You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.22 AVERAGE
4.22 AVERAGE
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
I really wanted to like this book, and, even more, I wanted this book to be good. I will say that I agree with many of Manne’s salient points about misogyny, but her arguments are messy and unconvincing, and her mode of argument changes between (what I view as) pointless quasi-formalism in service of notional rigor and grounded theory and textual exegesis as it seems to suit her. The first part of the book keeps to the mode of analytic philosophy, while the second half devolves into a dithering, repetitive mess. Needless to say, this book really frustrated me. As I said, I’m inclined to agree with the author’s diagnoses of misogyny with respect to the many manifestations she canvasses (a word she likes to use a lot), but the arguments she makes don’t even approach coherence, and they largely re-state points addressed more effectively in pre-existing feminist literature. Because of this, I found myself struggling to figure out what niche this book is meant to fill: the author states in her introduction that (1) there are few works of analytical feminism and (2) there are no book-length treatments of the concept of misogyny. She presents some pretty flimsy support for this view.
I think I understand and take her fundamental point, which is that in dismantling patriarchal ideology (or any oppressive, dominant order or social structure) and misogyny, as the policing mechanism used in service of patriarchal ideology, we can’t rely on a series of individual reconciliations between bigots and the targets of their prejudiced behavior (their victims). By the same token, we can’t focus on the individual psychology of misogynists, but should rather focus our critical attentions on the structures, social hierarchies, and dependent systems of rationalization that give rise to misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. I agree with this, but, again, this is an extant, established, and widely held view within feminism.
I’m trying not to get too into the weeds with this review, but the chapter that presented the biggest problem for me was called “Humanizing Hatred.” Her rejection of humanism and her analysis of dehumanizing language as it relates to violence was very unconvincing. She defines the tenets of humanism, but then proceeds to ignore them for the purposes of her argument! She seemingly uses a very limited, restrictive definition of “human” to make the claim that, contrary to what is commonly believed, women are not viewed by misogynists as dehumanized or subhuman “others.” Her argument is that in the minds of misogynists who humiliate, degrade, or visit other acts of violence upon women, women are all too human and are therefore threatening because of their perceived agency. While I get the logic here, it also handily ignores that part of what it means to be human is self-contained moral value, and recognition that this moral value entitles someone to certain rights, for example, to bodily autonomy. If that autonomy is violated, or if someone is deemed unworthy of that right, that is itself dehumanizing and it is experienced as such by victims of psychic trauma. Whether it's consciously represented as dehumanizing by the perpetrators themselves, and whether they actively believe they dehumanize someone, is irrelevant.
I’ll leave things there for now. In the end I feel that if you approach this book as a work of feminism, you will be disappointed, and if you approach it as a work of analytical philosophy, you will also be disappointed. I’d highly recommend Susan Faludi’s Backlash as a feminist alternative.
I think I understand and take her fundamental point, which is that in dismantling patriarchal ideology (or any oppressive, dominant order or social structure) and misogyny, as the policing mechanism used in service of patriarchal ideology, we can’t rely on a series of individual reconciliations between bigots and the targets of their prejudiced behavior (their victims). By the same token, we can’t focus on the individual psychology of misogynists, but should rather focus our critical attentions on the structures, social hierarchies, and dependent systems of rationalization that give rise to misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. I agree with this, but, again, this is an extant, established, and widely held view within feminism.
I’m trying not to get too into the weeds with this review, but the chapter that presented the biggest problem for me was called “Humanizing Hatred.” Her rejection of humanism and her analysis of dehumanizing language as it relates to violence was very unconvincing. She defines the tenets of humanism, but then proceeds to ignore them for the purposes of her argument! She seemingly uses a very limited, restrictive definition of “human” to make the claim that, contrary to what is commonly believed, women are not viewed by misogynists as dehumanized or subhuman “others.” Her argument is that in the minds of misogynists who humiliate, degrade, or visit other acts of violence upon women, women are all too human and are therefore threatening because of their perceived agency. While I get the logic here, it also handily ignores that part of what it means to be human is self-contained moral value, and recognition that this moral value entitles someone to certain rights, for example, to bodily autonomy. If that autonomy is violated, or if someone is deemed unworthy of that right, that is itself dehumanizing and it is experienced as such by victims of psychic trauma. Whether it's consciously represented as dehumanizing by the perpetrators themselves, and whether they actively believe they dehumanize someone, is irrelevant.
I’ll leave things there for now. In the end I feel that if you approach this book as a work of feminism, you will be disappointed, and if you approach it as a work of analytical philosophy, you will also be disappointed. I’d highly recommend Susan Faludi’s Backlash as a feminist alternative.
Brilliant and erudite, I have been working on this one and it was so worth it.
Waaaaaay over my head. I even bought the german edition but had the same problem. I would definitely read a version with more basic vocabulary because what I understood was so interesting and well thought through.
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
This is an academic text
Content Warnings
Minor: Racism, Sexism, Violence