Scan barcode
averyt121's review
2.0
I was incredibly frustrated with this book. I was hoping for something that would give me objective, mathematical ammunition to discuss the subjectivity of gender, critique the gender binary, go into the nuance of gender versus sex- I was instead given a vocabulary lesson in new two words that aren’t given direct and full-fledged definitions.
The author creates two new vocabulary words that she prescribes as the cure to gender inequality. “Congressive” and “ingressive” are established as the central thesis of addressing societal strife, but I spent the book lacking a concrete concept for each that didn’t just align with the much simpler, already existing dichotomy of either masculine/feminine or individualistic/collective.
The author states that these new words will create a blank slate for peoples’ understanding of gender and open their minds to an unbiased discussion of gender expectations, but fails to recognize that these words align too closely with already existing, loaded concepts. We do not exist in a vacuum and introducing these new concepts will not suddenly erase the bias already present in those learning the new words or open them up to new ideas about eliminating sexism.
It is fine to create new words to discuss sexism and gender, but focusing on finding new words to erase the context and assumptions of those that would otherwise doubt your argument is essentially tone policing. This is catering to those that do not want to listen to the argument while not even proving that doing so would even be beneficial to the cause overall. To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the entire argument. Why should these new words actually convince people of the necessity to change when they mean things that everyone already associates with gender or political ideology?
The author creates two new vocabulary words that she prescribes as the cure to gender inequality. “Congressive” and “ingressive” are established as the central thesis of addressing societal strife, but I spent the book lacking a concrete concept for each that didn’t just align with the much simpler, already existing dichotomy of either masculine/feminine or individualistic/collective.
The author states that these new words will create a blank slate for peoples’ understanding of gender and open their minds to an unbiased discussion of gender expectations, but fails to recognize that these words align too closely with already existing, loaded concepts. We do not exist in a vacuum and introducing these new concepts will not suddenly erase the bias already present in those learning the new words or open them up to new ideas about eliminating sexism.
It is fine to create new words to discuss sexism and gender, but focusing on finding new words to erase the context and assumptions of those that would otherwise doubt your argument is essentially tone policing. This is catering to those that do not want to listen to the argument while not even proving that doing so would even be beneficial to the cause overall. To me, this is the most glaring flaw in the entire argument. Why should these new words actually convince people of the necessity to change when they mean things that everyone already associates with gender or political ideology?
jvillanueva8's review
2.0
This was horrible, which is disappointing because I had such high hopes. The whole book felt like the classic situation where a STEM researcher decides they can solve a problem without acknowledging that there are entire fields of study devoted to it, so they sloppily execute a “solution” that ignores most of the relevant variables and context. Cheng did not deliver on the mathematical methods and thinking that was promised. This was a poorly written attempt to distill endlessly complex issues into two new invented words. At one point she even claims her writing is a response to “feminism that argues we need to change the whole system but doesn’t offer any suggestions for how to do so.” Perhaps we could turn to Gender Studies, Queer Theory, Sociology, Philosophy, literally any of the fields that grapple with these questions every day. I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone.
iraxl's review
informative
medium-paced
5.0
I thought the second half would not be that interesting, but pushed through. Found the tactics that the author calls out pretty useful. And relatable, thanks to the "ungendered" approach that the author takes.
Also my opinion is that the book may fail to make an impact (which the author kind of acknowledges, but for different reasons). The unemotional, "mathematical" approach they propose is very unlikely to get the at ention that the rest of the inflammatory writings on the subject usually do. Though I do earnestly hope it has more of an impact on the post-lean-in thinking about gender conformity and societal labels of success.
jada's review against another edition
5.0
this was one of the best books I've read all year; I gained a new appreciation for math, a novel way of understanding gender and gender differences, and got concrete, actionable tips for self-improvement. One would think that a book covering all of those topics would feel a bit disjointed, but they dovetailed into each other surprisingly well.
One thing I absolutely loved was the fact that she explained her argument in quite mathematical terms. Often, when reading books (especially the feminist non-fiction I've been reading recently), they state their point like it's a foregone conclusion, not giving enough evidence about exactly how they got there. This book's emphasis on a mathematical approach (at least at the beginning, it got much less so as it progressed) was undoubtedly one of its greatest strengths. She debunked flawed arguments about the supposed inherent superiority of men in certain areas, exposing that their reasoning made unnecessary assumptions.
From this, she concluded that it is character traits, not necessarily gender, that leads to success, and her dream of a post-gender world, in which character traits and gender are decoupled, strikes me as being lowkey gender abolitionist, which I think is a pretty cool point of view to hold. Instead of categorising behaviour as masculine or feminine, Cheng argued that we should be more specific, and add another dimension (another prime example of mathematical thinking shining)coining the terms "ingressive" and "congressive". Initially, I believed that her claims made at the beginning of the book were a bit overhyped, but I was gladly proven wrong. This new way of thinking absolutely blew my mind, providing answers to questions I didn't know that I had, and is definitely something I have to consider in my personal life.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should do whatever we can to fight for a more congressive world, and I liked all her examples of ways in which our current world rewards ingressive thinking, and how it can be radically changed to promote congressivity.
One thing I absolutely loved was the fact that she explained her argument in quite mathematical terms. Often, when reading books (especially the feminist non-fiction I've been reading recently), they state their point like it's a foregone conclusion, not giving enough evidence about exactly how they got there. This book's emphasis on a mathematical approach (at least at the beginning, it got much less so as it progressed) was undoubtedly one of its greatest strengths. She debunked flawed arguments about the supposed inherent superiority of men in certain areas, exposing that their reasoning made unnecessary assumptions.
From this, she concluded that it is character traits, not necessarily gender, that leads to success, and her dream of a post-gender world, in which character traits and gender are decoupled, strikes me as being lowkey gender abolitionist, which I think is a pretty cool point of view to hold. Instead of categorising behaviour as masculine or feminine, Cheng argued that we should be more specific, and add another dimension (another prime example of mathematical thinking shining)coining the terms "ingressive" and "congressive". Initially, I believed that her claims made at the beginning of the book were a bit overhyped, but I was gladly proven wrong. This new way of thinking absolutely blew my mind, providing answers to questions I didn't know that I had, and is definitely something I have to consider in my personal life.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should do whatever we can to fight for a more congressive world, and I liked all her examples of ways in which our current world rewards ingressive thinking, and how it can be radically changed to promote congressivity.