Scan barcode
avieherman's review
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
3.75
Fascinating and informative, but the broad coverage and density made hard to be deeply engaging and it felt at times like I was slogging through. At times it was unclear what place and time they were discussing. It’s breadth left little room for nuance at times and it dealt almost exclusively with the white middle and upper classes.
andrejagibese's review
2.0
we're reading this for book club (at my suggestion at that) but I'm kind of bored with it. I like Ehrenreich and I tend to like popular nonfiction. This may not be "pop" enough for me, not enough of an overarching narrative... we'll see.
ida_s's review
4.0
Interesting read - I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the origin of old "truths".
However, I think the title should have been "experts' advice to women in the United States" to emphasize that the book focuses on the US.
However, I think the title should have been "experts' advice to women in the United States" to emphasize that the book focuses on the US.
vee615's review
3.0
So I got this book thinking it would have a ton of medical experiments in it that effected women. Instead it was more of just a recount of the trends in feminism for the last two centuries. It was interesting how the history of medicine went from a typical female oriented profession to exclusively male, that progression was interesting. However, the last quarter of the book just seemed to fizzle. If you like feminist history this might be more interesting, I liked it, but it just wasn't what I thought it was going to be about.
olosta's review
2.0
After a rather great and intriguing premise (woman's changing social position in light of the evolution of the economic market/changes of the social system), this book was quite a disappointment.
To mention two most prominent let-downs:
1. Factual inaccuracies and mistakes, which I noticed especially in the first quarter of the book. Firstly, the completely misleading numbers and facts regarding witch hunts in medieaeval and early modern Europe. Secondly, the picture of medical professionals in the same historical epochs. Both are topis I am interested in and know a bit about, and I was very put off by these mistakes.
Just to mention a couple: witches, especially in the beginning, were not predominantly women. On the contrary, the ratio was more or less 50/50 female/male (in some areas, it was even more men), and most of the witches were accused or religious haeresy (at the beginning). The punishment was not death, but most often monetary fine. Burnings and hangings mostly occured later, in Early Modern times. Also the numbers given of executed people is way blown out of proportions: it was not millions, but maybe ten thousands of people - during the whole time of persecutions. Quite a difference, I would say.
Another one, the book paints a very black-and-white and two dimensional picture of the medical practitioners in medieaveal and early modern times - it puts into stark contrast male medical "professionals" (i.e. doctors who were academically educated) and "peasant" female healers. There was a broad plethora of practitioners in between, and for long times they co-existed quite succesfully. Also, though academic medicine indeed relied generally on the Theory of four humours, observation played an important role as well, especially when administering medicine (plant- or otherwise based).
I cannot say much to the developement of medicine in the early US, as I am not knowleadgeable in this area, but the botched beginning of the book makes me suspicious about the rest of the presented facts.
2. The other problem I had with this book is that although women are supposed to stand in the focus, the text often handles so many different topics in such a broad context that the woman literally sinks under and disappears out of sight. A bit ironic, isn't it?
Also, the conclusion of the book comes of somewhat weak. Women had been told for centuries what to do - well, yes, and? What am I as a woman to take away from this book? Other than bitterness and disillusionment?
To conclude: not a complete loss of time, but the gain is definitely not worth the hours invested in reading.
To mention two most prominent let-downs:
1. Factual inaccuracies and mistakes, which I noticed especially in the first quarter of the book. Firstly, the completely misleading numbers and facts regarding witch hunts in medieaeval and early modern Europe. Secondly, the picture of medical professionals in the same historical epochs. Both are topis I am interested in and know a bit about, and I was very put off by these mistakes.
Just to mention a couple: witches, especially in the beginning, were not predominantly women. On the contrary, the ratio was more or less 50/50 female/male (in some areas, it was even more men), and most of the witches were accused or religious haeresy (at the beginning). The punishment was not death, but most often monetary fine. Burnings and hangings mostly occured later, in Early Modern times. Also the numbers given of executed people is way blown out of proportions: it was not millions, but maybe ten thousands of people - during the whole time of persecutions. Quite a difference, I would say.
Another one, the book paints a very black-and-white and two dimensional picture of the medical practitioners in medieaveal and early modern times - it puts into stark contrast male medical "professionals" (i.e. doctors who were academically educated) and "peasant" female healers. There was a broad plethora of practitioners in between, and for long times they co-existed quite succesfully. Also, though academic medicine indeed relied generally on the Theory of four humours, observation played an important role as well, especially when administering medicine (plant- or otherwise based).
I cannot say much to the developement of medicine in the early US, as I am not knowleadgeable in this area, but the botched beginning of the book makes me suspicious about the rest of the presented facts.
2. The other problem I had with this book is that although women are supposed to stand in the focus, the text often handles so many different topics in such a broad context that the woman literally sinks under and disappears out of sight. A bit ironic, isn't it?
Also, the conclusion of the book comes of somewhat weak. Women had been told for centuries what to do - well, yes, and? What am I as a woman to take away from this book? Other than bitterness and disillusionment?
To conclude: not a complete loss of time, but the gain is definitely not worth the hours invested in reading.
dreamofbookspines's review
4.0
As usual, Ehrenreich delivers! This is a great, readable book about more of the horrors that patriarchy has dealt to women. I knew a lot of it beforehand, but didn't know the particulars. This book goes into astonishing depth and explains a lot of things we take for granted (e.g. the origins of home economics class) and really keeps the narrative going.
I adore Ehrenreich, but she does have a race problem; she writes as though all women were equal, without ever mentioning the very real impacts of racial inequalities. She occasionally has a problem with class too, ignoring it entirely, though she's generally better about remembering that not everyone was a stay-at-home mother. Still, these qualities for me don't dim the fascinating qualities of the book (or her writing in general). If you're looking for thoughtful discussion of race and class politics, look elsewhere. But if you're most interested in gender, this is a great pick.
I adore Ehrenreich, but she does have a race problem; she writes as though all women were equal, without ever mentioning the very real impacts of racial inequalities. She occasionally has a problem with class too, ignoring it entirely, though she's generally better about remembering that not everyone was a stay-at-home mother. Still, these qualities for me don't dim the fascinating qualities of the book (or her writing in general). If you're looking for thoughtful discussion of race and class politics, look elsewhere. But if you're most interested in gender, this is a great pick.