Scan barcode
louisenb's review against another edition
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
3.5
jwinchell's review
5.0
This is an excellent primer on feminism. It’s broken into digestible sections and the illustrations and word bubbles explain things in ways young people will understand. Highly recommended.
thenextgenlibrarian's review
4.0
Great info about feminism in a graphic novel NF book. It’s hard for me to chronicle this as a GN because of the lack of panels and I know these can still be graphic novels, but I still loved the information shared that students need to know.
thenextgenlib's review
4.0
Great info about feminism in a graphic novel NF book. It’s hard for me to chronicle this as a GN because of the lack of panels and I know these can still be graphic novels, but I still loved the information shared that students need to know.
jemmania's review
1.0
This book starts off by designating the idea that "girls are fragile and boys are strong" as a stereotype not based in reality. Biology will tell you that men have much denser bones, much more upper arm strength, faster reaction time, and much greater running speed than women do. Teaching young people that women are just as strong as men is not only factually incorrect, but it creates an environment that is unsafe for women.
Further into the book in the romance chapter, the book introduces the idea that women tend to care for children and do housework because of sexism. In reality, it is because the woman (in the huge majority of cases) gestates, births, and breastfeeds the child. She requires time off of work to recover from labor and to take care of the helpless infant. Men, can take care of infants post-birth as well, but the reason this is more rare is not "sexism". The author goes on to describe child care & housework as "unpaid labor". This is not true. If both you and your partner were to work, you would have to pay a third party to perform housework and child care. The money you collectively save by one partner staying home is the pay. The writer heavily implies that a relationship where the woman works in the home and the man works outside is "not equal". Just because they are not doing the same work doesn't mean one is more important than the other. This implication shows the author's personal sexism more than society's, as she basically states the male role is more important.
Why are men still considered to be attractive when they are older, but women are only attractive when they are younger? Is it sexism? No. Attractiveness has to do with fertility. Men are fertile for forever. Robert De Niro just welcomed his fifth child into the world in May of this year. He is 79 years old. A woman who is 79 hasn't been fertile for about 40 years if not longer. This sex difference is not a "sexist stereotype", it is a biological fact.
It makes absolutely zero sense for this book to push back on the notion of gender stereotypes and then privilege transgenderism. Transgender ideology relies solely on gender stereotypes. The driving philosophy behind transgenderism is that because you don't fit into gender stereotypes you were "born in the wrong body" and thus need to be castrated & mutilated to fit in. It is regressive and antithetical to feminist rhetoric. Also, what does "women's rights" even mean if mentally ill men can just become women by their say so? It means nothing. Allowing men to become women, and then enter women's changing rooms, play on women's sports teams, and serve time in women's prisons actually hurts women. Labelling women who dare have the courage to speak out against this injustice "bigotted" is deeply wrong, and not what any so-called "feminist" movement should stand for. The book poses the question "Do feminists hate men?" the answer seems to be "yes, unless they are pretending to be women"
This book identifies "Capitalism" as the institution that gives "rich people privileges and poor people suffer because of that". Read a damn history book. In communist countries they lock poor people in prison, or ship them off to labor camps. Capitalism is the institution that allows for competition which keeps goods cheap and benefits the poor.
Overall this book is deeply flawed, very stupid, and poorly drawn. Would not recommend.
Further into the book in the romance chapter, the book introduces the idea that women tend to care for children and do housework because of sexism. In reality, it is because the woman (in the huge majority of cases) gestates, births, and breastfeeds the child. She requires time off of work to recover from labor and to take care of the helpless infant. Men, can take care of infants post-birth as well, but the reason this is more rare is not "sexism". The author goes on to describe child care & housework as "unpaid labor". This is not true. If both you and your partner were to work, you would have to pay a third party to perform housework and child care. The money you collectively save by one partner staying home is the pay. The writer heavily implies that a relationship where the woman works in the home and the man works outside is "not equal". Just because they are not doing the same work doesn't mean one is more important than the other. This implication shows the author's personal sexism more than society's, as she basically states the male role is more important.
Why are men still considered to be attractive when they are older, but women are only attractive when they are younger? Is it sexism? No. Attractiveness has to do with fertility. Men are fertile for forever. Robert De Niro just welcomed his fifth child into the world in May of this year. He is 79 years old. A woman who is 79 hasn't been fertile for about 40 years if not longer. This sex difference is not a "sexist stereotype", it is a biological fact.
It makes absolutely zero sense for this book to push back on the notion of gender stereotypes and then privilege transgenderism. Transgender ideology relies solely on gender stereotypes. The driving philosophy behind transgenderism is that because you don't fit into gender stereotypes you were "born in the wrong body" and thus need to be castrated & mutilated to fit in. It is regressive and antithetical to feminist rhetoric. Also, what does "women's rights" even mean if mentally ill men can just become women by their say so? It means nothing. Allowing men to become women, and then enter women's changing rooms, play on women's sports teams, and serve time in women's prisons actually hurts women. Labelling women who dare have the courage to speak out against this injustice "bigotted" is deeply wrong, and not what any so-called "feminist" movement should stand for. The book poses the question "Do feminists hate men?" the answer seems to be "yes, unless they are pretending to be women"
This book identifies "Capitalism" as the institution that gives "rich people privileges and poor people suffer because of that". Read a damn history book. In communist countries they lock poor people in prison, or ship them off to labor camps. Capitalism is the institution that allows for competition which keeps goods cheap and benefits the poor.
Overall this book is deeply flawed, very stupid, and poorly drawn. Would not recommend.
anetq's review against another edition
3.0
While it's a very worthwhile endeavour to try and give young ladies a super up-to-date politically correct vocabulary to talk about intersectionality and feminism - I find the dogmatic approach and lack of humour hard to take in my stride. I have to say I prefer the similar swedish books of a slightly more sarcastic nature - but hey, that's just me...
crizzle's review
4.0
Feminism explained in illustrated form for the middle-grade crowd, with added bonuses of racism and intersectionality. What really threw me off though was the illustrated genitals with eyes - “ew!”