If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I’d say all of my female friends consider themselves feminists. Some might qualify their inclusion in some way, but none would ever say “feminism is bad.” Thus, one way I benefit from them as friends is hearing about new books on the topic. One of these is He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know.
I suspect this book was originally called “Double Standards Every Woman Should Know” but had the “49 Things” added to make it more marketable. If that was the original title, it would have been sufficient as it perfectly describes the content of the book (although I think everybody benefits from knowing these, not just women).
As it stands, the title is truth in advertising: it has 49 short essays, each describing a double standard in which women are treated differently than men in similar situations. Each essay is a few pages, none more than five, ending with a paragraph on how to fight the double standard just described.
Overall, this is a quick read but that doesn’t mean it’s light. Valenti, the author, covers a wide range of topics related to feminism and gender-based double standards. In general, all of the double standards have the same basic structure: women are sexualized or asexualized, resulting in a loss of power, voice or credibility. The inappropriate sexualization is probably well understood, but asexualization (or desexualization?) is typically done by associating a woman with motherhood or domesticity while linking that directly to a “loss of sexuality” in some manner. In each case, this is done to undermine a woman’s ability to speak with authority, act decisively or oppose the voice, decision or action of a man.
The approach, using 49 examples to illustrate this fact, is valid. It reminds me of the old book How to Lie With Statistics
Valenti’s writing is similarly useful because she illustrates the general problem using specific examples or illustrative situations. Thus, this is more of a field guide to discrimination or double standards than an academic discussion of the topic.
Nothing’s Perfect
Naturally, nothing is perfect. In this case, there are a few minor problems with Double Standards.
The first is simple: the use of 49 examples is contrived and the book may have been better structured if Valenti explained the general problem that double standards create, then gave the common examples and how to address each specific situation. The use of 49 examples is problematic because (a) there are infinite examples of how double standards can be “enacted” in society and (b) many of the examples overlap or blur together with each other. Thus, by the end of the book, you might find yourself saying “Wait, wasn’t this an earlier example?”
The second problem is less simple. It is the problem of “Them” crops up in many works that address problems of discrimination, repression or inequality. Who are “they” that discriminate? An example from the book, discussing legislation in California, said that it was in “their” self-interest to pass the law.
Wait. Who?
Was it in the self-interest of the legislators? Was it in the self-interest of the political party of the specific legislator who was promoting the legislation? Was it in the self-interest of men? Was it…
I’ve said: People Suck.
But this philosophy means I believe that we are obligated to act as individuals by influence other individuals around us. Nothing substantial happens without a face-to-face discussion or personal interaction of some kind.
Thus, I’m frustrated by Valenti’s reference to “them” in some of her 49 descriptions. At the same time, her solutions are personal. They are face-to-face. I think they have integrity. The difference between an unnamed “them” who are oppressing women and the encouragement to address a person who is reinforcing a double standard is dischordant in an otherwise good book.
My personal opinion: If “they” are a specific group (conservatives, fascists, the KKK, etc…) then address this fact by naming them. Otherwise, I’d be happier if this rhetorical device using the concept of an undefined “them” disappeared.
So?
I’m happy I read the book. It was a good review of many double standards I’d already encountered and pointed out a few that I haven’t seen but would now recognize if they pop up in my life. The book reads a little bit too much like a blog at times (the short chapters, the “49″ examples) but that’s easily forgivable and makes it easier to pick up and put down as you go about your normal day. The one issue that bugged me the most is really not a major issue in the book and is offset by the suggestions on how to confront or address each standard. Thus, if you are looking for a book on feminism because you want to learn more or enjoy reading/thinking about the subject, I think you’d enjoy this.
Post a Comment