On Violence and On Violence Against Women

by Jacqueline Rose

A blazingly insightful, provocative study of violence against women from the peerless feminist critic.'To read Rose is to understand that there is no border between us and the world; it is an invitation to a radical kind of responsibility.'NEW YORK TIMES'It's really hard for me to overestimate how important [Rose's] work has been for me . . . I don't feel like that about very many writers.'MAGGIE NELSON, GRAND JOURNAL'An immense achievement.' JUDE KELLY CBE'Timeless.' HELEN PANKHURST CBEWhy has violence - particularly against women - become exponentially more prominent and visible across the world?Tracking multiple forms of today's violence - ranging through trans rights and #MeToo; the suffragette movement and the sexual harassment faced by migrant women; and the sharp increase in domestic violence over the course of the pandemic - this blazing exploration is an agitation against injustice and a formidable call to action from a world-renowned feminist thinker.'Rose explodes the myth that violence and misogyny only happens to other women.'VAL McDERMID'This book confirms Jacqueline Rose's position as one of the world's foremost public intellectuals.'MARK GEVISSER'A daring thinker, willing to make bold statements and take imaginative leaps.'NEW STATESMAN'Rose's work remains surprising and original . . . Her prose has the feel of spiraling in many directions; it is invigoratingly alive . . . necessary and as well as unique.'NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS'For anyone looking to educate themselves on this essential subject, start here and now.'ESQUIRE

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Sociology, Gender, Womens, Politics, Gender Studies

432 pages, Paperback

First published April 13, 2021

About the author

Jacqueline Rose, FBA (born 1949, London) is a British academic who is currently Professor of Humanities at the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities.

Rose was born into a non-practicing Jewish family. Her elder sister was the philosopher Gillian Rose. Jacqueline Rose is known for her work on the relationship between psychoanalysis, feminism and literature. She is a graduate of St Hilda's College, Oxford and gained her higher degree (maîtrise) from the Sorbonne, Paris and her doctorate from the University of London.

Her book Albertine, a novel from 2001, is a feminist variation on Marcel Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.

She is best known for her critical study on the life and work of American poet Sylvia Plath, The Haunting of Sylvia Plath, published in 1991. In the book, Rose offers a postmodernist feminist interpretation of Plath's work, and criticises Plath's husband Ted Hughes and other editors of Plath's writing. Rose describes the hostility she experienced from Hughes and his sister (who acts as literary executor to Plath's estate) including threats received from Hughes about some of Rose's analysis of Plath's poem "The Rabbit Catcher". The Haunting of Sylvia Plath was critically acclaimed, and itself subject to a famous critique by Janet Malcolm in her book The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes.

Rose is a regular broadcaster on and contributor to the London Review of Books.

Rose's States of Fantasy was the inspiration for composer Mohammed Fairouz's Double Concerto of the same title.

(from Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Emily]

This is a wide-ranging and provocative analysis of the ways in which multiple forms of violence intersect on and around women’s bodies in ways that create cyclical, systemic power structures designed to pit women against each other—and ourselves. Rose begins her study by addressing the ways in which white male language and laws patrol all bodies, then expands on how such discourses create the perfect conditions for the reiteration of gender-based violence as an accepted, normative, and even constitutive force. With chapters focused on specific topics related to sexual violence as it intersects with violence related to sexuality, gender identity, race, class, and ethnicity, Rose documents the clear ways in which violence against women is used by individuals with power to maintain their power. On Violence and On Violence Against Women is an urgent book that deserves to be read in classes on feminist theory and gender studies—but also one meant for readers outside of the classroom, from politicians and activists to individuals interested in learning more about the ways in which power is literally mapped onto our bodies.

[Sara Broad · Rating 3 out of 5]

"On Violence and On Violence Against Women" by Jacqueline Rose is the study of and theories behind violence against women and the violence that is present across different fields and regions of the world. I'm an avid nonfiction reader, and I was really looking forward to a book devoted to this topic. The breadth of sources that Rose drew upon to compose this book was really outstanding. Until the last two or three chapters of this book though, I had a really hard time following along with many of the tangents that Rose went on and how they were connected to the purpose of this book. There were a couple of times in "On Violence" that Rose stated that she needed to bring the reader back to the purpose of the chapter, and then the chapter would end shortly thereafter. For example, there were some deep dives into Freud and psychoanalytic theory, as well as pages long literary analysis of books the author read, and while this was interesting to a point, it wasn't really cohesive. There were some strong points in this book, and I hope more books are published on this subject.

[Jennie Chantal]

DNF Around 25%
Might be more accurate to say CNF as in could not finish. In general the writing was not particularly engaging but when I got to The chapter Trans Voices it was just…a mess. Outdated language and references. Missed opportunities. Good intentions clearly! I mean, at least she tried! What I read wasn’t offensive just off.

[Chloe · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think the common problem with feminist writers who want to distance themselves from leftist or radical feminists is that they lose all relativity. For instance, in efforts to lean away from the idea that men are inherently violent, she explains how violence occurs when those in power are losing power, and only then, positioning violence against women as a reaction to women’s provocation, ignoring systematic and coercive abuse entirely. Undoubtedly a well intended book, but not structured very well

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an incredibly well-written, interesting, challenging, difficult, and sometimes shocking and painful book to read. This book is limited by the author to violence against women (including a chapter on trans-women), though she recognizes clearly (and on multiple occasions that there is lots of violence committed against men, and violence committed by women. I found that she sought balance in her views (even when I disagreed with her views). Rose shows herself to be an excellent scholar and writer. We see her background and knowledge of psychoanalysis on a regular basis.

[r. fay · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

Really engaging and informative. I've seen some critiques of this book for being too "scattered" and the author's thoughts not being perfectly linked, but to me that is both the book's personal draw to me, as well as its biggest success. It succeeds, to me, in communicating the "muteness" of violence; the experience of trauma that's so encompassing it's psychotic in expression. I also very much respect her (especially as an academic feminist in the Uk) for centering both trans women's experiences and migrant women's experiences. I completely agree that these are the most prescient examples of violence against women currently, and I admire her not only not shying away from a discussion of these groups, but using them as the foundation for her thoughts. I appreciate that a lot, even if it wasn't a completely flawless and understandable philosophical take. I appreciate this book, I guess. I appreciate its existence and role. Yes this is, again, a white woman speaking about the experience of largely non-white women. But I still value her dedication, intellectually, to a subject that most cannot address directly. I am interested in Rose as a thinker, and often agree with her. I have been introduced to a lot of additional material through this book which I also think is a success. Well worth the read. Rose is a thoughtful, interesting, feeling sort of academic, and I respect her work.

[Eitan Hershkovitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Women are always guilty, either of having too much human agency, or not enough"

[Sohum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rose here struggles with the confusion of categories--race versus migrant versus victim. This muddling, paired with the immense and amorphous task of deconstructing violence in an atmosphere so saturated with it, forecloses the possibility of this book being anything but uneven. It starts out strong and loses steam as it moves from discussion of trans-antagonisms and sex work to the discussion of trafficking and the violence of the border.

[Michelle Hogmire · Rating 2 out of 5]

TL;DR--I really thought I'd love this book, but boy was it not for me...

Thanks to FSG for a free finished copy of this title, which was published on May 18, 2021. I'm writing this review voluntarily.

Jacqueline Rose's "On Violence and on Violence Against Women" is a wide-ranging collection of essays on the subject matter of the title, mostly adapted and updated from previously published work and/or spoken lectures from around 2014 to the present. Rose tackles a lot of diverse subject matter: from literary accounts of violence written by women, to the rise of the #MeToo and #AmINext movements, to a specific focus on trans rights and racial injustice. As a feminist, I should be totally into this, right? So, why didn't I like it?

I think I can split my critical beef with this book into two main categories. The first is that Jacqueline Rose constantly focuses on outdated ideas, despite the fact that this book came out in 2021. The second is that she tends to make contradictory statements that undercut her best points. All of these problems leave me with a lot of questions about the editing of this book!

So to start with the first idea: Rose's sections on trans rights are a good initial example of the outdated issues that I'm talking about; the chapters are an odd mix of decent contemporary analysis (ex. the erasure of nonbinary people as members of the trans community by the mainstream) with a lot of incredibly outdated terminology and ideas that the trans community no longer uses (ex. use of "FtM" and "MtF"). Now, I'm not saying that we should shame members of the LGBTQIA+ community for adhering to old terms, particularly tons of elder members who still identify with these monikers. But Rose isn't trans. I'm really surprised that an editor didn't suggest changes, especially because the pieces were updated to reflect current events.

Another example is Rose's constant discussion of Freud and psychoanalysis. Of course I think therapy is essential, and I agree with Rose that the world would be better off if we were more psychoanalytically-minded, but this perspective seems like it comes from decades ago. In our current aggressively online age, with the transition from a liberal humanist perspective to more of a post-humanist perspective, it's odd to see such a focus on individual psychology without an equal (or greater) focus on a more sociological viewpoint: systemic oppression, networks/links/connections of oppression, etc. Rose also doesn't really delve into the harmful aspects of this kind of individual focus (i.e. how rugged individualism goes too far and dips into the exact kind of toxic masculinity she's speaking against). Oddly enough, I'm currently reading the first volume of Foucault's "History of Sexuality," and it was strange to see Rose's reverence for psychoanalysis contrasted with Foucault's constant questioning of the confessional as a structural method of power.

Lastly on the outdated front is Rose's obsession with literary modernism being the best artistic method of delving into stories of trauma and abuse. Look, I love literary modernism, and all the writers Rose mentions, but there's equally good work going on in post-modern and African/Afrofuturist writing, not to mention solid genre books--especially from women writing horror. Rose holds up Eimear McBride as the be-all-end-all of sexual abuse writers, but you could easily point to Emma Glass instead. Rose also loves the fragmentary nature of literary modernism, but some of the best work of that kind comes from more post-modern texts about violence (ex. Kate Zambreno's experimental and hybrid works, or the literary terrorism/piracy of Kathy Acker). Some of the best recent fiction on abuse, to my mind, has come from genre authors like Nalo Hopkinson, Nnedi Okorafor, Joanna Koch, etc, I could go on and on.

Shew, OK: now shifting to my second problem. There are multiple points in this book where Rose makes over-correcting statements that go against her main points, particularly when it comes to trying to distance herself from radical feminist TERFS and attempting to criticize the state from a leftist perspective. For example, as I mentioned previously, she offers a great analysis of why wealthy and more gender-passing trans people are highlighted by the mainstream media, despite the fact that many trans people are poor and more genderfluid/nonbinary in presentation. This is an essential point, especially when it comes to trans people being able to define themselves and their identities outside of the binary. But then Rose makes an odd statement like, "Transition does not mean so much crossing from one side to the other as hovering in the space in between (in the United States, only about a quarter of transgender women have had genital surgery," which seems to uphold the opposite perspective--that being "fully" or "really" trans is defined by surgical intervention.

Another one of these moments comes when Rose is discussing Hannah Arendt's ideas about the divide between power and violence. In order to, again, distance herself from radical feminists who believe that masculinity is inherently violent, Rose explains her differing perspective: violence actually occurs in moments when those in power are losing power, not in moments when they hold power strongly. Of course this makes sense on the surface, in terms of oppressive governments lashing out violently to quell outright rebellion, but it also undercuts Rose's smart focus on Rosa Luxemburg's ideas about more hidden violence in quiet moments. The state is always engaging in systemic violence, even during times of so-called peace, which is why it's such a toxic apparatus of oppression. Similarly, in abusive personal relationships, an abuser tends to react with violence long before their power starts to slip--instead, they wear their partner down, to prevent the power balance from tipping in the first place.

At its worst, this kind of argument about the violence-power dichotomy can be used as a victim-blaming tactic: saying that a survivor provoked violence by acting or speaking out, or taking power from their abuser. It can also be used to justify the actions of the state, as Rose herself does when she falls into the liberal trap of praising women world leaders for handling the coronavirus pandemic better than male leaders. Just because this is true about the women leaders mentioned doesn't mean that they're ultimately not upholding the same violent and oppressive global capitalist system as their male counterparts. Like Luxemburg says, there's always violence occurring under the capitalist state, even in moments of supposed tranquility--even when a woman is leading.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

On Violence and On Violence Against Women is a powerful and powerfully depressing book. Its eight chapters detail what its clumsy title announces: the ways in which women are physically and psychologically abused, especially in the United States, England, and Africa (mostly South Africa). Jacqueline Rose sees the problem of violence in social and psychological terms. Implicit throughout, more explicitly in the brief afterword, is the idea that a remaking of sensibility that would release men and women from trying to be the kind of conventional, more or less strait-jacketed beings that they have been conditioned to be, a model false to human nature in its contradictions and complexity. Such a revamping, of course, would have to be on a broad and global scale.

Along the way Rose offers a pantheon of cultural references, even more dazzling, plentiful, and fresh (to me, anyway) as the ones in The Haunting of Sylvia Plath, the only other book of hers that I have read. She is aware of this newness. In the chapters on South Africa, almost every name is tagged as “poet,” “essayist,” freedom fighter,” “activist,” etc. Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt, Virginia Woolf and the Perry Mason TV show may not need identification, but Thabo Mbeki, Hisham Matar, Mogobe Ramose, and Susan Shabangu were all new to me, a part of the world outside my limited experience. A reader will hear of many incidents, some dismaying and many horrific, and learn the names of new and often apparently praiseworthy and noble people. Unsurprisingly, Freud is central to her discussion of psychology.

In me Rose has a sympathetic reader. In so far as she is preaching, I am one of the converted. Without making it my life’s work, I would like to be more whole-heartedly hopeful for her transcendent, humane vision. This book strengthens those feelings. Her pleas for wider and more accepting human relations are inarguable. Without being defeatist, I wish I could sense that it were closer to happening. Some discussion of that would for me have been to the point.

As I read On Violence and On Violence Against Women, two passages from literary works (by men, it must be said) kept nudging me: Candide and The Scarlet Letter. In the spirit of Jacqueline Rose’s fondness for imaginative literature, I cite them:

Croyez-vous, dit Candide, que les hommes se soient toujours mutuellement massacrés comme ils font aujourd'hui? qu'ils aient toujours été menteurs, fourbes, perfides, ingrats, brigands, faibles, volages, lâches, envieux, gourmands, ivrognes, avares, ambitieux, sanguinaires, calomniateurs, débauchés, fanatiques, hypocrites, et sots?

Croyez-vous, dit Martin, que les éperviers aient toujours mangé des pigeons quand ils en ont trouvé?

Oui, sans doute, dit Candide.

Eh bien! dit Martin, si les éperviers ont toujours eu le même caractère, pourquoi voulez-vous que les hommes aient changé le leur?

Oh! dit Candide, il y a bien de la différence, car le libre arbitre.... En raisonnant ainsi, ils arrivèrent à Bordeaux. (1759)

•

Everything was against her. The world was hostile. The child’s own nature had something wrong in it which continually betokened that she had been born amiss—the effluence of her mother’s lawless passion—and often impelled Hester to ask, in bitterness of heart, whether it were for ill or good that the poor little creature had been born at all.

Indeed, the same dark question often rose into her mind with reference to the whole race of womanhood. Was existence worth accepting even to the happiest among them? As concerned her own individual existence, she had long ago decided in the negative, and dismissed the point as settled. A tendency to speculation, though it may keep women quiet, as it does man, yet makes her sad. She discerns, it may be, such a hopeless task before her. As a first step, the whole system of society is to be torn down and built up anew. Then the very nature of the opposite sex, or its long hereditary habit, which has become like nature, is to be essentially modified before woman can be allowed to assume what seems a fair and suitable position. Finally, all other difficulties being obviated, woman cannot take advantage of these preliminary reforms until she herself shall have undergone a still mightier change, in which, perhaps, the ethereal essence, wherein she has her truest life, will be found to have evaporated. A woman never overcomes these problems by any exercise of thought. They are not to be solved, or only in one way. If her heart chance to come uppermost, they vanish. Thus Hester Prynne, whose heart had lost its regular and healthy throb, wandered without a clue in the dark labyrinth of mind; now turned aside by an insurmountable precipice; now starting back from a deep chasm. There was wild and ghastly scenery all around her, and a home and comfort nowhere. At times a fearful doubt strove to possess her soul, whether it were not better to send Pearl at once to Heaven, and go herself to such futurity as Eternal Justice should provide. (1850)


Perhaps I am too essentialist and defeatist. Prove me wrong! On Violence and On Violence Against Women overwhelmingly presents abiding outrages and inhumanity. Where, how, and when will the new day dawn?

[Anya Alekseevna]

A highly important read

[Behrooz Parhami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rose begins by observing that while everyone thinks they can recognize violence when they see it, "the most prevalent, insidious forms of violence are those that cannot be seen." She then goes on to cite cruel laws that impact disadvantaged groups as examples of unseen violence. A group of white men surrounding former US President Donald Trump as he signed a global gag order to cut American funding to any organization in the world offering abortion or abortion counseling were committing violence: They participated in an act that increased illegal abortions by thousands, leading to many deaths and countless injuries.

Consistent with its title, Rose's book has a sharp focus on violence against women, although she does discuss other categories of violence. Women are almost always victimized more gravely whenever there is a rise in violence. The COVID-19 pandemic and its attendant restrictions led to a general increase in violence, but had a greater impact on domestic violence against women.

I have previously read and reviewed a broad introduction to violence from Oxford's "Very Short Introduction" series:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The related notion of nonviolence (in pursuing personal goals and, more commonly, in collective combat against oppression) is discussed in The Forces of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind, which I have previously read and reviewed:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Rose covers her subject in nine chapters, bearing the following titles.

1. I am a knife: Sexual harassment in close-up

2. Trans voices: Who do you think you are?

3. Trans and sexual harassment: The back-story

4. Feminism and the abomination of violence

5. Writing violence: From modernism to Eimear McBride

6. The killing of Reeva Steenkamp, the trial of Oscar Pistorius: Sex and race in the courtroom

7. Political protest and the denial of history: South Africa and the legacy of the future

8. One long scream: Trauma and justice in South Africa

9. At the border

In the afterword, Rose explains why the book cannot have a conclusion. "Violence is not a subject about which anyone can believe, other than in a state of delusion, that everything has been said and done." In addition to different external forms of violence, we must understand the inner force of violence, the deadly temptation to make violence always somebody else's problem. We need to keep listening to "those who show that reckoning with the violence of the heart and fighting violence in the world are inseparable."

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely harrowing book to read, but one that is most assuredly necessary and forcefully presented. As with most world problems on any scale, so much of the violence perpetrated comes from deep-seated feelings of White Supremacy, Violent Misogyny, and Poverty. Rose is much more eloquent and detailed in her renderings, though, as she evens states, one can get bogged down in the data and merely trigger trauma by recounting violence, even to make a serious academic point. One thing I think most people fail to understand and accept is we all experience violence in some way, on some level. No one lives free of it. We are all emotionally, psychologically, physically, and intellectually ensnared and refigured by violence and what we feel, think, and do with it, either as recipient or perpetrator, or both. Violence isn't born of some void or vacuum, it doesn't arise ex nihilo and do its damage. But our inability, nay unwillingness, to acknowledge violence as formative to all human beings is only exacerbating its effects. I read an article that posits we may be succumbing to "therapy-speak", in that we hide behind terms like "triggering" and "honoring my needs" when we may just be masking our true emotions instead. I mention this not because I think it is right or wrong, necessarily, but because I think we too often act selfishly, putting what we think/feel before what someone wants to tell us they think or feel. I know you better than you know you, maybe. Anyway. If we took mental health, our own and others, more seriously, maybe we could get to the core issue of why violence is so destructive to humanity. If we cannot acknowledge our own feelings and thoughts about violence, how do we ever make change?
Rose focuses quite heavily on South Africa and the Oscar Pistorius story here, and both are fascinatingly explained, argued, and considered. The latter being altogether more disturbing when presented not only with the detailed legal arguments but more so when Rose examines the words and their meaning in that place, but also from the broad history of violence in South Africa. Just so well done.
As noted, this is a excruciatingly emotional book to read, but I think Rose treats the subject with care and intelligence, avoiding polemical language and unsupported generalizations. If anything, there is maybe too much ugly data, but it is well-utilized, if sad and horrible all the same.

[Caris · Rating 3 out of 5]

My issues with this book have nothing to do with its content and everything to do with how it was composed. I feel like this book would have been better marketed as a loose collection of essays on feminism or cultural critique in general. I don’t really enjoy the journalistic style of Rose’s writing here, although some might. I admit I had to graze through certain parts because the writing was just… abrasive. I love that Rose dedicates two whole chapters to trans issues, but she uses some very outdated or problematic terminology in these discussions. For example:

“Despite much progress, transsexuality, or transsexualism as the preferred term, is still treated today as anomaly or exception” (89).

There are other examples that make me wonder whether she consulted any trans women in the process, with frequent uses of terms like “transgender-identified” or “male-to-female” (outside of clinical contexts).

It seems that most reviews of this book are accurate; that is, Rose’s technical choices detract from her argumentation. I would have preferred to read an entire work of her philosophical ideas regarding violence against women. For example:

“Case after collapsing case in the courts had shown that if you take as your starting point the idea of a pre-existing, God given difference between the sexes, then it becomes much more difficult to prove discrimination, even in cases of harassment. Because men are different, you will be told, they are just behaving as normal (they cannot help helping themselves)” (46).

This is the direction Kate Manne takes in The Logic of Misogyny; and while unlike Manne Rose takes an intersectional approach to violence against women, combining these two outlooks (as one suggestion) would make for a great book.

[Alizabeth Settergren · Rating 2 out of 5]

This may be the first book of the year that I was genuinely disappointed in. A 2-star rating is actually being generous - I felt that this book was so, so chaotic. I've never read a book with such harsh transitions before and it just made reading this book more and more of a chore. Maybe my expectations of this book were too high; I expected this book to cover a lot more and I expected statistics about the growth of crimes, against who these crimes were committed and who were committing said crimes against women. Instead, we get a full chapter of how transsexualism is a severe mental disorder - but trans women are women. (I'm sorry Rose but you got to pick which side you're on.) Then, we get 30 pages of some of the most grotesque quotes that female authors have written about violence - and for what?? And then we move to the country of South Africa??? I'm sorry what. Rose did state that South Africa is the most dangerous country for women but where was the transition?? For an English author, why was the country of South Africa so important? I feel like there are plenty of countries that are dangerous for women. But there were no facts or statistics to back up this claim. I just - Wow. I am just so disappointed in this and I truly would probably not recommend this to anyone.

[David Montano · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jacqueline Rose illustrates multiple dimensions of multiple current topics all which are upheld by violence towards women or minorities. She has a notable allegiance to psychoanalysis which is interesting but due to my ignorance in the matter some of her conclusions related to the field went over my head. However, there are still some really good truths produced by the psychoanalytic lens Jacqueline Rose uses on domestic and sexual violence. "If so many men, turn out to be so ghastly, where does it all begin?" is certainly a pretty important question that is brought up in one of the sections dedicated to this psychoanalytic process. What was exceptional about this book is the absolute wealth of sources Rose includes so effortlessly within her prose. Weaving in personal stories, historical facts, and a ton of literary works into each other make the book really compelling. There are a lot of steps a reader must take to really bring all these chapters together as the traces of a society which cause these issues can be drawn but aren't as concrete as I thought they would be.

Rating: 3/5 , chapter on modernist language in literature is *chef kiss* great

[B. H. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure, I always agree with Jacqueline Rose, and my main issue I guess is always that her books seem to rehash or present a condensed overview of theories that on their own, are far more complex, exhaustive, and satisfying in their understanding of violence, and especially violence against women.

I'm also not sure, I agree with her assessment that sometimes oppressors cause harm without realizing it: I think violence is rarely an afterthought; it's the very purpose of oppressive systems, and they are not maintained by ignorance.

I did appreciate the depth of some aspects of this book, especially the portion on Freud and psychoanalysis which have been foundational to misogyny and yet, for all the disclaimers, are still given a prominent spot in Western discourse around most anything.

Overall, I'm a bit torn. Because on the one hand, I think that this would be good for someone who wants to have a general overview on the various theories that explain the roots and dynamics of violence against women, but then I think if perhaps its meandering nature might be that useful to someone who isn't at least somehow informed about this topic?

[Caitlin]

DNF @ page 137

I found this hard to read as the writing is long and quite all over the place, and it was hard to follow. Jacqueline Rose is writing about violence against women, which is a topic that I have read about before, and the book covers sexual harassment on college campuses, violence against trans women, literary criticism and violence against women, and violence against women in South Africa, using the killing of Reeva Steenkamp by Oscar Pistorius as a case study. I can see that this is important writing and maybe I'll pick it up in the future, but for now, I will be leaving it here.

In this book, Rose writes in long, drawn out sentences, paragraphs and chapters which makes it hard to follow her point and it would be better if it were more concise. She goes from one case or sub-topic to the next without much of a connecting thread, and I lose the point she is trying to make in the chapter. It is an intellectual book, which could be the reason why it reads this way and I don't think the writing style works for me. It just didn't click or work for me.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unfortunately I had some trouble getting through 'On Violence and On Violence Against Women' and stopped at about 40%. The topic is extremely important and relevant to today's time, but I think the book would be suited to someone more highly educated in the topic than myself. I have a lot of education in a different field (STEM), and lived experience as a woman, but felt a bit lost as the themes seemed to ping pong rapidly between Trump, Weinstein, fictional works and theory, and other global topics.

"On Violence" is a solid review of many works and studies about violence against women, but it probably shouldn't be your first foray into the field. If you have an academic background in the humanities or are extremely well read in topics of women's rights, this could be a good next option to add to your list.

[Susmitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the message of the book is often muddled and the author has an issue segueing into irrelevant anecdotes, explanations of Freudian thought, and literary references, this is a fine read. The strength of the book is its back half, which meditates more intentionally on the intersections of gender and race when it comes to violence, both interpersonal and state-sanctioned.

As others have mentioned, Rose’s discussion of trans issues is…odd. It certainly makes the reader question why cisgender authors are writing about trans issues when they don’t even know the correct language to use. That said, Rose writes powerfully, if not always clearly, about society’s tendency toward violence, as well as the individual’s. While Rose doesn’t claim to know how to bring an end to violence, she does give us a good place to start.

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is on a timely and important topic. As others have said the chapters are often a bit rambling with unnecessary tangents. It's more LRB than tight argumentation. The psychoanalytic perspective we might expect from Rose only occasionally registers. For me, these are the strengths of the the collection. It is when she registers psychological complexity to counteract simplified accounts of violence. For example, when she points out that Oscar Pestorious can be both guilty and expressing grief. The collection covers some of the same terrain as Amia Srinivasan's The Right to Sex which is much more tightly argued

[Shannon Wolf]

I mostly enjoyed this book. Rose is clearly a huge presence as a literary critic and she explores some really interesting avenues throughout this book - I particularly liked the two chapters that focused on trans people, and the chapter surrounding the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. There are some places where the narrative felt a little dry, or it felt like a lot of regurgitated theory was being employed instead of interviewing new sources - this might be the result of the book being a product of the pandemic. Overall, informative but not mind blowing.

[Jon Paul Roberts]

the latest in a recent string of essay collections* i've read that allow for a return to nuance and complexity.

also, it might sound mad to say, but it's so refreshing to see a respected cisgender critic/writer engage seriously and empathetically with trans issues (and, in the process, tear apart TERF arguments) because it's honestly a rarity and it really fucking shouldn't be.


*srinivasan's 'the right to sex', katherine angel's 'tomorrow sex will be good again', Laing's 'everybody' and nelson's 'on freedom' being other good examples.

[Kaa]

DNF at 34%. While I think this is an important topic, and Rose has clearly done a lot of research on the topic of violence against women, I was in agreement with other reviewers who struggled with the constant tangents. In combination with the dense, overly academic language, this made the book very challenging to follow and to appreciate the points being made. I also found the terminology used in the sections about transgender people outdated.

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for providing an eARC.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks to @netgalley and the publisher for sending me this e arc for review, in exchange for my honest opinion.

I sat with this fantastic, nuanced read for a while because frankly it got depressing and brought me down. I was also hoping for something more universal around violence on women but those seemed to be more UK, USA and South African focused. Language access seemed to be a footnote. I am not sure if the trans information was updated. Yeah, I will mull a bit more about the book.

[Kallie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rose is brilliant and complex and knowledgeable on theory and history. So 'On Violence . . .' is by no means easy reading but worth the effort and thought the reader brings to absorbing this very important work. She discusses other author's works on relevant subjects, so I now have a related reading list. In addition to spousal or other violence and sexual assault women everywhere experience, Rose discusses: the primal human tendency to violence when confronted with the unknown and how little we control over that; and the oppression too many suffer at the hands of the state, i.e. the inexcusably sadistic treatment of refugees in the U.K. and U.S.. She does not exaggerate the cruelty with this passage, written during the Trump administration:

". . . This is a cautionary tale of what has already been, and, in this worsening political scenario, of what is likely to come. Targeting women refugees and asylum seekers, turning them into criminals, lays bare the pleasure in sexual hatred, alongside the increasingly violent forms of inequality for which women have always been punished -- both of which continue to fuel gender violence across the globe. Todays migrants have become the ultimate scapegoats of a social order whose ever-expanding greed is on course to destroy the very air we breathe. . ."

[Angela Carlton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought the book could have been organized a bit better. It didn't make me as infuriated and fired up as I hoped it would. I mean, it is harrowing. And Rose does make excellent points. But it's a bit unclear to me why she spends half the book talking about South African violence against women (largely the Oscar Pistorius case) and half of it talking about violence against Trans women. Both subjects are interesting but I'm not sure that it clearly laid out, it feels more like an amalgamation of different essays or watered down academic papers that have been compiled together. I also think she's too much of an apologist for women, i.e. "violence against men happens too," etc.

[Abbie Nicholls · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some critical points raised and an interesting read overall - but personally I felt it could’ve gone into each topic a little further and discuss the case studies and statistics in more depth rather than moving over to the next topic so quickly. But still a very important read!

[ANA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent discourse, somewhat difficult to follow: academics may be wise to adapt the journalistic style

[Megan Doney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and so well reasoned.