A bit of a potpourri but a witty book full of insights, opinions, and good advice.
From the London-based Australian co-creator and host of The Guilty Feminist podcast comes a book-length version of that program.
A stand-up comedian who also hosts the award-winning BBC Radio 4 series Deborah Frances-White Rolls the Dice, the author opens her chapters with the phrase “I’m a feminist but” and proceeds with an example of a cause of remorse, such as lying about one’s weight by 20 pounds or mistaking Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique for the name of a classic perfume. Throughout the narrative, there are abundant examples of Frances-White’s weaknesses and the rifts between good intentions and human behavior, and she encourages feminists to shed their guilt and take up their “most unapologetic and persuasive voice.” In Part 1, the author provides a capsule history of the feminist movements and her opinions on their significance. In parts 2 and 3, Frances-White broadens her reach, taking on the air of the podcast, which she describes as a microclimate where women are given power, space, and the assumption of brilliance. The text features a mix of various pieces from the podcast. She includes her own angry speech about Brexit, her stand-up comedy bit satirizing how women undermine themselves, an irony-filled piece on Harvey Weinstein, and her feminist rewrite of the famous speech in Henry V, which ends with the rousing cry, “God for Women, Feminism, and Saint Angelou!” Frances-White also muses on the diet industry, the fun of makeup, being open to other people’s struggles, toxic masculinity, Donald Trump, female fertility, sexism in religion (now an atheist, she was raised as a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and women’s own sexual submission fantasies. Confidently opinionated, the author gives other feminist writers a voice, introducing them proudly and interviewing them intelligently. Fans of the TV series Fleabag will relish her lengthy interview with Phoebe Waller-Bridge, its creator and star.
A bit of a potpourri but a witty book full of insights, opinions, and good advice.Pub Date: Jan. 7, 2020
ISBN: 978-1-58005-954-1
Page Count: 320
Publisher: Seal Press
Review Posted Online: Sept. 24, 2019
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Oct. 15, 2019
A scholarly but resonant analysis of ``the cultural meanings of the welfare system,'' probing the mistaken assumptions behind fundamental policies forged during the 1930s. Beginning in 1890, writes Gordon (History/Univ. of Wisconsin), single mothers were portrayed as a symptom and cause of social decay; unlike today, however, the situation was seen as a temporary misfortune that usually befell white immigrants, often widows. Middle-class women's groups helped to create ``mother's aid'' for the deserving poor; the author calls this policy (a forerunner of the current Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC, program) ``maternalist,'' rooted in the subordination of women in domestic roles. But there were other points of view: Black women activists, notes Gordon (Woman's Body, Woman's Right, 1976), had less distance from those they wished to aid; they emphasized universal education and health programs rather than charity. The thinkers behind Social Security, all white and nearly all male, focused their lens on money and jobs for men, even though they knew it was a fallacy to consider men the sole supporters and protectors of women. During the New Deal, social movements ``valorized'' the elderly and unemployed, ignoring single mothers; the women's movement was quiet, and the lack of African-American political power meant that blacks' views on welfare were ignored. Gordon argues that the Social Security Act of 1935 created generous programs for the elderly and unemployed that operated under a single, federal standard; she cites a range of factors, including accommodations for southern employers and bureaucratic infighting, leading to the stratified, state-administered Aid to Dependent Children (later AFDC). Gordon doesn't enter the current policy debate, but she does note trenchantly that in order to fight inequality we must make such entitlements as corporate tax breaks and home mortgage deductions as ``visible as welfare.'' The arguments get complicated, but this is challenging history—and a goad to clarify modern-day rhetoric.
Pub Date: Sept. 14, 1994
ISBN: 0-02-912485-9
Page Count: 300
Publisher: Free Press
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: July 15, 1994
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
Art historian Hollander tries to set the record straight about the ``tyranny'' of fashion and to clear its bad name, making a reasonably strong case but offering a surprisingly lifeless account in the process. Hollander (Moving Pictures, 1989, etc.) spends most of the book establishing modern masculine sartorial superiority, setting up the contrast between the men's suit, with its brilliant design- -serious, sexy, timeless—and what, until this century, was mere ephemeral female fashion frippery. From the 1600s until the early 1900s, women's dress became increasingly theatrical and decorative, and received more attention from society (i.e., men), while men's dress set the classical standard. Obscuring female form and motion with tiny waists and voluminous skirts, women's clothing earned fashion the reputation of being manipulative and deceptive. Hollander asserts, to the contrary, that fashion is an ``imaginative art.'' Only in the early 20th century, however, did women's fashion become realistic and dignified. The introduction of short skirts after WW I gave coherence to the female form (and made exposing legs, and thus the wearing of pants, possible). It is just recently, Hollander argues, that female dress has begun to set any significant standards for Western fashion: ``Women finally took over the total male scheme of dress, modified it to suit themselves, and have handed it back to men charged with immense new possiblities.'' Sex and Suits has several major weaknesses, however. Most frustrating, given the book's historical scope (from the Greeks to the Gap), is the profusion of generalizations (``In general, people have always worn what they wanted to wear; fashion exists to keep fulfilling that desire'') and occasional preposterous pronouncements resulting from her attempt to divorce shifts in fashion from social forces. Also, her take on the relationship between gender and contemporary fashion is dated. Still, despite its un-hip feel, a coherent defense of fashion's integrity. (45 b&w photos, not seen)
Pub Date: Sept. 9, 1994
ISBN: 0-679-43096-2
Page Count: 224
Publisher: Knopf
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: July 15, 1994
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2025 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
