I’ve known for so long that my relationship with acting is a complicated one. Not dissimilar to my relationship with food and my body. Both of them
I’ve known for so long that my relationship with acting is a complicated one. Not dissimilar to my relationship with food and my body. Both of them feel like constant pulling, yearning, begging, fighting. I’m trying desperately to get their approval, their affection, and I never quite seem to. I’m never quite good enough.
I cannot give this less than five stars, but it was horrible to read.
This memoir wasn't initially on my radar because I wouldn't know McCurdy if she showed up at my front door. However, in the hours since I've finished this, I've felt compelled to familiarise myself with clips on Youtube. It gives me a chill to think that this bright talented young girl was concealing so much pain.
The title is arresting, as it's supposed to be, but it's far more than just clickbait. McCurdy as an adult wrestles with her perception of her childhood and the pedestal she put her mother on. The mother who aggressively pushed her into acting, despite her protestations, then encouraged her anorexia and lied to doctors about it.
It is hard, harder perhaps than I can even imagine, to revisit your past and understand that a person you have loved, admired and tried so long to impress has been a toxic presence in your life.
People seem to assign thin with “good,” heavy with “bad,” and too thin also with “bad.” There’s such a small window of “good.”
As well as this, it's a portrait of the ugly side of child acting. Reading this, I found myself feeling that surely no child can give informed consent to becoming an actor. They are pushed and pulled between adults who fixate on their appearance, who criticise them, build them up and reject them. No wonder former child actors have such a high rate of substance abuse and mental illness.
McCurdy's experiences at home and within the industry left her with an unhealthy relationship with food, her body and being a woman, a relationship that she is finally beginning to reckon with after both her mother's death and her own decision to quit acting.
Though I did not know her before starting this memoir, this book invited me deep inside her experiences. I now feel an overwhelming desperation for McCurdy to overcome the trauma of her past and find peace....more
I have thought about reading one of these mens’ issues books for years. My instinct is to dismiss them as it's hard to listen to men complain how hardI have thought about reading one of these mens’ issues books for years. My instinct is to dismiss them as it's hard to listen to men complain how hard it is for them, but then I’ve always prided myself on being someone who is open to at least hearing differing viewpoints.
And, to be honest, I am a bit worried about what is going on with guys these days. I think we are getting to the point where we cannot continue ignoring the increasing number of boys being radicalised online and turning into Incels. Laura Bates (Men Who Hate Women) convinced me we should be concerned, and I am. While Incels are trash, I am inclined to think this is a mental health crisis playing out in the worst way. I don’t think it’s enough to call them losers and forget about them; I think they are a real problem. Plus, I have three sons and want a good world for them.
It’s hard to find sympathy for some of this, though. It’s really hard. Basically… men have spent centuries barring women from education because we are just less intelligent, our brains are just not suited to critical thinking, we should leave the learning to the men… and now that they’ve let us in, it turns out girls are outperforming boys at every level of education. We are better at the system men built. I mean… it’s hard to feel bad. But I will try.
I agree with a number of things Reeves says.
I agree that we are actively getting more women into traditionally male-dominated roles, but not balancing that with more men in traditionally female-dominated caregiving roles. Though I also believe this is because we still perceive the feminine as weak and lesser, so a woman becoming more stereotypically masculine is bettering herself, but a man taking on a stereotypically feminine role is lessening himself.
Reeves also makes a big deal out of the fact that boys seem to respect male role models more than female ones, whereas the sex of a role model doesn’t seem to matter for girls— which he seems to take as a sign that we need to get boys more male role models, not that we need to teach them to have more respect for women.
I agree that this intersects with a class issue. Upper middle class men are doing just fine— indeed, Reeves states himself that 97% of venture capital goes to male founders —but it is men at the bottom of the social order who are struggling. This is largely because the jobs they traditionally filled are now being replaced by robots. I think boys need to be prepped from a young age to deal with this changing labour market. I have a thought— and this is just observational as someone who grew up working class but would now likely be considered middle class—that it seems it is mostly working class communities who are obsessed with traditional masculinity. I see it less amongst middle and upper middle class men.
Though Reeves doesn’t acknowledge this, one of my biggest takeaways from the numbers he gave is not the rise in women’s position compared to working class men, but the extravagant (and growing) wealth of the richest men compared to the poorest. It’s hard to look at these numbers and see anything other than the rich man keeping the poor man down.
In Part III: Biology and Culture, Reeves makes a lot of arguments that I just saw very effectively dismantled in Delusions of Gender, and this is also the part of the book that I think weakens his argument the most. It is the part where I started to think that Reeves has not fully organised his own beliefs on the definition of masculinity, the role of men, and the importance of biology. His thoughts on biology are along the lines of “there are biological differences between the sexes, not too much difference and they overlap, but still very important differences like men are less nurturing and more aggressive and lustful.” (not a direct quote)
He spends some time on the impact of culture on sex differences, even mentioning the studies that have suggested cultural roles create brain differences, not the other way around (if you’ve got some time, I recommend researching this because it is fascinating stuff), but defaults back to the fundamental differences argument. Despite providing strong arguments to the contrary, he is reluctant to let go of his insistence on the importance of innate neurological differences.
His marriage to neurological differences is at odds with some of his progressive policies. Men are naturally more aggressive and sexual, but let’s put more in charge of our young kids. Men are less nurturing, less likely to prioritise caregiving, but let’s give them equal paternity leave and get more into teaching roles.
I mean: which is it? Are men beholden to their aggressive biology, or should we expect them to adapt to caregiving roles in the workplace and at home? Personally, I think it’s the second, but Reeves spends a lot of this book emphasising the importance of biological differences.
Like too many men I have read, he seems to want sex differences to be immutable when it suits his argument, but flexible when it does not. Ambition, for example, has long been considered a male trait, but now Reeves says of girls “their appetite for success is just higher”.
He also, like Hans Rosling (his self-described “hero”), carefully emphasises the importance of numbers that support his argument while downplaying others. “Strikingly” is used to describe “the proportion of girls versus boys getting high grades” which is 47% vs 32%. Then a couple paragraphs later he admits that boys still score higher on standardised tests but he dismisses this with “But this gap has narrowed sharply”.
Similarly, he says “three in ten wives now out-earn their husbands, twice as many as in 1981” like this is supposed to be a shockingly large amount. That’s seven out of ten husbands still out-earning wives— hardly reason to panic we’ve gone too far in the other direction.
While he insists he does not want to reverse the gains of women, Reeves is happy to quote misogynists (Case & Deaton) and patriarchy-deniers (Dench) when they say things he likes. He finishes one section with this: “The economic reliance of women on men held women down, but it also propped men up. Now the props have gone, and many men are falling.” I can’t believe I have to say this in 2023, but women are not your props.
My personal opinion, both as someone who has read quite widely on this and as a mother, is that the real change needs to happen in the nursery and preschools. Raise kind, sensitive boys who people will want as a partner. Sure, give them legos and tool kits, but give them drama classes, for example, to encourage interpersonal skills— which will be way more valuable in the changing labour market. And talk to them! Studies have shown that mums talk to boy babies less than girl babies (but of course men are less talkative because they’re biologically programmed that way).
Reeves says:
“Boys are five times more likely than girls to be frequently aggressive by the age of seventeen—seventeen months, that is.”
and
“Remember, boys under the age of 2 are five times more likely to be aggressive than girls. This is surely not because 1-year-olds have picked up gender cues from around them.”
That use of “no, not seventeen years— seventeen months!” is very Hans Rosling-style. It implies, of course, that seventeen month olds are so young that they cannot possibly be exposed to culture and stereotypes (and this is a man who has kids?) Let me tell you as a parent— a LOT has happened with development by seventeen months. My youngest is currently eleven months and he already has a personality of his own. 1 year olds are absolutely picking up on gender cues all the time and it took me becoming a parent to really appreciate the sheer amount they are exposed to. The subliminal messaging goes way beyond pink princesses and blue trucks.
On the lookout for more gender-neutral clothes for my babies, I was thinking that animals would be a safe bet. Animals aren’t gendered, right? Everyone likes animals. But just go take a look at the difference between animal themed clothing in the “Boys” and “Girls” sections. We dress our newborn girls in cute kitties, puppies and bunnies— the kind of animals you keep as pets. And our boys? Tigers, crocodiles and dinosaurs. How can anyone dress a newborn boy in predators and not for one second question that boys are “naturally more aggressive”?
I am all for equal paternity leave, getting boys into caregiving careers and changing the way we see mum as the default parent. Reeves sees this latter issue as being one of dads being barred from parenting, sometimes by a gatekeeper mother when the parents are separated, but that doesn’t reflect the experiences of any of the women I know. All I ever hear from other women— together or separated —is about how little fathers are willing to do.
I am less convinced by Reeves’ argument to hold all boys back a year and start school later than girls. I think if everything else he suggested is achieved, that would not be necessary. Though I am not strongly opposed either.
So I don’t agree with all Reeves’ arguments, but I do agree there is a problem. I think it starts from birth with boys being immersed in a culture that tells them they are more aggressive, more into building things than people. In a world where, as Reeves puts it, women increasingly don’t need men, they have no reason to stay with an aggressive partner or one who puts tinkering with his toys before the kids. Women have spent a couple centuries defying the cultural stereotypes assigned to them; it is my belief men can do the same if we stop telling them these stereotypes are natural or desirable....more
The COVID-19 pandemic is only the beginning. Anti-science has become a new normal that threatens American democratic principles and our way of life
The COVID-19 pandemic is only the beginning. Anti-science has become a new normal that threatens American democratic principles and our way of life.
I appreciate the effort here and the important work Hotez is doing, both as a scientist and as someone trying to reach across political divides to halt the spread of anti-vax/anti-science conspiracies, but parts of this were really dry and difficult to get through.
I was interested in what the author had to say about the way authoritarian regimes have historically waged war against scientists, and the parallels he draws between the use of misinformation by the modern right (primarily in the US, but not always) and similar campaigns by the Soviet Union and Nazi Party. Other parts of the book were less interesting and felt like a rehash of what left-wing media has been writing about for years now.
Similarly, while I do understand why Hotez was keen to drive home the point that scientists are under attack, his doing so became tediously repetitious. ...more
This book is pretty old now-- as books about gender and sex go --but it's still highly relevant. Fine did a great job of exploring the "research" intoThis book is pretty old now-- as books about gender and sex go --but it's still highly relevant. Fine did a great job of exploring the "research" into sex differences and explaining what it actually shows and, more importantly, what it doesn't.
Possibly my biggest takeaway from this book is just how suggestible humans are. Both in terms of young children, even babies, who absorb gender stereotypes like sponges, and also adult researchers who interpret weak studies to mean what they already suspected was true.
Fine notes studies where girls taking a maths test were reminded of their gender prior to taking the test and performed far worse than girls in the group who were not reminded they were girls. Another study found that women outperformed men on an empathic accuracy test until men were offered a monetary reward, then-- guess what --they suddenly gained those empathy skills that are apparently hardwired into women.
She takes a look at the supposed "evidence" from MRIs, and finds that alleged differences between male and female brains is inconsistent, impossible to apply to real world behaviour, and differs pretty much every time these studies are repeated. She is especially scathing of the authors who confidently claim brain differences whilst citing studies that have shown no such differences.
I'm also glad she addressed the whole "gender-neutral" parenting thing, where parents claim that despite being super liberal and raising their children gender-neutral, those children still showed preference for gender stereotypical toys and clothes. As Fine points out: it is not possible to raise a child gender-neutral in a world where gender is constantly reinforced since before the child was even conceived. Believe me, I've tried.
I now have that feeling that hits me whenever I finish a good book about women, gender and sexism-- that kinda sad feeling that all the people who most need to read this book never will....more
Am I who I think I am, or am I who others perceive me to be?
What a fascinating, hard-to-define book. It's a cultural critique, I guess, but quite
Am I who I think I am, or am I who others perceive me to be?
What a fascinating, hard-to-define book. It's a cultural critique, I guess, but quite unlike any I've read before.
Klein begins her descent into the Mirror World-- the dark side of today's culture where climate deniers, antivaxxers and QAnon devotees invent "facts" and the Internet propels them around the globe-- with the story of her own personal doppelganger. The one time feminist writer, now conspiracy theorist, Naomi Wolf.
Klein has been getting confused with Wolf online for many years now, to the point where she has received countless hate messages aimed at Wolf. What's interesting, for Klein, is that she kind of understands it. Both writers, both dark-haired women, both writing about society and culture. Wolf is a conspiracy theorist, but then you could argue that there was an underlying element of that to Klein's The Shock Doctrine.
This premise opens up the floor for an in-depth look at modern society, predominantly in the United States and Canada. The difference between the real Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf is a bit like looking in a funhouse mirror-- almost the same, yet a distorted, slightly wrong version of oneself --and Klein likens that to the way rational skepticism and activism has been morphed into wild conspiracy theories in today's world.
This, Klein explains, is why so many of us have lost friends and family down the "rabbit hole" of online radicalism in recent years, and especially during COVID. A healthy skepticism of the government and medical industry turns into belief in outlandish claims.
Because here is the inherent problem: the state and government, the laws and medical industry, are indeed flawed and we should be able to question and challenge this… but what happens when that gets distorted beyond all reason? What happens when “maybe we should question the overprescription of drugs in a for-profit industry” becomes “doctors are in collusion with the government to install tracking devices in our arms”?
The notion of the doppelganger, the other, our mirror self, comes up repeatedly throughout. Klein deconstructs various examples of the doppelganger in media, from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Operation Shylock, and likens this doubling to many aspects of life today. We each create a kind of doppelganger in our online presence-- an avatar, a brand, that is us but also not fully us at the same time. This Klein describes as:
a doppelganger we perform ceaselessly in the digital ether as the price of admission in a rapacious attention economy.
She also laments a “mass unraveling of meaning”. This refers to all kinds of things like regurgitating slogans to show political alignment regardless of whether one agrees with-- or has even thought about --what it says, the right-wing appropriation of terms like "racism" and "enslavement", and the way small tweaks to the truth can result in outright falsehoods. Whoever can scream "fake news" first and loudest is right.
One area of this book I found especially interesting was one that explained to me something I did not understand until now. In the past, if someone mentioned New Age body fanatics, I thought of hippies... so left-wingers, basically. I lived in left-wing hotspot Los Angeles for close to seven years, and wellness-obsessed, holistic yoga moms who know the colour of their auras were the norm. It was very odd for me to see, especially in the wake of COVID, these women fleeing into the arms of Steve Bannon and embracing conspiracies. I had thought they were kooky, but I also thought they were solidly on the left. But here Klein explores the long history of the fascist/New Age alliance, including the Nazi Party obsession with health fads in their pursuit of a pure race.
Far from the unlikely bedfellows they first seemed to be, large parts of the modern wellness industry are proving to be all too compatible with far-right notions of natural hierarchies, genetic superiority, and disposable people.
I guess it makes sense in an awful way.
This review is getting long, but that's because I made so many notes about it. I'll try to wrap it up now.
I'm not sure all the sections were relevant to the doppelganger idea; some worked better, and were more interesting, than others, but it was an overall really engaging read. It looks at the train wreck that certain parts of the Internet have made of modern politics and the ability to have open discussions and apply reason. It's so crazy it's almost funny at times, until you remember it isn't.
In Klein's own words: "It all would be so ridiculous— if it weren’t so serious."...more
Walter Isaacson really is a fantastic biographer. It also helps that the material he is working with here is fascinating... there's no denying that ElWalter Isaacson really is a fantastic biographer. It also helps that the material he is working with here is fascinating... there's no denying that Elon Musk has had a very interesting life and is himself quite unlike any other human. Though often not in a good way.
We start this book in his childhood in South Africa and follow him through his difficulties with his father, his move to the United States, and several tumultuous businesses and relationships. He certainly did not have his wealth and success handed to him, but earned it through a combination of being brilliant and being an asshole.
Isaacson is neither judgy, nor overly forgiving, and Elon Musk gets portrayed as the volatile idealogue he is. I do believe, after reading this book, that he is genuinely motivated by his own desire to better the planet and humanity, though his definition of bettering is suspect and he is not afraid to trample the little people to achieve his lofty goals. He's a genius, I guess. A savant. And a total dick. Thank goodness I can be fairly sure our paths will never cross.
Edit: After reading some of the comments, I wanted to add one more thing. Despite what some people seem to have assumed, Isaacson is far from uncritical of Musk. This is not propaganda written by a fanboy; Isaacson portrays Musk as chaotic, mean, immature and obsessive. He documents his childish outbursts and what he calls his "demon mode". Having read Isaacson before, I didn't expect any less....more
Love this book! I remember it from my own childhood and it's great to finally share it with my kids. A visual representation of a (presumably British)Love this book! I remember it from my own childhood and it's great to finally share it with my kids. A visual representation of a (presumably British) street from the stone age to today....more
I knew absolutely nothing about Canada's oil sands before reading this graphic memoir. Truth be told, I know very little about Canada in general and hI knew absolutely nothing about Canada's oil sands before reading this graphic memoir. Truth be told, I know very little about Canada in general and hadn't even heard of the oil sands. Beaton paints a very bleak picture.
Cut off from the rest of civilisation, oil sands workers are portrayed as an insular community, lonely, a misogynistic old boys' club, often depressed but unable to talk about mental health. Beaton creates a world apart from ours in which the loneliness drives many men to behaviours they wouldn't even consider in their "real lives". Harassment is considered normal; sexual assault all too common.
Beaton worked there two years in the freezing cold loneliness and it left the kind of scars that cannot be seen. Others were even less lucky-- killed in fatal accidents brushed under the carpet by the bosses. The artwork is all in shades of grey, which adds to the dreary effect.
The author touches a bit upon the environmental impact of the oil sands, but her focus is predominantly on the human impact of living in isolation and being expendable... all to make a decent wage. While I hadn't heard of this before, I doubt I'll be forgetting about it.
My only complaint is that the story jumps a lot without any kind of break or just, you know, a couple asterisks to indicate that we're moving onto a new scene. This is quite confusing at times and had me flipping back a page to check I wasn't losing it....more
Loading...
