbirth are caused by severe bleeding, high blood pressure, pregnancy complications and/or complications from unsafe abortions.
Or:
“The Visigothic Code – a set of laws that brought Romans and Germanic people together under one rule in the mid-seventh century – emphasised greater rights for women than had previously existed; they could possess property and their own money, but they were also afford more protection if they found themselves being ghosted by fuckbois whose promises to marry them disappeared at the same time as their hard-on, taking the women’s virtue with them but potentially leaving behind a now-illegitimate child.”
Or:
“A recent survey of almost nine hundred women in Hong Kong conducted by the company De Beers found that, while most of these women were happy to have smaller weddings, they considered a carefully staged proposal to be of paramount important and necessary to ensure a positive experience overall.”
Or:
“They [men] live longer, they register as being happier and their mental health scores are higher. Married men also tend to be more economically secure because workplaces see them as a safer bet. On the contrary, in comparison to married women, single women live longer, report higher levels of happiness and have greater economic opportunities.”
I’m not kidding when I say there is no evidence for any of this (are they facts or opinion or real case studies??? How would I know??)
I could go on and on. It would be impossible for me to list every example of this, as it would be almost the entire book of I Don’t. There is a reading list past the notes, but a reading list is a very different beast from a bibliography.
It may seem a frivolous thing to point out to some, but I feel this is genuinely dangerous to present so much information as either assumed (and therefore in no need of referencing) or without evidence (assuming the reader will take Ford’s word for it).
I genuinely kept checking and triple checking the ‘notes’ lists for each chapter, as if I was somehow misreading the sources, as if somehow more sources would magically grow if I kept flipping back to it.
It’s a shame, because this book has real potential, and I feel like it could be much greater & useful to many people out there, but it really does fall apart under too close an examination.
Ultimately I feel it’s a dangerous read to take at face value, especially as I know many people will (and aren’t history nerds who usually read bibliographies to find their next read), and if you do pick this up, then do so with several large grains of salt.
reading_rhi's review against another edition
During my time reading the author made a very distasteful ’prank’ that goes against things they stand for. This destroyed my drive to read this book and incidentally I did not finish it before it was returned to the library. The book itself had some valuable insights.
remains_lady's review
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
This was a particularly powerful read.
loadsofbooks's review against another edition
2.0
Very binary and repetitive.
Missing references or even footnoting to find out more information (if you wish).
I felt it was very one sided and negative - like you’d get in trouble if you had a different opinion or you’d be very wrong.
Wasn’t a fan, and wouldn’t recommend.
Missing references or even footnoting to find out more information (if you wish).
I felt it was very one sided and negative - like you’d get in trouble if you had a different opinion or you’d be very wrong.
Wasn’t a fan, and wouldn’t recommend.
isabelledd's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Another incredible book from
Clementine Ford that serves as a love letter to women everywhere, to realise we are our own hero’s and we can save ourselves
Clementine Ford that serves as a love letter to women everywhere, to realise we are our own hero’s and we can save ourselves