jiujensu's reviews
440 reviews

Kind of in the romanticising WWII genre, but still a nice little story in a story - with twists. 

This one provided many more characters to get to know, which was a relief. In the first book, I didn't care for Jimmy or Crake at all. They're kind of terrible. TYOTF had a better variety of well developed likable characters and almost love stories.

This book filled in a lot of context for the first book too. It scratches that itch for the ever present question of what happens when all the systems you depend on break down. More plague/pandemic stuff. And we spend time with the cult, which is always fascinating. 

This one makes me like the first one more. One more to go. I wonder how that'll shape my opinion.

I appreciate the book as a whole despite my criticism. It was a surprising and I got more than I bargained for. People are complicated, I guess that's good to remember in any situation. 

I liked her accounting of the sexism she faced. Some people still don't believe it happens, so it's always vindicating to see it in print (or through audiobook). She persevered where those forces held me back and shunted me into a less satisfying scientific path. I didn't lean into my stubbornness, I respected authority too much, and listened to the wrong people. It's good to see a woman succeed, even if it reminds me of my failure.

I loved the mini chapters of plant science sprinkled throughout. I think i have to admit the door for me is closed there, but i still love learning and reading anything about biology or science.

One of the unexpected great things was her story of the enduring friendship with a man that wasn't sexual. Other people's effort to categorize/disparage didn't affect their bond. It must be such a gift to have that type of relationship.

It's also uncommon look at manic depression without dwelling on the fact that it's a setback. I wasn't expecting that one either, but this is a plus, unlike what follows. 

On another note -- "hungry for science" she says at the end. But she described stealing equipment from another lab at a time she'd finally achieved decent long term funding. I guess it's good she was honest and the drill was broken, but there are better examples of being hungry for science. 

She does a little too much anthropomorphism. It makes me cringe a little, but I guess I get it.

It bothered me that crosses a lot of lines with students without really showing any growth or self awareness in that area. But maybe that was mostly starting out, finding her bearings. The many incidents were still sort of surprising - I can't imagine any of the few dozen scientists I knew acting that unprofessionally. But maybe they did. They didn't write a book like this.

Moderate white liberals please read this book. And everyone else too.

Mystal is concise and funny and discards that shield of reverence - he allows us to question the founders of the country many hold in such high esteem for what they actually did or created. With Mystal, you will examine the evidence and not just thoughtlessly pledge allegiance.

Particularly enlightening is the abortion discussion. I once thought i was the defective one for not really understanding how the right to access medical care was so complicated. Turns out it was the Constitution that's defective. He makes a case for abortion with three different amendments so simply and shows how the Roe and Casey failed in their backdoor efforts to concede a few rights to women while still denying us so much. 

"If i seem flippant about the whole thing, it is because the legal argument that a fetus has a legal status on par with the woman to whom it is literally attached is illogical trash sprinkled with bad faith and misogyny."

He says flat out that the founding document is trash and i love that, honestly. None of that moderate or centrist faux civility that hides a reluctance to fight white supremacy with this book! 

"Conservatives talk about abortion like they're on a righteous crusade to stop a baby holocaust, while male liberals talk about it like they're embarrassed and sorry someone knocked up the cheerleader, but now here we are." 

There's also a great/honest discussion of originalism, gerrymandering, voting rights, and sameness vs equality. Mystal breaks down what can be a complex legal morass in simple witty language with some Star Trek and Game of Thrones pop culture references for good measure. 

Hm. The story ended up being good - with a few caveats. 

The good:
It does have a lot of important things to say about women, motherhood, taboos of not liking certain things about motherhood, complete silence on dangers of pregnancy, working outside the home women, formerly working outside the home women and all that entails. Most of these were communicated in the main character's thoughts, though, just written out. Not nearly enough of these were shown rather than just told. The more concealing or convincing of these came through as she interacted with Jen vs her still working mom friends. 

And the bad:
At a little over halfway in, she kills their family pet, a cat. It's true that that wasn't celebrated and it was a turning point / get your life together moment for the character, but when you're maiming the family pet, you've crossed a line. Like abusers who start out choking girlfriends or killing their dog - just nope, i don't care what grand point you're making, i sort of stopped being entirely open to what this novel was trying to do at that point.

I also thought the animosity toward the cat they kept as a pet was kind of an odd choice (even when the mother was in human form). Yeah, i get that the mom's a dog, but it seems a bit cartoonish and silly to have a dog/cat rivalry or murder as though a dog is the top in the hierarchy next to humans and all other animals are to be exterminated. 

Overall:
It was just pretty good. I like the mythology and werewolf things, that meshing well with moms of young kids wondering what they've become in such a short time, the rage and the love and being transformed. It's good imagery. A magical grandma and possibly Amish sounding religion (maybe too specific, but the author's name is Yoder...), also nice touches. It's a good idea, just i don't know that it landed completely for me.

~"Self-defense is another arena that helps women question the culture they live in-- and the culture that lives in them. Women can change society. We can transform our relationship to tradition. The mobility women achieve through self-defense complements the mobility and freedom sought by feminist artists, performers, activists, and philosophers."~

Part philosophy, part self-defense survey, this book brings together, what may be for many, two disparate topics: feminism and self-defense. (Women thinkers and philosophers are often dismissed as activists or derided as feminists - I challenge you to add some Angela Davis, Kate Manne, Judith Butler, or Catherine MacKinnon to your Hariri, Chomsky, and Hitchens!) It's a much needed women's perspective in a male-dominated area, whether we're talking self-defense or combat sports and martial arts in general. {But both feminism and self-defense/martial arts/combat sports have the potential to improve from studying and integrating the other. Cut?}

The first chapter is charmingly titled Balls versus Ovaries and gives insight into how women (and men) are socialized: men to see violence as masculine and women to see nonviolence as feminine. Things we take for granted as natural femininity or masculinity may in fact be constructed and performed. This deconstruction of the gender binary is considered subversive to some, but good news to those of us on the receiving end of attacks due to our weakness or vulnerability. If it's a construct, it means we can change the script.

Non-violence gets attributed to women in this construct, but the interestingly, in order to renounce violence, we have to have the capacity for it in the first place (i.e. learn it). This is the concept behind what many martial artists will tell you - that they learn martial arts so they won't have to use it or that learning martial arts makes it less likely they'll choose violence. So only after we have reclaimed our human potential, as McCaughey cites, for self-defense or violence can we really choose non-violence in the first place. 

That concept of reclaiming our human potential or body sovereignty is a persuasive one. Many of us have learned a certain way of being in the world and the dominant culture punishes transgression. Think of how muscular women or those that shave their heads are received.

~"Cultural ideals of manhood and womanhood include a cultural, political, aesthetic, and legal acceptance of men's aggression and a deep skepticism, fear, and prohibition of women's. This set of assumptions fuels the frequency and ease with which men assault women, and the cultural understanding that men's violence is an inevitable, if unfortunate, biological fact."~

 Women not only can learn a new way to be in the world through self-defense (I would argue that my years in Tang Soo Do and Brazilian Jiu-jitsu have functioned in a similar way.), but also participate for "physical competence, playfulness, and pleasures of developing bodily skills" (p156).

The generic self-defense class is geared toward men and the need to break the ego. Women need something a bit different - courses that function to build self-esteem. What distinguishes courses discussed in the book are things like discussion of emotions or prior assault experiences, what to tell the police, or different situations men and women are attacked.

There are different schools of thought within the women's self-defense classes, even as they are similar in supporting women through trauma. Model Mugging involves padded attackers in virtually any scenario you can think of. Chimera believes that you don't have to put women into situations that may retraumatize them. Again, I don't think there's one right answer, but these different approaches seem like a more positive way to address the wide range of trauma we're coming in with. 

Women's self-defense firearms classes are similarly discussed. There are classes to use firearms, but the women's classes put it in the context of our lives and culture. I feel conflicted about firearms myself, but the way it was presented as part of physical feminism was compelling. 

"Women are afraid to fight for the same reasons they are afraid of guns--in either case, women's size or strength is far less relevant than the social investment in a female body that does not exert coercive force."