Fiction is a lover of mine. And this is one of the reasons why:
"Then a parallel thought to all of this: how powerful is fiction! Harpman has written a tale that feels important despite the story being made up. This is when I believe fiction is at its most powerful; when it can find the balance between entertaining and enlightening, there’s no art form that can shift perspective quite like a novel."
Women may not always be violent, although I personally know a few who can be. But women can be vicious. There is a reason we have the trope of the Queen Bee, the opposite of the bee that is cared for by the hive, but one who controls the situation--family, business, town--she may not be physically violent, but she is controlling and abusive in other ways. I have read some stories where all the people were women, and they figured out parthenogenesis for children. It was not a utopia, because it had real people in it. An interesting view. Another such book is The Gate to the Women's Country, which had an agenda dealing witih the violence of men.
Not violent but viscous. That's such an interesting perspective. And I suppose you mean that the viscousness can have different but damaging effects as the physical violence?
Do we need men? Well, in a biological sense, we do, in order to propagate the species, until it is possible to create artificial insemination on a global scale. And even then, they are still required.
Many of the most dangerous men in the world came out of situations that are the mirror opposite of the situation of the women in the novel- their minimal interaction with women leads to continually misunderstanding their needs or ignoring them entirely. And the woman who has never known men might easily be corrupted into thinking similarly with just one negative interaction with a bad man...
Okay, I think you're saying that the men who are the most dangerous are like that because of the minimal interactions they have with women? Is that correct?
Gotchu. But that doesn't align with the research, which says that most violence against women is domestic, which means the men spend ample time with the woman they are abusing. Not sure they could claim ignorance in those situations.
So many great insights. I need more time to formulate my thoughtsbut this one really stings : "I’m saying they needed romantic companionship to be happy and in this case, the companionship would need to come from a man."
Because I feel that it is somehow my case and I quite don't like to admit it. As if it's a shame to rely on men for companionship and needing a romantic partner to be happy. But I can also say that having a romantic partner isn't enough to claim to be happy. Anyway, I'm digressing.
Overall, social interactions are at the core of our specie but then each individual is different and so is the way they handle those interactions. A lot of food for thought and I'm now curious to read the book.
Read it! It's originally written in French btw (Jaqueline Harpman is from Belgium) and it made me think about soooo many perspectives about life in general, not just what I wrote about here.
Very curious. I love fiction that prompts a really lively discussion (like this one!) and stays with me for a long time. I think we like to say "we don't need men" but...we do. I think we are designed to need one another, both sexes, and one of our great quests, perhaps, is to get these relationships "right." So much of my personal fulfillment is from having loving male relationships (deep female friendships too, but it's incomplete without the male counterpart). Thanks for this review - finding the book!
Not sure that's what I'm saying. The novel obviously pushes that concept to its extreme, but the general theory I believe it explores is that women would not hold the fear of violence in the same way of men weren't the culprits.
Fiction is a lover of mine. And this is one of the reasons why:
"Then a parallel thought to all of this: how powerful is fiction! Harpman has written a tale that feels important despite the story being made up. This is when I believe fiction is at its most powerful; when it can find the balance between entertaining and enlightening, there’s no art form that can shift perspective quite like a novel."
Nothing like it!
YES!
Women may not always be violent, although I personally know a few who can be. But women can be vicious. There is a reason we have the trope of the Queen Bee, the opposite of the bee that is cared for by the hive, but one who controls the situation--family, business, town--she may not be physically violent, but she is controlling and abusive in other ways. I have read some stories where all the people were women, and they figured out parthenogenesis for children. It was not a utopia, because it had real people in it. An interesting view. Another such book is The Gate to the Women's Country, which had an agenda dealing witih the violence of men.
Not violent but viscous. That's such an interesting perspective. And I suppose you mean that the viscousness can have different but damaging effects as the physical violence?
Emontional abuse leaves invisible scars. I see the results of people here on Substack, women and men, working to heal that damage.
Do we need men? Well, in a biological sense, we do, in order to propagate the species, until it is possible to create artificial insemination on a global scale. And even then, they are still required.
Many of the most dangerous men in the world came out of situations that are the mirror opposite of the situation of the women in the novel- their minimal interaction with women leads to continually misunderstanding their needs or ignoring them entirely. And the woman who has never known men might easily be corrupted into thinking similarly with just one negative interaction with a bad man...
Okay, I think you're saying that the men who are the most dangerous are like that because of the minimal interactions they have with women? Is that correct?
Yes. Violent reactions to others emerge out of accidental or intentional ignorance as much as anything else.
Gotchu. But that doesn't align with the research, which says that most violence against women is domestic, which means the men spend ample time with the woman they are abusing. Not sure they could claim ignorance in those situations.
So many great insights. I need more time to formulate my thoughtsbut this one really stings : "I’m saying they needed romantic companionship to be happy and in this case, the companionship would need to come from a man."
Because I feel that it is somehow my case and I quite don't like to admit it. As if it's a shame to rely on men for companionship and needing a romantic partner to be happy. But I can also say that having a romantic partner isn't enough to claim to be happy. Anyway, I'm digressing.
Overall, social interactions are at the core of our specie but then each individual is different and so is the way they handle those interactions. A lot of food for thought and I'm now curious to read the book.
Read it! It's originally written in French btw (Jaqueline Harpman is from Belgium) and it made me think about soooo many perspectives about life in general, not just what I wrote about here.
Very curious. I love fiction that prompts a really lively discussion (like this one!) and stays with me for a long time. I think we like to say "we don't need men" but...we do. I think we are designed to need one another, both sexes, and one of our great quests, perhaps, is to get these relationships "right." So much of my personal fulfillment is from having loving male relationships (deep female friendships too, but it's incomplete without the male counterpart). Thanks for this review - finding the book!
And that incompleteness is what I'm wrestling with. Such a great novel. Send me a message once you finish reading it
What, women are never violent? Come on.
Not sure that's what I'm saying. The novel obviously pushes that concept to its extreme, but the general theory I believe it explores is that women would not hold the fear of violence in the same way of men weren't the culprits.
Women can be very violent. I am one. I think he is working to deconstruct the all men are violent trope.