Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
fast-paced
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
A book to be read by every women.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Sexual violence
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Domestic abuse, Sexual assault, Sexual violence
Every woman should read this....just wow!!! I'll never be the same again.
informative
fast-paced
Hmmmm. Okay.
I agree entirely with Ford's politics. I entered this book as someone who is already anti-marriage on a philosophical level.
But -- this book has lots of issues.
The one that was the most glaring to me was how absolutely reckless Ford was with historical and scientific information. If you know me, you know that I struggle with pop texts which don't cite their sources. I'm not trying to sound like an ivory-tower naysayer when I harp on about how important referencing is, but it frustrates me a lot when a strong thesis (marriage is an oppressive institution) is diluted by bad facts.
For example: Ford spends a section of the book discussing the history of witches. And it just wasn't... well, it wasn't really correct, in any traditional sense of that term. She perpetuates the myth that the witch archetype has it's origins in medieval alewives, aka women who brewed and sold beer. This has been widely disproven. It's a myth which arose because of the similarity between the regular garb of Alewives and our modern (arising largely in the 18th.C) depictions of witches with pointy black hats. In reality, early-modern depictions of witches shared more in common with the iconography of heretical Waldensians than Alewives, but I'm not going to go there.
The idea that the iconography of witches is a bastardisation of the visage of empowered, independent women is a great story. But it's just not true.
I use this example to demonstrate a wider frustration with this book. When nothing is cited, and when I can identify some of the information as objectively wrong it then throws into dispute the rest of the evidence being used -- even when that information is correct and is well-researched.
Another example of this is when Ford makes the assertion that trauma is passed down genetically. It's an in-passing statement, and is the kind of thing that you can't just say without elaboration. Is she talking about epigenetics? Probably? If so -- great. Please just provide a footnote! I'm not telling you to divert the point into a literature review of epigenetics but just... footnote it! Please!
I felt that the strongest sections of this book were the chapter about proposals, and those about social media. In other words -- the ones that were situated in the contemporary world and didn't rely on research about topics that Ford wasn't well-situated in.
Clementine Ford's writing is, characteristically, imbued with rage. And when it works, it's excellent. However, I felt that the colloquialism of some of her prose was a detriment at times, and (to borrow from another review) the "more colloquial writing style at the beginning... actually makes the book feel less accessible to people picking this up who may not already necessarily agree with every worldview Ford has." What I'm saying here isn't an attempt at 'tone policing.' It's not a claim that (female) authors should soften their language to get uber-misogynists onside. Rather, I sound the sections where Ford's writing was "more structured" were far more compelling and convincing than the extended rants about beta-cuck-podcast-bros-etc.
I was also disappointed at the lack of intersectionality in this book. I know that at the outset Ford noted that this was coming from a very narrow perspective, but I then come to the question -- why? Why couldn't she draw more on intersectional experiences? Why, when that intersectionality provides some of the most compelling arguments against the institution of marriage? For example -- where's the discussion about disabled people and marriage? About how marriage can result in disabled people losing access to funding thus jeopardising their financial independence?
And -- she just completely ignored the existence of defacto relationships. In Australia, there's legally not that much difference (or any difference) between being married and being in a long-term defacto relationship. This is not to say that the law doesn't still uphold patriarchy in the context of defacto relationships, because it does. But then the question becomes -- even if marriage is abolished, does anything change? Or is this about something else? And I don't know the answer, but I'd expect this book to at least mention defacto relationships.
I think I would recommend this book to people with a heavy grain of salt. It does provide an emphatic and compelling introduction to anti-marriage discourse. However, lots and lots of salt required. Buckets of salt for Ford.
I agree entirely with Ford's politics. I entered this book as someone who is already anti-marriage on a philosophical level.
But -- this book has lots of issues.
The one that was the most glaring to me was how absolutely reckless Ford was with historical and scientific information. If you know me, you know that I struggle with pop texts which don't cite their sources. I'm not trying to sound like an ivory-tower naysayer when I harp on about how important referencing is, but it frustrates me a lot when a strong thesis (marriage is an oppressive institution) is diluted by bad facts.
For example: Ford spends a section of the book discussing the history of witches. And it just wasn't... well, it wasn't really correct, in any traditional sense of that term. She perpetuates the myth that the witch archetype has it's origins in medieval alewives, aka women who brewed and sold beer. This has been widely disproven. It's a myth which arose because of the similarity between the regular garb of Alewives and our modern (arising largely in the 18th.C) depictions of witches with pointy black hats. In reality, early-modern depictions of witches shared more in common with the iconography of heretical Waldensians than Alewives, but I'm not going to go there.
The idea that the iconography of witches is a bastardisation of the visage of empowered, independent women is a great story. But it's just not true.
I use this example to demonstrate a wider frustration with this book. When nothing is cited, and when I can identify some of the information as objectively wrong it then throws into dispute the rest of the evidence being used -- even when that information is correct and is well-researched.
Another example of this is when Ford makes the assertion that trauma is passed down genetically. It's an in-passing statement, and is the kind of thing that you can't just say without elaboration. Is she talking about epigenetics? Probably? If so -- great. Please just provide a footnote! I'm not telling you to divert the point into a literature review of epigenetics but just... footnote it! Please!
I felt that the strongest sections of this book were the chapter about proposals, and those about social media. In other words -- the ones that were situated in the contemporary world and didn't rely on research about topics that Ford wasn't well-situated in.
Clementine Ford's writing is, characteristically, imbued with rage. And when it works, it's excellent. However, I felt that the colloquialism of some of her prose was a detriment at times, and (to borrow from another review) the "more colloquial writing style at the beginning... actually makes the book feel less accessible to people picking this up who may not already necessarily agree with every worldview Ford has." What I'm saying here isn't an attempt at 'tone policing.' It's not a claim that (female) authors should soften their language to get uber-misogynists onside. Rather, I sound the sections where Ford's writing was "more structured" were far more compelling and convincing than the extended rants about beta-cuck-podcast-bros-etc.
I was also disappointed at the lack of intersectionality in this book. I know that at the outset Ford noted that this was coming from a very narrow perspective, but I then come to the question -- why? Why couldn't she draw more on intersectional experiences? Why, when that intersectionality provides some of the most compelling arguments against the institution of marriage? For example -- where's the discussion about disabled people and marriage? About how marriage can result in disabled people losing access to funding thus jeopardising their financial independence?
And -- she just completely ignored the existence of defacto relationships. In Australia, there's legally not that much difference (or any difference) between being married and being in a long-term defacto relationship. This is not to say that the law doesn't still uphold patriarchy in the context of defacto relationships, because it does. But then the question becomes -- even if marriage is abolished, does anything change? Or is this about something else? And I don't know the answer, but I'd expect this book to at least mention defacto relationships.
I think I would recommend this book to people with a heavy grain of salt. It does provide an emphatic and compelling introduction to anti-marriage discourse. However, lots and lots of salt required. Buckets of salt for Ford.
challenging
informative
fast-paced
Another book I wish I could've read in high school instead of Pride and Prejudice.
I really wanted to love this book more than I did. I’ve loved Ford’s previous work and I thoroughly enjoyed her talk for this book’s launch. I just wanted... more. This book is great for young women or women who want equality but aren’t ready to call themselves feminists yet – she raises great points and provides a great list of resources for additional reading.* It reads like Ford speaks, her ADHD brain shines through with her unique way of moving between each point and she’s uses colourful language, punchy sentences, and anecdotes which makes for an easily digestible read. That being said, I think the book could have lost some of the emotive and colloquial language without losing relevance, which would have made for a more condensed read. I would have preferred more empirical evidence and a more in depth compare and contrast with some of her historical references. Having a passionate opinion about the topic myself, I think I was looking for a more academic review and independent study on the impacts of the institution of marriage, rather than the high level observational commentary provided – but that is probably an unfair expectation to place on a writer.
I Don’t offers a great summary of arguments made from a number of great resources, I’m just not sure what new standalone argument it contributes to the zeitgeist. Ford touches on the impacts social media has had to the marriage landscape, but there is just so much more that could be explored. It’s a topic well deserved of scrutiny.
A recommended read for anyone welcome to having their societal norms challenged, for anyone worried about missing out, or for those wondering if they made the right choice.
*side note, she polled her IG followers for how she should present the resources in the book and I will admit I actually prefer the resources footnoted, like she has in previous wok, rather than listed at the end
*side note, she polled her IG followers for how she should present the resources in the book and I will admit I actually prefer the resources footnoted, like she has in previous wok, rather than listed at the end