“The private and the mundane become intimacy.”

Aside from that quote I liked (quoting from memory here)... this book is really preachy. It is well-written, but really strong in the second-wave feminism sort of way. And like, it repeatedly acknowledges that it IS like that, but does nothing to get more in sync with third-wave conversations. It was almost like the editor was like, “Look, Meg, I know you are such a child of the second-wave that you would have to do years of listening and reading to get caught up, but we want to put out another book next year. So let’s just embrace that rich white girl feminism of yours and make that book that is set in the 2000’s-present written like it is set in the 1970’s, sprinkle in a couple mentions of ‘complainers on the internet criticize the main characters for not being intersectional,’ and get it to press.”

To be fair, you could argue that the glaring holes were intentional—second-wave icond Faith Frank is dealing with the task of working to advance feminism in a world that has moved on without her, and she pulls out the “can’t teach an old dog new tricks” excuse whenever she can. It’s a source of plot conflict. But really, she and the author appear to have the same problem here. Cuz why couldn’t this book have been written differently? What if Greer had stirred up more conflict by suggesting Faith address class and race differences instead of merely suggesting that Faith get a blog as a way to “be relevent”? Or have Greer’s best friend Z confront Greer about the Privilege Blinders, esp since Z works as a crisis counselor in Chicago’s South Side?

ANYWAYZ.... preachy and chalky.