Scan barcode
xoubie's review against another edition
It's very long and not very to the point. Seems like it would have been eye-opening when originally published but I'm a 2024 female sociology student so :/
nullasalus3's review against another edition
4.0
It's worth reading this book for just the prologue, "A Day Without Feminism." Baumgardner and Richards were reflecting on the state of feminism and feminist activism in 2000, and their observations still hold true.
jmitschke's review against another edition
3.0
Definitely coming from an anglo and middle-class perspective, but neverthless a very well done exploration of third wave feminism.
margotreadsbooks's review against another edition
4.0
A lot of what I already know- probably better as a primer, but it's a good one at that.
brdgtc's review against another edition
2.0
Too superficial and general - I was looking for more critique and more bite.
ohheyitsmollyk's review against another edition
5.0
This book opened my eyes to feminism. I even got it signed when I met them! Definitely an exciting moment in my feminist activism career.
sapphisms's review against another edition
2.0
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.
mrsdragon's review against another edition
3.0
Written almost 15 years ago about the burgeoning 3rd wave of feminism, Manifesta offered an interesting glimpse into the thoughts of two of the women at the front of the "wave" I belong to. Some of their ideas have proven timeless--intersectionality, critiquing media, embracing the stereotypically feminine--some seem a little extreme in today's light--women should never change their names, all women explore their sexuality with other women--and some of it seemed as current as ever--women need to translate their frustration into activism. I found the last section on activism the most informative and interesting.
perryplatypus's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
2.75
Good explanation of Third Wave feminism. Got a bogged down in media.