Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mcckey's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
4.25
I enjoyed this but at times it felt like I needed to already have a thorough understanding of whatever topic was at hand, as the author would jump from example to example with little context.
barel93's review against another edition
3.0
I'm not sure, I always agree with Jacqueline Rose, and my main issue I guess is always that her books seem to rehash or present a condensed overview of theories that on their own, are far more complex, exhaustive, and satisfying in their understanding of violence, and especially violence against women.
I'm also not sure, I agree with her assessment that sometimes oppressors cause harm without realizing it: I think violence is rarely an afterthought; it's the very purpose of oppressive systems, and they are not maintained by ignorance.
I did appreciate the depth of some aspects of this book, especially the portion on Freud and psychoanalysis which have been foundational to misogyny and yet, for all the disclaimers, are still given a prominent spot in Western discourse around most anything.
Overall, I'm a bit torn. Because on the one hand, I think that this would be good for someone who wants to have a general overview on the various theories that explain the roots and dynamics of violence against women, but then I think if perhaps its meandering nature might be that useful to someone who isn't at least somehow informed about this topic?
I'm also not sure, I agree with her assessment that sometimes oppressors cause harm without realizing it: I think violence is rarely an afterthought; it's the very purpose of oppressive systems, and they are not maintained by ignorance.
I did appreciate the depth of some aspects of this book, especially the portion on Freud and psychoanalysis which have been foundational to misogyny and yet, for all the disclaimers, are still given a prominent spot in Western discourse around most anything.
Overall, I'm a bit torn. Because on the one hand, I think that this would be good for someone who wants to have a general overview on the various theories that explain the roots and dynamics of violence against women, but then I think if perhaps its meandering nature might be that useful to someone who isn't at least somehow informed about this topic?
noma43's review against another edition
4.0
Thanks to @netgalley and the publisher for sending me this e arc for review, in exchange for my honest opinion.
I sat with this fantastic, nuanced read for a while because frankly it got depressing and brought me down. I was also hoping for something more universal around violence on women but those seemed to be more UK, USA and South African focused. Language access seemed to be a footnote. I am not sure if the trans information was updated. Yeah, I will mull a bit more about the book.
I sat with this fantastic, nuanced read for a while because frankly it got depressing and brought me down. I was also hoping for something more universal around violence on women but those seemed to be more UK, USA and South African focused. Language access seemed to be a footnote. I am not sure if the trans information was updated. Yeah, I will mull a bit more about the book.
kaa's review
DNF at 34%. While I think this is an important topic, and Rose has clearly done a lot of research on the topic of violence against women, I was in agreement with other reviewers who struggled with the constant tangents. In combination with the dense, overly academic language, this made the book very challenging to follow and to appreciate the points being made. I also found the terminology used in the sections about transgender people outdated.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for providing an eARC.
Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for providing an eARC.
marleyreads's review
[thank you to Faber Faber & NetGalley for the free copy for an honest review!]
I’m not an avid non fiction reader (I read non-fiction, but not that often and I rarely review them because they feel very personal), but the title and content really drew me in, and I really wanted to read it. Jacqueline Rose shows through this book some theories behind violence against women, and on violence in general that goes on throughout the world. The amount of sources that went into this book was amazing, and it made it feel like a really well researched topic.
I think what threw me off was that it was hard to follow along throughout the book on the topics. A lot of the times it felt like the book discussed one aspect, then another, and another, without having a clear red thread between them, and then there had to be some kind of explanation on why these things were important, and, yeah, it really threw me off. The book felt messy, and in the end I didn't really enjoy the reading experience because I felt like I had to try and decode it.
A lot of the points made were interesting, but they just didn’t feel cohesive. I would have loved to see it more organised and simplified.
I’m not an avid non fiction reader (I read non-fiction, but not that often and I rarely review them because they feel very personal), but the title and content really drew me in, and I really wanted to read it. Jacqueline Rose shows through this book some theories behind violence against women, and on violence in general that goes on throughout the world. The amount of sources that went into this book was amazing, and it made it feel like a really well researched topic.
I think what threw me off was that it was hard to follow along throughout the book on the topics. A lot of the times it felt like the book discussed one aspect, then another, and another, without having a clear red thread between them, and then there had to be some kind of explanation on why these things were important, and, yeah, it really threw me off. The book felt messy, and in the end I didn't really enjoy the reading experience because I felt like I had to try and decode it.
A lot of the points made were interesting, but they just didn’t feel cohesive. I would have loved to see it more organised and simplified.
carise's review
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.