Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
|
Loading... Women & power : a manifesto (original 2017; edition 2018)by Mary Beard BenKline | Jul 1, 2020 |    ) highlandcow | Mar 13, 2024 |  ) raschneid | Dec 19, 2023 | For those who are thinking about reading this book, do it. Anything by Mary Beard is better than virtually anything else you could read in the nonfiction side of writing. Then, go read her other books. Spend the time. You won't regret it. (  )1  Dabble58 | Nov 11, 2023 | ) mrsnickleby | Nov 11, 2023 | Because I live and work in settings that feel safe, places where my voice matters and finds respectful listeners, reading Beard's thoughtfully researched essays with images inspired by mythic stories gave me a quick reality check. "...women, even when they are not silenced, still have to pay a high price for being heard..." What price? Everything from mansplaining to being called stupid and much worse. I don't have trolls calling me *unt or whore on social media, but such harangues happen countless times every day to thousands of people. Not for what they have said, but because they said anything while being female. With millennia of this patterned behavior, the #metoo and #timesup movements are not only important, one wonders why they took so long to get started. (  ) rebwaring | Aug 14, 2023 | ) Eavans | Jul 5, 2023 |  ) annbury | May 3, 2023 | ) Alderland | Jan 5, 2023 | Now, on to the review! Women and power, what a Pandora’s box of discussion topics such a title evokes. While I don’t have any recollection of being told to shut up, I have definitely been talked over until someone assumed that I would give up and be quiet. Which I wouldn’t. My mom always taught me that I was as strong as my voice and my voice was as strong as me. Basically, the only way to effect change would be to keep talking until I could no longer be ignored. It didn’t always serve me well, but I would always stand up for myself though throughout most of my high school years, I was called a bitch behind my back. Thankfully social media was not widely used back in the early ‘aughts. My mom worked in education administration and would often be the only woman at meetings. Which always seemed to weird to me – the majority of teachers are women, but most principals and administrators are men. As her daughter, who also pursued a career in education, I struggled to get a reaction that wasn’t “Oh, you’re Amy’s daughter.” So I did the most patriarchal thing I could – changed my last name, my whole identity, when I got married, just so I wouldn’t constantly be compared to my mother or judged by some men’s perceptions of her position in the state educational system. Every sentence, every phrase, Mary Beard hits the nail on the head. And, like most women, she doesn’t have an answer for how things can change. I don’t think any of us do. Sexism and misogyny is so rampant in cultures world wide that it is going to take a lot more than a few speeches for things to change. But I have to believe that they will. I have to believe that the great reckoning is coming for all those, men and women alike, who have aided in the silencing of women and, in the case of women, their peers. Until we all stand together and listen with respect to each other, we will fail to see forward progress. ( ) smorton11 | Oct 29, 2022 | ) thewestwing | Aug 12, 2022 | There are some questions intentionally left open. I do agree that the remedy to millenia-old hostility is not just making women speak more and simply having them more present in the public life so that they bring forward topics that we believe are intrinsically women's; we have to work at the roots of the voice of power and our understanding of that, giving them the room to speak and decide on universal subjects. ( ) luciarux | Jul 3, 2022 | ) sadbean | Jan 14, 2022 | ) MorbidLibrarian | Sep 18, 2021 | I know only a couple of the more common Greek/Roman myths and haven’t read the classics Iliad or the Odyssey, so it was fascinating to see the author trace the origins of women disempowerment and silencing to those myths. What’s more surprising is to see how these age old beliefs rooted in misogyny still reflect in popular current thought, albeit maybe in a different form - now manifesting as twitter trolls and rape/death threats on social media. The author doesn’t give us any clear solutions but asks all of us to examine the relationship between women and power, how we can try to gain it collectively (not just concentrating on individual high achievers) by not falling into the stereotypes of powerful women created by men. I particularly liked this line of hers - We have to be more reflective about what power is, what it is for, and how it is measured. To put it another way, if women are not perceived to be fully within the structures of power, surely it is power that we need to redefine rather than women?” To conclude, I just wanna say this was quite interesting to read. If you like Greco-Roman mythologies and would like to know how the fraught relationship of women with power has age old origins, you should pick this up. It’s an illuminating experience and can make us reflect on what more we can do to rid our culture of these notions of women’s inferiority. It’s also very short and packs a lot of information in a few pages, so pick it up and hopefully, it’ll surprise you. ( ) ksahitya1987 | Aug 20, 2021 | ) SocProf9740 | Jul 11, 2021 | ) arosoff | Jul 11, 2021 | I recommend this to everyone. ( ) afrozenbookparadise | Apr 22, 2021 | Fence | Jan 5, 2021 | ) CarrieWuj | Oct 24, 2020 | ) littlebookjockey | Sep 15, 2020 | ) teastitchread | Aug 16, 2020 | I will say calling this a "manifesto" is a bit of a disappointment. While it is similar in that to say The Communist Manifesto (in both size, and similar style) it really doesn't delve into any too-deep thoughts (whereas the Communist Manifesto does moreso). Likewise, with this just being two lectures put into one volume, its hard to call that a manifesto (in my opinion). I had never heard/read her lectures before, so these were at least new to me, but it still felt like there was a lot more there- a lot more substance that could be touched on. Its a good 'starting point' piece of work. I had never heard of Mary Beard before or read her works (though I have heard of SPQR in a "you have to read this" kind of fashion), so her lecturing/writing style is pretty good. A bit 'cheeky' (to use one of her English phrases), but right on, and poignant. I do however think there were a few flaws in her argument (and argument style). While I understand the silencing, and that is a huge aspect of the problems women face, I don't generally think that was necessarily the purpose/plan of the Greeks/Romans, but it very well could be, I think her argument is a bit of a 'reach' or giving a modern viewpoint to people of the past. Granted, she has a lot more knowledge on this area/topic (both in women relations, and the Greek/Roman studies; as well as being a woman herself compared to me being a man) than I do. I also think her point during the lecture on how the memes against Hillary were "worse", is a far stretch. I'm by no means a Trump apologist or endorser, but I think he was satirized just as much (if not MORE than Hillary; which in some weird grotesque way may have helped him, and radicalized his base more for him, than it did for Hillary). While I do think Hillary's gender did play a large role in the election, I think it was more her way of being 'in that gender' rather than solely the gender itself. Some of that also was her opponent, I think any other election, her gender is far more marginalized and downplayed, but she ran into the proverbial buzzsaw in Trump and that his over the top antics played perfectly with his group. Also I think her take on the political memes was a bit of the liberal blindness to their own actions (its NOT OK when Republicans/far right use memes to attack our person based on Quality X [for Hillary, her gender], but its perfectly ok for us to use memes to attack THEIR person based on Quality Y [namely Trump's weight, his handsize, his orange skin tone], this seems to happen and be very prevalent and overlooked by the liberals themselves who are guilty of it.) There were a few other minor elements to some of her arguments that I think a fair reading, and keen observation makes its own rebuttal. In the second lecture, primarily about empowering women into roles of power (ie. parliament, CEOs, high level jobs, President, etc.) Beard states how there needs to be more fair representation of women in these roles (and I certainly agree - obviously under the caveat of deserving it and attain these roles through skill rather than merely to appease), and in one particular point she states how WELL represented women are in the Rwanda parliament post-civil war, giving a very high percentage (the book is not on hand right now and off the top of my head I believe she states 85% female representation). Which she says "sounds amazing", but then no more than two sentences later says, "Though, I can't help but wonder if there's this much representation by women in the parliament, if that maybe means that this is not where the power REALLY IS." Which it seems obvious how this is a problem for your debate and argument. You can't prop up the point that you need more females in parliament or representation of women in prominent roles.... and then once data shows they have it, or once they get it, you then turn around and say "well I guess since we have this, it shows this isn't where the power truly is." And I do understand the meaning behind her sentiment. Its ultimately a very heavy skeptic and cynical view. Its likewise a typical 'minority' view (not using this in a derogatory statement, using it in a mathematical 'minority'.) I've seen it quite a fair bit with African-American and Hispanic viewpoints on things well if we are finally getting X it must mean the whites don't care if we have X and therefore X is no longer worthy, or something to aspire for, or valuable. Kind of a weird version of diminishing returns. If I give you a Dollar a day to do Task 1, and then later start giving you only 50 cents, and then later give you a dime, by the time you only get 5 cents for the same task... even if its a simple, mundane, easy to do task, that takes no effort to do, the fact that you use to make 1$ for it, and are now making 0.05$ for it, you no longer want to do it. And I think thats a bit of her stance with this, which both is plausible and undermining at the same time. An analogy I gave a coworker when discussing that passage was if you were to say Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is the best Quarterback ever, but then proceed to list everything he's done wrong while not bringing up the things that make him the best QB ever.... does it really prove your point? One last thing about something she might have been better served not bringing up, is the connection to how three women created/founded the Black Lives Matter. Which is a very controversial topic/group/subject in and of itself. This is a group that has done a lot of GOOD things... as well as a fair amount of BAD things.... so I'm not sure its a positive to lean on the women founding them and that we don't know these women's names, insomuch as its just a typical left-side of things pro-feminism type of thing to have to point them out. Especially in the sense that pro-feminism seems to (moderately, and currently in 2017/2018) takes an anti-white-male stance and seemingly much ire that in the past has been cast on males/men in general, now gets pinned on white men in particular, primarily due to their/the belief that they are ultimately the ones in power (especially in the USA/UK). Whilst this isn't objectively or subjectively wrong, it is a point worth noting. And I don't think ALL pro-feminists or feminists themselves are anti-white-males, it does seem to be the 'in' thing to do. So, this is definitely an interesting look, and a good STARTING POINT. I think a much more substantial piece of work needs to be written and produced - possibly by Beard herself, or other women, but it is definitely something that NEEDS to be done, and this is the best climate to do it in now. I definitely foresee something in that vein being produced by the end of 2018/early 2019, and I hope it happens, and I hope I get a chance to read it, and I hope it's as good as it should (and NEEDS to) be. ( ) BenKline | Jul 1, 2020 | What we've been missing is a call to arms. That's what a manifesto is. A mixed mission statement and an outrage. A rallying call and a hot pinprick of a single idea meant to sear itself into your brain. That's what a manifesto is supposed to be. A wake-up call. But what is this one in particular? It's about the nature of power and misogyny, first cutting through the crap of old Greece through her quality scholarship and then directly applying the topic to our modern world. I can be boiled down to the Voice of Authority. If you don't have a lower register, you're told to shut up. This isn't a joke, although it is furiously funny. It's no laughing matter, but many women and more men than you might think have gone crazy with the absolute absurdity of it. But there you have it. Sit down, shut up, bear with the assholes, bide your time, work within the system, tell yourself that one day the glass ceiling might be shattered, and eventually give up, frustrated, disheartened, and disillusioned. Or postulate: "If the power game is rigged, then it's not women who need to change in order to get power. It's the nature of power that needs to be changed." But what is power? Ah, well, that's the trick, isn't it? IT IS WHAT WE DREAM UP. It's words. It's our decision to make. All of us. We can bow down to the almighty lower register or we could start listening to what ALL our smart PEOPLE have to say. Use logic. Reason. Clarity. It's worth thinking about. I'm a feminist. I'm also a man. It's freaking RATIONAL to be this. I'm not playing a Us vs Them game because it only leads to further cutting. The only way through this mess is TOGETHER. So do I appreciate this manifesto? Hell, yes. And I part with you on a high note. A little Laurie Anderson that makes me laugh until I cry. Mach 20, yo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SirOxIeuNDE ( ) bradleyhorner | Jun 1, 2020 | ) j_tuffi | May 30, 2020 | tamaranth | May 11, 2020 | |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
 Google Books — Loading...GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)305.42Social sciences Social Sciences; Sociology and anthropology Groups of people Women Role in society, statusLC ClassificationRatingAverage: (3.99)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
13
I will say calling this a "manifesto" is a bit of a disappointment. While it is similar in that to say The Communist Manifesto (in both size, and similar style) it really doesn't delve into any too-deep thoughts (whereas the Communist Manifesto does moreso). Likewise, with this just being two lectures put into one volume, its hard to call that a manifesto (in my opinion). I had never heard/read her lectures before, so these were at least new to me, but it still felt like there was a lot more there- a lot more substance that could be touched on.
Its a good 'starting point' piece of work. I had never heard of Mary Beard before or read her works (though I have heard of SPQR in a "you have to read this" kind of fashion), so her lecturing/writing style is pretty good. A bit 'cheeky' (to use one of her English phrases), but right on, and poignant.
I do however think there were a few flaws in her argument (and argument style). While I understand the silencing, and that is a huge aspect of the problems women face, I don't generally think that was necessarily the purpose/plan of the Greeks/Romans, but it very well could be, I think her argument is a bit of a 'reach' or giving a modern viewpoint to people of the past. Granted, she has a lot more knowledge on this area/topic (both in women relations, and the Greek/Roman studies; as well as being a woman herself compared to me being a man) than I do. I also think her point during the lecture on how the memes against Hillary were "worse", is a far stretch. I'm by no means a Trump apologist or endorser, but I think he was satirized just as much (if not MORE than Hillary; which in some weird grotesque way may have helped him, and radicalized his base more for him, than it did for Hillary). While I do think Hillary's gender did play a large role in the election, I think it was more her way of being 'in that gender' rather than solely the gender itself. Some of that also was her opponent, I think any other election, her gender is far more marginalized and downplayed, but she ran into the proverbial buzzsaw in Trump and that his over the top antics played perfectly with his group. Also I think her take on the political memes was a bit of the liberal blindness to their own actions (its NOT OK when Republicans/far right use memes to attack our person based on Quality X [for Hillary, her gender], but its perfectly ok for us to use memes to attack THEIR person based on Quality Y [namely Trump's weight, his handsize, his orange skin tone], this seems to happen and be very prevalent and overlooked by the liberals themselves who are guilty of it.)
There were a few other minor elements to some of her arguments that I think a fair reading, and keen observation makes its own rebuttal. In the second lecture, primarily about empowering women into roles of power (ie. parliament, CEOs, high level jobs, President, etc.) Beard states how there needs to be more fair representation of women in these roles (and I certainly agree - obviously under the caveat of deserving it and attain these roles through skill rather than merely to appease), and in one particular point she states how WELL represented women are in the Rwanda parliament post-civil war, giving a very high percentage (the book is not on hand right now and off the top of my head I believe she states 85% female representation). Which she says "sounds amazing", but then no more than two sentences later says, "Though, I can't help but wonder if there's this much representation by women in the parliament, if that maybe means that this is not where the power REALLY IS."
Which it seems obvious how this is a problem for your debate and argument. You can't prop up the point that you need more females in parliament or representation of women in prominent roles.... and then once data shows they have it, or once they get it, you then turn around and say "well I guess since we have this, it shows this isn't where the power truly is."
And I do understand the meaning behind her sentiment. Its ultimately a very heavy skeptic and cynical view. Its likewise a typical 'minority' view (not using this in a derogatory statement, using it in a mathematical 'minority'.) I've seen it quite a fair bit with African-American and Hispanic viewpoints on things well if we are finally getting X it must mean the whites don't care if we have X and therefore X is no longer worthy, or something to aspire for, or valuable. Kind of a weird version of diminishing returns. If I give you a Dollar a day to do Task 1, and then later start giving you only 50 cents, and then later give you a dime, by the time you only get 5 cents for the same task... even if its a simple, mundane, easy to do task, that takes no effort to do, the fact that you use to make 1$ for it, and are now making 0.05$ for it, you no longer want to do it. And I think thats a bit of her stance with this, which both is plausible and undermining at the same time. An analogy I gave a coworker when discussing that passage was if you were to say Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is the best Quarterback ever, but then proceed to list everything he's done wrong while not bringing up the things that make him the best QB ever.... does it really prove your point?
One last thing about something she might have been better served not bringing up, is the connection to how three women created/founded the Black Lives Matter. Which is a very controversial topic/group/subject in and of itself. This is a group that has done a lot of GOOD things... as well as a fair amount of BAD things.... so I'm not sure its a positive to lean on the women founding them and that we don't know these women's names, insomuch as its just a typical left-side of things pro-feminism type of thing to have to point them out. Especially in the sense that pro-feminism seems to (moderately, and currently in 2017/2018) takes an anti-white-male stance and seemingly much ire that in the past has been cast on males/men in general, now gets pinned on white men in particular, primarily due to their/the belief that they are ultimately the ones in power (especially in the USA/UK). Whilst this isn't objectively or subjectively wrong, it is a point worth noting. And I don't think ALL pro-feminists or feminists themselves are anti-white-males, it does seem to be the 'in' thing to do.
So, this is definitely an interesting look, and a good STARTING POINT. I think a much more substantial piece of work needs to be written and produced - possibly by Beard herself, or other women, but it is definitely something that NEEDS to be done, and this is the best climate to do it in now. I definitely foresee something in that vein being produced by the end of 2018/early 2019, and I hope it happens, and I hope I get a chance to read it, and I hope it's as good as it should (and NEEDS to) be. (