I really wanted to love this book and wrestled a bit between ultimately giving it two or three stars. It feels like a three-star book, but according to the significance of the stars here on Goodreads, two-stars means "It was okay" and that's actually pretty much how I feel about it. This is not to say there aren't some really good points raised throughout the book; there are! However, overall, there's a surprising amount of waffling and incoherence for a book written by a professional philosopher.
First, some good points:
1. Chapter One begins by attempting to define "feminism" and Hay correctly states that "the feminist movement is messy, rife with internal disputes and contradictions.... there simply isn't enough we agree on to ground a single shared course of action. If anything, there are multiple, sometimes competing, feminist agendas." Given this situation, the bare bones definition comes down to an agreement "that women have been, and continue to be, disadvantaged relative to men." From this, it is agreed that "these disadvantages are bad things that can and should be changed." And finally, "these disadvantages are interrelated" and are "the result of mutually supporting systems of privilege and deprivation that are structurally embedded in virtually every aspect of society." I can't imaging ANYONE -- other than an avowed sexist -- who would disagree with these postulates.
But even here in this first chapter, the section on "The Origins of Sexism" is surprisingly weak, with no acknowledgement of Jack Holland's deep dive into Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice" which shows the deep roots in the two Western cultural streams that shape our history: that of the Hebrews and of the Greeks. I highly recommend this book which should fire up anyone who hasn't given this topic the attention it demands.
2. Her concise history of feminism, through the various waves is a good summary for those who may not have been aware that there indeed have been these "waves" focused upon and conditioned by different historical contexts. It ends with an important skewering of two caricatures that tend to get more attention than either deserves: the "Angry Feminist" and the "Girl Power Feminist." She states "understanding women's empowerment as the success of individual women, not the collective betterment of all women, Girl Power Feminism claims a victory every time a woman makes it in a man's world" and gives The Spice Girls ironic credit for "practically" inventing the genre. While she does mention neo-liberalism in this context, I think she could have given the connection a bit more attention. Her biting critique ends by referring to The Onion's headline satirizing Girl Power Feminism: "Women Now Empowered by Everything a Woman Does" and writes: "Feminism as self-care, as self-empowerment, as self-absorption, as marketing strategy, as lifestyle choice, is toothless" and loses its radical potential to affect the world in meaningful ways, and is why it has been co-opted so readily by the mainstream: "it poses no threat to upend the social structure." Unfortunately, it is just this kind of feminism that permeates the yoga and wellness community.
3. Chapter Three is a fairly deep dive into "The Social Construction of Gender" and except for the minority of feminists self-identified as "Difference Feminists" and "Eco-Feminists," she points out that most contemporary feminists are anti-essentialists. I come to my feminism through the anti-essentialist teachings of the Buddha as framed in the discourse on "emptiness" and "not-self" but periodically, Hay reveals an essentialism of her own through her use of overly broad generalizations and an often simplistic reductionism that seems to contradict her earlier statements about women's diverse lived experiences.
4. In a chapter that otherwise has many problems, not least of which is a contradictory incoherence that seems to argue that transwomen are women from what sounds like an essentialist paradigm while criticizing TERFs for falling into a biological essentialism, she mades a point through an analogy that I wish more people would consider: It has been estimated that "people born with intersex conditions make up around 1.7% of the human population" and I have heard some people use this small percentage to write off making any concessions to this population, yet this is "roughly equivalent to the percentage of the US population who use a wheelchair" and while there remains more we can do, just consider all we have done to accommodate wheelchair users from curb cuts, and ramps to special elevators etc. And yet, many resist simply acknowledging that there are people who fall outside the male/female binary! As Hay reminds us: "This social erasure has concrete effects on their well-being."
The major problem I have with this chapter is that she grounds it on Judith Butler's assertion that "sex isn't a clear-cut biological reality any more than gender is" and as far as I know, Butler is not any kind of biologist! Here is where Hay hammers home an ideology and ignores the on-going conversation as to how to think of biological sex. She confuses the sexist patriarchal valuations of sex differences projected onto gender roles while there is no inherent reason that this need be! It is that prejudiced valuation that needs to be jettisoned, not necessarily the concept of biological sex. This is not to say that the concept itself can not also be altered, expanded, but to reduce it to a complete cultural construct at this time does not seem to be justified according to the state of the scientific discourse.
5. Chapter Five, "Sexual Violence" offers a clear and sobering investigation of what is really meant by "rape culture" and is a sobering reminder of just why the need for feminism! Ask any woman what measures they take to avoid sexual assault. Some of what they say I do as well to avoid being mugged... but being raped tends not to be on the mind of any man. In fact, when Hay asks her students this question, the male students have no response other than sometimes joking "I'd avoid going to prison" to which Hay responds: "Wrap your head around this: the number-one fear that men most have about going to prison is something that women live with every day of their lives." THAT should be fucking sobering and maddening to all right-thinking people.
6. Her final chapter has some really good things on the practice of consent, but otherwise is the weakest chapter of the book. The section "How to Talk to Kids" begins with yet another generalization: "What's the first thing you do when you're making small talk with a little girl? You compliment her dress. You comment on her hair...." and it goes on and on from there! Really? In this day and age she expects that this is how someone who reads a book on feminism talks to girls????
An overarching issue I wrestled with in reading this book comes up when she argues about the "internalization" of sexism and oppression. For instance, she quotes Catherine MacKinnon who wrote: "Women live in objectification the way fish live in water" to which one must ask how MacKinnon can argue that if true! Is it because she has some special power or position that she can say this? The logical contradiction is this: IF the internalization is so total, she could not be able to make such a criticism! Not only that, when the argument is made that "others" have internalized their oppression, one completely denies them any self-agency and that's a move I personally feel I must be wary of. All those White women who voted for Trump? Blacks who voted for Trump? Are we really going to be so arrogant that we will reduce their choice to internalized oppression? Now, I am not denying the reality of internalization... I'm simply saying we can not ever be sure that it is the factor at play in any given situation. When she writes "We're not going to get to the root of this injustice unless we're allowed to have something to say about the content of people's desires" I hear a voice asking who gives any the right to comment on the desires of others?
And then Hay follows this with: "We know it's insulting to be treated like a piece of meat...but we simultaneously feel bad when we're not treated this way." Note that Hay uses what Matthew Remski has coined the "First Person Plural Omniscient" as if she can speak for ALL women (there's that essentialist streak creeping in). Do ALL woman have this experience? I may be wrong, but I've had many, many women friends over the course of my life, and I'm not sure ALL of them would agree.
My biggest disappointment comes from Hay's often interjecting her own inability to embody the very critique she is making and once again assuming that this is as common experience among women and maybe it's because I know so many women who seem to live outside this box but I have some difficulty with her complicity. She writes: "When a woman capable of approximating traditional beauty ideals invests in her femininity...she makes things worse for women who can't or won't be seen as conventionally attractive." Now, that in itself is actually a questionable statement, but worse she elsewhere shares how she does just that (investing in her femininity).
A. "Lest you think I fancy myself above all this cultural brainwashing, let me make it clear that I'm writing this with my stomach rumbling from having skipped lunch, the underwire from my bra digging into my rib cage, and mascara flaking into my eyes."
B. "I'm quite certain I'm not alone in feeling naked if I go out in public without wearing makeup. I know I'm not the only femme with a closet full of agonizing shoes she hardly ever wears. I'll confess to spending a truly shocking percentage of my monthly budget on waxing, haircuts, and mani/pedis. No one is forcing me to do any of this stuff, and I'd be lying if I pretended that I didn't enjoy it. How then, are we to understand my responsibility here?" Aside from that universalizing "we" I can ask why do it if you don't like it and why complain if you do?
And in her closing section of the book she shares about how she usually enjoys performing her femme identity, the makeup that's "fun" and the "cute shoes" and feeling "glee" when she catches a glimpse of herself in the mirror on a day when she's feeling pretty. And she adds, "I've been pretty good about not falling prey to the bad-faith pretense that I want to look and dress like this 'for myself' because, c'mon, if we're honest with ourselves, dressing for ourselves looks like yoga pants and fuzzy sweaters, not stilletos and push-up bras."
Her strategy for dealing with her contradictions is something she calls "candid ambivalence" inspired by Sandra Bartky who argues that "a woman is entitled to her shame." Hay comments, "It's not that this woman ought to feel shame, exactly.... But neither is it that she ought not to feel shame: "her desires are not worthy of her, after all, nor is it clear that she is a mere helpless victim of patriarchal conditioning, unable to take any responsibility at all for her wishes and fantasies" and it makes sense for this woman to feel shame because "shame is a wholly understandable response to behavior that is seriously at variance with your principles."
Well, to that I can say, an alternative is to live in integrity... or at least move in that direction. If one seriously feels this contradiction between behavior and principles, then that seems the least one can do.