Scan barcode
A review by gretatimaite
Three Women by Lisa Taddeo
2.0
This is a hard one to review, not to mention the rating. I've read so many good reviews on Instagram (or is it Bookstagram) that I was thinking that it's either a gem or a hype because the subject - female desire(s) - sounds hot and interesting. And it is hot; not sure about the other.
I don't want to devalue the experiences of the women or say that they aren't worthy of any attention or critical examination. But I feel slightly deceived. I read three examples of how women don't actually own their desires but shape them in relation to men's (maybe, very maybe with the exception of Lina). It's not a bad thing and I guess desire needs an object for it to arise. Yet, my problem isn't desires per sei but how they were framed and didn't receive any critical analysis. I mean, if it's enough for a non-fiction book to talk about desires without addressing their complexity and problematics then there's a problem unless there's someone who actually believes women have no sexuality? In this case, the mere fact that they do might really really really be world-shattering.
Also, I could mention the lack of intersectionality in this book but I deem it OK to have white women as research subjects as long as they aren't framed as the gold standard. It kinda was even if Lisa Taddeo tried to say there are many different experiences of desire. If so then I'd have liked some discussion of this or people who think (thought?) women are asexual will start believing that women's desires can be satisfied only within abusive relationships. Also, I do understand that Lisa Taddeo might have wanted to normalize 'unaccepted' desires but please analyze it or at least try to contextualize it rather than narrating in a fiction-like manner that's spiced up with erotic scenes.
- I'll just give a quick example that I think would have improved the book: in one of the interviews, Taddeo says that she had a larger sample but only these three women provided enough information for narration. Why not talk about the reasons women might be reluctant to talk about their desires and sexuality? In what ways, if any, were they different from these three women? How does it contribute to the social expectation(s) that a woman should be submissive, not prioritizing her own sexual pleasure?
Also, a quote that struck me as so funny I even screenshotted it (read the ebook):
'Some women want careers as much as or more than they want love but all Lina has ever wanted is to be fully in love and forever partnered, like a penguin.'
- Is it just me to whom this sounds absurd? Like a penguin? I could forgive if it's how Lina exemplified it but if it's the author's simile then she should check her facts because, well, not all penguins are forever partnered (I'm a bit extra on this one and I could overlook the facts for the sake of simile but don't want to)
○ Also, it shows the general complication of this book as it's not clear where the real experiences and expressions are and where fiction enters the scene
I don't want to devalue the experiences of the women or say that they aren't worthy of any attention or critical examination. But I feel slightly deceived. I read three examples of how women don't actually own their desires but shape them in relation to men's (maybe, very maybe with the exception of Lina). It's not a bad thing and I guess desire needs an object for it to arise. Yet, my problem isn't desires per sei but how they were framed and didn't receive any critical analysis. I mean, if it's enough for a non-fiction book to talk about desires without addressing their complexity and problematics then there's a problem unless there's someone who actually believes women have no sexuality? In this case, the mere fact that they do might really really really be world-shattering.
Also, I could mention the lack of intersectionality in this book but I deem it OK to have white women as research subjects as long as they aren't framed as the gold standard. It kinda was even if Lisa Taddeo tried to say there are many different experiences of desire. If so then I'd have liked some discussion of this or people who think (thought?) women are asexual will start believing that women's desires can be satisfied only within abusive relationships. Also, I do understand that Lisa Taddeo might have wanted to normalize 'unaccepted' desires but please analyze it or at least try to contextualize it rather than narrating in a fiction-like manner that's spiced up with erotic scenes.
- I'll just give a quick example that I think would have improved the book: in one of the interviews, Taddeo says that she had a larger sample but only these three women provided enough information for narration. Why not talk about the reasons women might be reluctant to talk about their desires and sexuality? In what ways, if any, were they different from these three women? How does it contribute to the social expectation(s) that a woman should be submissive, not prioritizing her own sexual pleasure?
Also, a quote that struck me as so funny I even screenshotted it (read the ebook):
'Some women want careers as much as or more than they want love but all Lina has ever wanted is to be fully in love and forever partnered, like a penguin.'
- Is it just me to whom this sounds absurd? Like a penguin? I could forgive if it's how Lina exemplified it but if it's the author's simile then she should check her facts because, well, not all penguins are forever partnered (I'm a bit extra on this one and I could overlook the facts for the sake of simile but don't want to)
○ Also, it shows the general complication of this book as it's not clear where the real experiences and expressions are and where fiction enters the scene