Sign in with Facebook
Daniel Roy's Reviews > The Female Man
The Female Man
by
by
If I taught SF literature in high school, I'd make this book mandatory reading, knowing my students would hate me for it. it's not an easy book by any means; its structure is complex and obfuscated on purpose, and its subject matter is uncomfortable and necessary. But really, this is why SF exists in the first place.
The book has been heralded as the quintessential feminist SF, and it saddens me to know that this automatically reduces its reach. It's true that the book is singularly concerned with subjects articulated by feminism, but I think it should be required reading for everyone of either gender. I wish I could go back in time and force fifteen year-old me to read this. And boy, is there a lot of piss and vinegar in this book. Sometimes the anger just radiates off the page. It's a visceral book of raw nerves and flayed skin. It's amazing.
The SF elements are more than merely allegorical. Ms. Russ spent a lot of energy building her woman-only utopia of Whileaway. The result is fascinating in its own right, and not entirely as one-sided as a feminist polemic would imply. Likewise, Alice's dystopia is fascinating SF in its own right, even as it serves as allegory for our world.
The novel, albeit short, is a difficult read, but I don't mean this in a bad way. The author obviously meant to confuse the reader with her narrators, and I quickly learned not to worry too much about figuring out what was going on. The book often swerves into pure polemical flights of fancy, and these packed quite a rhetorical and philosophical punch. It's gut-wrenching stuff for me as a man: a woman speaking directly to me, with no filter on her anger, her hopes, her hatred.
Some reviewers accuse this book of no longer being relevant, to which I can only laugh. We live in an era where female pornstars are conceived by the mainstream as feminist icons, where CNN eulogizes the career of teenage star athletes condemned for rape, and where male lawmakers still try their best to legislate vaginas. There is one aspect where I feel the book is dated, and it has to do with the scope of its feminism; there is no room here for a larger discussion on privilege that encompasses race, for instance. Also, the aspects of the novel dealing with transgenders are downright offensive. But even these elements do not ultimately take away from a powerful, socially relevant book.
The book has been heralded as the quintessential feminist SF, and it saddens me to know that this automatically reduces its reach. It's true that the book is singularly concerned with subjects articulated by feminism, but I think it should be required reading for everyone of either gender. I wish I could go back in time and force fifteen year-old me to read this. And boy, is there a lot of piss and vinegar in this book. Sometimes the anger just radiates off the page. It's a visceral book of raw nerves and flayed skin. It's amazing.
The SF elements are more than merely allegorical. Ms. Russ spent a lot of energy building her woman-only utopia of Whileaway. The result is fascinating in its own right, and not entirely as one-sided as a feminist polemic would imply. Likewise, Alice's dystopia is fascinating SF in its own right, even as it serves as allegory for our world.
The novel, albeit short, is a difficult read, but I don't mean this in a bad way. The author obviously meant to confuse the reader with her narrators, and I quickly learned not to worry too much about figuring out what was going on. The book often swerves into pure polemical flights of fancy, and these packed quite a rhetorical and philosophical punch. It's gut-wrenching stuff for me as a man: a woman speaking directly to me, with no filter on her anger, her hopes, her hatred.
Some reviewers accuse this book of no longer being relevant, to which I can only laugh. We live in an era where female pornstars are conceived by the mainstream as feminist icons, where CNN eulogizes the career of teenage star athletes condemned for rape, and where male lawmakers still try their best to legislate vaginas. There is one aspect where I feel the book is dated, and it has to do with the scope of its feminism; there is no room here for a larger discussion on privilege that encompasses race, for instance. Also, the aspects of the novel dealing with transgenders are downright offensive. But even these elements do not ultimately take away from a powerful, socially relevant book.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Female Man.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 1, 2013
– Shelved
March 1, 2013
– Shelved as:
alternate-history
March 1, 2013
– Shelved as:
sf
March 1, 2013
– Shelved as:
sf-masterworks
March 10, 2013
– Shelved as:
wwe-wogf
May 3, 2013
–
Started Reading
May 6, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)
date
newest »
newest »
how does the novel deal with transgenders?
ryandake: I think I needed that on multiple levels. On the one hand, it's fantastic to be able to read a discussion of gender privilege that doesn't pull any punches. It seems all these discussions nowadays happen in public places where everything has to be "caveated" properly. This book just goes straight for the jugular. On the other hand, it's also good to be on the receiving end of a polemic on gender privilege. Keeps me humble. :)mark: Basically, it says that transwomen are still men, which I understand used to be said in feminist circles before feminism became a context for wider discussion about privilege. (view spoiler)
ah, that tedious old school idea. just as i suspected!but i do still want to read this book, i've read many interesting things about it (including this review).
Daniel wrote: "which I understand used to be said in feminist circles before feminism became a context for wider discussion about privilege"ummm, not to be an old-timey feminist nag, but feminism was always about privilege, not solely women's rights. see: the Seneca Falls Convention, for example. or any Bluestocking. the view of feminism as being only about the rights of women is the common notion, but only because the really really radical shit got swept under the rug of history.
i nag this only because i know you do care about being accurate in your statements, Daniel. and it is a common misperception that feminism started in the 1970s. but there were many, many radical feminists (both male and female) long before then. we just don't hear about it unless we go looking (altho that's changing too).
you are doubtless quite correct that 1970s feminists thought of transwomen as men.
getting down off soapbox now...
Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected! Although I never meant to imply that feminism started in the 70s, only that 1970 feminism was less concerned with other privilege dynamics such as racial privilege and cis privilege than modern-day feminism, which often tackles issues such as postcolonial struggle in the context of feminism, for instance.
sometimes the early feminist works reconnect me to a pissed-off-ness that most days lies quietly buried, but should not be.
and i still want to live on Whileaway! i have never forgotten the line: "they worked very hard for four hours a day"--well, that's it in effect anyway. were it not for our greed, we'd so be there.