Where the flippin heck to start..
Having rummaged around the back of my washing basket, I located the book in the spot I launched it to last night, I had a quick flick through it again through grimace to decide which aspects of the book were the most abhorrent to me. If I am not selective this would turn in to War & Peace.
Waterstones had misleadingly placed the book on the ?World politics? shelf under the sub heading ?Women?s Studies? Now I have read the book it is definitely not anything I would describe as feminist. More the trite and naïve ponderings of (as Levenson so respectfully puts it) your nice but slightly thick mate. She uses anecdotes from her friend ?Sarah? or ?Paul? or ?Melissa? whom for all we know don?t even exist, as if they somehow prove whatever ill-researched point she is trying to make at the time.
Let us start with the description of a Noughtie Girl (I would make more comment about the use of ?girl? but believe me we have bigger fish to fry.) To start with there is a brief nod to lesbians and ?foreign? women, whom Levenson acknowledges she knows not the first thing about. She goes on to describe women who were born in the 70s, 80s & 90s as true Naughtie Girls. Now for me, a big part of feminism is not buying in to the fact that a women?s credibility or entitlement to be included diminishes as she gets older. I personally believe that this is an idea born through a man?s fear that as women get older they become wiser and therefore more of a threat, and so they are ridiculed in order to keep them quiet, and get them to back away into corners with pots of Olay watching loose women. I don?t want to be a part of any feminist movement that excludes women over the age of 40.
Levenson?s basic statement about what a feminist is, I agree with. ? Feminism is about believing that no one should be treated any differently, judged differently, afforded different rights or forced in to specific roles in society according to their sex? So far so good.
She also comments that there are ?unintentional feminists? who don?t label themselves but do believe in treating women fairly and this basically just amounts to good manners. Which is also a concept that I like.
Let?s get on to the offensive stuff: In talking about the subject of our friends, Levenson admits on behalf of all of us that although our female friends are extremely important to us, often we don?t actually like them and although we appear sympathetic we ?secretly prefer the joy of hearing about when it (their relationship) has gone wrong?
She also explains that once we are married and therefore not preoccupied with competing with one another for men, women go out with their friends to clubs and bars basically to look for male attention. Presumably because we need it to feel good about ourselves but she doesn?t really clarify.
The language used throughout the book is particularly shocking, not because I haven?t heard it before but again, because this is supposed to be a feminist book! One gem that particularly stands out is in a paragraph about how we see celebrities and how we sometimes look and think they are either too thin too fat too tarty! What feminist uses the word ?tarty? what is the male equivalent of ?tarty?? Oh wait, there isn?t one!
The more I think about it I actually believe that Levenson actually hates women. Casual misogyny like ? When Cherie (Blair) did sort out her image? and if you have already decided to not have sex with a man, you shouldn?t let him buy you dinner, drove me to Google an image of her in case no one had actually ever seen her in the flesh and she was indeed a man!
She has a big bug bear about women who change their name when they get married and refers to this often. She didn?t change her name and is desperately proud of this fact. I realise choosing not to change your name when you get married can be, and often is, a feminist choice. I am in two minds myself. I am a beliver in making feminist choices for the greater good rather than to assert your own right to a choice. But in this instance I do believe that a woman should be able to choose to do either freely. Levenson however comments that when she thinks about women who do change their name she concludes they must hate themselves and their families and wish to caste of any individuality they may have in the process of taking their husbands name. I personally don?t agree. But welcome any ideas? May start a thread on that although I'm sure it's been done before.
Let?s talk about sex. This is the part that really ticking well tickety ticked me off! There are many, many references to how women do certain things that lead men to think it?s ok to rape them. She talks herself of a time she was in a hotel bar and deliberately drew the attention of one man. When she left she worried he would follow and attack her and, she says, who would she blame but herself? She also, ?makes excuses? when she receives unwanted attention. What?s wrong with saying ?NO??
I agreed with her on all of her points about making contraception more freely available for women. But not so much with the opinion that if men were able to take care of contraception themselves we would never be able to have babies because let?s face it ? we usually have to persuade or trick men in order to give us babies and if they were in charge we could probably never have them? the mind boggles.
On to the final insult which made me hurl the damn book across the room - Rape jokes, according to Levenson, are indeed funny. I eagerly began to read the example of the hilarious joke that brought her to this conclusion, and I will share it with you: A man walks in to a bar. He looks around and says to the barman ?I could have any women in here I like? ?how?s that?? Says the barman. ?Because I?m a rapist?
Sides splitting?? Thought so.
She also speaks of a comedian she went to see who came out with a joke about a guy who ?sympathy raped? a woman because he was worried that otherwise she would think he didn?t find her attractive.
Again, hilarious.
Levenson?s theory, from what I understand, is that rape, if coupled with violence where you think you may be killed, is bad. Because it?s not really about sex, it?s about a violent attack. However, rape when it?s just about sex is actually not that bad and by claiming that it is we put women?s virtue on a pedestal and this sets them apart from men which is what we are trying not to do with feminism 
Now, Firstly, she uses no quotes, research, statistics, findings and as she doesn?t say that she has ever been raped herself (not that she should) I find it hard to see how she can be so sure about this. The whole pointless rant smacks of a tipsy student in a bar talking about a subject they think they know all about because they once read a paragraph in a text book.
Secondly, How many rapes are there where violence isn?t involved at all? I mean, what she is getting at is the difference between a rape in your home by someone you know and a rape in an alleyway by knife point. There is no argument that the latter would seem to be more violent but surely any kind of rape is violent. We all know how the female body is made, it?s not easy to get in there without permission!
Even if there is no violence involved, who the hell is this women to belittle the agony of being raped using phrases like ?after all, it is only a penis?
Other niggles are ?As Noughtie girls know, sex, and images of sex, aren?t inherently bad? as a closing statement to the chapter about pornography.
As well as the claim that although it is annoying when men claim that female managers are micro managers who can?t have a disagreement without blowing it up and who can?t give both positive and negative feedback - it is usually true..
I urge you not to waste your money on this.