What do you think?
Rate this book
Hags
What is about about women in their forties and beyond that seems to enrage - almost everyone?
In the last few years, as identity politics has taken hold, middle-aged women have found themselves talked and written about as morally inferior beings, the face of bigotry, entitlement and selfishness, to be ignored, pitied or abused.
Hags asks the question why these women are treated with such active disdain. Each chapter takes a different theme - care work, beauty, violence, political organization, sex - and explores it in relation to middle-aged women's beliefs, bodies and choices. Victoria Smith traces the attitudes she describes back to the same anxieties about older women that drove Early Modern witch hunts, and explores the very specific reasons why this type of misogyny is so powerful today. The demonisation of hags has never felt more now.
Victoria Smith has decided in this book that she will be the Karen so nobody else has to be, and she ends on a positive note, exploring potential solutions which can benefit all women, hags and hags-in-waiting.
In the last few years, as identity politics has taken hold, middle-aged women have found themselves talked and written about as morally inferior beings, the face of bigotry, entitlement and selfishness, to be ignored, pitied or abused.
Hags asks the question why these women are treated with such active disdain. Each chapter takes a different theme - care work, beauty, violence, political organization, sex - and explores it in relation to middle-aged women's beliefs, bodies and choices. Victoria Smith traces the attitudes she describes back to the same anxieties about older women that drove Early Modern witch hunts, and explores the very specific reasons why this type of misogyny is so powerful today. The demonisation of hags has never felt more now.
Victoria Smith has decided in this book that she will be the Karen so nobody else has to be, and she ends on a positive note, exploring potential solutions which can benefit all women, hags and hags-in-waiting.
Paperback
First published March 2, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
May 30, 2023
I am not sure I read the same book as all the broadsheet reviewers. She makes an interesting statement, one you go “oh, interesting” and then she argues her case in such a confused and random way that leaves you pondering what she actually just said. She quotes from other books and sources but often in the most random way, leaving you to puzzle out how that is actually supporting her argument in that instant.
Utterly inexcusable is the way she talks about young people who are questioning gender identity and kicks down at both young women and transgender people. If you can only explore your own pain by denying the existence of someone else’s pain then that’s not ok.
I am now 50 and definitely in Hag territory. Post menopausal, becoming increasingly ignored, noticing how my thoughts and desires become unimportant, dismissed. Wondering what my role is now in this world, but I won’t be party to kicking down. Not then, not now.
Utterly inexcusable is the way she talks about young people who are questioning gender identity and kicks down at both young women and transgender people. If you can only explore your own pain by denying the existence of someone else’s pain then that’s not ok.
I am now 50 and definitely in Hag territory. Post menopausal, becoming increasingly ignored, noticing how my thoughts and desires become unimportant, dismissed. Wondering what my role is now in this world, but I won’t be party to kicking down. Not then, not now.
April 7, 2023
As noted in my mid-book comment, I am too young to fall into the 'hag' category defined by this book, for that reason I am sure that there are portions that may well appear differently to me in a decade or so.
There are certainly large portions of this argument that I understand and fully endorse. It is undeniable that the hag/crone/witch/Karen concepts are often misappropriated in a lazy misogynistic attempt at silencing women and denying female experience. It is undeniable that older women are disproportionately cut out of large sections of the workplace, and society while also being disproportionately impacted by inequalities both financial and violent.
There are also sections that go out of their way to excuse some quite awful behaviours. Being mistreated doesn't give a free pass to mistreat others. If the majority of the people used to support your argument go out of their way to kick down, cause pain, and restrict the lives of others then it must be time to reassess the quality of the argument?
'Karens' do exist. And do cause pain, distress and actual violence towards others.
The concept of 'white women's tears' cause actual deaths.
'Terfs' do cause pain, restrictions and violence.
The right-wing have weaponised these groups to implement their agenda.
These things are true and acknowledging this should be possible while still ensuring women are happy, respected, appreciated, and safe throughout all stages of life.
The author acknowledges that there are going to be portions of her argument that will be considered difficult and/or incorrect both now and in the future. She makes clear that this is her response to the situation and experiences that have shaped her. She makes the request that people engage with her text no matter how much you agree or disagree with the text.
As such this is a book that I would encourage a wide audience to interact with, and to remain open to. There are certainly portions that I, currently, find deeply problematic, but it does provide real food for thought and discussion.
There are certainly large portions of this argument that I understand and fully endorse. It is undeniable that the hag/crone/witch/Karen concepts are often misappropriated in a lazy misogynistic attempt at silencing women and denying female experience. It is undeniable that older women are disproportionately cut out of large sections of the workplace, and society while also being disproportionately impacted by inequalities both financial and violent.
There are also sections that go out of their way to excuse some quite awful behaviours. Being mistreated doesn't give a free pass to mistreat others. If the majority of the people used to support your argument go out of their way to kick down, cause pain, and restrict the lives of others then it must be time to reassess the quality of the argument?
'Karens' do exist. And do cause pain, distress and actual violence towards others.
The concept of 'white women's tears' cause actual deaths.
'Terfs' do cause pain, restrictions and violence.
The right-wing have weaponised these groups to implement their agenda.
These things are true and acknowledging this should be possible while still ensuring women are happy, respected, appreciated, and safe throughout all stages of life.
The author acknowledges that there are going to be portions of her argument that will be considered difficult and/or incorrect both now and in the future. She makes clear that this is her response to the situation and experiences that have shaped her. She makes the request that people engage with her text no matter how much you agree or disagree with the text.
As such this is a book that I would encourage a wide audience to interact with, and to remain open to. There are certainly portions that I, currently, find deeply problematic, but it does provide real food for thought and discussion.
March 30, 2023
If Victoria Smith wrote graffiti on a bathroom wall, I’d run to go read it.
Very clear flow of arguments and clean structure. Points are universally excellent. I was surprised at how many times I laughed out loud—such dark subject matter is difficult to turn humorous, but Smith’s sudden bouts of wit are disarming enough to make the painful journey easier.
Very clear flow of arguments and clean structure. Points are universally excellent. I was surprised at how many times I laughed out loud—such dark subject matter is difficult to turn humorous, but Smith’s sudden bouts of wit are disarming enough to make the painful journey easier.
March 8, 2024
DNF- page 94
I was so looking forward to this read... only to be so disappointed just within the introduction alone. Victoria Dutchman-Smith's voice is very distinct and she claims it. She has no problem letting you know that she is a heterosexual, white, middle class woman with children, she writes that with a disclaimer but honestly, it's very obvious from the way she has chosen to write this novel and what she has chosen to focus on within her writing.
For example, at some point I can guarantee that the author has been called a Karen with the way she rails against the term. I'm happy to admit that "Karen" has basically lost all meaning since wider public got their hands on it but it does have a very real origin in white women who use their "tears" against POC, mostly Black people, to get them into trouble with either a manager or the police (in ways that are very real and dangerous) but Victoria Dutchman-Smith doesn't really want to acknowledge this. Instead she rails against it as a sexist and ageist term (though Karen-ism has never really been age exclusive) and while she acknowledge's that it implies racism she seems to dismiss it as a lesser issue.
Because, for some reason, the crux of most of Victoria Dutchman-Smith's argument is that you cannot critique older women for their bigotry without being ageist and sexist. *Rolls eyes*. The youngins are doing feminism wrong, according to her. We (I use "we" lightly because I am not far from the age the author cites as entry into middle age... as an older millennial I'm probably closer in age to the author than gen Z) are not bowing and scraping to the knowledge acquired by the older generations... by which, I mean, we aren't taking that knowledge without comment and instead pointing out some of its flaws.
The author has a real problem with any younger woman embracing their sexuality, because in the end that's all in service to the patriarchy because women can't enjoy sex??? I don't know... she never comes out and says that but sort of talks around it... which is mostly what she does with every topic. Never really making a point but talking around in circles and half the time contradicting what she said in an earlier paragraph. Apparently all girl children have long hair now because otherwise they aren't a girl? And that girls have less space to not conform to rigid ideas of gender? Because, this of course, zooms into Victoria Dutchman-Smiths idea of what womanhood is and it's transphobic and exclusionary. Because there are things that only women can experience (you're fucked if you have any sort of biological quirk that means you don't experience these things in Vickie's world, I guess... ) and also her ideas of feminity and womanhood are deeply entrenched in the world she occupies. That being western, white and straight. There's not even an acknowledgement that those things mean different things in different cultures or through history. Her view is expressed through a very narrow lens.
There is something very off-putting from the tone of the writing too. A very "I'm not like other girls because I dare to..." etc without any self reflection with how that comes across. There's critique of skin care and makeup but it's not really in depth. A lot of skin care is a farce but the epidermis is our largest organ and requires some form of care? Instead of focusing her critique to that of anti-aging BS she just slams skin care as a whole? Her arguments are both narrow but general and shallow? It's wild how terrible this book is when there is so much that you could build decent arguments around.
There's an absolutely BONKERS assertion that women traded access to bodily autonomy and reproductive health for sex trafficking and hardcore porn. I just. No. And I got all this from less than 100 pages. I truely wasn't going to continue with the convoluted mess. This book was a twitter/Facebook rant that was somehow published. A spew of nonsensical tripe that should have been kept to a blog post.
Ugh. Utter trash.
Edited to add; Just remembered the "all plastic surgery is problematic and bad" nonsense which completely erases the history of how plastic surgery was developed and with no acknowledgment of how plastic surgery truely is life saving for some?? Again. Sweeping generalised arguments with no nuance.
I was so looking forward to this read... only to be so disappointed just within the introduction alone. Victoria Dutchman-Smith's voice is very distinct and she claims it. She has no problem letting you know that she is a heterosexual, white, middle class woman with children, she writes that with a disclaimer but honestly, it's very obvious from the way she has chosen to write this novel and what she has chosen to focus on within her writing.
For example, at some point I can guarantee that the author has been called a Karen with the way she rails against the term. I'm happy to admit that "Karen" has basically lost all meaning since wider public got their hands on it but it does have a very real origin in white women who use their "tears" against POC, mostly Black people, to get them into trouble with either a manager or the police (in ways that are very real and dangerous) but Victoria Dutchman-Smith doesn't really want to acknowledge this. Instead she rails against it as a sexist and ageist term (though Karen-ism has never really been age exclusive) and while she acknowledge's that it implies racism she seems to dismiss it as a lesser issue.
Because, for some reason, the crux of most of Victoria Dutchman-Smith's argument is that you cannot critique older women for their bigotry without being ageist and sexist. *Rolls eyes*. The youngins are doing feminism wrong, according to her. We (I use "we" lightly because I am not far from the age the author cites as entry into middle age... as an older millennial I'm probably closer in age to the author than gen Z) are not bowing and scraping to the knowledge acquired by the older generations... by which, I mean, we aren't taking that knowledge without comment and instead pointing out some of its flaws.
The author has a real problem with any younger woman embracing their sexuality, because in the end that's all in service to the patriarchy because women can't enjoy sex??? I don't know... she never comes out and says that but sort of talks around it... which is mostly what she does with every topic. Never really making a point but talking around in circles and half the time contradicting what she said in an earlier paragraph. Apparently all girl children have long hair now because otherwise they aren't a girl? And that girls have less space to not conform to rigid ideas of gender? Because, this of course, zooms into Victoria Dutchman-Smiths idea of what womanhood is and it's transphobic and exclusionary. Because there are things that only women can experience (you're fucked if you have any sort of biological quirk that means you don't experience these things in Vickie's world, I guess... ) and also her ideas of feminity and womanhood are deeply entrenched in the world she occupies. That being western, white and straight. There's not even an acknowledgement that those things mean different things in different cultures or through history. Her view is expressed through a very narrow lens.
There is something very off-putting from the tone of the writing too. A very "I'm not like other girls because I dare to..." etc without any self reflection with how that comes across. There's critique of skin care and makeup but it's not really in depth. A lot of skin care is a farce but the epidermis is our largest organ and requires some form of care? Instead of focusing her critique to that of anti-aging BS she just slams skin care as a whole? Her arguments are both narrow but general and shallow? It's wild how terrible this book is when there is so much that you could build decent arguments around.
There's an absolutely BONKERS assertion that women traded access to bodily autonomy and reproductive health for sex trafficking and hardcore porn. I just. No. And I got all this from less than 100 pages. I truely wasn't going to continue with the convoluted mess. This book was a twitter/Facebook rant that was somehow published. A spew of nonsensical tripe that should have been kept to a blog post.
Ugh. Utter trash.
Edited to add; Just remembered the "all plastic surgery is problematic and bad" nonsense which completely erases the history of how plastic surgery was developed and with no acknowledgment of how plastic surgery truely is life saving for some?? Again. Sweeping generalised arguments with no nuance.
Read
April 24, 2023Let's start by saying transwomen are women and if you're yelling at customer service staff you deserve to be called a Karen.
Hags is an impassioned defence of Smith's belief that "society hates middle-aged women". Yet Smith failed to convince me (a 41 year old and middle aged according to blurb) of the veracity of that thesis.
As a Guardian reviewer noted, Smith's argument that younger feminists ignoring the lessons of older women is the problem serves only to minimise the patriarchy. Younger women are just as likely to be appalled at the gender pay gap and rough sex defences as older women. As I read Hags, I couldn't help but think younger feminists are not ignoring older women but building on and expanding (not reinventing) feminist theory. You can say sex work is work while also decrying sexual violence. You can see transwomen as women while acknowledging the need for better understanding of how born female bodies experience illness and pain.
Many of the arguments about how ageism impacts older women explored in this book are societal, not generational. Discussions of the impact of beauty standards and attempts for medicine to recognise that female bodies may experience illness differently are mainstays of feminist discussion. Smith doesn't say anything new (apart from framing this a generational issue).
This was a dumpster fire of a read lacking scholarship or a critical lens all in aid of defending a thesis that barely stacks up. To borrow from a fellow bookstagrammer, this is an opinion rant dressed up as pseudo social science.
Hags is an impassioned defence of Smith's belief that "society hates middle-aged women". Yet Smith failed to convince me (a 41 year old and middle aged according to blurb) of the veracity of that thesis.
As a Guardian reviewer noted, Smith's argument that younger feminists ignoring the lessons of older women is the problem serves only to minimise the patriarchy. Younger women are just as likely to be appalled at the gender pay gap and rough sex defences as older women. As I read Hags, I couldn't help but think younger feminists are not ignoring older women but building on and expanding (not reinventing) feminist theory. You can say sex work is work while also decrying sexual violence. You can see transwomen as women while acknowledging the need for better understanding of how born female bodies experience illness and pain.
Many of the arguments about how ageism impacts older women explored in this book are societal, not generational. Discussions of the impact of beauty standards and attempts for medicine to recognise that female bodies may experience illness differently are mainstays of feminist discussion. Smith doesn't say anything new (apart from framing this a generational issue).
This was a dumpster fire of a read lacking scholarship or a critical lens all in aid of defending a thesis that barely stacks up. To borrow from a fellow bookstagrammer, this is an opinion rant dressed up as pseudo social science.
March 29, 2023
It reads pretty much as a feminist history with the focus on post-menopausal women and how they are perceived and ultimately silenced. Lots of references to Mumsnet, and how women getting together to talk are ridiculed and trivialised ("It's all about baby food and school catchment areas") but also seen as threatening so there are attempts to silence them (By saying MN is a transphobic hotbed of witches). As a 52 year old, recently divorced, menopausal woman, with three daughters in their 20s, one of which is a lesbian, it resonated a lot.
May 2, 2023
This is a topic that needs to be written about. But not like this. Disappointed in the essentialist nature that lacks respect for the evolving way society examines gender and feminism. Does little to help the cause of older women.
August 12, 2023
Invaluable. Unsummarizable. Read this as soon as you possibly can.
Note: I think if I had no experience with social justice activism or feminist authors, I would have been confused by some portions. If you don't have either background, it's still worth the read. You can choose your own adventure: 1) Go into it with determination like you're cramming for an exam, Googling the basics of any authors/phrases that are new to you as they come up, or 2) expect that you'll have to skim over those authors/phrases, and patiently infer the context the best you can while Smith builds each chapter up. The author is very thorough, so I think either approach would work.
November 27, 2023
DNF @ 30%. I was very excited to read this for book club as I loved the premise. I would still like to read a book about this, one that was more research-based, coherent in its arguments, and upfront in what it was saying.
The author doesn't define her terms well. She wants to talk about the ways middle-aged women are bullied- I think this is a great idea! But she uses the example of actress Emma Watson presenting an award and stating that she is there "for ALL the witches" (i.e. both transgender and cisgender women). The author categorizes this as an act of bullying against the middle-aged woman J.K. Rowling. The possibility that Watson's statement was primarily an act of support towards a heavily marginalized group more than it was an an attempt to hurt Rowling was never acknowledged. In fact, if you read Dutchman-Smith's Internet writing (where she is more explicit about her beliefs about sex and gender- in the book she implied but never states outright), she has a history of seeing anything that is inclusive (her word) of trans people as literally hurtful to both women and children. So I guess it makes sense in her worldview. But it undermines all of her arguments. If Emma Watson's comment is the height of bullying and what is wrong with our society's treatment of the middle aged woman, how can I take you seriously? Dutchman-Smith comes off as "people say and believe things I don't like, which is an act of aggression against me personally and therefore all women in my cohort."
Per the author, Emma Watson said she supported trans people; therefore she hates older women and is a shill for the patriarchy. Internet comments sections include sexist ageist language directed at middle-aged women, therefore the middle-aged woman is uniquely demonized. I'm not against using such things to highlight the language our society goes to and is comfortable with, but it's never acknowledged that Internet comments sections ever have anything sexist towards other groups of women or otherwise harmful towards other groups. It comes off as if she believes no other group experiences this, which again, makes it hard to take her argument seriously. This feels like it reflects the author's inability to see anyone's experience but her own, even for the sake of making her argument well.
The author refused to be explicit here about her beliefs regarding transgender people here and therefore spends a lot of time spewing generalities that are hard to parse out. She seems unable to anticipate what her critics would say because she hasn't taken the time to understand the positions she's arguing against. Her ideas about what transgender-inclusive feminists believe- to the extent that you can even identify them- seem WILD. It is almost like reading a book that says we must reject evolution because "it's crazy to think a monkey at the zoo could give birth to a human." Well okay, we agree on that last bit, but since no one is saying that that IS possible, it's kind of a waste of my time to hear you rant about it. Her argument that it is only in middle-age that a woman has experienced her body in such a way that she understands she's not just a floating brain and that the female-ness of that body has relevance (which is why the middle-aged woman knows that biological sex is what determines womanhood and is why the young feminist is attacking her) is... *rubs temples.* Willfully ignorant? Spurious? Insulting? Falls apart like a house of cards the minute you breathe on it?
Unsurprisingly, she completely lacks intersectionality in other areas as well. From this book, I can't tell if Dutchman-Smith has heard of racism- which seems relevant if you're going to rail that the concept of a Karen is cruelty against women or argue that what J.K. Rowling faces is the height of oppression. She talks about disability as something that only comes in middle-and-old-age... And says that disability knowledge would force young feminists to understand that the body matters and biological sex is real (eye-roll).
She also makes a bunch of unsupported claims, including that only boys are allowed to be gender non-conforming these days. (I believe a parent at a school told her.)
Ultimately, middle-aged women deserve better than this book and I hope someone else out there writes something worthy of them and their experiences.
The author doesn't define her terms well. She wants to talk about the ways middle-aged women are bullied- I think this is a great idea! But she uses the example of actress Emma Watson presenting an award and stating that she is there "for ALL the witches" (i.e. both transgender and cisgender women). The author categorizes this as an act of bullying against the middle-aged woman J.K. Rowling. The possibility that Watson's statement was primarily an act of support towards a heavily marginalized group more than it was an an attempt to hurt Rowling was never acknowledged. In fact, if you read Dutchman-Smith's Internet writing (where she is more explicit about her beliefs about sex and gender- in the book she implied but never states outright), she has a history of seeing anything that is inclusive (her word) of trans people as literally hurtful to both women and children. So I guess it makes sense in her worldview. But it undermines all of her arguments. If Emma Watson's comment is the height of bullying and what is wrong with our society's treatment of the middle aged woman, how can I take you seriously? Dutchman-Smith comes off as "people say and believe things I don't like, which is an act of aggression against me personally and therefore all women in my cohort."
Per the author, Emma Watson said she supported trans people; therefore she hates older women and is a shill for the patriarchy. Internet comments sections include sexist ageist language directed at middle-aged women, therefore the middle-aged woman is uniquely demonized. I'm not against using such things to highlight the language our society goes to and is comfortable with, but it's never acknowledged that Internet comments sections ever have anything sexist towards other groups of women or otherwise harmful towards other groups. It comes off as if she believes no other group experiences this, which again, makes it hard to take her argument seriously. This feels like it reflects the author's inability to see anyone's experience but her own, even for the sake of making her argument well.
The author refused to be explicit here about her beliefs regarding transgender people here and therefore spends a lot of time spewing generalities that are hard to parse out. She seems unable to anticipate what her critics would say because she hasn't taken the time to understand the positions she's arguing against. Her ideas about what transgender-inclusive feminists believe- to the extent that you can even identify them- seem WILD. It is almost like reading a book that says we must reject evolution because "it's crazy to think a monkey at the zoo could give birth to a human." Well okay, we agree on that last bit, but since no one is saying that that IS possible, it's kind of a waste of my time to hear you rant about it. Her argument that it is only in middle-age that a woman has experienced her body in such a way that she understands she's not just a floating brain and that the female-ness of that body has relevance (which is why the middle-aged woman knows that biological sex is what determines womanhood and is why the young feminist is attacking her) is... *rubs temples.* Willfully ignorant? Spurious? Insulting? Falls apart like a house of cards the minute you breathe on it?
Unsurprisingly, she completely lacks intersectionality in other areas as well. From this book, I can't tell if Dutchman-Smith has heard of racism- which seems relevant if you're going to rail that the concept of a Karen is cruelty against women or argue that what J.K. Rowling faces is the height of oppression. She talks about disability as something that only comes in middle-and-old-age... And says that disability knowledge would force young feminists to understand that the body matters and biological sex is real (eye-roll).
She also makes a bunch of unsupported claims, including that only boys are allowed to be gender non-conforming these days. (I believe a parent at a school told her.)
Ultimately, middle-aged women deserve better than this book and I hope someone else out there writes something worthy of them and their experiences.
December 4, 2023
This book should come with a content warning for transphobia. No, gender ideology doesn't seem to be explicitly on the agenda, and possibly I am missing out on a lot of great content if I could just ignore that tiny aspect, but I couldn't even make it through the introduction without being pissed off.
First it was veiled references to the opinions of older feminists being frowned on by "woke" younger women. That could mean a lot of things, and there are certainly valid points to be made; that's what I'm here for, but it did raise a red flag. Then there were quotes from "Arch-Hag" JK Rowling, and Helen Lewis; neither one explicitly about gender, but their perspectives are pretty specific. Finally there was a line about "teaching the children that reproductive biology doesn't exist", and I guess that's clear enough for me. It's also breathtakingly disingenuous, introducing a straw man like that without even token engagement, but whatever. I don't need to go there.
I wouldn't normally presume to review a book after reading so little, but if that's the quality of analysis to be found in these pages, I don't need to read any further to rate it 1 star. As a middle-aged feminist myself, I don't appreciate having my perspective co-opted for this kind of ignorance. We deserve much better.
First it was veiled references to the opinions of older feminists being frowned on by "woke" younger women. That could mean a lot of things, and there are certainly valid points to be made; that's what I'm here for, but it did raise a red flag. Then there were quotes from "Arch-Hag" JK Rowling, and Helen Lewis; neither one explicitly about gender, but their perspectives are pretty specific. Finally there was a line about "teaching the children that reproductive biology doesn't exist", and I guess that's clear enough for me. It's also breathtakingly disingenuous, introducing a straw man like that without even token engagement, but whatever. I don't need to go there.
I wouldn't normally presume to review a book after reading so little, but if that's the quality of analysis to be found in these pages, I don't need to read any further to rate it 1 star. As a middle-aged feminist myself, I don't appreciate having my perspective co-opted for this kind of ignorance. We deserve much better.
August 30, 2023
DNF at about 37%.
Early on I had my concerns about Dutchman-Smith, but I continued to persist with reading this book. I wanted to enjoy it, or at least find some enlightenment in the text. I'm a white, middle-class woman with a career. I'm a decade off before I plummet into middle-aged territory, but I have a decent idea of what I'll be faced with.
But eventually Dutchman-Smith's conservative, transphobic rhetoric became all too clear and I couldn't persist.
There's no references here, no attempt at a scientific discussion. Everything is presented as her own opinion, with a few snippets of dialogue from her friends. She brings up a good deal of second wave feminists but only uses these to pooh-pooh third and fourth wave feminists. How dare the youths of today have ideas about gender identity and concerns of about their appearance! Don't you know that once you've had a few kids and the pain that results from it that concerns about feelings and emotions don't matter?
After doing a bit of digging into Dutchman-Smith, my suspicions were confirmed. She writes articles for a conservative website, doesn't want her children vaccinated against covid (ah, but she'll let them make the choice themselves, how kind!) and supports JKR.
Welp, onto the next book.
Early on I had my concerns about Dutchman-Smith, but I continued to persist with reading this book. I wanted to enjoy it, or at least find some enlightenment in the text. I'm a white, middle-class woman with a career. I'm a decade off before I plummet into middle-aged territory, but I have a decent idea of what I'll be faced with.
But eventually Dutchman-Smith's conservative, transphobic rhetoric became all too clear and I couldn't persist.
There's no references here, no attempt at a scientific discussion. Everything is presented as her own opinion, with a few snippets of dialogue from her friends. She brings up a good deal of second wave feminists but only uses these to pooh-pooh third and fourth wave feminists. How dare the youths of today have ideas about gender identity and concerns of about their appearance! Don't you know that once you've had a few kids and the pain that results from it that concerns about feelings and emotions don't matter?
After doing a bit of digging into Dutchman-Smith, my suspicions were confirmed. She writes articles for a conservative website, doesn't want her children vaccinated against covid (ah, but she'll let them make the choice themselves, how kind!) and supports JKR.
Welp, onto the next book.
February 28, 2023
Interesting challenge: don’t have to agree to find it interesting.
April 9, 2023
Written with humour but depressingly relatable and infuriating.
Read
April 20, 2023wrote a long essay about my thoughts on this but goodreads (predictably) ate it so I'm just going to summarise:
A lot of what this book talks about rang true to me - the deep, unexamined misogny in feminist and left-learning spaces, the willingness of younger feminists to throw out the work of second-wave feminists to avoid being cast as 'problematic', the lazy way 'karen' has been co-opted to mean 'women', the downplaying of sex-based oppression in favour of a more confusing, perpetrator-less idea of patriarchy.
My issue is the framing of all feminist debate as a generational conflict - Dutchman-Smith tries to frame the 'gender debate' as older, more 'experienced-laden' feminists who, by virtue of hitting female milestones e.g menopause, birth, have a more wordly understanding of sex and gender than 'naive', 'accomodating' younger feminists, who do not have the grasp on their own politics or feelings because they're too afraid of being called bigoted, or they're too foolish to understand they're aiding the patriarchy, or at one point Dutchman-Smith implies that women who call older women transphobic are simply trying to steal their careers - a suggestion that is awful, patronising and frankly misogynistic.
My thoughts is that it would be hugely reductive to frame other feminist debates - e.g, the sex wars - in this way, but that is exactly what the author does. It seems intellectually lazy to not consider the actual ideas that are being debated - that in fact, the trans-inclusive feminists may have their own ideas and politics that are fully formed and cannot be attributed to naivety or ignorance. The book talks a bit about the sex wars, but barely touches on the gender debate - which in some ways is fair, since it's not what the book is about, but it becomes increasingly distracting in it's efforts to talk "around" what the issue even is!
The book is also bizarrely approving of Mumsnet as this supportive haven of middle aged women, talking about their issues with other women, which is strange to me as it's probably one of the most vitrolic websites I've ever been on.
It's a strange one so I'm not going to rate it, but it's worth reading if only to disagree.
A lot of what this book talks about rang true to me - the deep, unexamined misogny in feminist and left-learning spaces, the willingness of younger feminists to throw out the work of second-wave feminists to avoid being cast as 'problematic', the lazy way 'karen' has been co-opted to mean 'women', the downplaying of sex-based oppression in favour of a more confusing, perpetrator-less idea of patriarchy.
My issue is the framing of all feminist debate as a generational conflict - Dutchman-Smith tries to frame the 'gender debate' as older, more 'experienced-laden' feminists who, by virtue of hitting female milestones e.g menopause, birth, have a more wordly understanding of sex and gender than 'naive', 'accomodating' younger feminists, who do not have the grasp on their own politics or feelings because they're too afraid of being called bigoted, or they're too foolish to understand they're aiding the patriarchy, or at one point Dutchman-Smith implies that women who call older women transphobic are simply trying to steal their careers - a suggestion that is awful, patronising and frankly misogynistic.
My thoughts is that it would be hugely reductive to frame other feminist debates - e.g, the sex wars - in this way, but that is exactly what the author does. It seems intellectually lazy to not consider the actual ideas that are being debated - that in fact, the trans-inclusive feminists may have their own ideas and politics that are fully formed and cannot be attributed to naivety or ignorance. The book talks a bit about the sex wars, but barely touches on the gender debate - which in some ways is fair, since it's not what the book is about, but it becomes increasingly distracting in it's efforts to talk "around" what the issue even is!
The book is also bizarrely approving of Mumsnet as this supportive haven of middle aged women, talking about their issues with other women, which is strange to me as it's probably one of the most vitrolic websites I've ever been on.
It's a strange one so I'm not going to rate it, but it's worth reading if only to disagree.
April 17, 2023
A must read feminist analysis.
I'm 27, still too young to be a hag. Yet this book speaks out loud all the things I know and fear about aging while female and especially as a feminist plus more.
How your politics get judged harshly and how the only recourse is that some day you'll die, and God why won't it be sooner?
I hope younger people than me read this book.
I'm 27, still too young to be a hag. Yet this book speaks out loud all the things I know and fear about aging while female and especially as a feminist plus more.
How your politics get judged harshly and how the only recourse is that some day you'll die, and God why won't it be sooner?
I hope younger people than me read this book.
May 31, 2023
A terrifying look at the reality that women are simply not allowed to age past the age of 35 and lose the 3 Fs (fertility, femininity, fuckability). If and when they do, they will be thrown aside and their views and life experiences disregarded. Something I had never truly cared about because I believed myself forever young. I wish I had read this during my Literature degree.
September 22, 2023
I just wasted $30
April 6, 2024
All right, to start, I don't think this book was really meant for me or people like me, despite Dutchman-Smith's protestations to the contrary. Just to get it out of the way, I'm 37 years old (so the exact age at which Dutchman-Smith was first confronted with her impending Hagdom), I've never been married, and I don't have children, nor have I ever wanted them, I'm white, and cis. By Dutchman-Smith's metrics, I barely classify as a woman at all, really.
Here's the thing about this book, at least for me: it stopped being relevant 10-15 years ago. Dutchman-Smith does not organize her arguments, what few there are, in any coherent manner. Most of her sources are 10-15 (or more) years out from publication. That is not to say that a work published in 1982 isn't still valid, but I'm not going to take as gospel a work that was written when "tranny" was still an acceptable insult as relevant to the argument about gender essentialism currently ongoing. Because thoughts and ways of thinking change. Which is the problem, I think. This is 300+ pages of her screaming into the void and hoping that she's going to look good in the future, no matter what she says in the introduction.
So why did I hate this book so much when I think of myself as a feminist?
It's pretty simple. This is 300+ pages Dutchman-Smith condescending to the younger generation in that age old trope of you'll understand when you're older, constantly berating people for not taking advice that she freely admits that she would not have taken when she was younger. As a rhetorical strategy, telling the people you are trying to win over that they're essentially too stupid to understand why you're right and they're wrong is not winning you many friends.
There's also her unabashed TERFdom, which while she only explains what the term means once, 300 pages in, is apparent throughout the entire book. She makes a point of arguing that she doesn't believe in "punching down," i.e., attacking a more vulnerable group throughout this book, but this argument clearly does not apply to the trans people on both sides of transition whom she consistently mis-genders. This book is centred in England and pretty exclusively England, but while Dutchman-Smith revisits the reaction to JK Rowling's tansphobia on at least 6 occasions--red paint was thrown on her handprints in Edinburgh!!!! the horror!!!--she is conspicuously silent about the attempted suicide rate amongst the Trans population of Britain, which a quick Google from sources such as the government website is at 34%, with more than 16% attempting suicide more than once. The rate of attempted suicide among women and girls in the UK, as reported by that selfsame government, is 5.3 out of 100 cases, or 5.3%. But sure, you're not punching down. Dutchman-Smith argues a biologically essentialist slate of drivel at every turn. I'm 37 years old, and I've never sat there thinking that the United States of America repealed Roe v Wade because the fight is over or it's not trendy to push for women's rights, but I've definitely felt the need to expand abortion care to transmen who might need it even though they don't identify as women, or that a transwoman who needs to access a shelter or resources to deal with intimate partner violence (a big concern for Dutchman-Smith, the violence, I mean, but only if you happen to have a uterus) would be denied and end up having to stay or possibly be homeless.
There are things that Dutchman-Smith argues that are important: pension poverty, the disproportionate rate at which women are expected to take care of elders and children and do the, in her words, "shit work," but presents no coherent argument about this. It's just like porn is causing the rise of violent sex crimes, although I personally question that because correlation is not causation.
I'm not even going to touch the Mumsnet thing, which I assume is similar to the Mommy bloggers in the US and Canada, except to say that my problem with those people is one that Dutchman-Smith glosses over in her attempt to make them (and herself) look like victims, and it's this: I don't care if you want live as a housewife from the 50s or if you want to dedicate yourself to your children, and I believe that mothers need support, but the rate at which misinformation is spread as the gospel (one debunked study about vaccines causing autism and we all gotta get measles again? well, not me, my mother listened to professionals who studied and had their work peer-reviewed and got me fucking vaccinated so I didn't die, but to each their own). Dutchman-Smith makes one off-hand comment about vaccines and science in this chapter that makes me think she's also an anti-vaxxer.
I've reached her entire defence of the Karen archetype, which again Dutchman-Smith ignores the origins of because middle-aged white women yelling at teenager over expires coupons and calling the police on their black or hispanic neighbours is not something she wants to have to think about. There is an intersection of privilege and oppression when it comes to middle-aged white women, but Dutchman-Smith doesn't want to address the former at all in the hopes that you will be so dazzled by her argument that we only call these people entitled because they are independent, evidence forthcoming I assume because outside of polling a few middle-aged white women she has none.
There are arguments to be made about the beauty standards of society, although I wouldn't have made them the way Dutchman-Smith has, about how women are consistently silenced and treated with less grace, threatened, attacked, and murdered, undervalued, and treated as lesser. There are arguments to be made that medically women don't receive the same level of care that men do because the system caters to men, that women are still expected to do most of the emotional and physical labour when it comes to family-building and family time, and that women are valued less as they age. And those arguments will still be valid even if the woman in question doesn't have a uterus.
Dutchman-Smith could have written something truly important, but instead chose to write a biologically essentialist screed that needed heavy editing and probably should have stayed within the confines of her Mommy Blog.
Who knows? Maybe I'm on the wrong side of history. Dutchman-Smith devoted a whole chapter to telling me I would be, and I should just adopt her point of view now because it would be mine in ten years when I had enough life experience to know better. That's a problem for me in 10 years, but even if that is the case, this book is still fucking terribly written.
Here's the thing about this book, at least for me: it stopped being relevant 10-15 years ago. Dutchman-Smith does not organize her arguments, what few there are, in any coherent manner. Most of her sources are 10-15 (or more) years out from publication. That is not to say that a work published in 1982 isn't still valid, but I'm not going to take as gospel a work that was written when "tranny" was still an acceptable insult as relevant to the argument about gender essentialism currently ongoing. Because thoughts and ways of thinking change. Which is the problem, I think. This is 300+ pages of her screaming into the void and hoping that she's going to look good in the future, no matter what she says in the introduction.
So why did I hate this book so much when I think of myself as a feminist?
It's pretty simple. This is 300+ pages Dutchman-Smith condescending to the younger generation in that age old trope of you'll understand when you're older, constantly berating people for not taking advice that she freely admits that she would not have taken when she was younger. As a rhetorical strategy, telling the people you are trying to win over that they're essentially too stupid to understand why you're right and they're wrong is not winning you many friends.
There's also her unabashed TERFdom, which while she only explains what the term means once, 300 pages in, is apparent throughout the entire book. She makes a point of arguing that she doesn't believe in "punching down," i.e., attacking a more vulnerable group throughout this book, but this argument clearly does not apply to the trans people on both sides of transition whom she consistently mis-genders. This book is centred in England and pretty exclusively England, but while Dutchman-Smith revisits the reaction to JK Rowling's tansphobia on at least 6 occasions--red paint was thrown on her handprints in Edinburgh!!!! the horror!!!--she is conspicuously silent about the attempted suicide rate amongst the Trans population of Britain, which a quick Google from sources such as the government website is at 34%, with more than 16% attempting suicide more than once. The rate of attempted suicide among women and girls in the UK, as reported by that selfsame government, is 5.3 out of 100 cases, or 5.3%. But sure, you're not punching down. Dutchman-Smith argues a biologically essentialist slate of drivel at every turn. I'm 37 years old, and I've never sat there thinking that the United States of America repealed Roe v Wade because the fight is over or it's not trendy to push for women's rights, but I've definitely felt the need to expand abortion care to transmen who might need it even though they don't identify as women, or that a transwoman who needs to access a shelter or resources to deal with intimate partner violence (a big concern for Dutchman-Smith, the violence, I mean, but only if you happen to have a uterus) would be denied and end up having to stay or possibly be homeless.
There are things that Dutchman-Smith argues that are important: pension poverty, the disproportionate rate at which women are expected to take care of elders and children and do the, in her words, "shit work," but presents no coherent argument about this. It's just like porn is causing the rise of violent sex crimes, although I personally question that because correlation is not causation.
I'm not even going to touch the Mumsnet thing, which I assume is similar to the Mommy bloggers in the US and Canada, except to say that my problem with those people is one that Dutchman-Smith glosses over in her attempt to make them (and herself) look like victims, and it's this: I don't care if you want live as a housewife from the 50s or if you want to dedicate yourself to your children, and I believe that mothers need support, but the rate at which misinformation is spread as the gospel (one debunked study about vaccines causing autism and we all gotta get measles again? well, not me, my mother listened to professionals who studied and had their work peer-reviewed and got me fucking vaccinated so I didn't die, but to each their own). Dutchman-Smith makes one off-hand comment about vaccines and science in this chapter that makes me think she's also an anti-vaxxer.
I've reached her entire defence of the Karen archetype, which again Dutchman-Smith ignores the origins of because middle-aged white women yelling at teenager over expires coupons and calling the police on their black or hispanic neighbours is not something she wants to have to think about. There is an intersection of privilege and oppression when it comes to middle-aged white women, but Dutchman-Smith doesn't want to address the former at all in the hopes that you will be so dazzled by her argument that we only call these people entitled because they are independent, evidence forthcoming I assume because outside of polling a few middle-aged white women she has none.
There are arguments to be made about the beauty standards of society, although I wouldn't have made them the way Dutchman-Smith has, about how women are consistently silenced and treated with less grace, threatened, attacked, and murdered, undervalued, and treated as lesser. There are arguments to be made that medically women don't receive the same level of care that men do because the system caters to men, that women are still expected to do most of the emotional and physical labour when it comes to family-building and family time, and that women are valued less as they age. And those arguments will still be valid even if the woman in question doesn't have a uterus.
Dutchman-Smith could have written something truly important, but instead chose to write a biologically essentialist screed that needed heavy editing and probably should have stayed within the confines of her Mommy Blog.
Who knows? Maybe I'm on the wrong side of history. Dutchman-Smith devoted a whole chapter to telling me I would be, and I should just adopt her point of view now because it would be mine in ten years when I had enough life experience to know better. That's a problem for me in 10 years, but even if that is the case, this book is still fucking terribly written.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 14, 2023
Life-changing and empowering. Her arguments are extremely persuasive and relentlessly logically sound. Reading her destroy misogynist ageist argument after misogynist ageist argument was like watching a seasoned, calculating sniper work with unerring skill (my notes are all: “Boom. Savage. Brutal. Finish them 😈.” 😂😅). I loved Smith’s voice, which is savagely sarcastic and unexpectedly sweetened with pitch-black humor (I laughed out loud multiple times, which is a surprise given the heavy subject matter). Required reading for any woman who will age while female. This book unexpectedly filled me with goodwill towards the diverse, complex women in my life, and towards myself as a woman.
Here’s one quote I loved, picked at random (I basically highlighted the entire book):
“I would very much like it if male supremacy were a millennia-spanning misunderstanding, finally on the verge of being resolved by pronoun badges and 'Male Tears' coffee mugs, achieving all that Wonderbras and the Spice Girls failed to do. Non-confrontational, smooth-skinned, pre-menopausal feminism - like the non-confrontational, smooth-skinned, pre-menopausal woman - has such obvious popular appeal. It offers the same hit as buying a new moisturiser or self-help book; you know it's not going to work, but holding it in your hands, you can imagine the self you would be, the life you would have, if it delivered on all of its promises. A feminist scapegoat - the witch with the poisoned apple, plotting against your feisty Snow White - provides you with the victory narrative you want (because she will definitely get old, definitely die, whereas you will live happily ever after). I thought my generation was the chosen one, ready to see out the End of Patriarchy now that the second-wave mummies had done all the hands-dirty groundwork. We'd drink pints of Stella - full pints! - while waving off every caricature that preceded us, the housewives, the shoulder-padded ball-busters, the miserable Greenham radicals, the man-hating eternal victims. So long, losers! It was never going to be your time! How could it be possible for me and my peers to feel so fully human - so fully in possession of a complex inner life - were it not for the fact that there had never been women quite like us before? After all, if there had been, wouldn't we have treated them as such? And wouldn't the men have, too?”
Here’s one quote I loved, picked at random (I basically highlighted the entire book):
“I would very much like it if male supremacy were a millennia-spanning misunderstanding, finally on the verge of being resolved by pronoun badges and 'Male Tears' coffee mugs, achieving all that Wonderbras and the Spice Girls failed to do. Non-confrontational, smooth-skinned, pre-menopausal feminism - like the non-confrontational, smooth-skinned, pre-menopausal woman - has such obvious popular appeal. It offers the same hit as buying a new moisturiser or self-help book; you know it's not going to work, but holding it in your hands, you can imagine the self you would be, the life you would have, if it delivered on all of its promises. A feminist scapegoat - the witch with the poisoned apple, plotting against your feisty Snow White - provides you with the victory narrative you want (because she will definitely get old, definitely die, whereas you will live happily ever after). I thought my generation was the chosen one, ready to see out the End of Patriarchy now that the second-wave mummies had done all the hands-dirty groundwork. We'd drink pints of Stella - full pints! - while waving off every caricature that preceded us, the housewives, the shoulder-padded ball-busters, the miserable Greenham radicals, the man-hating eternal victims. So long, losers! It was never going to be your time! How could it be possible for me and my peers to feel so fully human - so fully in possession of a complex inner life - were it not for the fact that there had never been women quite like us before? After all, if there had been, wouldn't we have treated them as such? And wouldn't the men have, too?”
April 15, 2023
Outstandingly well said
If you are an older woman, this book will certainly make you laugh, cry and recognise the truths of female existence which Smith identifies with insightful clarity and gallows-humour edged compassion.
If you are a younger woman, you need to read this.
If you are an older woman, this book will certainly make you laugh, cry and recognise the truths of female existence which Smith identifies with insightful clarity and gallows-humour edged compassion.
If you are a younger woman, you need to read this.
August 20, 2024
Uuuuuuuuuuuuum.
2.5? Maybe? I need to digest
2.5? Maybe? I need to digest
July 31, 2023
I was rather interested in the premise of this book but I could not get into it and was terribly disappointed in it. It was a stream of consciousness, throwing ideas against the wall to see what stuck and not terribly grounded in anything solid and seemed to be fueled by the author's insecurities about her age. Yes, people are horrible to older women online. They are also horrible to younger, conventionally attractive ones, and young or old or anywhere in between it is wrong. Is there data showing that online bullying gets worse as women age? It's really hard to say because as soon as Smith brought up the subject she dropped it for something else.
Save your money.
Save your money.
April 18, 2023
Read it and weep. ESPECIALLY women under 40!!! You have all this joy ahead of you.
And incredibly saddening and maddening, the author does not name some people in the acknowledgements and thanks section to "protect them from professional discomfort" and any possible "guilt by association witch hunts."
Wtf?! So this is the glorious 21st century ???🤷🏻♀️🤬🤦🏻♀️ effin men ....and huzzah for all women young and old! Embrace yourself and others.
And incredibly saddening and maddening, the author does not name some people in the acknowledgements and thanks section to "protect them from professional discomfort" and any possible "guilt by association witch hunts."
Wtf?! So this is the glorious 21st century ???🤷🏻♀️🤬🤦🏻♀️ effin men ....and huzzah for all women young and old! Embrace yourself and others.
July 25, 2023
How I desperately wanted to like this book and glean some information from it which would empower me! It’s basically a rant (about extremely worthwhile subjects, don’t get me wrong!) but there is almost zero evidence to back up any of her points. A few statistics (when used, they are so powerful, it’s heart-stopping) but barely any case studies or even first-person anecdotes. Just sweeping statements about younger women accusing older women of x, y, and z.
Read
April 26, 2023Skim read. The author has some salient overall points to make but this was not quite what I expected it to be (including some flawed arguments and a fair bit I didn’t agree with).
February 11, 2024
This is a very difficult and depressing read. The author does make some valid points regarding how women in general are exploited in our culture in various ways and the expectations for women are often very different than those for men. There is not much positivity and the book takes a one-sided view, for the most part, on women's rights, with emphasis on the middle aged "hag". The writing style is difficult to read; some of the points are written in a convoluted manner, which is not helped by the fact that the author often jumps around at random, so it was sometimes hard for me to tell exactly what she was trying to get at. She obviously is of a liberal political persuasion, but she is also critical of progressives in some statements; but I found her tone against conservatism insulting at times and expressed as the usual liberal assumption that everyone agrees with her political views. For example, even though she criticizes the use of the insulting iconization of a "Karen" for the audacity to voice sometimes valid complaints, and the implication that female complainers are assumed to be "entitled middle-aged obnoxious white women", she insults them herself by her own disdainful comparison to "anti-vaxxers", "incapable of understanding science", etc. because this is the prevailing liberal standard that we are all supposed to agree on. Here are some of her jabs to conservatives, and even motherhood: "bored, dull-witted mothers" as described by "far right-wing demons", "tainted and oppressive conservatives", "right-wing bigots", "middle-aged prudes[...]in league with conservative, stigmatising [sic], anti-sex forces", "can she be a conservative voter and a feminist?", "does everyone become a centrist once they reach middle age, right wing once they draw their pension? Or will Gen Z and Millenials stay pure?", "and yet, as we know from 2016, we don't make it to the Oval Office anyhow", "conservative kill-joys who cling to the past", "now a woman might find herself having to record and distribute a public statement claiming a rare mismatch between politics and frumpy appearance", "to align visible ageing with political ugliness", "including motherhood, that supposed gateway into knee-jerk conservatism", "the association of domesticity with stupidity and/or conservatism". And of course, she must throw in unrelated mentions of "climate change", "redistribution of wealth", etc., liberal ideals with which the reader is assumed to automatically agree. She references the comments against Hillary in conservative media outlets as being due to her gender, and hints that no other candidate has been thus vilified by the media (excuse me, what about the left-wing media making personal attacks on Trump's looks, etc.?). She implies Hillary's political loss to have been due to her gender, not to her skills (or stands on issues) as a candidate, or the fact that she insulted a large bloc of voters in statements she made herself.
The author's entire theme, expressed over and over and over in the book, is that "older" women (i.e., middle aged women beginning in their late 30's even, and into their 50's) have been edged out of society as irrelevant due their gender and their age. She compares them to the women who suffered through and died in real witch hunts. The title of the book comes from her calling them "hags". Yet she herself denigrates the older woman past this age, barely mentioning them other than referencing their financial issues (mostly due to lower retirement income due to being paid lower wages than men and taking time out during their working years to bear and raise children), their pathetic bodies, and basically their taking up space as they march towards death. She refers to them in a derogatory tone as "old women" and dismisses them during most of the book because they have passed the hag stage and become even haggier and more disgusting, the older they get.
The author also runs into issues with the discussion of gender identity and doesn't seem to be able to coherently place non-binary and transsexual people into this entire idea of "hags". I was confused as to her stand on this in her failure to define what a "woman" is. She completely ignored certain current issues related to women's rights such as biological males in women's sports. She does mention sexual exploitation, including rape and human trafficing and other issues, and brings up women's needs for safe spaces with only the presence of women, but she completely fails to define the complexity of this and how it can be accomplished in view of changing gender roles.
It's not that I disagree with some of what the author has to say about the rights of women, the expectations foisted on them by society at large, and wage and promotional unfairness in many jobs. Women have always been the ones to often be the "silent leaders" behind men. Women, by their very nature, have different problems than men. However, it is not that men don't have their own set of problems due to their work and family roles and expectations by this same society we live in. And although the author states that she is married (in a stable long-term relationship) and has children, she seems to be conflicted with how people view the importance of motherhood and homemaking. And although she admits to having been a "non-hag" villifying the middle age "hag during her own youth, and being "a privileged white woman", she seems to be apologetic for it but doesn't quite know what to do about any of these roles since she still qualifies as a "hag". I wonder how she will reprise the role of the "old woman" when she gets to that stage of "haggism".
The author's entire theme, expressed over and over and over in the book, is that "older" women (i.e., middle aged women beginning in their late 30's even, and into their 50's) have been edged out of society as irrelevant due their gender and their age. She compares them to the women who suffered through and died in real witch hunts. The title of the book comes from her calling them "hags". Yet she herself denigrates the older woman past this age, barely mentioning them other than referencing their financial issues (mostly due to lower retirement income due to being paid lower wages than men and taking time out during their working years to bear and raise children), their pathetic bodies, and basically their taking up space as they march towards death. She refers to them in a derogatory tone as "old women" and dismisses them during most of the book because they have passed the hag stage and become even haggier and more disgusting, the older they get.
The author also runs into issues with the discussion of gender identity and doesn't seem to be able to coherently place non-binary and transsexual people into this entire idea of "hags". I was confused as to her stand on this in her failure to define what a "woman" is. She completely ignored certain current issues related to women's rights such as biological males in women's sports. She does mention sexual exploitation, including rape and human trafficing and other issues, and brings up women's needs for safe spaces with only the presence of women, but she completely fails to define the complexity of this and how it can be accomplished in view of changing gender roles.
It's not that I disagree with some of what the author has to say about the rights of women, the expectations foisted on them by society at large, and wage and promotional unfairness in many jobs. Women have always been the ones to often be the "silent leaders" behind men. Women, by their very nature, have different problems than men. However, it is not that men don't have their own set of problems due to their work and family roles and expectations by this same society we live in. And although the author states that she is married (in a stable long-term relationship) and has children, she seems to be conflicted with how people view the importance of motherhood and homemaking. And although she admits to having been a "non-hag" villifying the middle age "hag during her own youth, and being "a privileged white woman", she seems to be apologetic for it but doesn't quite know what to do about any of these roles since she still qualifies as a "hag". I wonder how she will reprise the role of the "old woman" when she gets to that stage of "haggism".
Read
May 12, 2023I'm not going to rate this. I got to page 50. I got tired of the multiple references to Naomi Wolf (from the book - 'The Beauty Myth'.....'still brilliant, whatever one makes of Wolf's subsequent career trajectory.' (my ??????)) & (the following quoted from the book) 'supposedly "exclusionary"JK Rowling.....Watson....taking on the role of the younger woman denouncing the older woman who nurtured her'...
If only the book had an index....and these were only in the introduction and beginning of chapter one.
Whilst there are some interesting observations, I cannot continue - Wolf comparing Covid 19 jabs to mass murder, & the biological woman beliefs of Rowling amongst many other things.
I cannot read it.
If only the book had an index....and these were only in the introduction and beginning of chapter one.
Whilst there are some interesting observations, I cannot continue - Wolf comparing Covid 19 jabs to mass murder, & the biological woman beliefs of Rowling amongst many other things.
I cannot read it.
August 23, 2023
“You cannot end violence against women if your love for women is conditional on them remaining at a particular life stage or holding particular beliefs. If you make a scapegoat of the older woman - the witch, the harridan, the hag - one of two things will happen: either you will age into being her, or the criteria for being her will broaden until they apply to you, too. You can never kill enough witches to start the whole project of being human from scratch.”
If I was a cringy columnist writing for some pretentious paper, I’d probably say something along the lines of…
“Wildly controversial, deeply throught-provoking and laugh-out-loud funny”
It’s frustrating that it’s just so fitting.
If I was a cringy columnist writing for some pretentious paper, I’d probably say something along the lines of…
“Wildly controversial, deeply throught-provoking and laugh-out-loud funny”
It’s frustrating that it’s just so fitting.
October 12, 2023
This had the potential to be great, as it covers a neglected topic. However, it was poorly structured and argued. I don’t believe it has done anything to champion the middle aged woman. It read as resentful and rambling that feminism has changed and progressed. I completely understand why there are plenty of DNFs, as it was a real slog.
April 10, 2023
Struggled with this. Made me feel quite depressed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews