Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
It might be owing to our short-term memory loss as masses but humanity is generally a very thankless species. The negative criticism that feminism receives, especially from women, seem, to be the result of this ingratitude. If you don't think we are all thankless folks, then tell me who invented condoms?
Times are changing fast and things one generation fought so hard for could be taken for granted by the next one - and to this new generation, the struggles of the previous generation might seem comical. People had grown to dislike her while she was still alive. The negative reviews of Simone De Beviour's thesis seem to spring from this lack of understanding.
I am not a feminist myself (assuming men can be that) as it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. I can't ever be sure what a particular person means when he or she say that they are feminist. If the belief in the fact that women are worse off in society be the definition of feminism might be used as defining characteristic, than one runs the risk of calling people with patronizing ways toward women feminists - most religions have such patronizing ways. A lot of people in India would want women to stay indoors after dusk 'for their own safety' - sometimes they are genuinely concerned but the point is most feminists I like reading from won't agree - I don't either.
.... Or it might mean to others, stronger women. The worst of it is Indian School girls being taught karate so that they might be able to defend themselves. An example I have seen commonly among western people is to shame weak female characters. Any weak female characters especially one weakened by love for a man is a 'spineless' character. Two examples of fictional characters that are criticized for this are Bella from Twilight (which I have not read) and Tonks from Harry Potter series (Tonks btw was the only character in series I had a crush on). From saying that 'it is the duty of every woman to be strong' you are just one step away from saying 'whatever happens to a weak is deserved by her because of her weakness'. I think it a great precept of Feminism that every woman should have a source of her own income, but not all of them can or they might not find work best suited to their abilities and to some people - both men and women, even having breakfast is an act of anguish.
I hope you get why I don't like calling myself a feminist. But I do have an outsider's admiration for certain feminists - Charlotte Bronte, Henrik Ibsen, Woolf and now Beauviour. Like most writers who are too rhetorical, she is open to misinterpretation at times - especially if you only read the book in parts. But if you ignore follies of her language, she means by feminism what every such egalitarian philosophy should mean - that we are all individuals. That not all girls (or humans) want to learn or care for self-defense techniques. What would be the purpose of laws and police if such assumptions are encouraged? That some women (and men too) can be emotionally weak at times, get depressed, for no good reason or because they are abandoned by ones they love - and that is no reason to guilt trip them. (Sometimes it is even a sign of strength or quality. Tonks was strong enough to be an Aurora but loved putting smiles on faces of others, it makes sense she should get depressed to know that someone as good a person as Lupin should give up on all hope of ever being happy).
That at least seems to be a general message though Behaviour's language actually seems to encourage the opposite idea - that she is trying to talk in stereotypes. She uses the words like 'woman' and 'she' which seems to invite prejudice; but what she really means most of those times are 'some woman' and 'some of them'.
She s a novelist and it shows in how she presents her arguments - many of which could make very good fictional short stories.
I think Eastern Feminists can gain a lot more from the book. A lot of anti-feminist arguments she had to answer are not raised in the west anymore but might still be common in East - women have smaller brains or are less of humans, why housewife will not have a fulfilling life) or shaming based on mensuration or the arguments raised because of biological reasons. It can be a good starting book for one studying feminism at least in India.
There are things though from which whole world can look - the heavy focus given to looks when we take character estimates of women (men are udged for far more qualities - their brains, physical strength, kindness, wealth etc all come into consideration but such qualities are not as valued as much among women; women are less likely to be complimented for such things); about how women are more likely to 'respect' men or make sacrifices for them (which sits at root of women giving up their careers for their husbands, a lot of D/s - but not all relationships; especially ones that turn into abuse. Respect is always a bad thing - a distancing quality and often cruel to people you worship as well as a way of lowering yourself; true for lovers friends, parent-student relationship too and true even if it is men that are supposed to respect women as the Indian version of feminists say men should - give each other a human dignity, anything more is to give them too much power for good of both parties. And sacrifices for your lover is equally cruel to both you and the lover), why women are more likely to be physically weak (less likely to be encouraged to do strength exercises in the gym, mostly they are in there to get thinner).
The book though won't always stand the test of times. For example, the writer is too judgemental of actresses for example.
There are a couple of more points I should like to make in case someone cares to read these boring reviews might be interested. I have recently seen feminism criticized for things that didn't result from it. One of them is the rising inequality of incomes. Some women from the USA who are quite intelligent and my friends have claim that now both man and woman have to earn when a few decades ago, one person's income was enough to maintain the household. Well, it is the fault of capitalism and not feminism - or lack of it, US government is failing to tax the rich corporations and is more willing to tax middle-class workers, so it is the fault of US government. In India too, much of inequality of income is owed to lack of proper laws and their implementation.
Another related criticism is that children feel abandoned when both parents are working. It too is owed to capitalism. If incomes of middle and lower classes were to rise with GDP, that would have made the two parents to work lesser and avail them more time to spend with their children.
Times are changing fast and things one generation fought so hard for could be taken for granted by the next one - and to this new generation, the struggles of the previous generation might seem comical. People had grown to dislike her while she was still alive. The negative reviews of Simone De Beviour's thesis seem to spring from this lack of understanding.
I am not a feminist myself (assuming men can be that) as it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. I can't ever be sure what a particular person means when he or she say that they are feminist. If the belief in the fact that women are worse off in society be the definition of feminism might be used as defining characteristic, than one runs the risk of calling people with patronizing ways toward women feminists - most religions have such patronizing ways. A lot of people in India would want women to stay indoors after dusk 'for their own safety' - sometimes they are genuinely concerned but the point is most feminists I like reading from won't agree - I don't either.
.... Or it might mean to others, stronger women. The worst of it is Indian School girls being taught karate so that they might be able to defend themselves. An example I have seen commonly among western people is to shame weak female characters. Any weak female characters especially one weakened by love for a man is a 'spineless' character. Two examples of fictional characters that are criticized for this are Bella from Twilight (which I have not read) and Tonks from Harry Potter series (Tonks btw was the only character in series I had a crush on). From saying that 'it is the duty of every woman to be strong' you are just one step away from saying 'whatever happens to a weak is deserved by her because of her weakness'. I think it a great precept of Feminism that every woman should have a source of her own income, but not all of them can or they might not find work best suited to their abilities and to some people - both men and women, even having breakfast is an act of anguish.
I hope you get why I don't like calling myself a feminist. But I do have an outsider's admiration for certain feminists - Charlotte Bronte, Henrik Ibsen, Woolf and now Beauviour. Like most writers who are too rhetorical, she is open to misinterpretation at times - especially if you only read the book in parts. But if you ignore follies of her language, she means by feminism what every such egalitarian philosophy should mean - that we are all individuals. That not all girls (or humans) want to learn or care for self-defense techniques. What would be the purpose of laws and police if such assumptions are encouraged? That some women (and men too) can be emotionally weak at times, get depressed, for no good reason or because they are abandoned by ones they love - and that is no reason to guilt trip them. (Sometimes it is even a sign of strength or quality. Tonks was strong enough to be an Aurora but loved putting smiles on faces of others, it makes sense she should get depressed to know that someone as good a person as Lupin should give up on all hope of ever being happy).
That at least seems to be a general message though Behaviour's language actually seems to encourage the opposite idea - that she is trying to talk in stereotypes. She uses the words like 'woman' and 'she' which seems to invite prejudice; but what she really means most of those times are 'some woman' and 'some of them'.
She s a novelist and it shows in how she presents her arguments - many of which could make very good fictional short stories.
I think Eastern Feminists can gain a lot more from the book. A lot of anti-feminist arguments she had to answer are not raised in the west anymore but might still be common in East - women have smaller brains or are less of humans, why housewife will not have a fulfilling life) or shaming based on mensuration or the arguments raised because of biological reasons. It can be a good starting book for one studying feminism at least in India.
There are things though from which whole world can look - the heavy focus given to looks when we take character estimates of women (men are udged for far more qualities - their brains, physical strength, kindness, wealth etc all come into consideration but such qualities are not as valued as much among women; women are less likely to be complimented for such things); about how women are more likely to 'respect' men or make sacrifices for them (which sits at root of women giving up their careers for their husbands, a lot of D/s - but not all relationships; especially ones that turn into abuse. Respect is always a bad thing - a distancing quality and often cruel to people you worship as well as a way of lowering yourself; true for lovers friends, parent-student relationship too and true even if it is men that are supposed to respect women as the Indian version of feminists say men should - give each other a human dignity, anything more is to give them too much power for good of both parties. And sacrifices for your lover is equally cruel to both you and the lover), why women are more likely to be physically weak (less likely to be encouraged to do strength exercises in the gym, mostly they are in there to get thinner).
The book though won't always stand the test of times. For example, the writer is too judgemental of actresses for example.
There are a couple of more points I should like to make in case someone cares to read these boring reviews might be interested. I have recently seen feminism criticized for things that didn't result from it. One of them is the rising inequality of incomes. Some women from the USA who are quite intelligent and my friends have claim that now both man and woman have to earn when a few decades ago, one person's income was enough to maintain the household. Well, it is the fault of capitalism and not feminism - or lack of it, US government is failing to tax the rich corporations and is more willing to tax middle-class workers, so it is the fault of US government. In India too, much of inequality of income is owed to lack of proper laws and their implementation.
Another related criticism is that children feel abandoned when both parents are working. It too is owed to capitalism. If incomes of middle and lower classes were to rise with GDP, that would have made the two parents to work lesser and avail them more time to spend with their children.
tocupine's review against another edition
4.0
A lengthy, important and dense read that I took my time with. Alterity was not something I was really familiar with until I read this and its gave me a bit to think about in the way I speak and act.
the_bookish_scorpio's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
maximum_moxie's review against another edition
5.0
This book floored me; though it shows its age in some places and has a noticeable communist bent, it questions the framework of the world in a way which justifies its enormous length.
This is not a self-help book, and I was left somewhat depressed by the lack of concrete solutions to achieve fulfillment as a subjective human being rather than objective woman. However, the hope it does hold out was enough to entirely change my mindset. Required reading for any thoughtful or dissatisfied woman--or man.
This is not a self-help book, and I was left somewhat depressed by the lack of concrete solutions to achieve fulfillment as a subjective human being rather than objective woman. However, the hope it does hold out was enough to entirely change my mindset. Required reading for any thoughtful or dissatisfied woman--or man.
hopedihop's review against another edition
4.0
Schwere Kost, die man aber mal gelesen haben sollte. Vielleicht nicht als Einstieg in den Feminismus ;)
Tragisch ist, dass ein Buch, dass vor 70 Jahren geschrieben wurde immernoch so aktuell ist. Das meiste kann man in unsere Zeit übertragen - und da sage jemand, wir brauchen keinen Femnismus mehr.
Am besten fand ich die Kapitel:
"Montherlant oder das Brot des Abscheus" - Ihre Verachtung wird deutlich und es ist einfach herrlich zu lesen wie sie ihn zerpflückt - einen Autoren von dem ich noch nie gehört habe und das auch nicht misse.
"Die Mutter" - dieses Kapitel beschäftigt sich u.a. mit Abtreibungen und kann genauso in die heutige Zeit übernommen werden. Gerade deswegen hat mich dieses Kapitel auch sehr erschüttert.
Tragisch ist, dass ein Buch, dass vor 70 Jahren geschrieben wurde immernoch so aktuell ist. Das meiste kann man in unsere Zeit übertragen - und da sage jemand, wir brauchen keinen Femnismus mehr.
Am besten fand ich die Kapitel:
"Montherlant oder das Brot des Abscheus" - Ihre Verachtung wird deutlich und es ist einfach herrlich zu lesen wie sie ihn zerpflückt - einen Autoren von dem ich noch nie gehört habe und das auch nicht misse.
"Die Mutter" - dieses Kapitel beschäftigt sich u.a. mit Abtreibungen und kann genauso in die heutige Zeit übernommen werden. Gerade deswegen hat mich dieses Kapitel auch sehr erschüttert.
emma3244's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.75