3.5 rounded up.
Oh boy, did this book activate my social work brain! My school framed all classes around an intersectional and critical thinking framework, so I have a lot of thoughts!
But first, can we appreciate the quote that had me cheering out loud?
“I’m cleaning house. The first thing to go is Howard.”
Hell YES, Charlotte! 👏🏻 Toodaloo, Howie!
I enjoyed The Book Club for Troublesome Women a fair bit, but I also struggled with some larger, overarching parts. Fair warning: this review gets political (because books are inherently political 😉)so if that’s going to annoy you, you may wanna just scroll on past.
I think this story spoke to me as much as it did because of the current political climate, particularly what we are seeing in the United States. While the book doesn’t explore every aspect of women’s lives in the early 1960s, it does highlight some of the rights and freedoms they were denied.
One woman cannot get a birth control prescription without her husband’s signature. Another cannot open her own bank account without her husband’s permission. A character struggles to get recommendation letters for higher education because teachers assume she will eventually drop out, get married, and have children anyway.
Today, certain groups are trying to convince people that the past was a better time for women and families. They argue that women were happier because divorce rates were lower, that women should return to only caring for their husbands, children, and homes, and, in some more extreme cases, that women should not even have the right to vote.
They romanticize time periods like the 1960s, but the women in this story remind us that those years were not all sunshine and roses (hence the many people on transqlizers!).
The book shows women wanting more than society was willing to give them. Women with ambitions beyond marriage and motherhood were dismissed as unstable or neurotic. They were expected to make themselves smaller to protect their husbands’ egos. They were supposed to remain quiet while their husbands embarrassed them publicly, dismissed their intelligence, invalidated their work, and controlled their choices.
Charlotte’s story especially demonstrates how trapped a woman could be. She comes from generational wealth, yet her husband controls most the finances. The money may technically come from her family, but she still has no meaningful control over it.
Women fought for us to have the rights we have today: the ability to choose our own paths and decide how we want to live our lives. This book is an important reminder that those rights were not simply handed to us and they should never be taken for granted (looking directly at some of the MAGA tradwife influencers saying men should vote on behalf of their entire household 👀).
The story also highlights another political issue we continue to see today: books being treated as dangerous when they challenge the dominant narrative. The women’s reactions to The Feminine Mystique, and the attempts to limit its influence, felt especially relevant in a time when books are still being banned or restricted for exposing people to perspectives that make those in power uncomfortable.
This is a very character driven story. It spans several months and does not have one major destination or central plot beyond following four women as they learn, grow, and begin fighting back against society’s expectations. That did not bother me, but readers who prefer a strongly plot driven book may struggle with the pacing.
One of my favourite parts was the friendship between the four women. The way they supported, encouraged, and pushed one another beyond their comfort zones was truly inspiring. The power of female friendship and of women supporting women knows no bounds. This book did a wonderful job of showing why women only support networks matter so much, both in the past and today.
I also loved that the author incorporated real books and writers, including Virginia Woolf. People sometimes look back at older feminist works and criticize them for not being progressive enough by today’s standards, without acknowledging how incredibly progressive and influential they were at the time. I appreciated the author paying homage to the women who came before and helped pave the way for others.
However, I did have (more than) some frustrations.
There were a few moments when Margaret discussed the expectations placed on men, such as the pressure to be providers, in a way that made them seem comparable to the limitations placed on women. Society absolutely places men in boxes too, and those expectations deserve to be discussed. However, I did not think they needed to be centred in this particular story, which is specifically about women’s rights and female empowerment.
During the 1960s (and still today!) heterosexual white men had more freedom, power, and privilege than anyone else. Their struggles were not equivalent to women being denied legal, financial, educational, and reproductive autonomy.
I also felt conflicted about the lack of diversity. All four main characters are middle or upper class white women, who were among the most privileged people in the United States after white men. Historically, many white women promoted forms of feminism that excluded Black, Indigenous, and other racialized women, so part of me wished the book had included more diverse voices and shown a broader picture of what women were fighting against in the 1960s.
That said, the author is a white woman, and part of me wonders whether it was more responsible for her to remain within perspectives she felt equipped to write. Writing a Black woman without extensive research, care, and understanding could easily lead to misrepresentation or the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. So I would not necessarily call this a criticism, just something worth considering when discussing the scope of the story.
I do wish the book had explored class differences more deeply, even if all the main characters remained white.
Charlotte takes the greatest risk of the four women, particularly for someone living in 1963. However, she is also the wealthiest in terms of family money and has resources that make such a drastic change more possible. The other women are not necessarily wealthy, but they still have enough financial stability to push back against their circumstances.
Women living in or near poverty would have faced even greater limitations. Their ability to leave a marriage, pursue education, take professional risks, attend a book club, or simply find time away from domestic labour would have been very different from that of a suburban middle class woman. Exploring those differences would have made the story feel more complete.
The husbands also made me raise an eyebrow a little.
Yes, they are the breadwinners, and they sometimes publicly embarrass their wives or dismiss their intelligence and skills. However, most of them are also surprisingly progressive.
One woman’s husband cheats constantly, but she can spend as much money as she wants and go wherever she pleases. Another woman’s husband supports her working, washes dishes, helps care for the children, and makes it possible for her to attend book club and spend time with friends. Another openly challenges powerful men to defend his wife and her writing.
I am not saying these men could not have existed. Of course they did. But having nearly every husband be more progressive and supportive than what many women of the period experienced made the story feel slightly unrealistic. Also, please note I am not saying woman being able to spend money whenever she wanted made it fair her husband cheated on her. Of course no one should look at the men in this book as the gold standard, I'm just saying it came off a tad sugarcoated compared to the reality at the time.
Many women in the early 1960s lived with intense financial control, emotional neglect, psychological abuse, physical violence, and husbands who played little to no role in childcare or domestic work. Giving all four women comparatively flexible husbands increases their privilege even further and makes their experiences feel less representative of the average woman’s life at the time.
I was also frustrated by the ending. Everything wrapped up in a very neat little bow, which gives readers a satisfying and hopeful conclusion but does not necessarily reflect the reality most women would have faced.
Most disappointing was the lack of a meaningful conclusion to Charlotte’s story. She fought back the hardest against the patriarchal society around her and took some of the greatest risks, yet we receive no follow-up on what happens to her. For the character I found most compelling, that felt deeply unsatisfying.
Overall, The Book Club for Troublesome Women gives readers a meaningful, although sugarcoated, glimpse into some of the challenges women faced in the 1960s, when they did not have many of the rights women have today. It celebrates the power of female friendship and demonstrates why prescribing one single path for every woman will never create happiness or fulfilment on a large scale.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that the book focuses on a very specific group of women with considerably more racial and financial privilege than many others had. It should not be treated as representing anywhere near the full spectrum of women’s experiences during that period.
Lastly, as a Canadian, I must ask: what on earth is a Homeowners Association!? How do people justify telling someone they cannot plant a certain tree in a yard they legally own and pay for?
Like, what do you mean I can’t paint my own house whatever colour I damn well please because Becky two streets over doesn’t like it?
Absolutely wild concept.