What do you think?
Rate this book
Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism
Is it time to take a break from feminism? In this pathbreaking book, Janet Halley reassesses the place of feminism in the law and politics of sexuality. She argues that sexuality involves deeply contested and clashing realities and interests, and that feminism helps us understand only some of them. To see crucial dimensions of sexuality that feminism does not reveal--the interests of gays and lesbians to be sure, but also those of men, and of constituencies and values beyond the realm of sex and gender--we might need to take a break from feminism.
Halley also invites feminism to abandon its uncritical relationship to its own power. Feminists are, in many areas of social and political life, partners in governance. To govern responsibly, even on behalf of women, Halley urges, feminists should try taking a break from their own presuppositions.
Halley offers a genealogy of various feminisms and of gay, queer, and trans theories as they split from each other in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. All these incommensurate theories, she argues, enrich thinking on the left not despite their break from each other but because of it. She concludes by examining legal cases to show how taking a break from feminism can change your very perceptions of what's at stake in a decision and liberate you to decide it anew.
Halley also invites feminism to abandon its uncritical relationship to its own power. Feminists are, in many areas of social and political life, partners in governance. To govern responsibly, even on behalf of women, Halley urges, feminists should try taking a break from their own presuppositions.
Halley offers a genealogy of various feminisms and of gay, queer, and trans theories as they split from each other in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. All these incommensurate theories, she argues, enrich thinking on the left not despite their break from each other but because of it. She concludes by examining legal cases to show how taking a break from feminism can change your very perceptions of what's at stake in a decision and liberate you to decide it anew.
424 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
3 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 25, 2013
The book that made me go on antidepressents
I'm stopping now, because the book made me incredibly sad.
Not a review: just some thoughts.
Halley frames everything as binary throughout the whole book.
There’s two kinds of feminism – convergentist and divergentist (p. 26).
Convergentist “insists that feminism mediate whatever comes into conflict, harmonizing it into a feminist frame.” Divergentist “is prepared to see political splits and split decisions within its feminism. Such a project Takes A Break from Feminism, according to me, whenever it decides that feminism need not be the normative or political measure of the goodness of the result; that feminism need not be the ultimate form of the product; that f not need be the constituency on whose behalf it works; and so on.” (p. 20).
So, if I fight for, or voice my support for, the right for boys to wear long hair and makeup to school, or men to wear chiffon and glitter at will without harassment, this, according to Halley, is Taking a Break From Feminism. Because I am not working on behalf of f, this is not feminism.
I can't disagree strongly enough. My feminism is concerned with all genders. I do not frame feminism as so limited in scope, and I don’t understand why she thinks feminism must sit within these limits. Is this to assuage that portion of the population who thinks that feminism is a bad word? Is it to continue to do the work that feminism has done, but in a way that denies its role and achievements?
***
I'm on page 18. Eighteen! I've never wanted to rant so early into a book before, but this is ridiculous. The books starts by giving a definition of feminism that is so far from feminism that it's laughable. I mean, good luck trying to pithily encapsulate the complexities of 3rd wave feminism in a post-feminist world anyway, but this is so absurd it's surreal. Like some kind of Groupthink feminism redux.
According to Halley, feminism frames the world as distinct human groups, paired as men/women, male/female etc (p. 17). These binaries can be termed traits, narratives, introjects, etc, but it is not a feminism “unless it turns in some central or core way on a distinction between m and f.”(p. 18).
This is bullshit. The whole basis of 3rd wave feminism is that 2nd wave feminism acted as if there was some kind of shared female experience: because you had a vagina you experienced the world the same way as that other person with a vagina. 3rd wave explicitly denies that there is inherently an 'f' that women all experience (and how would you define 'women' anyway: because 'woman' isn't 'a human with a vagina').
There's pretty much as many flavours of feminism as there are feminists. One tenet common to many, but not all, is that the distinction between male and female is cultural, not biological, and seeks to disrupt the gender binary through the making-visible of these norms.
This is why my flavour of feminism is concerned with the social and cultural roles of all genders, and unpicking why those very gender distinctions might be made, and by whom. There are other flavours: there's Christian feminism, Islamic feminism, and pagan feminism for starters. Some flavours of feminism assert there is a basic, irreducible difference between men and women, but just as many do not.
To say that feminism is inherently defined by an insistance on a m/f binary is . . . *speechless* . . . very ill informed. To say the least.
See, for example, the very fun YouTube video Is BMO From Adventure Time Expressive of Feminism.
Or read this great blog post by Mia McKenzie on 'The Myth of Shared Female Experience and How It Perpetuates Inequality'.
I clearly can't quit a book after 18 pages, but the whole thing is a straw man built on nonsense.
I'm stopping now, because the book made me incredibly sad.
Not a review: just some thoughts.
Halley frames everything as binary throughout the whole book.
There’s two kinds of feminism – convergentist and divergentist (p. 26).
Convergentist “insists that feminism mediate whatever comes into conflict, harmonizing it into a feminist frame.” Divergentist “is prepared to see political splits and split decisions within its feminism. Such a project Takes A Break from Feminism, according to me, whenever it decides that feminism need not be the normative or political measure of the goodness of the result; that feminism need not be the ultimate form of the product; that f not need be the constituency on whose behalf it works; and so on.” (p. 20).
So, if I fight for, or voice my support for, the right for boys to wear long hair and makeup to school, or men to wear chiffon and glitter at will without harassment, this, according to Halley, is Taking a Break From Feminism. Because I am not working on behalf of f, this is not feminism.
I can't disagree strongly enough. My feminism is concerned with all genders. I do not frame feminism as so limited in scope, and I don’t understand why she thinks feminism must sit within these limits. Is this to assuage that portion of the population who thinks that feminism is a bad word? Is it to continue to do the work that feminism has done, but in a way that denies its role and achievements?
***
I'm on page 18. Eighteen! I've never wanted to rant so early into a book before, but this is ridiculous. The books starts by giving a definition of feminism that is so far from feminism that it's laughable. I mean, good luck trying to pithily encapsulate the complexities of 3rd wave feminism in a post-feminist world anyway, but this is so absurd it's surreal. Like some kind of Groupthink feminism redux.
According to Halley, feminism frames the world as distinct human groups, paired as men/women, male/female etc (p. 17). These binaries can be termed traits, narratives, introjects, etc, but it is not a feminism “unless it turns in some central or core way on a distinction between m and f.”(p. 18).
This is bullshit. The whole basis of 3rd wave feminism is that 2nd wave feminism acted as if there was some kind of shared female experience: because you had a vagina you experienced the world the same way as that other person with a vagina. 3rd wave explicitly denies that there is inherently an 'f' that women all experience (and how would you define 'women' anyway: because 'woman' isn't 'a human with a vagina').
There's pretty much as many flavours of feminism as there are feminists. One tenet common to many, but not all, is that the distinction between male and female is cultural, not biological, and seeks to disrupt the gender binary through the making-visible of these norms.
This is why my flavour of feminism is concerned with the social and cultural roles of all genders, and unpicking why those very gender distinctions might be made, and by whom. There are other flavours: there's Christian feminism, Islamic feminism, and pagan feminism for starters. Some flavours of feminism assert there is a basic, irreducible difference between men and women, but just as many do not.
To say that feminism is inherently defined by an insistance on a m/f binary is . . . *speechless* . . . very ill informed. To say the least.
See, for example, the very fun YouTube video Is BMO From Adventure Time Expressive of Feminism.
Or read this great blog post by Mia McKenzie on 'The Myth of Shared Female Experience and How It Perpetuates Inequality'.
I clearly can't quit a book after 18 pages, but the whole thing is a straw man built on nonsense.
September 16, 2008
Obviously, for those of you who've read me for awhile, you know I love this book. I'm reading it again because, still in the process of unpacking, painting, furnishing the new abode, this is one book I happened to have not packed in crates.
Someday, I'll write an actual review instead of the bits and pieces of blog posts that I have up currently.
Meanwhile, if you're at all interested in the subject, especially if you want to understand contemporary social theory from the perspective of *why* theory matters to politics, law, etc., you should read this book. If you're puzzled by postmodernism, pomo, post-structuralism, read about it from a practitioner and someone who is fun to read. Fun in the sense that you feel like the author, Janet Halley, is sitting on a sofa saying, 'Come sit here,' patting the sofa cushion, 'and let me tell you a little bit about how I came to think this way. It'd be great if you'd think more like me about this topic, but cool if you don't. But seriously, I'd rilly rilly like to seduce you, I won't lie.'
If you like it when someone just lays her cards out on the table like that, admits she does want to seduce you but recognizes that therein lies danger in any social movement, then you'll like that edge to her writing.
Oh, I must stop now because, otherwise, I will move to Boston and worship by Halley's feet, feeding her grapes, and wondering if I can call her Ian. :)
Someday, I'll write an actual review instead of the bits and pieces of blog posts that I have up currently.
Meanwhile, if you're at all interested in the subject, especially if you want to understand contemporary social theory from the perspective of *why* theory matters to politics, law, etc., you should read this book. If you're puzzled by postmodernism, pomo, post-structuralism, read about it from a practitioner and someone who is fun to read. Fun in the sense that you feel like the author, Janet Halley, is sitting on a sofa saying, 'Come sit here,' patting the sofa cushion, 'and let me tell you a little bit about how I came to think this way. It'd be great if you'd think more like me about this topic, but cool if you don't. But seriously, I'd rilly rilly like to seduce you, I won't lie.'
If you like it when someone just lays her cards out on the table like that, admits she does want to seduce you but recognizes that therein lies danger in any social movement, then you'll like that edge to her writing.
Oh, I must stop now because, otherwise, I will move to Boston and worship by Halley's feet, feeding her grapes, and wondering if I can call her Ian. :)
January 21, 2025
Super effective as a genealogy of late 20th century feminist thought. I thought the trans theory seemed a little off, but that could just be because of the time it was published.
May 3, 2007
i've only read two academic books that blew me away since taking my general exams - this one and dwight mcbride's why i hate abercrombie and fitch.
Read
April 1, 2009Reviewed here.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews