What do you think?
Rate this book
Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future
A powerful indictment from within of the current state of feminism, and a passionate call to arms
From Lilith Fair to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the WNBA--everywhere you look, girl culture is clearly ascendant. Young women live by feminism's goals, yet feminism itself is undeniably at a crossroads; "girl power" feminists appear to be obsessed with personal empowerment at the expense of politics while political institutions such as Ms . and NOW are so battle weary they've lost their ability to speak to a new generation. In Manifesta , Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards show the snags in each feminist hub--from the dissolution of riot grrrls into the likes of the Spice Girls, to older women's hawking of young girls' imperiled self-esteem, to the hyped hatred of feminist thorns like Katie Roiphe and Naomi Wolf--and prove that these snags have not, in fact, torn feminism asunder.
In an intelligent and incendiary argument, Baumgardner and Richards address issues instead of feelings and the political as well as the personal. They describe the seven deadly sins the media commits against feminism, provide keys to accessible and urgent activism, discuss why the ERA is still a relevant and crucial political goal, and spell out what a world with equality would look like. They apply Third Wave confidence to Second Wave consciousness, all the while maintaining that the answer to feminism's problems is still feminism.
From Lilith Fair to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the WNBA--everywhere you look, girl culture is clearly ascendant. Young women live by feminism's goals, yet feminism itself is undeniably at a crossroads; "girl power" feminists appear to be obsessed with personal empowerment at the expense of politics while political institutions such as Ms . and NOW are so battle weary they've lost their ability to speak to a new generation. In Manifesta , Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards show the snags in each feminist hub--from the dissolution of riot grrrls into the likes of the Spice Girls, to older women's hawking of young girls' imperiled self-esteem, to the hyped hatred of feminist thorns like Katie Roiphe and Naomi Wolf--and prove that these snags have not, in fact, torn feminism asunder.
In an intelligent and incendiary argument, Baumgardner and Richards address issues instead of feelings and the political as well as the personal. They describe the seven deadly sins the media commits against feminism, provide keys to accessible and urgent activism, discuss why the ERA is still a relevant and crucial political goal, and spell out what a world with equality would look like. They apply Third Wave confidence to Second Wave consciousness, all the while maintaining that the answer to feminism's problems is still feminism.
416 pages, Paperback
Published October 4, 2000
106 people are currently reading
4992 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 - 30 of 145 reviews
June 3, 2013
Ick. As a young feminist, I had been wanting to read this book for awhile. When I finally picked it up, I got to "the red roots of white feminism" and wanted to throw up. I had a hard time finishing it, but I trudged through. Is it all bad? No. There is some valuable information for a young, white, and otherwise privileged woman who needs Feminism Lite 101. This book is incredibly white-centric and appeals (I think) to a middle to upper-class crowd.
This book basically epitomizes everything I don't want feminism of the future to be.
This book basically epitomizes everything I don't want feminism of the future to be.
February 4, 2017
actual rating: 3.5 / 5 stars
When I went back to my hometown over Thanksgiving, I found my copy of Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future in a box of my old books in my parents’ attic. A smile crept onto my face as I vaguely recalled adding this book to my collection of feminist materials around the time I decided to double major in Women’s Studies. I never got around to reading it.
Lately I’ve been trying to connect my life, my ideologies, and current events (read: the election results) to the ideologies of the women who came before me. It’s easy to have a disconnect of Now vs. Then, but I think it’s so important to understand how others have affected change, what issues previous generations were struggling to overcome, and why. What I’ve found is that we really aren’t so different, when it comes down to it.
Back in 2000, young women often called themselves “not a feminist but…” while the media declared that feminism was dead and that young people in general were politically apathetic. In Manifesta, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards unpack this, from the public’s misunderstanding of what feminism is about, to the media’s proposal that the movement is dead in the water. In reality, young women are feminist, even when they don’t claim the label; young feminists are out there, but the media doesn’t show them.
Manifesta didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t know, but it did give me a solid perspective on aspects of early-2000s feminism, a time when I, personally, was still grappling with whether or not I would ever grow noticeable breasts. The best part of this book, for me, was the chapter titled “Thou Shalt Not Become Thy Mother,” wherein the authors grapple with the generational strife between Second and Third Wave Feminism. They tie together personal stories of mother-daughter relationships with the bigger picture. They talk about the concept of Martyr Moms, those moms who are everywhere, doing everything, sacrificing their time both in the workplace and in the home, and often become bitter at the lack of recognition. This really clicked with me, as my mother is the most naturally sacrificing person I know; no matter how much I reject her way of doing things, deep down we’re not that different. Baumgardner and Richards argue the importance of repairing that mother-daughter relationship, both on a personal level and on a larger scale within the feminist movement: “the biggest conflict between the generations is a lack of communication, mutual ignorance of each other’s accomplishments, and sometimes suspicion about each other’s motivations.” As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gained more respect for my mother’s natural talents, her sacrificial nature, but I’ve also recognized that, in her own way, my mom is a feminist. While my grandmother was concerned that my mom would end up dropping out of college to support my dad, instead they supported each other through school. At a time when the idea of an egalitarian marriage was a relatively new thing, my parents crafted a partnership that’s still in existence today.
By far the most valuable part of Manifesta is the chapter on activism. As the authors point out, it’s a loosely defined idea that means different things to different people. “Activism is everyday acts of defiance,” they argue. “Activism starts with the acknowledgement of injustice, but it doesn’t stop with the rant, a declaration that something is rotten in the state of the patriarchy, or even with the manifesta.” They encourage young women to get creative, to own their own ideas and take rational, effective action, providing many examples as well as ideas about what could be done better in the future.
I’m honestly glad I read Manifesta in 2017 rather than 2010. To be honest, I’m glad I read Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism as my first so-called Third Wave text. While Baumgardner and Richards offer some great advice on how to get out there and do activism, as well as a unique perspective on Girlie Feminism, the Girls Movement, and generational strife, Manifesta isn’t the all-encompassing “intro to feminism” book I imagined it would be. Nevertheless, a worthwhile read for anyone interested in feminism’s recent history, as well as someone wanting to boost their feminist activism.
When I went back to my hometown over Thanksgiving, I found my copy of Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future in a box of my old books in my parents’ attic. A smile crept onto my face as I vaguely recalled adding this book to my collection of feminist materials around the time I decided to double major in Women’s Studies. I never got around to reading it.
Lately I’ve been trying to connect my life, my ideologies, and current events (read: the election results) to the ideologies of the women who came before me. It’s easy to have a disconnect of Now vs. Then, but I think it’s so important to understand how others have affected change, what issues previous generations were struggling to overcome, and why. What I’ve found is that we really aren’t so different, when it comes down to it.
Back in 2000, young women often called themselves “not a feminist but…” while the media declared that feminism was dead and that young people in general were politically apathetic. In Manifesta, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards unpack this, from the public’s misunderstanding of what feminism is about, to the media’s proposal that the movement is dead in the water. In reality, young women are feminist, even when they don’t claim the label; young feminists are out there, but the media doesn’t show them.
Manifesta didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t know, but it did give me a solid perspective on aspects of early-2000s feminism, a time when I, personally, was still grappling with whether or not I would ever grow noticeable breasts. The best part of this book, for me, was the chapter titled “Thou Shalt Not Become Thy Mother,” wherein the authors grapple with the generational strife between Second and Third Wave Feminism. They tie together personal stories of mother-daughter relationships with the bigger picture. They talk about the concept of Martyr Moms, those moms who are everywhere, doing everything, sacrificing their time both in the workplace and in the home, and often become bitter at the lack of recognition. This really clicked with me, as my mother is the most naturally sacrificing person I know; no matter how much I reject her way of doing things, deep down we’re not that different. Baumgardner and Richards argue the importance of repairing that mother-daughter relationship, both on a personal level and on a larger scale within the feminist movement: “the biggest conflict between the generations is a lack of communication, mutual ignorance of each other’s accomplishments, and sometimes suspicion about each other’s motivations.” As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gained more respect for my mother’s natural talents, her sacrificial nature, but I’ve also recognized that, in her own way, my mom is a feminist. While my grandmother was concerned that my mom would end up dropping out of college to support my dad, instead they supported each other through school. At a time when the idea of an egalitarian marriage was a relatively new thing, my parents crafted a partnership that’s still in existence today.
By far the most valuable part of Manifesta is the chapter on activism. As the authors point out, it’s a loosely defined idea that means different things to different people. “Activism is everyday acts of defiance,” they argue. “Activism starts with the acknowledgement of injustice, but it doesn’t stop with the rant, a declaration that something is rotten in the state of the patriarchy, or even with the manifesta.” They encourage young women to get creative, to own their own ideas and take rational, effective action, providing many examples as well as ideas about what could be done better in the future.
I’m honestly glad I read Manifesta in 2017 rather than 2010. To be honest, I’m glad I read Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism as my first so-called Third Wave text. While Baumgardner and Richards offer some great advice on how to get out there and do activism, as well as a unique perspective on Girlie Feminism, the Girls Movement, and generational strife, Manifesta isn’t the all-encompassing “intro to feminism” book I imagined it would be. Nevertheless, a worthwhile read for anyone interested in feminism’s recent history, as well as someone wanting to boost their feminist activism.
June 21, 2011
I didn't feel like this book charted a lot of new territory, though perhaps the original edition did 10 years ago. Despite the authors' claim that they are trying to unite women of various generations, much of the book came off as personal attacks on various women - both self-proclaimed feminists and not.
This was the first book I've read that defines and gushes over 'girly' culture, which is probably the aspect of feminism that I can most relate to but never had a name for. The author's are fairly positive about this particular 'wave' of feminism, while simultaneously backbiting some of the major publishing victories OF girly feminism.
Some of the tips for activism do seem helpful, and the appendices and notes are very thorough. But much of the book seems to suffer from being so informally written with too many back-patting anecdotes from the authors, gratuitous name-dropping, and too many personal criticisms of others in the movement. Those continuous flaws throughout the book left an unpleasant taste in my mouth upon finishing it.
As others have said, this isn't a bad "Feminism 101 - The Year 2000", but I think there are other books - many of which are mentioned in this one! - that are better examples of some of the Third Wave feminists and their points of view.
This was the first book I've read that defines and gushes over 'girly' culture, which is probably the aspect of feminism that I can most relate to but never had a name for. The author's are fairly positive about this particular 'wave' of feminism, while simultaneously backbiting some of the major publishing victories OF girly feminism.
Some of the tips for activism do seem helpful, and the appendices and notes are very thorough. But much of the book seems to suffer from being so informally written with too many back-patting anecdotes from the authors, gratuitous name-dropping, and too many personal criticisms of others in the movement. Those continuous flaws throughout the book left an unpleasant taste in my mouth upon finishing it.
As others have said, this isn't a bad "Feminism 101 - The Year 2000", but I think there are other books - many of which are mentioned in this one! - that are better examples of some of the Third Wave feminists and their points of view.
August 4, 2020
CW for this book: ableism, casual homophobia, casual misogyny, casual racism
Nah.... Nah. I had to read this book as a textbook for one of my Women and Gender Studies' courses. I'm really glad I didn't have to read the whole thing, to be honest.
Somehow in its Tenth Anniversary Edition, and yet very glaring and blatant misogynistic and racist blunders still haven't been edited out. Jennifer negating younger feminists to being "Jell-O-shots versions of feminism" being a very ironic statement, considering the numbers of this movement wholly rest on the younger generation (lets not even go into the devaluing of women's work because of their age!). Their 'dinner party' is a complete goddamn travesty, in my opinion, as I feel like either their words are exaggerated/twisted to fit the narrative, or these are shitty feminists. I mean, really, using the r-slur in the same sentence you're talking about dating women just because it'd be more convenient for you...? ("Sometimes I think about dating women because the men I've met are so emotionally r*t*rd*d.") Talking about cheating as if it's just something that happens....? ("I fell much more comfortable flirting now that I'm married, as long as it's very clear that I am married...") Just flat-out shitty biphobia that completely ignores the fact that bisexuals don't stop being bisexuals when they're not in same-sex relationships, and the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people who don't subscribe to the gender binary. ("I think if you're bisexual, there just has to come a day when you choose one or the other- and, face it, it's easier to be straight...").
I mean, really, this book is riddled with biphobia (and this is just from the ~100 pages I've read of it)! "Many bisexual women eventually choose to identify as either gay or straight." What, like bisexuals are Schrodinger's Sexuality, and can only be bisexual when they don't have any partner...? Yeah, if a bisexual settles down, they're gonna be with someone of some gender (or no gender).... That doesn't erase the fact that they're still bisexual- the gender of their partner has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's not choosing sides- stop acting like it is.
Also, passive lesbophobia... Since Jennifer is bisexual, I'm honestly surprised as how much anti-Sapphic shit is in this book. "Findlen also points out the odd way that some straight women reconcile themselves with this threat: by arguing that feminists aren't all dykes. (Which implies, among other ignorant assumptions, that all gay women are inherently feminist.)" ??? No, definitely not the immediate implication- that being a lesbian or a woman that loves other women is something Awful and something Not to Be Associated With. No one's going to think that all gay women are inherently feminist- that makes 0 sense.
They call Native Americans "American Indians", and (even though they're quoting a Native American woman, they still definitely shouldn't have said this) use "the 'red roots of white feminism'". On the same page, they refer to black people as "blacks" ("Acknowledging that the forces working against both women and blacks were white men [...]"). Oh, they also blame all black people of the time for creating the Black Power, because it wasn't the previous "more egalitarian and racially integrated civil-rights movement, which meant not only that whites were kicked out but that, generally speaking, black women were demoted from being organizers to simply being 'nation-builders' (mothers)". First off, the fact that they're mad at black people for starting to spearhead a movement intended for them. Secondly... What rights do they have to say that black women became breeders- if they'd done any of their research, they'd know how heavily steeped in white-supremacy and how racist that sentiment is.
There's also the discussion of "Girlie" culture, which I have honestly never heard of, but it really just sounds like a bunch of women enjoying traditionally feminine things, but are being infantilized for it. "Girlies have reclaimed girl culture, which is made up of such formerly disparaged girl things as knitting, the color pink, nail polish, and fun." Yeah... just normal things women can do as hobbies, though.
Oh, remember how I brought up them devaluing women's work? What really pissed me off is how they champion the idea that we need to Get Out There and Make A Difference, they denounce women with liberal arts degrees, and essentially say it's their fault that there are male-dominated fields. ("While our own liberal-arts educations appear to have furthered us in our own professions and were even the sites of our feminist awakenings, we think that women should be pioneering the tech world along with men, not simply going after those liberal-arts degrees.") Cute sentiment, but as a girl in the STEM field, I can say that there are way more factors contributing to the lack of women in these fields (how about the fact that I'm put to a higher standard because I'm a woman, and, when I fail, I somehow represent my whole gender?).
Again, haven't read the whole thing (I feel like I got a pretty good taste of it, though!) but, to sum it up: two white women act as if they're the lynchpin to the entire Third Wave Feminist movement, all while degrading women of color and queer people.
Nah.... Nah. I had to read this book as a textbook for one of my Women and Gender Studies' courses. I'm really glad I didn't have to read the whole thing, to be honest.
Somehow in its Tenth Anniversary Edition, and yet very glaring and blatant misogynistic and racist blunders still haven't been edited out. Jennifer negating younger feminists to being "Jell-O-shots versions of feminism" being a very ironic statement, considering the numbers of this movement wholly rest on the younger generation (lets not even go into the devaluing of women's work because of their age!). Their 'dinner party' is a complete goddamn travesty, in my opinion, as I feel like either their words are exaggerated/twisted to fit the narrative, or these are shitty feminists. I mean, really, using the r-slur in the same sentence you're talking about dating women just because it'd be more convenient for you...? ("Sometimes I think about dating women because the men I've met are so emotionally r*t*rd*d.") Talking about cheating as if it's just something that happens....? ("I fell much more comfortable flirting now that I'm married, as long as it's very clear that I am married...") Just flat-out shitty biphobia that completely ignores the fact that bisexuals don't stop being bisexuals when they're not in same-sex relationships, and the fact that bisexuals are attracted to people who don't subscribe to the gender binary. ("I think if you're bisexual, there just has to come a day when you choose one or the other- and, face it, it's easier to be straight...").
I mean, really, this book is riddled with biphobia (and this is just from the ~100 pages I've read of it)! "Many bisexual women eventually choose to identify as either gay or straight." What, like bisexuals are Schrodinger's Sexuality, and can only be bisexual when they don't have any partner...? Yeah, if a bisexual settles down, they're gonna be with someone of some gender (or no gender).... That doesn't erase the fact that they're still bisexual- the gender of their partner has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's not choosing sides- stop acting like it is.
Also, passive lesbophobia... Since Jennifer is bisexual, I'm honestly surprised as how much anti-Sapphic shit is in this book. "Findlen also points out the odd way that some straight women reconcile themselves with this threat: by arguing that feminists aren't all dykes. (Which implies, among other ignorant assumptions, that all gay women are inherently feminist.)" ??? No, definitely not the immediate implication- that being a lesbian or a woman that loves other women is something Awful and something Not to Be Associated With. No one's going to think that all gay women are inherently feminist- that makes 0 sense.
They call Native Americans "American Indians", and (even though they're quoting a Native American woman, they still definitely shouldn't have said this) use "the 'red roots of white feminism'". On the same page, they refer to black people as "blacks" ("Acknowledging that the forces working against both women and blacks were white men [...]"). Oh, they also blame all black people of the time for creating the Black Power, because it wasn't the previous "more egalitarian and racially integrated civil-rights movement, which meant not only that whites were kicked out but that, generally speaking, black women were demoted from being organizers to simply being 'nation-builders' (mothers)". First off, the fact that they're mad at black people for starting to spearhead a movement intended for them. Secondly... What rights do they have to say that black women became breeders- if they'd done any of their research, they'd know how heavily steeped in white-supremacy and how racist that sentiment is.
There's also the discussion of "Girlie" culture, which I have honestly never heard of, but it really just sounds like a bunch of women enjoying traditionally feminine things, but are being infantilized for it. "Girlies have reclaimed girl culture, which is made up of such formerly disparaged girl things as knitting, the color pink, nail polish, and fun." Yeah... just normal things women can do as hobbies, though.
Oh, remember how I brought up them devaluing women's work? What really pissed me off is how they champion the idea that we need to Get Out There and Make A Difference, they denounce women with liberal arts degrees, and essentially say it's their fault that there are male-dominated fields. ("While our own liberal-arts educations appear to have furthered us in our own professions and were even the sites of our feminist awakenings, we think that women should be pioneering the tech world along with men, not simply going after those liberal-arts degrees.") Cute sentiment, but as a girl in the STEM field, I can say that there are way more factors contributing to the lack of women in these fields (how about the fact that I'm put to a higher standard because I'm a woman, and, when I fail, I somehow represent my whole gender?).
Again, haven't read the whole thing (I feel like I got a pretty good taste of it, though!) but, to sum it up: two white women act as if they're the lynchpin to the entire Third Wave Feminist movement, all while degrading women of color and queer people.
February 28, 2008
I really just read part of the first chapter and skimmed through parts of the rest. The idea behind the book is interesting of course, but I had a problem with the authors' narrative style and some word choice. Maybe it's me, but I find it disconcerting when feminists use the term "abortionist(s)," especially when said with a straight face. In my mind only crazy anti-abortion, pro-forced pregnancy people use that term to describe doctors who, in addition to providing other medical services to women, also perform abortions. "Abortionist" has a different, negative connotation. And the writing style itself didn't thrill me.
Parts I skimmed over delved into so-called Girlie feminism of the early-mid 90's, seemed more interested in Bust than BITCH, and didn't have a problem with Katie Roiphe's The Morning After (setting it next to books like The Beauty Myth and pop-feminism instead of within backlash feminism). I love reading about the intersection of pop culture and feminism, but this felt, I don't know, a little smug. If you want a great collection of essays on pop culture and feminism, read BITCHfest, a collection of essays from the magazine's past 10 years.
I also got caught up by the tone of "we're going to tell you what GenX, Third Wave Feminism is all about, because WE are the coolest members, nay, initiators! of this ultra-cool movement!" (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much). Yes, I know it's a manifestA and all that, but from what I read it's not MY manifesta. I didn't feel like I was the target audience.
It also felt dated to me; I lost interest when the authors spent a few too many pages going on about feminists and the (Bill) Clinton scandals. I remember the time period, but it's also too far away from me to care. Maybe I'll take a break from pseudo-academia for a while, read some good fiction, then come back to it much later.
Parts I skimmed over delved into so-called Girlie feminism of the early-mid 90's, seemed more interested in Bust than BITCH, and didn't have a problem with Katie Roiphe's The Morning After (setting it next to books like The Beauty Myth and pop-feminism instead of within backlash feminism). I love reading about the intersection of pop culture and feminism, but this felt, I don't know, a little smug. If you want a great collection of essays on pop culture and feminism, read BITCHfest, a collection of essays from the magazine's past 10 years.
I also got caught up by the tone of "we're going to tell you what GenX, Third Wave Feminism is all about, because WE are the coolest members, nay, initiators! of this ultra-cool movement!" (Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much). Yes, I know it's a manifestA and all that, but from what I read it's not MY manifesta. I didn't feel like I was the target audience.
It also felt dated to me; I lost interest when the authors spent a few too many pages going on about feminists and the (Bill) Clinton scandals. I remember the time period, but it's also too far away from me to care. Maybe I'll take a break from pseudo-academia for a while, read some good fiction, then come back to it much later.
November 23, 2011
Blah. I had high hopes for this book and I was disappointed. The authors took about 280 pages to "get to the point" and start writing their manifesta. They spent most of the book talking about feminist magazines and feminist authors, etc. I kept thinking, why are they talking about media soooo much? Aren't there bigger issues than Ms. magazine's continued lack of commercial success? About 15-20 pages of the book were real content of what to do, how to do it, and why.
The other thing that really grinds me up about this book is the continuous waffling. Oh, group a is feminist, and so is group b, and so is group c! We're all feminists! I'm not saying that feminists shouldn't be an inclusive group, but constantly going back and forth to qualify every statement for every possible person/group was tiring to read and weakened the point. Rather than focusing on all the differences between feminist groups, shouldn't we point out how we all want the same basic things?
Overall, disappointing, boring, tedious. I wouldn't even call it feminism 101, I would call it feminist magazines and media 101. There are much better books out there.
The other thing that really grinds me up about this book is the continuous waffling. Oh, group a is feminist, and so is group b, and so is group c! We're all feminists! I'm not saying that feminists shouldn't be an inclusive group, but constantly going back and forth to qualify every statement for every possible person/group was tiring to read and weakened the point. Rather than focusing on all the differences between feminist groups, shouldn't we point out how we all want the same basic things?
Overall, disappointing, boring, tedious. I wouldn't even call it feminism 101, I would call it feminist magazines and media 101. There are much better books out there.
June 19, 2011
More like "Manifesta: Our experiences as young women, thoughts on the publishing world, and some other things too". If you are looking for the actual ideas of what they thing feminism are, read the last chapter. I found it to be a little too self reflective and found their refusal to allow for variations in what feminism mean to be alienating and frustrating. Good intentions, but got caught up in their own stories too often.
I read this book after hearing Amy talk as part of a CBC program about Feminism for International Woman's Day, and then discussed it with some friends. It provided a few good jumping off points for realizing if we fall into the feminist camp, but often felt more like a textbook than an inspiring and encouraging book.
I read this book after hearing Amy talk as part of a CBC program about Feminism for International Woman's Day, and then discussed it with some friends. It provided a few good jumping off points for realizing if we fall into the feminist camp, but often felt more like a textbook than an inspiring and encouraging book.
May 10, 2011
This book is incoherent. The narrative style is poor. The anecdotal style of the authors renders this text confusing. The book contains massive paragraphs of laundry-lists and name-dopping (making it hard to tell the difference between referenced theorists, activists and professionals from the authors' oft-mentioned group of friends), with some inspiring messages nestled so far inside the sprawling, useless prose that it is difficult to make them out. Jagged. Bothersome. Annoying. I have abandoned it. And if this is considered the "bible" of third-wave feminists, then we should all be scared. :-P
December 19, 2017
As someone who knew very little about feminist history, I had a lot to take from this book... however...
This book really drags its feet getting to the point. It could have been so much shorter. This book took me a long time to complete because it was very mentally exhausting, jumping from point to point to point with very little cohesion. It was kind of fun at first, making the vibe of the book relaxed and conversational, but by the end I was ready for it to be over.
I think I could recommend this book to people, but I might just recommend specific excerpts. There is a lot of fat to be trimmed in this.
This book really drags its feet getting to the point. It could have been so much shorter. This book took me a long time to complete because it was very mentally exhausting, jumping from point to point to point with very little cohesion. It was kind of fun at first, making the vibe of the book relaxed and conversational, but by the end I was ready for it to be over.
I think I could recommend this book to people, but I might just recommend specific excerpts. There is a lot of fat to be trimmed in this.
April 27, 2015
This book is incredible. It does a wonderful job thoroughly reviewing feminism from it's birth to the modern age. Most importantly, this book manages to broaden the American feminist scope to consider women's issues on a racial, cultural and socioeconomic level. Highly recommended to anyone (especially "young feminists") with an interest in the modern implications of the international women's movement.
May 5, 2007
I made it about half way through this book- after two tries. The authors did a presentation at Hope, and I was impressed and interested. But it turns out that they toned themselves down quite a bit for their presentation at a (relatively) conservative college. I found the book pretty alienating.
It was a while before I could call myself a "feminist" again.
I want to be a feminist if that means that I believe that women should have all the same opportunities that men have. If that means that I get to be an equal partner with my husband. If that means that you have to treat me with respect. If it means that I get to decide for myself whether I'm going to stay home with babies all day. If it means that I question the images and ideas that society sends me.
But the trouble is, Baumgardner and Richards make it about more than that. It's about abortion, promiscuity, STDs, leaving your religion. And that's not me.
It was a while before I could call myself a "feminist" again.
I want to be a feminist if that means that I believe that women should have all the same opportunities that men have. If that means that I get to be an equal partner with my husband. If that means that you have to treat me with respect. If it means that I get to decide for myself whether I'm going to stay home with babies all day. If it means that I question the images and ideas that society sends me.
But the trouble is, Baumgardner and Richards make it about more than that. It's about abortion, promiscuity, STDs, leaving your religion. And that's not me.
June 11, 2007
This text is a great resource for young women. I think the most important message is that the new, fiesty movers and shakers of this generation have a different face than the women that come before us. We are messy and full of contradiction. That's what being a modern woman is all about. Be thankful and aware of the women who paved the way before us, but do not be conformed to their ideas of liberation.
October 24, 2008
i am lost in a wave of pop culture, liberal politics, and self-promotion. Somebody else can maybe tell me what this is all about, what it is in response to, and why this book should matter at all. Glib and unappreciative of the struggle that came before them.
June 8, 2010
Reads like a collection of essays from a Feminist 101 course. As much as it harps on how unwilling/dry/close-minded the likes of Ms. magazine is in regards to using 'fresh' and 'current' slang and language, it sure reads exactly like something from the dinosaur it's so carefully flogging.
June 7, 2009
Too superficial and general - I was looking for more critique and more bite.
December 27, 2010
Not perfect, but a good primer and a fun read for young women who are new to the concept of feminism.
September 23, 2022
This was an interesting read, but I got a little lost in the formatting and narrative style. The chapters were non-cohesive and disorganized, and I think the messages could be conveyed even more powerfully by strengthening the book format. I also think it would have been helpful to put the actual manifesto list at the beginning as a sort of table of contents, because that really would have guided my reading better.
Also, I thought that the book focused too heavily on the publishing world and white-centered feminism. There was little discourse into other important domains of their manifesto and unelaborated exploration into intersectionality (just the mere mention of it, which weakened her arguments) - she only glazed the surface of the Black female experience in America, without investigating further into Black female narratives, completely bypassing these as examples. She also heavily emphasized Gloria Steinem while dismissing Angela Davis’ incredible contributions to feminism, which I found to be a glaring research error.
I appreciate the attempt at categorizing feminism into a manifesto, but this author did not fully encapsulate feminism in all of its varieties, intersectionalities, and domains. I had higher hopes.
Also, I thought that the book focused too heavily on the publishing world and white-centered feminism. There was little discourse into other important domains of their manifesto and unelaborated exploration into intersectionality (just the mere mention of it, which weakened her arguments) - she only glazed the surface of the Black female experience in America, without investigating further into Black female narratives, completely bypassing these as examples. She also heavily emphasized Gloria Steinem while dismissing Angela Davis’ incredible contributions to feminism, which I found to be a glaring research error.
I appreciate the attempt at categorizing feminism into a manifesto, but this author did not fully encapsulate feminism in all of its varieties, intersectionalities, and domains. I had higher hopes.
April 5, 2022
In this book I found a coupon for a Krackle candy bar dated 2002. That's probably the year I should have read this book. I found it obviously dated, transphobic, white-washed, and dismissive of any woman who wants to wear lipstick at her protests. The book also seemed oddly concentrated on feminist or woman-focused magazine publishing and did not really give a useful history of feminist movements and/or any context of the people involved. Are we on 5th Wave feminism now?
October 18, 2022
Actually a 3.5. A few things are outdated and there is a good bunch of repetition. The space for repeating things could’ve been used for more intersectional explorations, which surely affect and interest younger feminists. The appendixes and bibliography are a nice resource.
July 8, 2018
I had high expectations for this book. It unfortunately did not age well. This book was peak White Feminism(tm). YMMV.
August 20, 2020
Towards the end I commented that it seems to be a history and critique of the various waves of feminism and a lot "calling out" those from any wave or subsection of feminism that wasn't deemed helpful without actually providing any solutions. After I made that comment out loud the authors bombarded me at the end with all kinds of policy goals and methods to attain them. I'm fairly new the feminist literature/history scene so I appreciated the critiques but was almost let down until the barrage of "here's what want and here's how to work towards it".
3.75/5
3.75/5
May 8, 2010
I have to say up front that I found the prologue, epilogue, and the first and last chapters very annoying and their conversational tone a poor cover for heavy-handed, pedantic writing. I'm sorry but the way they used words like righteousness and sister just made me cringe. And I think their use of swear words is conspicuous and awkward. To be fair, the book is 10 years old and I did enjoy much of the book. I enjoyed the middle chapters and their focus on recent feminist history and the role of young women in the feminist movement, which I know fairly little about. I liked reading about the development of Sassy, Jane, and Bust magazine. And even thought I've read Rebecca Walker and heard of Elizabeth Wurtzel and Naomi Wolf, Katie Roiphe, Kathleen Hanna and others were new to me.
I think the best thing the authors did was explain and champion the complexity and diversity of the feminist movement, as well as to reassert the basic notion that being a feminist is not a radical thing. If you believe in fairness, equality, and the right of women to make their own personal decisions, you are a feminist. Feminism can be applied and used a lens in the same way that civil rights can be applied to all sorts of topics, movements, institutions, and ideas.
What I took away from this book is the idea that concepts like feminism, civil rights, and environmentalism are large ideologies that encompass a lot of different people with different ideas, different approaches, and different priorities. They are difficult to define because they are not fixed or simple but complex ideas that shift, evolve, and include a wide array of voices.
I think the best thing the authors did was explain and champion the complexity and diversity of the feminist movement, as well as to reassert the basic notion that being a feminist is not a radical thing. If you believe in fairness, equality, and the right of women to make their own personal decisions, you are a feminist. Feminism can be applied and used a lens in the same way that civil rights can be applied to all sorts of topics, movements, institutions, and ideas.
What I took away from this book is the idea that concepts like feminism, civil rights, and environmentalism are large ideologies that encompass a lot of different people with different ideas, different approaches, and different priorities. They are difficult to define because they are not fixed or simple but complex ideas that shift, evolve, and include a wide array of voices.
August 16, 2012
This book has been a great introduction to world of feminism and to the meaning and history behind the movement. It has taught me what it means to identify as part of such an enormous and encompassing movement while still stressing the importance of self-identity. It's easy to read and doesn't come off as a lecture or essay but still imparts some very important lessons about what it means to be a woman and how important it is for equality to embrace being a feminist.
That being said, it does tend to drag out points and add stories and accounts that don't seem entirely necessary for the arguments to be clear. Some of the chapters come across as a little disorganised with the main (and usually very interesting) points getting lost in the background. Also, as someone coming into the world of feminist literature as a beginner, many of the references and time-frames are lost on me. Hopefully this is something I can fix with more experience on the topic.
All in all though, an enjoyable enough read and a book that I feel is opening up perspectives I hadn't considered before reading it.
That being said, it does tend to drag out points and add stories and accounts that don't seem entirely necessary for the arguments to be clear. Some of the chapters come across as a little disorganised with the main (and usually very interesting) points getting lost in the background. Also, as someone coming into the world of feminist literature as a beginner, many of the references and time-frames are lost on me. Hopefully this is something I can fix with more experience on the topic.
All in all though, an enjoyable enough read and a book that I feel is opening up perspectives I hadn't considered before reading it.
July 26, 2008
It had it's moments, but nothing special. I knew it was outdated going in, but it showed, mainly through pop culture references - specifically discussions of zines rather than websites - and the glaring lack of any commentary on Hillary Clinton. (She doesn't even make the index, though I could have sworn she was at least mentioned.)
The prologue (A Day Without Feminism) was a pointed, exaggerated look at what life was like in 1970, the year both authors were born, and their message is very clear - forget a debate over parental consent for abortions, back then a single woman would have trouble finding a landlord who would rent her an apartment. They certainly highlight all the low points, but they're not making anything up.
Unfortunately, the prologue got me all good and fired up and then rest of the book meandered around, petered off, and finally got plain old boring. There's good information here, but there's not much fun in the reading of it.
The prologue (A Day Without Feminism) was a pointed, exaggerated look at what life was like in 1970, the year both authors were born, and their message is very clear - forget a debate over parental consent for abortions, back then a single woman would have trouble finding a landlord who would rent her an apartment. They certainly highlight all the low points, but they're not making anything up.
Unfortunately, the prologue got me all good and fired up and then rest of the book meandered around, petered off, and finally got plain old boring. There's good information here, but there's not much fun in the reading of it.
July 30, 2007
When I first picked up this book, my initial impressions were pretty positive. The writing style was witty and engaging, the approach was promising, and (frankly) the cover was very cute. As I read further, though, the book failed to take off (at least for me). I’m still in the middle of it, but I don’t think I’ll finish. That’s not to say that it doesn’t have potential, only that its potential lies entirely in its reader. The girl at my job who asked, “What’s a misogynist?” should read this book.
I don’t know that it was meant to be an introduction to feminism, but that’s the role it fills (at least thus far). Books that introduce common ideas can be wonderful, but rarely hold much for more advanced readers. If you’re looking for ‘Feminist History 101’ or ‘Introduction to Feminist Theory’, this is a good book. If you’re ‘heard it all before’, it will just seem like more of the same.
I don’t know that it was meant to be an introduction to feminism, but that’s the role it fills (at least thus far). Books that introduce common ideas can be wonderful, but rarely hold much for more advanced readers. If you’re looking for ‘Feminist History 101’ or ‘Introduction to Feminist Theory’, this is a good book. If you’re ‘heard it all before’, it will just seem like more of the same.
August 19, 2012
Well written and well thought book about feminism and what extactly feminisn is. The authors take a good look at the various issues surronding the term. This edition inculdes updates from when the book was published in 2000. In some cases, the only complaint I have about the book is that in some cases the authors are somewhat hesitent in using the term femninist to describe some women Most intersting fact, however, is that Wolf and Pagilia, actually agree on something.
March 26, 2007
Aside from the appendices, I found this book utterly unhelpful and poorly written. Perhaps I'd recommend it to very young women (not dudes--I'd give them another book) who are riding the fence on feminism. But really, I don't even know if I'd do that. There's just too many other instructive, critical, and engaging texts out there to be wasting your time on this book.
September 6, 2012
Overall I believe this is a decent book with valid points, but I was slightly confused/disheartened with the use of a reverent tone in initial discussions of individuals that was sometimes followed by a more accusatory tone. I question the necessity of such an approach when trying to rally a generation of individuals together and to make reconnections with earlier generations.
February 24, 2008
I don't like this book because I think it's weak as a feminist theoretical text. They try to address the problems of Second Wave feminism, yet seem to overlook their own class and racial privilege. If this is the future of feminism, you can count me out!
July 7, 2009
The overall message of this book is that old feminists need to listen to young feminists, because there is, indeed, a third wave. The most useful part of the book is the resource list towards the back.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews