I wanna preface this by saying I adore Solnit. I follow her on facebook for her well informed, measured insights into various sociopolitical issues, and I've read a couple of her other works. My first note on this book was, "I'm probably not going to bother reviewing this because I know it will be thoughtful, observant, well researched, and powerful." And it is. Or at least, it starts out that way. I highlighted a lot of delightful phrases from the first third of the book. It wasn't particularly challenging stuff, a lot of data collection, reflection, and a exploring ideas already popular in modern feminism. If you've been an active feminist with any social media in the past 10 years, this book will not be full of revalations for you. Sometimes Solnit explores things from a new and interesting angle, but mostly I found my views being affirmed, not expanded upon.
Until the second third of the book. Solnit goes out of her way to explain the yesallwomen hashtag, but then starts tripping over herself to explain that #notallmen, often using comedians as an example of good male feminists. She continues this throughout the collection. It's as though she was SO tired of people calling her a man hater after Men Explain Things to Me that she was determined to prove that yes, some men are ok, and no not all men are evil. Which is fine, but I felt that she didn't delve that deeply into why we tend to criticise men as a single homogenous unit to represent their status in society, and the social construct of maleness.
Most confusingly, she talks about Louis C K a LOT. I almost gave up at that point. C K, who famously believes that rape jokes are funny, that any offensive joke is a good joke, that anything is fair game - especially killing Jews. She mentions that he used to be a bit naughty when he defended Daniel Tosh's rape jokes, but has since developed into a feminist comedian. She cites his joke about how men are the primary threat to women to support the idea of this change. One joke does not a feminist make! There's a lot to unpack about this whole situation, so I'll leave it at that. But it was troubling.
She also spoke about Fey & Poehler, and Schumer as feminist comedians. At the end of the essay, she noted that since she'd written it Schumer has spiralled into racial insensitivity and rape jokes of her own. However, she did not acknowledge and therefore did not criticise the transphobia and racism that Fey & Poehler have gleefully used in their routines for years. You don't need me to tell you about these instances. For brevity, you can google it. But I will mention that at least one of them (Fey) is overly fond of blackface. Aziz Ansari was mentioned too. I've never seen master of none but I've heard it's been criticised for being anti-black.
This all really undermined Solnit's attempts at intersectionality from the first third of the book for me.
She brought me back around with an essay on how we came to perceive the nuclear family unit as being ingrained in our species from the beginning, and how that research has been debunked. She also spoke about how female scientists are often dismissed and discredited. I loved reading about how our understanding of science, history, and social sciences can be influenced by our pre-existing cultural lens. I dont think we talk about that enough.
I felt the mentions of gender as a construct with "leaks," referring to people who are outside the binary, to be a little dismissive, and it left me kind of wishing that she would have broken out of her extremely male/female-division-centric arguments and explored how trans people fit into feminism more. There were also some tired arguments about anatomy-specific rape and some narrow minded and shallow (ie. not thoroughly explored) jabs at sex work. It was like she didn't have an overarching theme to tie the essays together (beyond feminism), so some areas that needed to be investigated more thoroughly got left behind. In the context of a single essay, that's understandable. They can't go on forever, endlessly citing and exploring. But with this much room to learn and explain, I wonder if it would have been better if she had just kept her nose out of trans issues and sex work, which obviously aren't her wheelhouse.
Then came an essay or two I had already read because she'd previously published them online and some more #notallmen. It smacked of a feminist who once was quite radical and now is just happy that people are getting involved. Maybe it speaks more to who I am that I found her criticism of problematic pop culture lacking, and her ability to look to that same pop culture for small moments that are just ok kind of frustrating. To me, that gave the tone of the book a kind of middling feeling.
Overall, I think this book is a good introduction for people who don't really know anything about why so many people are still invested in feminism. It backs up a lot of things that most of us are at least peripherally aware of with specific incidents, and ties them together so you can see how they all relate and create a culture. It's a good, accessible read with a lot of strong ideas. And it's definitely a valuable feminist work. However, I didn't find any of those ideas groundbreaking. If you love Solnit's writing, definitely give this a go. But I would suggest reading each essay individually and spaced out isntead of taking this book as a cohesive whole.
OH! ALSO! STRONG RAPE CONTENT WARNING! It's not a graphic depiction but if you're sensitive to the exploration of rape culture, rape apologists, victim blaming, etc. maybe don't try to read this if you're already feeling fragile.
UPDATE 10/04/18: like i don't wanna be a dick or anything but can I just say I told you so about her examples of male feminism (LOUIS)?