Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.28 AVERAGE
3.28 AVERAGE
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
funny
inspiring
lighthearted
fast-paced
Funny, relatable, and brilliant. Dating is garbage. Men are garbage. But I still want both. Might as well do it the right way, the healthy way. I'm never again doing anything Blythe Roberson won't. Men, read this book. Learn.
A+ in concept and title, B in execution.
This is peak 'personal is political' so anyone who says the title or book is harmful or offensive to men is wrong.
This is peak 'personal is political' so anyone who says the title or book is harmful or offensive to men is wrong.
Based on the title, I thought I’d be getting some actual advice on how to navigate relationships in a patriarchy. There are very cool ideas she touches on, like the power dynamics that come from a heterosexual relationships, but she doesn’t really explore these issues in depth. Also I don’t use twitter and am of the “teen” generation so a lot of the jokes are lost on me. A couple bits made me laugh, but I didn’t really get a whole lot out of the book.
If you read this, be sure to read it with the understanding that the author writes for "The Late Show" and does comedy...otherwise, it doesn't read right.
I appreciated the bulk of what was written, but I ended up not finishing this book. There were too many all-caps words on so many pages. It was distracting.
Did you know that all the problems in the world are caused by men? Yup. And if you don't agree, you're part of the problem either because you're stupid or because the patriarchy has brainwashed you. *rolls eyes*
Why did I read a book with such a title? Because the blurp and the fact that the author writes for The Onion promised a satirical take on all the funny things we silly humans do during courtship.
What did I get in reality? The account of an apparently bitter woman who (according to her own statements) can't stay in a relationship because as soon as someone shows interest, she runs (and when men don't show interest, she makes embarrassing declarations).
So here are her core points up until the 20% mark to which I forced myself to read (DNFing a book goes against my very nature):
- It is entirely men's and the patriarchy's fault that she likes to stare at good-looking men. In fact, her staring at and drooling over good-looking man is one of the ways she is being oppressed. While she is criticizing men when they stare at and drool over women because that is objectification.
- Trump became President because a woman can never be head of state (it's a conspiracy!). Girl, how about you check out other countries in the world before making that statement the way you did? Moreover, Hilary didn't lose because she was a woman (not alone) but because she was the wrong fucking candidate.
- She is happy and proud when she can plaster her Instagram account with her crushes.
- In the same breath in which she becried the wrongful representation of women (either in movies, books or ads) she talked about her wardrobe and shoes worse than any cliché I've ever seen/heard. And, once again, not in a funny way.
- Her opinion of Jane Austen's male characters is nuts. While Mr. Darcy could be viewed as not very nice (which is a misconception and one of the central points of Pride and Prejudice but whatever - maybe it would have helped if she hadn't apparently just watched the movie but actually read the book), Austen's other male leads are true gentlemen. Just think of Captain Wentworth! They do what other male people in the stories should but don't. Seriously, Austen's characters are complex and there are assholes of both genders just like in real life. And yet, this author criticizes how so many women love Jane Austen and then of course fall for the wrong men. Sorry, what?! How about 50 Shades of Garbage if you need a horrible example?! The same goes for Tom Hanks' character in You've Got Mail.
- In only 5 minutes of the book (yes, I went back and checked), she managed to reference Trump seven times. And while I'm no fan of President Carrot-Top and agree that he is a despicable human being with his locker-room talk etc, he hasn't been on this planet long enough to actually be responsible for the patriarchy and the history of the oppression of women the way the author kept implying, sorry. I know, everybody looooves bashing Trump. But that doesn't mean it's a valid argument. That is a cheap and easy (if not to say lazy) way of mentioning a current trigger to make her book seem more relevant. Moreover, she's actually hurting the cause she says she's so passionate about.
- According to her, the view on gender is completely fucked up and there aren't actually any genders. While I agree that there are some horrible discussions about gender and while I hope trans people will soon not have to be afraid for their lives (at least not in most Western countries), there is the biology to be considered. It's one thing to discuss the philosophic side. But one very real reason your passport needs to show your entire face/head (which is why you cannot wear, say, a motocycle helmet in your passport photograph) is that you need to be identifyable. Thus, if you are transgender and undergoing a procedure, the picture needs to show you after you've "settled" (at least in my country). If you want people to say "they" instead of "he" or "she", that's fine as it is a different matter. However, your documents need to represent you. Just one example how the concept the way she represented it (and made it a modern problem which it is NOT) is silly. Genders DO exist, whether we like it or not.
- She laments that she is "forced" to not have serial one-night-stands or serial shortlived boyfriends. While I agree that many people regard it as more problematic when a woman "goes wild" (but are fine when men do it), the author isn't forced to do shit. She even conceded in the foreword that she is college-educated and American and therefore comes from a privileged background (even more so because her family is neither black nor poor). So there is no force behind it. Could the world be better if people didn't stick their noses into other people's sex lives? Definitely. Did she deliberately overstate the problem for dramatic effect? Abso-fucking-lutely.
- My "favourite" point of hers was how women, considering for how long we (she loved saying that as if she had been there for it all from the start) have been oppressed, should get at least a few hundred years to do to men what men have done to us. Uh-huh. This is the exact bullshit I so despise about sooo many feminists. We'll never get equality as long as such nonsensical opinions are floating around. This is as bad as if gay people decided to treat straight people horribly out of revenge.
We are talking about a serious issue here. There are women and girls on this planet who get stoned to death, gang-raped in the streets while others look on, forced into marriage (often before turning 16), have acid thrown into their faces, who aren't allowed to get a driver's license.
But here she is, this entitled young white woman who works for Stephen Colbert (amongst other people), telling me about how bad it is when she dates because she can't even really define what the word "date" means? Are you fucking kidding me?!
At least she mentioned the difference in financial situations and skin colour and admitted that many women (especially poor women of colour, statistically) have it worse. But only for a moment. Then she went back to poor-old-her.
I really tried to see the supposed satirical approach here but the author is 100% serious about the points she makes (she even says so a number of times to point out when she is not serious - just the fact that she thinks she needs to tell people when she's being funny and that she explains her "jokes" says a lot) and thinks what she says is gospel. It was obvious where she tried to be funny but all her supposed jokes just fell completely flat for me. Just like her rattling off all the intellectuals she's read about or who's works she's studied didn't make her arguments be any better, structurally.
All in all, the author seems to be VERY shallow and her writing equally superficial - which feeds the very machine she has been complaining about. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit meant to make women feel more empowered.
The point of the book (at least the audio) seemed to be to be shrill and coming across as oh so wise and hip and modern. The truth, however, is that her examinations of at least the above mentioned points are faulty at best and catastrophic at worst, which of course leads to ridiculous if not even dangerous conclusions. As I grew angrier and angrier while listening to her (she narrates the audiobook herself), I decided to DNF.
I really hate DNFing books, it makes me feel bad and I always hold out hope that the book gets better eventually but I don't think that would have been the case here. And really, why should I torture myself if there are apparently enough men around who'll love to do that for me?!
P.S.: A man holding the door open for a woman is not a man oppressing said woman. The guy is simply polite. Get a grip!
Why did I read a book with such a title? Because the blurp and the fact that the author writes for The Onion promised a satirical take on all the funny things we silly humans do during courtship.
What did I get in reality? The account of an apparently bitter woman who (according to her own statements) can't stay in a relationship because as soon as someone shows interest, she runs (and when men don't show interest, she makes embarrassing declarations).
So here are her core points up until the 20% mark to which I forced myself to read (DNFing a book goes against my very nature):
- It is entirely men's and the patriarchy's fault that she likes to stare at good-looking men. In fact, her staring at and drooling over good-looking man is one of the ways she is being oppressed. While she is criticizing men when they stare at and drool over women because that is objectification.
- Trump became President because a woman can never be head of state (it's a conspiracy!). Girl, how about you check out other countries in the world before making that statement the way you did? Moreover, Hilary didn't lose because she was a woman (not alone) but because she was the wrong fucking candidate.
- She is happy and proud when she can plaster her Instagram account with her crushes.
- In the same breath in which she becried the wrongful representation of women (either in movies, books or ads) she talked about her wardrobe and shoes worse than any cliché I've ever seen/heard. And, once again, not in a funny way.
- Her opinion of Jane Austen's male characters is nuts. While Mr. Darcy could be viewed as not very nice (which is a misconception and one of the central points of Pride and Prejudice but whatever - maybe it would have helped if she hadn't apparently just watched the movie but actually read the book), Austen's other male leads are true gentlemen. Just think of Captain Wentworth! They do what other male people in the stories should but don't. Seriously, Austen's characters are complex and there are assholes of both genders just like in real life. And yet, this author criticizes how so many women love Jane Austen and then of course fall for the wrong men. Sorry, what?! How about 50 Shades of Garbage if you need a horrible example?! The same goes for Tom Hanks' character in You've Got Mail.
- In only 5 minutes of the book (yes, I went back and checked), she managed to reference Trump seven times. And while I'm no fan of President Carrot-Top and agree that he is a despicable human being with his locker-room talk etc, he hasn't been on this planet long enough to actually be responsible for the patriarchy and the history of the oppression of women the way the author kept implying, sorry. I know, everybody looooves bashing Trump. But that doesn't mean it's a valid argument. That is a cheap and easy (if not to say lazy) way of mentioning a current trigger to make her book seem more relevant. Moreover, she's actually hurting the cause she says she's so passionate about.
- According to her, the view on gender is completely fucked up and there aren't actually any genders. While I agree that there are some horrible discussions about gender and while I hope trans people will soon not have to be afraid for their lives (at least not in most Western countries), there is the biology to be considered. It's one thing to discuss the philosophic side. But one very real reason your passport needs to show your entire face/head (which is why you cannot wear, say, a motocycle helmet in your passport photograph) is that you need to be identifyable. Thus, if you are transgender and undergoing a procedure, the picture needs to show you after you've "settled" (at least in my country). If you want people to say "they" instead of "he" or "she", that's fine as it is a different matter. However, your documents need to represent you. Just one example how the concept the way she represented it (and made it a modern problem which it is NOT) is silly. Genders DO exist, whether we like it or not.
- She laments that she is "forced" to not have serial one-night-stands or serial shortlived boyfriends. While I agree that many people regard it as more problematic when a woman "goes wild" (but are fine when men do it), the author isn't forced to do shit. She even conceded in the foreword that she is college-educated and American and therefore comes from a privileged background (even more so because her family is neither black nor poor). So there is no force behind it. Could the world be better if people didn't stick their noses into other people's sex lives? Definitely. Did she deliberately overstate the problem for dramatic effect? Abso-fucking-lutely.
- My "favourite" point of hers was how women, considering for how long we (she loved saying that as if she had been there for it all from the start) have been oppressed, should get at least a few hundred years to do to men what men have done to us. Uh-huh. This is the exact bullshit I so despise about sooo many feminists. We'll never get equality as long as such nonsensical opinions are floating around. This is as bad as if gay people decided to treat straight people horribly out of revenge.
We are talking about a serious issue here. There are women and girls on this planet who get stoned to death, gang-raped in the streets while others look on, forced into marriage (often before turning 16), have acid thrown into their faces, who aren't allowed to get a driver's license.
But here she is, this entitled young white woman who works for Stephen Colbert (amongst other people), telling me about how bad it is when she dates because she can't even really define what the word "date" means? Are you fucking kidding me?!
At least she mentioned the difference in financial situations and skin colour and admitted that many women (especially poor women of colour, statistically) have it worse. But only for a moment. Then she went back to poor-old-her.
I really tried to see the supposed satirical approach here but the author is 100% serious about the points she makes (she even says so a number of times to point out when she is not serious - just the fact that she thinks she needs to tell people when she's being funny and that she explains her "jokes" says a lot) and thinks what she says is gospel. It was obvious where she tried to be funny but all her supposed jokes just fell completely flat for me. Just like her rattling off all the intellectuals she's read about or who's works she's studied didn't make her arguments be any better, structurally.
All in all, the author seems to be VERY shallow and her writing equally superficial - which feeds the very machine she has been complaining about. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit meant to make women feel more empowered.
The point of the book (at least the audio) seemed to be to be shrill and coming across as oh so wise and hip and modern. The truth, however, is that her examinations of at least the above mentioned points are faulty at best and catastrophic at worst, which of course leads to ridiculous if not even dangerous conclusions. As I grew angrier and angrier while listening to her (she narrates the audiobook herself), I decided to DNF.
I really hate DNFing books, it makes me feel bad and I always hold out hope that the book gets better eventually but I don't think that would have been the case here. And really, why should I torture myself if there are apparently enough men around who'll love to do that for me?!
P.S.: A man holding the door open for a woman is not a man oppressing said woman. The guy is simply polite. Get a grip!
Honestly, I was in and out for some of it, but I like her. She had some quirky moments and dropped a gem or two (if that) lol