Customer Reviews

No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I think this book would be a great present for any independent high school/college-aged woman in your life who is starting to wonder if "feminist" is a dirty word.

If you're unfamiliar with the history of the feminist movement in the U.S., or even what feminism means, this is a great book for you. Professor Freedman is an engaging writer who doesn't get bogged down in academic gibberish, nor does she insult your intelligence. Not surprisingly, Freedman teaches an "Intro to Feminism" course at Stanford, and therefore if you've taken such a class in the past 15 years, much of the material may seem quite familiar.

Her book takes readers on a whirlwind tour of feminism in the United States. She makes an effort to not fall victim to the first wave feminist tendency of assuming that all women in the U.S. are upper middle class, heterosexual, and white, yet touches only briefly on international feminism and the future of women outside of the United States. While this is understandable, as the book would otherwise be 1000 pages long, perhaps a title clarifying that it is focused on the U.S. would be helpful.

Freedman has managed to write a history and a survey of global feminism that is at once accessible, activist and academic.

The compact size and the colorful comic-inspired cover design of the trade paperback edition bely its serious scope. It is truly comprehensive, opening with a powerful argument for feminism (lingering on the term's ever-troubled, never-popular nature), proceeding through the history of various feminisms, marching on through topics as diverse as the impact of globalization on female laborers in the developing world to contrasting feminist opinions on the agency of sex workers. While the focus is primarily on the U.S., the global perspective does comes through. She manages to tone down the usual prominence of European and Euro-American influences while elevating the profile and contributions of feminists throughout the world. For the global sections, examples are drawn as readily from China and West Africa as from the United States. Freedman raises the bar for creating a feminist narrative that is continually mindful of the influences of class, race and culture as well as gender concerns.

I recommend this book for committed feminists, those lamenting the so-called `death of feminism,' and for closet feminists who are bothered by the f-word.

I initially read this book a few years ago and enjoyed reading it thoroughly! This book is packed with plenty of information about the history of feminism and the future of women living around the world. This book discusses such topics as "gender and power", "gender and violence", "women's rights", "Reproduction: The Politics of Choice", the "economic gender gap", just to name a few of the topics explored and discussed by the author.

I liked reading this book because I felt it was very well written and researched. "No Turning Back" provides the foundational knowledge for further exploration of feminism. I highly recommend reading this book, especially if you want to learn the basics of feminism!

Estelle Freedman's writing is coherent, concise and interesting. I found everything especially the information about international feminist movements very exciting. I have recommended this book to everyone I know.

I was quite excited to see this book, rather disappointed to read it, although it is a daunting task to undertake. Freedman naturally does not go much farther that the USA with occasional forays in to Europe for her discussions, so it really should be a history of US feminism, but that is expected (after all the US has a World Series for only USA teams!)A good preliminary discussion for those now approaching the debate, a good book to gain a panoramic view the issues of the last thirty years.If you are a well read and informed feminist, there is nothing new or exciting, and nothing in enough detail to make this a must for your shelf.

This book's title suggests that it is a history of feminism. This is not true. Feminism is a social movment, but this book contains no analysis of the means by which women were able to achieve greater rights in the political and economic system. Rather, it is an overview of the times and places in which women obtained various rights. There is no mention of what strategies women employed in order to organize and demand these rights. Reading Freedman's book, it seems as if these rights were granted by a benevolent state or court system, not that they were the outcomes of organized efforts by women. This book is completely descriptive and contains no analysis whatsoever.

One has to be impressed at the amount of social change the woman's movement has inspired. She makes the argument well. Women have been brought closer to the full equality among citizens championed by the Enlightenment philosophers.

Freedman addresses the many spheres in which equality operates. Legally, the right of women to participate fully in civil society has become quite well established in most areas of the world. The backwaters are becoming something of an exception. The abuse that the weaker sex (and children) experience within the family is being exposed and addressed. Women's personal lives have become their own business, no longer subject to the control of men in their families and communities. Women have achieved the opportunity to seek almost any job.

Freedman provides an extensive and accessible bibliography, which should be of use to subsequent researchers. I fault her for a tendency to rely on highly ideological sources... Marxists and other feminists. Her arguments could be made, and would be stronger, if she used citations that would better withstand being dismissed as simply more feminists. This is a general weakness in the social sciences - there is such groupthink that it is easy to find a dozen concurring opinions without adding to the argument.

She says "The myth professes that in America anybody can succeed, as if there were no obstacles based on gender, class or race. To raise questions about fairness implicitly asks whether those who have succeeded are in fact the more deserving."

What people "deserve" relates to rights. They deserve equal treatment under the law. It is a legal question if they do not receive it. It would be naïve to say that women have an equal chance for success in the trucking industry, or that men have an equal chance in the sociology or education department of a modern university. The right to demand and sue for equal treatment does not equate to absolute equality. But it is all that can be offered.

Regimes designed to produce equal outcomes often fail rather conspicuously. No Child Left Behind is a major recent example. Freedman cites examples in which it has worked, such as women in collegiate sports, and some in which it has not, such as salary parity. It is worth asking, in instances where differences persist, whether the causal hypotheses being advanced might be flawed.

There are areas which Freedman does not investigate very deeply. One of the first would be evolutionary bases for male/female differences. Evolution favors success. Freedman cites a rich variety of social arrangements. Societal organizations evolve and go extinct rapidly. Probably 90% of human societies have gone extinct The Maya disappeared without explanation; more commonly, peoples disappeared when they encountered more technically advanced societies.

Like a species, a society perpetuates itself by controlling habitat, having offspring and perpetuating its identifying practices and beliefs. Hunting and gathering societies took a tremendous variety of forms. Since paternity was often unimportant and unknown, many were matrilineal. They were egalitarian because there were essentially no material goods. However, since inter-tribal relations always involved the threat of war, and men were the warriors, men were most often the chiefs. Also, since warfare created a scarcity of men and placed a premium on that most masculine of traits, fighting ability, it is natural that the excess females would gravitate to the powerful males, who could impregnate them with future generations of warriors.

Anthropologists propose that patriarchy was the best system for perpetuating pastoral and farming societies. Men did the heavy work and fighting, women raised children and performed other farm and domestic labor. With survival at issue, few people talked about rights and private pleasures. Such considerations arose only when there was a foundation of security and material wealth. Individual women emerged as personalities and intellects in Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Indian and Chinese history, although most women, like most men, were condemned to anonymous drudgery and slavery.

Patriarchy, rather than something that invidious men imposed on women, was a natural outcome of Darwinian evolution. As societies become richer and better educated, it is natural for patriarchy to give way to something else. It has given much ground, sometimes with confrontation but often without, over the past century. Many feminist objectives have been met. With regard to those which remain, it begs the question as to whether they are attainable or desirable, and certainly as to whether the causal hypotheses of male dominance are correct.

It was natural for women to enter the workforce. It was natural that there be two breadwinners to better raise a family. But could it have been foreseen that so many women would opt not to have families at all? John Stuart Mill would be pleased that some have chosen to use their freedom and equality to better their minds. But is it not perverse that so many, freed from the need to be supported and protected by men, spend so much of their time and money working to be desirable to the men whose children they still won't bear?

The relative availability of top-notch potential mothers has changed. Privileged, educated women who want to enter marriage and rear children are rare in Western society. Equality notwithstanding, men find themselves paying for access to a nubile, fertile body by buying dinner, baubles, and nice vacations, and feathering as fancy a nest as possible to attract his mate. The factors which ameliorate the situation - guys who don't want children, or who don't even want women, appear likewise to be on the rise. Doesn't bode well for our civilization!

Freedman attributes lack of career success to systematic barriers erected by men. It would be interesting to examine illegal careers, unaffected by such. Women should be able to compete equally in illegal drug distribution, phishing scams and Ponzi schemes. To their credit, they are not. It may be that they are temperamentally disinclined towards crime. Could it be that, given the alternative of marriage and motherhood, more of them avoid high-stress careers as well?