PopSugar Reading Challenge Book 17 or So Much Stupid

For a book that got bad reviews, I went whole hog and read The Feminist and the Cowboy by Alisa Valdes. I was always curious but I shied away once the negative reviews start pouring in both before and after it came out the relationship ended. This book earned every negative review.

This is definitely one of the worst books I have ever read. If you want to appreciate how much I hated it, feel free to look at my status updates on GoodReads.

I’m going to start with why I hated it. The fact that she calls herself a feminist is insulting to me and everyone else who believes feminism is a fight for equality. Here are some of her thoughts on feminism:

“Like so many children of second-wave feminism, I began to subconsciously equate being the dominator with being free.”

“I had been, for my parents, less a daughter than I was a chance to create a brave new deserialized female citizen immune to discrimination. I was not alone; there were millions like me. I was one in a confused, skirtless army of girl Frankensteins, the first postfeminist prototypes of the All-American un-Girl.”

"I was really good at blaming men for my shortcomings as a person."

"I was so insanely radical that I couldn't honestly imagine being sexual with men because it seemed like such a betrayal of the cause to, like, open up and let them in."

That last one is so incredibly not normal. If you feel that being heterosexual and having a relationship makes you a traitor to feminism, you need so much therapy. Of course her interpretation of feminism screwed up her life. It has precious little to do with actual feminism.

Despite her own issues, Valdes spends a great deal of time researching how men and women are fundamentally different. None of the information is cited for our benefit but it was enough to fuel her to become a ‘difference feminist’ who has its ideas rooted in the Catholic Church. If your feminism is based in tenants from a religion that is notoriously for negative attitudes toward women, you may want to ask some serious questions about what you actually believe.

At one point Valdes catches the cowboy in a lie he told so smoothly that it’s close to sociopath levels of deception. When she calls the other woman to get the full story, he’s upset that no only has he been caught in a lie, he’s been caught in all of it. When Valdes dares to speak to the other woman again, the cowboy goes from ‘I’ll do anything to fix this’ (except end things with the other woman while you can witness it, let’s not get carried away) to ‘we’re done’ in a matter of hours.

That is gloriously manipulative. He’s willing to do anything to salvage the relationship (so long as it’s on his terms) but when Valdes ‘makes a mistake’ he completely flips the situation so it’s her fault. I have been on the other side of this. It’s a way for him to get out of trouble for half the cost of his original sin.

He only agrees to take her back if he’s in totally control of the relationship. He wants to take care of her and be the strong, traditional man. The fact that he wasn’t interested in listening to her or negotiating is irrelevant.

Why did it get so many bad reviews other than the obvious? Because the relationship was over by the time the book came out because he physically abused her. It’s been well documented by Jezebel, Slate, Salon and New York Magazine.

I’ve read books with worse writing (although this book cracks the top 10) but I hate this one so much more. Valdes perpetuates negative stereotypes about feminists and showcases an unhealthy relationship as a good goal. I hope nobody ever wastes money on this insult to the written word again. I am impressed by how much I hated this book.

Dog Gone

So Michael Vick has a dog. My first thought? I wonder how long until Jerry Sandusky can be a foster parent.

Comparing Vick to a child molester might be a little extreme. He’s not that bad. Hurricane Sandy wasn’t as bad as the Japanese earthquake/tsunami. Both are terrible, neither has a conscience, and you’re not rooting for either of them but one is worse than the other.

A lot of people I talked to don’t see the problem. They said that he’s changed and the dog is for his daughter. People can change but it’s rare and it’s never that quickly or that much.

I think he should be banned from ever getting a dog. At the very least, he should be banned from getting a dog or cat for several years. He should explain to his little girl that the family can’t get a dog because daddy used to help run a ring where they killed each other for sport.

Just because he’s good at his job doesn’t mean he’s changed as a person. I have every doubt that he has learned his lesson. I believe he is enough of an arrogant motherfucker to think he’s above the law and do something like that again. If he was capable of it before, he is capable of it now.

If you want to forgive him for what he did, that’s your call but saying he deserves to get a dog is not forgiving, it’s forgetting. Just because you forgave you’re junkie relative doesn’t mean you leave him alone with your medicine cabinet. Just because a child molester serves his time doesn’t mean you let him babysit. Just because Chris Brown did his classes doesn’t mean his anger issues are resolved. (He put a chair through a window at GMA. Such progress.)

I have learned through multiple experiences that people almost never change. If they do change, it’s because it benefits them. Since Vick got his career back and his supporters pretend this never happened, why does he have to change? Most of what he did reeks of sociopathy.

My philosophy: Just because you’re kind enough to forgive someone doesn’t mean you should be stupid enough to trust them.