This book was frustrating because I could not for the life of me tell when Kipnis was being sarcastic, funny, serious, or just what her position was on anything. In a way, that made it interesting, because it forced me to think about my own opinion on everything. But mostly it just made me want to throw the book at the next biological determinist I see.

I’m not sure whether this book is brilliant or reactionary. Towards the end Kipnis asks, about Andrea Dworkin, “Is she making a political argument, or describing the eternal female condition?” The same question could be posed about her. It’s hard to tell which statements are meant as statements of eternal truths and which are meant to mock the conventional wisdom. When you think it’s meant one way, she’ll turn around and tell you it’s the other. Sometimes the mocking tone works, other times it comes off as watered-down David Foster Wallace.

Central 305.42 K57f 2006 DUE 12-06-07
Central 305.42 K57f 2006 DUE 12-06-07