Before I start, for those who are not familiar, this isn’t an anti-feminist book. It’s a feminist manifesto. The title is purposefully incendiary.
I really wanted to like this book. I guess that’s partly my fault, like why did I expect so much? I think because one of the people I admired seemed to like the book a lot, and the people the book largely pissed off were people I didn’t mind pissing off. I’m being snide but actually the book’s topic is really important and not one something that typically hits mainstream discourse. So for someone who has voice and reach, she has a unique chance to be able to articulate it, and she didn’t do it very well. I would have given it 2 stars on goodreads if I didn’t still feel that there are still things in the book that she at least still managed to say right and were important.
The book starts out relatively fine, even if we set aside how polemical it is, which I could tolerate because I was familiar with the message she was trying to put across. It is right to point out the main problems with contemporary liberal feminism today — that its aims are shallow and centred around the ‘lean in’ approach focused on the ambitions of a narrow elite of women. This is not a feminism for all women and it certainly does not question the fundamentally unjust, capitalist, neoliberal structure we are functioning in. I get it. We want better than buzzfeed, taylor swift feminism. Disney princesses are tired of being re-conceptualised. I too can’t stand the over-emphasis on female CEOs, lawyers, bankers, politicians; the power-feminism that utterly disregards the working-class. I too can’t stand how it has been co-opted by corporations once it’s fashionable. I rolled my eyes at a “feminist” sweatshirt in H&M. Sure you’re feminists now! Cause it’ll make you money! She’s right to point out that a feminism that is watered-down to be made palatable and unthreatening is not something that can serve everyone.
“This is part of the problem of creating a unified front for feminism: the median feminist is generally going to be a middle-class, educated white woman. Her desires and needs cannot stand in for the needs of all women. And yet we’ve focused on facilitating her dreams for much of recent feminist history. Our goals have been things that would make her life easier, like equal pay, removing barriers to higher education, delaying childbearing through birth control and fertility treatment developments. “
It doesn’t really get better from here on though. Setting her arguments aside for a moment, the writing itself was quite erratic and unclear. She tends to use terms that are quite general without specifying what exactly she’s referring to, so it’s confusing at times to figure out who she’s exactly addressing, or what she’s precisely talking about. At times I had to keep reminding myself that this really strong line I’m reading is probably directed at the liberal white feminists she is criticising, otherwise it’s seriously uncalled for. She simply says “feminist”, so I am not sure. There are plenty of straw-women in this book she knocks down, a lot of blanket statements. She tends to also over-simplify phenomenons when she describes them, especially when talking about the current tensions that exist in feminist circles, which to be honest is only going to make tensions worst lol. Despite being a more ‘radical’ feminist, her rhetoric sometimes sounded eeriely like conservatives who make generalising statements. Take this specimen, for example:
“This is the way dissent is handled in feminist realms: a contrary opinion or argument is actually an attack. This stems from the belief that your truth is the only truth, that your sense of trauma and oppression does not need to be examined or questioned.”
This sounds like some anti-feminist fuckboy’s 3dgy comment on a facebook meme. She goes ahead and defines for us how dissent is handled in feminist realms, she then goes on to define for us the belief underlying it. I mean… like, how did she arrive at these conclusions, or is this mere conjecture? How am I supposed to take these lines seriously? Even as a radical feminist I feel like this drastically oversimplifies the tensions present in feminists circles. It’s so inadequate, and so confident at the same time. I’m taken aback someone can just… say this.. in a published book.
She also tends to do the things that she tells people not to do, which adds to my confusion. Glaringly for me was her position re: identity politics. Her critique of it seems to be of the more radical vein instead of the rather annoying liberal one:
“What was once collective action and a shared vision for how women might work and live in the world has become identity politics, a focus on individual history and achievement, and an unwillingness to share space with people with different opinions, worldviews, and histories. It has separated us out into smaller and smaller groups until we are left all by ourselves, with out concern and our energy directed inward instead of outward”
Ok writing that out I realise her critique starts out radical, then goes on to the liberal critique before returning back. It’s confusing. Yes there has been a focus on the individual, and the ‘self-empowerment’ narrative kind of isolates people instead of building community, and detracts us from seeing systemic injustice and tend to seek individual instead of systematic solutions. But how in the world!!!! is that related to people being unwilling to share space with people with different opinions/worldviews??? It’s like she was driving fine along the road of trying to critique identity pols, did a little detour to take a dump/throw some shade, and drove back. At this point I’m looking at who published this & wanting to ask them why they didn’t edit her book better.
Also despite her valid (but still shallow) critique of identity politics, she doesn’t utilise it herself a lot of times. She tends to devolve into focusing on individual errors of women, in the realm of personal choices, instead of taking the more systemic, structural understanding of why they make such decisions or were coerced into such decisions.
Another example of how she doesn’t seem to follow her own demands that she quite polemically scolds into people. These two quotes are from the same book ya’ll:
 “We do not like to pay attention to how the casual demonization of white straight men follows the same pattern of bias and hatred that fuels misogyny, racism, and homophobia. . . What does outrage actually accomplish? There was probably a moment when calling out the actions of some guy opened up a conversation, something along the lines of: How can we be more supportive of women in science? But that moment has passed.”
 “Take that shit somewhere else. I am not interested. You as a man are not my problem. It is not my job to make feminism easy or understandable to you . . . I just want to be clear that I don’t give a fuck about your response to this book. Do not email me, do not get in touch. Deal with your own shit for once.”
She spends quite a while bashing what she calls ‘outrage culture’ of feminists where they are apparently unable to handle any kind of criticism and are obsessed with revenge, without being able to tolerate dissent. They demonise according to identity (the first quote) and disregard context. She takes examples from actual events. Yes, some moments can spiral into vindicative outrage, but to say that these are merely product of wanting ‘revenge’ and an inability to handle criticism is incredibly simplistic! And despite the always-present group of people who might seem too ‘outrageous’ there are many others who actually use such moments as opportunities to open up a conversation!
And re: that first quote, I really could not stand it when she said that bias and hatred against white straight men follows the same pattern of hate that fuels misogyny and racism. Are you kidding me? Even if she acknowledges one has institutional power, that is still not enough to warrant such an idea! Why do people get to a point where they hate straight white men? Because they view this demographic as representative of oppression, oppression that they have faced that is actually structural, and perpetuated by individuals. But hatred that fuels misogyny and racism and sexism — that is not borne out of oppression! That is borne out of hatred for people/demographics that are not as powerful as you and most probably did you no harm! You just hate them because of your prejudice! It’s incomparable.
Later on, she also ties outrage culture to a chapter where she spends time talking about self-victimisation and how we need to move beyond that. But what I didn’t appreciate about this chapter was that she spent time talking about false rape accusations, saying that feminists should take it seriously. Are you kidding me? Why wouldn’t people know that? In a world where less than ~1% (or even less) of rape accusations are made up, why is this something that pages of a book is dedicated to, what is the net benefit of saying this? Even if she were to say yes women suffered, even if she were to acknowledge the failure of the justice system to mete out justice for rape victims, it just doesn’t make up for it. In my view.
Anyway moving on. She also really loves Andrea Dworkin, a person whom she says modern feminists hate and are ready to disavow. Unlike Jessa Crispin I won’t try to speak for all feminists so I will say that I do think Dworkin is a formidable person but that the criticisms that people had of her were more than just the fact that she was unabashed and fierce and ‘unlikeable’. It was more than just the fact that she was radical. A lot of feminists couldn’t really wholeheartedly agree with 2nd wavers because there were serious disagreements. I think it’s really glaring that Jessa Crispin never mentioned the trans-exclusionary aspect of feminism, especially in radical feminist circles. Even I as someone who leans more towards rad-fem am aware and know that it is something that is just unacceptable. I can only think that Jessa Crispin knows, but did not include this in the book, or she doesn’t. I’m sure she knows. It’s a very glaring omission.
Trying not to end on too depressing a note, here’s a nice-ish quote:
“Much of contemporary feminism uses the language of power. Girls needs to be “empowered,” women need to fight for “self-empowerment,” “girl power,” etc. There is little conversation about what that power is to be used for, because that is supposed to be obvious: whatever the girl wants.
But growing up in a system that measures success by money, that values consumerism and competition, that devalues compassion and community, these girls and women have already been indoctrinated into what to want. Without close examination, without conversation into a different way of thinking and acting, what that girl wants is going to be money, power, and possibly her continued subjugation, because a feminism that does not provide an alternative to the system will still have the system’s values.”
Anyway!! Feminists of color have said what she’s trying to say and said it much better. I appreciate what she’s trying to say though, my heart is with her. But damn..
Read bell hooks, audre lorde, and sara ahmed my friends. As for a white women who does it well, Nancy Fraser does.