What do you think?
Rate this book
Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Nonfiction (2025)From Atlantic critic and Pulitzer Prize finalist Sophie Gilbert, a blazing critique of how early-aughts pop culture turned women and girls against each other—and themselves—with disastrous consequences
When did feminism lose its way? This question feels increasingly urgent in a moment of reactionary cultural and legislative backlash, when widespread uncertainty about the movement’s power, focus, and currency threatens decades of progress.
Sophie Gilbert, a staff writer at The Atlantic and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism, provides one answer, identifying an inflection point in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the energy of third-wave and “riot girl” feminism collapsed into a regressive period of hyper-objectification, sexualization, and infantilization. Gilbert mines the darker side of nostalgia, training her keen analytic eye on the most revealing cultural objects of the era, across music, film, television, fashion, tabloid journalism, and more. And what she recounts is harrowing, from the unattainable aesthetic of Victoria’s Secret ads and explicit music videos to a burgeoning internet culture vicious towards women in the spotlight and damaging for those who weren’t. Gilbert tracks many of the period’s dominant themes back to the explosion of internet porn, tracing its widespread influence as it began to pervade our collective consciousness.
Gilbert paints a devastating picture of an era when a distinctly American confluence of excess, materialism, and power-worship collided with the culture’s reactionary, puritanical, and chauvinistic currents. Amid a collective reconsideration of the way women are treated in public, Girl on Girl is a blistering indictment of the matrix of misogyny that undergirded the cultural production of the early twenty-first century, and how it continues to shape our world today.
When did feminism lose its way? This question feels increasingly urgent in a moment of reactionary cultural and legislative backlash, when widespread uncertainty about the movement’s power, focus, and currency threatens decades of progress.
Sophie Gilbert, a staff writer at The Atlantic and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism, provides one answer, identifying an inflection point in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the energy of third-wave and “riot girl” feminism collapsed into a regressive period of hyper-objectification, sexualization, and infantilization. Gilbert mines the darker side of nostalgia, training her keen analytic eye on the most revealing cultural objects of the era, across music, film, television, fashion, tabloid journalism, and more. And what she recounts is harrowing, from the unattainable aesthetic of Victoria’s Secret ads and explicit music videos to a burgeoning internet culture vicious towards women in the spotlight and damaging for those who weren’t. Gilbert tracks many of the period’s dominant themes back to the explosion of internet porn, tracing its widespread influence as it began to pervade our collective consciousness.
Gilbert paints a devastating picture of an era when a distinctly American confluence of excess, materialism, and power-worship collided with the culture’s reactionary, puritanical, and chauvinistic currents. Amid a collective reconsideration of the way women are treated in public, Girl on Girl is a blistering indictment of the matrix of misogyny that undergirded the cultural production of the early twenty-first century, and how it continues to shape our world today.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published April 29, 2025
2200 people are currently reading
57971 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,215 reviews
May 12, 2025
Truly it’s a wonder we made it out alive.
June 8, 2025
3.5
Kind of conflicted on how to rate this because i think gilbert achieved what she set out to with this: cataloguing the past few decades of interaction between pop culture, women and feminism through various topics. You get everything from the riot grrrl to pop star transition, housewives and reality tv, the “confessional first person female writer” persona, #girlboss and lots more. What works against the book is that if you’ve paid a decent amount of attention to any of these topics (which is likely the case for the majority of people who would be interested in reading), most of this feels like going over a well trodden path. Gilbert makes some interesting connections and observations through laying out the topics chronologically by when they reached the mainstream but this book was much more focused on the historical outlining. Nothing wrong with that, again I don’t think gilbert’s goal was to reinvent the wheel here, more to generally catalogue, but because of that I found this leaned on the tedious side more often than not.
Kind of conflicted on how to rate this because i think gilbert achieved what she set out to with this: cataloguing the past few decades of interaction between pop culture, women and feminism through various topics. You get everything from the riot grrrl to pop star transition, housewives and reality tv, the “confessional first person female writer” persona, #girlboss and lots more. What works against the book is that if you’ve paid a decent amount of attention to any of these topics (which is likely the case for the majority of people who would be interested in reading), most of this feels like going over a well trodden path. Gilbert makes some interesting connections and observations through laying out the topics chronologically by when they reached the mainstream but this book was much more focused on the historical outlining. Nothing wrong with that, again I don’t think gilbert’s goal was to reinvent the wheel here, more to generally catalogue, but because of that I found this leaned on the tedious side more often than not.
June 21, 2025
Gilbert was inspired to write this book by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, her goal is to illuminate how even in recent years, the cultural mainstream delighted in the violation, shaming and humiliation of women. Recently, there have been quite some books on how the media exploited Britney and Paris, and how the Kardashians have perverted the body image (to their own detriment, if you listen to them), but Gilbert dives way deeper, focusing especially on the pornification of pop culture - and we're not talking about female sexual empowerment, but the capitalist dehumanization and commodification of the female body as the incel movement demands it. Her examples range from teen comedies like "American Pie" to the Abu Ghraib photos, and as she is a superb non-fiction writer, the text is captivating and highly engaging.
The book starts off with the backlash to feminism in the 1990's, Gilbert ponders how the supermodels were exchanged with frail teenage bodies in the heroin chic years ruled by the sleazy-cool exploitation of people like Terry Richardson (do you know balloon animal dude Jeff Koons? And did you know that at the time, he was married to a porn star and made, well, porn that was exhibited in galleries?). She connects the American teen comedy about boys obsessed with losing their virginity to the incel movement, then talks about New French extremity and, sure, "Hostel". Reality TV is a major topic, beauty standards and products, the rise of violence and degradation as a movie trope in the porn industry and digital gateways like OnlyFans.
Many of these themes will sound familiar, but how convincingly Gilbert relates it to porn (and not of the Erika Lust type: Lust herself features in the book, and Gilbert is not against porn, she is just against misogynist porn), and how she finds incels and the manosphere in cultural products that preceeded these phenomena, products that at first glance appear harmless, is very enlightening. Gilbert writes against the normalization of misogyny as entertainment in a world where a man who illegally paid hush money to a porn star was elected US President. And she shows that progress may not be linear, but it is possible.
The book starts off with the backlash to feminism in the 1990's, Gilbert ponders how the supermodels were exchanged with frail teenage bodies in the heroin chic years ruled by the sleazy-cool exploitation of people like Terry Richardson (do you know balloon animal dude Jeff Koons? And did you know that at the time, he was married to a porn star and made, well, porn that was exhibited in galleries?). She connects the American teen comedy about boys obsessed with losing their virginity to the incel movement, then talks about New French extremity and, sure, "Hostel". Reality TV is a major topic, beauty standards and products, the rise of violence and degradation as a movie trope in the porn industry and digital gateways like OnlyFans.
Many of these themes will sound familiar, but how convincingly Gilbert relates it to porn (and not of the Erika Lust type: Lust herself features in the book, and Gilbert is not against porn, she is just against misogynist porn), and how she finds incels and the manosphere in cultural products that preceeded these phenomena, products that at first glance appear harmless, is very enlightening. Gilbert writes against the normalization of misogyny as entertainment in a world where a man who illegally paid hush money to a porn star was elected US President. And she shows that progress may not be linear, but it is possible.
May 17, 2025
Wow, I was blown away by this book. The author examines the ways women have been portrayed over the last 35 years of pop culture, with a specific focused on the Y2K era. For millennials especially, this is an invitation to look back on the era that shaped us…and reflect on the many ways in which it was completely messed up. Yes, a reporter did write about how he ascertained 18-year-old Lindsay Lohan’s boobs were real (she said so, but his visual examination and goodbye hug confirmed it 🤮). Yes, a movie starring Paris Hilton was pitched with the slogan “See Paris Die!” And a preteen Kylie Jenner really did pole dance on TV. None of this was a fever dream.
What sets this book apart, beyond the journalistic work that went into it, is the author’s analysis of cultural trends. She has very interesting insights on how, for instance, those in power appropriated the riot grrrl movement and turned it into a softened “girl power” message (but don’t worry, Spice Girls, I still love you!) or how record executives redirected hip-hop artists’ anger at society into anger at women. She talks about the different ways white women and BIPOC women were harmed by Y2K pop culture’s messages, and the way pressure to be skinny turned into pressure to have the equally unattainable Kardashian curves. It seems that with every bit of progress feminism makes received pushback in the form of societal regression.
Still, the ultimate message of this book is a hopeful one. By pointing to the ways that pop cultural messages rise and fall in popularity, the author sends the message that current troubling trends, like the tradwife movement, will not last forever.
Thank you to the publisher for gifting me a copy of this book!
What sets this book apart, beyond the journalistic work that went into it, is the author’s analysis of cultural trends. She has very interesting insights on how, for instance, those in power appropriated the riot grrrl movement and turned it into a softened “girl power” message (but don’t worry, Spice Girls, I still love you!) or how record executives redirected hip-hop artists’ anger at society into anger at women. She talks about the different ways white women and BIPOC women were harmed by Y2K pop culture’s messages, and the way pressure to be skinny turned into pressure to have the equally unattainable Kardashian curves. It seems that with every bit of progress feminism makes received pushback in the form of societal regression.
Still, the ultimate message of this book is a hopeful one. By pointing to the ways that pop cultural messages rise and fall in popularity, the author sends the message that current troubling trends, like the tradwife movement, will not last forever.
Thank you to the publisher for gifting me a copy of this book!
June 13, 2025
the subtitle is misleading here, I feel. I didn't expect nearly half of this book to focus on describing in great detail the graphic and violent sexual acts women have experienced in different media over the past 30 years. I also don't really know what the point of this book is? it certainly doesn't feel like any analysis or observations here revealed anything new. it feels like a much longer and more (unnecessarily) explicit think piece from the 2010s.
May 14, 2025
(3.5 stars) Investigative journalism examining how Western women have been portrayed and analyzed through media, entertainment, politics, etc.. This is the type of book, where after you finish reading it, you feel (if you're at all engaged in current events and pop culture) there wasn't a lot of new information here. But its effectiveness is having all the history, all the examples, all the incidents laid out this way - the evidence is relentless. It forces you to analyze your own part in creating the narrative. I'm Gen X, and it's always fascinating looking back at the music, TV shows, and movies that shaped my formative years. Reading 'Girl on Girl' provided many 'How did I not see that?!?!!' moments.
The structure of this book was a bit of a mess, however. There was so much shocking information, but little time was spent on each topic before moving on to the next equally shocking and sensationalist topic. At times it felt like reading a list, with minimal reflection and insight. I would have preferred less shock and awe, and more of a deep dive into fewer topics.
The structure of this book was a bit of a mess, however. There was so much shocking information, but little time was spent on each topic before moving on to the next equally shocking and sensationalist topic. At times it felt like reading a list, with minimal reflection and insight. I would have preferred less shock and awe, and more of a deep dive into fewer topics.
September 26, 2025
this is a sharp and enraging look at how 90s & 00s culture warped feminism into something regressive through the sexualization of “it girls,” the cruelty of tabloids, and the rise of internet porn. it’s clear that these dynamics didn’t just impact celebrities but shaped the way all women thought about themselves, and, in turn, how they were treated.
I especially enjoyed the opening and the later chapters. the sections on 90s culture were well-researched, but since I didn’t live through much of it, some of it felt a little distant. my one critique is that the writing sometimes feels a bit too academic for the likely audience. a more conversational tone could’ve made it more accessible.
ultimately, it’s a blistering reminder that when patriarchy puts men in power, and when profit is the goal, exploiting women’s insecurities and reputations become the quickest way to sell. in the 90s and 00s that meant media, advertising, and sex … and the cycle just keeps reinforcing itself, round and round it goes 🫠
I especially enjoyed the opening and the later chapters. the sections on 90s culture were well-researched, but since I didn’t live through much of it, some of it felt a little distant. my one critique is that the writing sometimes feels a bit too academic for the likely audience. a more conversational tone could’ve made it more accessible.
ultimately, it’s a blistering reminder that when patriarchy puts men in power, and when profit is the goal, exploiting women’s insecurities and reputations become the quickest way to sell. in the 90s and 00s that meant media, advertising, and sex … and the cycle just keeps reinforcing itself, round and round it goes 🫠
July 4, 2025
This is why I rarely read non-fiction. It’s a five star read, but it made me angry and made me feel like I’ve been manipulated my entire life. The way women are treated is pure trash.
May 22, 2025
So good, so important, absolutely required reading for millennial women, millennials, women, and everyone else. Here for the vindication of Girls as feminist, here for the girlboss/lean in takedowns, here for the analysis of hip hop culture taking refuge in misogyny when it needed somewhere to punch down to. Gilbert’s analysis of female autofiction was also just 👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
++++
Review for LARB here:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/w...
++++
Review for LARB here:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/w...
October 31, 2025
this is like the perfect nonfiction book to recommend to a white liberal millennial woman, not even because it’s inherently bad, but because it doesn’t push very hard against anything?
it sort of regurgitates a lot of things you probably know about feminism in the 2000’s (especially if you lived it), which feels validating for sure, and a little painful to relive also.
I cant decide if the fact that so much of the pop culture examined in this book is white is indicative of the ‘90’s and ‘00’s TRL era, or if it’s a huge flaw of this book. Maybe i just wanted it to be a little more intersectional? At times it didn’t feel like too much of a flaw, and then she’d launch into a long bit about Hillary Clinton and feminism and i began to think “i am too leftist for this conversation”
also it brushed with gender essentialism a little bit and i didn’t always care for the “men are this, women are this” binary
IDK it’s late and i’ve had three glasses of wine. Maybe i’ll amend tomorrow — for now four stars because it’s very accessible, and sometimes you need to record just how toxic it was to be a young woman in the 2000’s
it sort of regurgitates a lot of things you probably know about feminism in the 2000’s (especially if you lived it), which feels validating for sure, and a little painful to relive also.
I cant decide if the fact that so much of the pop culture examined in this book is white is indicative of the ‘90’s and ‘00’s TRL era, or if it’s a huge flaw of this book. Maybe i just wanted it to be a little more intersectional? At times it didn’t feel like too much of a flaw, and then she’d launch into a long bit about Hillary Clinton and feminism and i began to think “i am too leftist for this conversation”
also it brushed with gender essentialism a little bit and i didn’t always care for the “men are this, women are this” binary
IDK it’s late and i’ve had three glasses of wine. Maybe i’ll amend tomorrow — for now four stars because it’s very accessible, and sometimes you need to record just how toxic it was to be a young woman in the 2000’s
November 22, 2025
how did we survive the 2000s in particular?? ugh
May 14, 2025
In Sophie Gilbert’s journalistic non-fiction text, Girl On Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, she recounts in the excellent first chapter how the slogan that was later co-opted by the Spice Girls, ‘Girl Power’, came into being in 1991:
Kathleen Hanna was… preoccupied with the fanzine she was making for her punk band, Bikini Kill. Hanna had been reading some of the feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan’s work on adolescent girlhood, confidence and resistance and was brainstorming titles for her next zine with Bikini Kill’s drummer, Tobi Vail. “Let’s put a word with ‘girl’ that doesn’t usually go with ‘girl'”, Hanna recalls suggesting… “Power,” Vail replied. “Girl Power”.
As Gilbert argues, ‘the story of what happened to the feminist movement during the 1990s’, at least in the music industry, ‘can be told by tracing the evolution of a single slogan’. Bikini Kill pioneered the riot grrrl movement in punk, which focused on female oppression and exploitative capitalism, protesting how little space there had been for women in earlier punk cultures through DIY zines that used cuttings from other texts to analyse popular culture. But by 1996, when the Spice Girls came into being, feminism had become postfeminism; teenage girls were being told they no longer needed an organised liberation movement because they already had it all. I loved Gilbert’s skewering of their aesthetic, which immediately took me back to the ‘Wannabe’ video: ‘If the emerging model for pop stars was “sexy teenager”, the Spice Girls were sexy women who behaved like toddlers at a wedding: grabbing things at random, spinning round and round and round, throwing food on the floor. They embodied “freedom” if you understood that concept as “total absence of impulse control”'.
This is the material that I’d hoped Gilbert’s book would be about, and which I felt was promised by its title. How were millennial girls turned against each other by a popular culture that told them feminism was unnecessary, unfashionable and, worst of all – just not sexy? But sadly, after this strong opening, Girl on Girl rapidly goes downhill, retreading familiar ground about body image, sexualisation and porn without having anything to say about how girls and women actually reacted to this culture. Girl on Girl clearly wants to be Backlash for the late 1990s/early 00s, but one of the notable strengths of Susan Faludi’s 1991 classic was how she showed that women are not helpless victims of anti-feminist backlashes. In the 1980s, American women gave the highest ratings to TV shows that had independent heroines, rejected ‘puffball’ fashion for suits and leggings, and continued to postpone marriage and childbearing as they entered the workforce in record numbers. Gilbert ignores anything that was happening outside the world of reality TV, porn, celebrity gossip and fashion and – worse – assumes that teenagers simply absorbed these messages uncritically. To highlight just one counter-trend that returns to the girl/witch binary: the late 1990s also saw a flowering of ‘teen witch’ culture, driven by Sabrina the Teenage Witch (1996-2003), films like The Craft (1996), books like Cate Tiernan’s Sweep series (2001-3), and teenage girls’ genuine interest in paganism and Wicca. The 1990s and 2000s desperately need serious critical historical attention, but this isn't it.
I received a free proof copy of this book from the publisher for review.
Kathleen Hanna was… preoccupied with the fanzine she was making for her punk band, Bikini Kill. Hanna had been reading some of the feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan’s work on adolescent girlhood, confidence and resistance and was brainstorming titles for her next zine with Bikini Kill’s drummer, Tobi Vail. “Let’s put a word with ‘girl’ that doesn’t usually go with ‘girl'”, Hanna recalls suggesting… “Power,” Vail replied. “Girl Power”.
As Gilbert argues, ‘the story of what happened to the feminist movement during the 1990s’, at least in the music industry, ‘can be told by tracing the evolution of a single slogan’. Bikini Kill pioneered the riot grrrl movement in punk, which focused on female oppression and exploitative capitalism, protesting how little space there had been for women in earlier punk cultures through DIY zines that used cuttings from other texts to analyse popular culture. But by 1996, when the Spice Girls came into being, feminism had become postfeminism; teenage girls were being told they no longer needed an organised liberation movement because they already had it all. I loved Gilbert’s skewering of their aesthetic, which immediately took me back to the ‘Wannabe’ video: ‘If the emerging model for pop stars was “sexy teenager”, the Spice Girls were sexy women who behaved like toddlers at a wedding: grabbing things at random, spinning round and round and round, throwing food on the floor. They embodied “freedom” if you understood that concept as “total absence of impulse control”'.
This is the material that I’d hoped Gilbert’s book would be about, and which I felt was promised by its title. How were millennial girls turned against each other by a popular culture that told them feminism was unnecessary, unfashionable and, worst of all – just not sexy? But sadly, after this strong opening, Girl on Girl rapidly goes downhill, retreading familiar ground about body image, sexualisation and porn without having anything to say about how girls and women actually reacted to this culture. Girl on Girl clearly wants to be Backlash for the late 1990s/early 00s, but one of the notable strengths of Susan Faludi’s 1991 classic was how she showed that women are not helpless victims of anti-feminist backlashes. In the 1980s, American women gave the highest ratings to TV shows that had independent heroines, rejected ‘puffball’ fashion for suits and leggings, and continued to postpone marriage and childbearing as they entered the workforce in record numbers. Gilbert ignores anything that was happening outside the world of reality TV, porn, celebrity gossip and fashion and – worse – assumes that teenagers simply absorbed these messages uncritically. To highlight just one counter-trend that returns to the girl/witch binary: the late 1990s also saw a flowering of ‘teen witch’ culture, driven by Sabrina the Teenage Witch (1996-2003), films like The Craft (1996), books like Cate Tiernan’s Sweep series (2001-3), and teenage girls’ genuine interest in paganism and Wicca. The 1990s and 2000s desperately need serious critical historical attention, but this isn't it.
I received a free proof copy of this book from the publisher for review.
September 3, 2025
Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves, by Sophie Gilbert, is a book that immediately caught my eye, as I imagine it did with so many other women who were coming of age in the early to mid 2000s.
It is truly disconcerting to look back at the female celebrities of that time (often our age or only slightly older) to see the perverse pleasure the tabloids/paparazzi/men took in building these beautiful women up, only to tear them down. Objectified, hyper sexualized, degraded as drug addicts and sluts - it was all acceptable because these young women did the unthinkable: they asked for it.
How, exactly? Well, it doesn’t quite matter if they were only just learning to navigate fame. If they dressed too skimpily at 21, especially if they were a Disney star at 16 (with a totally different image) - then they were attention seekers who clearly deserved the criticism - and likely wanted it.
Meaning it was okay to call Paris Hilton a slut and make endless jokes about what she believed was an entirely private sex tape, while conveniently overlooking the fact that she was a vulnerable teenager who was clearly exploited by a man twice her age. Yet he wasn’t a sleaze bag or a pedophile - hey, 19 and 38 is perfectly legal - or at the very least, a major creep. All anger and disgust was directed at her.
Just like with Britney, Lindsay, even Emma Watson fell victim to it - up skirt photos of young female celebrities weren’t classified as sexual harassment by dirty old men preying on them at clubs, knowing when they exited their ride, they’d often be wearing dresses or skirts (and the celebrities would literally hear a click of a camera).
Yet instead of being shamed for this practice, it was encouraged. Treated as some kind of “scandalous trend,” it was splashed all over the front pages of US Weekly, In Touch, even magazines like People which weren’t supposed to be quite as sensational. Of course it was censored. It’s just the idea that it even appeared in its censored form so as to criticize the young celebrity that made it so disturbing.
I can see why this could be a potentially important read, but for me, it just fell a little flat.
Gilbert’s argument hinged upon the point that with Internet porn becoming more and more ubiquitous, and “gonzo” porn (the really degrading and disturbing shit) becoming more mainstream, it was becoming increasingly infused into our everyday lives and popular culture. The line between pornographic fantasy and real life sexuality became impossible to differentiate.
I suppose part of the problem, for me, is that not only have I heard this argument before, but I’ve heard it in countless other forms, much earlier on, and for just one example in book form, I’d reference Gail Dines’s Pornland: How Pornland Has Hijacked our Sexuality, published in 2010. Further, I believe it’s in Pornland that I first read about the vile “human being”, Max Hardcore (RIH, seriously).
Essentially what I’m getting at, if my brilliant friends have not already realized it, is that these arguments have all been heard before. Furthermore, they’ve been heard in connection to why the 2000s years were so awful to young women without much concern from… well, anyone.
Is it really so surprising that as a society who spends more and more time online, in a world where people are surrounded only by what they’ve chosen to see, that porn would eventually start influencing beauty and style trends, and, worst of all (especially for Gen Z and younger) - the expectations young men have for sex and pleasing their partners?
That’s the problem I have with the argument that “I’m not anti-porn, I’m anti-consent” or “I’m simply against pornography that degrades women.” Wait, what?! Lol, this is actually the furthest thing from funny, but… are women who are saying this truly that ignorant to the world of porn today, or are they just playing a part? It’s actually a relevant question to ask, given how we all play into these parts on some level, sometimes consciously, very often subconsciously.
You don’t even need to read the book from last year investigating PornHub and the amount of nonconsensual, underage material the site offers (Takedown: Inside the Fight to Shut Down Pornhub by Laila Mickelwait) to know how truly disgusting “mainstream” pornography is today. If you dare, just type in some of the explicit words for male and female body parts, along with the crude names for sexual acts. I’ll bet the first ten results are all videos where the woman is degraded for the man’s pleasure.
That’s what irritates me about women (Gilbert being one of them) claiming this in today’s world: it’s more akin to saying “I’m not one of those weirdo feminists who is against ALL porn!” Because sure, there used to be pornography where the women were actually satisfied, and pornography that would be considered quite modest: solo masturbation in the shower, a couple having slightly rough sex, a woman having a threesome with her “boyfriend” and another woman. But at least they all had the same goal of showing the woman receiving pleasure. That’s not what porn is, not anymore.
I’m not saying those forms of it don’t exist anymore, because of course, you can literally look up anything and find it. It’s just that the more moderate content was replaced by the more hardcore stuff, and women in the industry have all more or less stated that not only has it broken them emotionally, but it has literally broken them physically.
Which is sickening, heartbreaking, and infuriating all at once. But there’s always a new girl ready to take over, so they use these women like literal objects - the exact way you see them being used in the “films” - until they physically cannot handle it anymore.
But sure, make your pro-porn stance known in a book that is supposed to examine porn’s harmful impact on young women in the real world as well. I suppose the book had relevant points to make, but I felt it jumped around a bit too much - problematically right when the point was being refined, onto a completely different subject and angle, thus not fully wrapping up the argument being made.
It felt very narrow in its focus and especially confined to narrating so many events from the “aughts.” Wow. I know people might feel I’m being too particular about this, but if a word is used so much that you begin to actually keep count? Then you might want to consider synonyms.
I was thrilled when I got to the chapters which would only mention 2010 and after, as I thought I was finally safe from the word: not so.
When Girls debuted in 2012, it was very much in the shadow of Sex and the City, if only because all other HBO series during the aughts tended to be a sullen mire of intricately drawn, darkly violent men.
Next page? Throughout the aughts, it often felt as though girls were being conditioned…
On pp. 179-185, “aughts” is used six times, often in one paragraph right after another, and never really going more than 3-4 pages without its use.
On p. 179:
Celebrity during the aughts meant surrendering to surveillance, and many were willing to do it.
Four mere sentences later: ”I came to this project from the beginning because the cruelty and disdain expressed toward women during the aughts seemed to be more significant than it’s often given credit for.
And yes, it’s used on p. 180 and p. 181 as well. Maybe I’m alone in thinking that not only do you not want to repeat any word too often in a book, but you certainly want to refrain from doing so when the word is a unique one. I feel the author could have avoided this irritating mistake by simply substituting “the 2000s”, “the early/mid/late 2000s”, “the start of the 21st century”, or even the precise date, or a more vague “the times”, “this cultural era”, and so on.
A lot of people really seemed to enjoy this book, so maybe it’s just me. I just feel there’s better books with this argument already out there. Two of which I’ve mentioned already, another being Laura Bates’s Men Who Hate Women. Although, just as a warning, that book is terrifying. It is a very real deep dive into incel and other female hating communities, and as the author points out, “you can’t unread this once you’ve read it.”
I’ll try to put the actual links in later for anyone interested in these books to make for easier access. But they are much better - by women who have studied this very topic for much longer and have attained much deeper knowledge as a result.
I really can’t give it much better than two and a half stars, rounded up.
It is truly disconcerting to look back at the female celebrities of that time (often our age or only slightly older) to see the perverse pleasure the tabloids/paparazzi/men took in building these beautiful women up, only to tear them down. Objectified, hyper sexualized, degraded as drug addicts and sluts - it was all acceptable because these young women did the unthinkable: they asked for it.
How, exactly? Well, it doesn’t quite matter if they were only just learning to navigate fame. If they dressed too skimpily at 21, especially if they were a Disney star at 16 (with a totally different image) - then they were attention seekers who clearly deserved the criticism - and likely wanted it.
Meaning it was okay to call Paris Hilton a slut and make endless jokes about what she believed was an entirely private sex tape, while conveniently overlooking the fact that she was a vulnerable teenager who was clearly exploited by a man twice her age. Yet he wasn’t a sleaze bag or a pedophile - hey, 19 and 38 is perfectly legal - or at the very least, a major creep. All anger and disgust was directed at her.
Just like with Britney, Lindsay, even Emma Watson fell victim to it - up skirt photos of young female celebrities weren’t classified as sexual harassment by dirty old men preying on them at clubs, knowing when they exited their ride, they’d often be wearing dresses or skirts (and the celebrities would literally hear a click of a camera).
Yet instead of being shamed for this practice, it was encouraged. Treated as some kind of “scandalous trend,” it was splashed all over the front pages of US Weekly, In Touch, even magazines like People which weren’t supposed to be quite as sensational. Of course it was censored. It’s just the idea that it even appeared in its censored form so as to criticize the young celebrity that made it so disturbing.
I can see why this could be a potentially important read, but for me, it just fell a little flat.
Gilbert’s argument hinged upon the point that with Internet porn becoming more and more ubiquitous, and “gonzo” porn (the really degrading and disturbing shit) becoming more mainstream, it was becoming increasingly infused into our everyday lives and popular culture. The line between pornographic fantasy and real life sexuality became impossible to differentiate.
I suppose part of the problem, for me, is that not only have I heard this argument before, but I’ve heard it in countless other forms, much earlier on, and for just one example in book form, I’d reference Gail Dines’s Pornland: How Pornland Has Hijacked our Sexuality, published in 2010. Further, I believe it’s in Pornland that I first read about the vile “human being”, Max Hardcore (RIH, seriously).
Essentially what I’m getting at, if my brilliant friends have not already realized it, is that these arguments have all been heard before. Furthermore, they’ve been heard in connection to why the 2000s years were so awful to young women without much concern from… well, anyone.
Is it really so surprising that as a society who spends more and more time online, in a world where people are surrounded only by what they’ve chosen to see, that porn would eventually start influencing beauty and style trends, and, worst of all (especially for Gen Z and younger) - the expectations young men have for sex and pleasing their partners?
That’s the problem I have with the argument that “I’m not anti-porn, I’m anti-consent” or “I’m simply against pornography that degrades women.” Wait, what?! Lol, this is actually the furthest thing from funny, but… are women who are saying this truly that ignorant to the world of porn today, or are they just playing a part? It’s actually a relevant question to ask, given how we all play into these parts on some level, sometimes consciously, very often subconsciously.
You don’t even need to read the book from last year investigating PornHub and the amount of nonconsensual, underage material the site offers (Takedown: Inside the Fight to Shut Down Pornhub by Laila Mickelwait) to know how truly disgusting “mainstream” pornography is today. If you dare, just type in some of the explicit words for male and female body parts, along with the crude names for sexual acts. I’ll bet the first ten results are all videos where the woman is degraded for the man’s pleasure.
That’s what irritates me about women (Gilbert being one of them) claiming this in today’s world: it’s more akin to saying “I’m not one of those weirdo feminists who is against ALL porn!” Because sure, there used to be pornography where the women were actually satisfied, and pornography that would be considered quite modest: solo masturbation in the shower, a couple having slightly rough sex, a woman having a threesome with her “boyfriend” and another woman. But at least they all had the same goal of showing the woman receiving pleasure. That’s not what porn is, not anymore.
I’m not saying those forms of it don’t exist anymore, because of course, you can literally look up anything and find it. It’s just that the more moderate content was replaced by the more hardcore stuff, and women in the industry have all more or less stated that not only has it broken them emotionally, but it has literally broken them physically.
Which is sickening, heartbreaking, and infuriating all at once. But there’s always a new girl ready to take over, so they use these women like literal objects - the exact way you see them being used in the “films” - until they physically cannot handle it anymore.
But sure, make your pro-porn stance known in a book that is supposed to examine porn’s harmful impact on young women in the real world as well. I suppose the book had relevant points to make, but I felt it jumped around a bit too much - problematically right when the point was being refined, onto a completely different subject and angle, thus not fully wrapping up the argument being made.
It felt very narrow in its focus and especially confined to narrating so many events from the “aughts.” Wow. I know people might feel I’m being too particular about this, but if a word is used so much that you begin to actually keep count? Then you might want to consider synonyms.
I was thrilled when I got to the chapters which would only mention 2010 and after, as I thought I was finally safe from the word: not so.
When Girls debuted in 2012, it was very much in the shadow of Sex and the City, if only because all other HBO series during the aughts tended to be a sullen mire of intricately drawn, darkly violent men.
Next page? Throughout the aughts, it often felt as though girls were being conditioned…
On pp. 179-185, “aughts” is used six times, often in one paragraph right after another, and never really going more than 3-4 pages without its use.
On p. 179:
Celebrity during the aughts meant surrendering to surveillance, and many were willing to do it.
Four mere sentences later: ”I came to this project from the beginning because the cruelty and disdain expressed toward women during the aughts seemed to be more significant than it’s often given credit for.
And yes, it’s used on p. 180 and p. 181 as well. Maybe I’m alone in thinking that not only do you not want to repeat any word too often in a book, but you certainly want to refrain from doing so when the word is a unique one. I feel the author could have avoided this irritating mistake by simply substituting “the 2000s”, “the early/mid/late 2000s”, “the start of the 21st century”, or even the precise date, or a more vague “the times”, “this cultural era”, and so on.
A lot of people really seemed to enjoy this book, so maybe it’s just me. I just feel there’s better books with this argument already out there. Two of which I’ve mentioned already, another being Laura Bates’s Men Who Hate Women. Although, just as a warning, that book is terrifying. It is a very real deep dive into incel and other female hating communities, and as the author points out, “you can’t unread this once you’ve read it.”
I’ll try to put the actual links in later for anyone interested in these books to make for easier access. But they are much better - by women who have studied this very topic for much longer and have attained much deeper knowledge as a result.
I really can’t give it much better than two and a half stars, rounded up.
November 30, 2025
I liked the writing and reframing of culture. A bit repetitive. The thesis didn’t really deepen or evolve but the points were clear and powerful.
May 10, 2025
Unfassbar aufschluss- und lehrreich! Habe viele popkulturelle Ereignisse so nochmal besser beleuchtet bekommen und gerade für meinen Job als Filmkritikerin ist dieses Sachbuch ein echtes Schätzchen.
April 6, 2025
4.5/5
This is my kind of non-fiction. Reminiscent of pop-culture essays (which tracks as Gilbert writes for The Atlantic), Girl On Girl tackles it all- the music industry, the porn industry, reality tv, paparazzi, politics, and social media- and how it connects to the realities of women everywhere. As a girl mom and a high school teacher, the way women are portrayed in the media is always at the forefront of my mind. The resurgence of diet culture and decline of body positivity in the past year has been alarming, and it’s important that we continue to use our voices loudly so this generation of women aren’t impacted the way mine was by what they consume. Will be recommending this to everyone!
Thank you to Penguin Random House Canada for the advanced copy!
This is my kind of non-fiction. Reminiscent of pop-culture essays (which tracks as Gilbert writes for The Atlantic), Girl On Girl tackles it all- the music industry, the porn industry, reality tv, paparazzi, politics, and social media- and how it connects to the realities of women everywhere. As a girl mom and a high school teacher, the way women are portrayed in the media is always at the forefront of my mind. The resurgence of diet culture and decline of body positivity in the past year has been alarming, and it’s important that we continue to use our voices loudly so this generation of women aren’t impacted the way mine was by what they consume. Will be recommending this to everyone!
Thank you to Penguin Random House Canada for the advanced copy!
November 25, 2025
Feminism co-opted by pop culture:Spice girls, Britney Spears, Sex in the City (shopping), reality shows. Taylor Swift's "little girl" image. In romance, dark romance books written by women, most male characters are not 'showing their female side' men, feminists told men they wanted-but are macho(often violent) ones. To blame Hillary Clinton's and Kamela Harris' losses entirely because of being women (Hillary's own book says she didn't campaign enough for working class workers, including women) is a false assumption.
May 29, 2025
One of the most enraging books I’ve ever read. A must read for all.
dnf
June 23, 2025dnf
this reads more like a list of things that happened instead of the analysis I was looking for. I already lived through all of this once, don't need to do it again
this reads more like a list of things that happened instead of the analysis I was looking for. I already lived through all of this once, don't need to do it again
June 18, 2025
Such an interesting read. I was reminded of a lot of things that were happening around me in wider culture as I was growing up. And even though there were a lot of things that I didn't pay much attention to, or didn't feel relevant to me, this book definitely makes me see the wider cultural impacts.
June 25, 2025
I love women and hate how the world treats them
May 18, 2025
Sophie Gilbert is British writer on staff at The Atlantic; she's also an elder Millennial whose teens and twenties dovetailed with the early 21st century, the time period she focuses on in her 2025 popular sociology book Girl on Girl. I think it's inevitable as our generation ages up (speaking as a fellow Millennial) that we become more retrospective and reflective of the era that shaped our adolescence and young adulthood; Girl on Girl joins a growing body of books on this topic (see further reading below).
Gilbert explores various cultural touchstones of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s through the lens of how women were portrayed (and the broader sociological impacts of these representations trickled into popular culture and the psyches of young people during that era like Gilbert and the other authors linked below). The book is divided into chapters that discuss women in music, women in fashion, women in the adult entertainment industry, women on reality TV and in the early influencer era, etc. (with the music chapter dovetailing quite closely with Tanya Pearson's excellent recent book, Pretend We're Dead: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of Women in Rock in the ’90s, where she delves a lot more deeply into the rise and fall of women in rock in the '90s and early '00s).
I would say the narrative overall is progressive-leaning, though I think those of most ideologies can look back on some of the social moraes of the '00s and realize that society is generally more accepting now. It's a fine line here -- one of my biggest nonfiction pet peeves is judging the morals and behaviors of the past by today's standards, yet now that 20-25 years have elapsed from the Y2K era and those of us who were teens then have strong feelings now that inevitably veer into that tendency. It's incredibly hard to write about the recent past that we also lived through with objectivity and the benefit of even more time passing and further maturation and perspective-building. One wonders how the 2000s (and for that matter, the 2020s) will be viewed with several more decades of hindsight.
Further reading: Millennials revisiting the cultural zeitgeists of their formative years (ordered from most recommended to least recommended)
Searches: Selfhood in the Digital Age by Vauhini Vara
Toxic: Women, Fame, and the Tabloid 2000s by Sarah Ditum
Can't Even: How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation by Anne Helen Petersen
The Woman in Me by Britney Spears
Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion by Jia Tolentino
Open Book by Jessica Simpson
Strip Tees: A Memoir of Millennial Los Angeles by Kate Flannery
One in a Millennial: On Friendship, Feelings, Fangirls, and Fitting In by Kate Kennedy
Y2K: How the 2000s Became Everything by Colette Shade
My statistics:
Book 152 for 2025
Book 2078 cumulatively
Gilbert explores various cultural touchstones of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s through the lens of how women were portrayed (and the broader sociological impacts of these representations trickled into popular culture and the psyches of young people during that era like Gilbert and the other authors linked below). The book is divided into chapters that discuss women in music, women in fashion, women in the adult entertainment industry, women on reality TV and in the early influencer era, etc. (with the music chapter dovetailing quite closely with Tanya Pearson's excellent recent book, Pretend We're Dead: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of Women in Rock in the ’90s, where she delves a lot more deeply into the rise and fall of women in rock in the '90s and early '00s).
I would say the narrative overall is progressive-leaning, though I think those of most ideologies can look back on some of the social moraes of the '00s and realize that society is generally more accepting now. It's a fine line here -- one of my biggest nonfiction pet peeves is judging the morals and behaviors of the past by today's standards, yet now that 20-25 years have elapsed from the Y2K era and those of us who were teens then have strong feelings now that inevitably veer into that tendency. It's incredibly hard to write about the recent past that we also lived through with objectivity and the benefit of even more time passing and further maturation and perspective-building. One wonders how the 2000s (and for that matter, the 2020s) will be viewed with several more decades of hindsight.
Further reading: Millennials revisiting the cultural zeitgeists of their formative years (ordered from most recommended to least recommended)
Searches: Selfhood in the Digital Age by Vauhini Vara
Toxic: Women, Fame, and the Tabloid 2000s by Sarah Ditum
Can't Even: How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation by Anne Helen Petersen
The Woman in Me by Britney Spears
Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion by Jia Tolentino
Open Book by Jessica Simpson
Strip Tees: A Memoir of Millennial Los Angeles by Kate Flannery
One in a Millennial: On Friendship, Feelings, Fangirls, and Fitting In by Kate Kennedy
Y2K: How the 2000s Became Everything by Colette Shade
My statistics:
Book 152 for 2025
Book 2078 cumulatively
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](https://goodreads.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
June 30, 2025
As someone who came of age in the early 00s (and recently celebrated a 20-year high school graduation anniversary thing...did I go? Fuck no but the age is kicking me in the ass), I've been wanting to look back more at the weird cluster fuck those of us to came of age in the time of 9/11, Paris Hilton and the Great Recession. Not from nostalgia, but to examine the events of the 00s that are leading us to today. Especially since the fashion and health cycles are primed and pumping on bringing us 20 years into the past.
Anywho, the early 00s were bleak. I think Mean Girls does a good job of capturing the essence of what it was like in a lot of ways, although obviously the issues couldn't be settled as easily as "just let people do their thing in peace."
But Gilbert does a fantastic job of breaking down sectors of society: politics, music, reality tv, celebrity, diet and more to really did into what made Gen X and millennials so fucked up. While the narrative is overwhelmingly straight and white (and touches a lot on the interesting aspects of white feminism that make it abhorrently NOT feminist), she also examines the fetishization and misogynoir of Black women during this period, and touches on some queer and trans lines.
TL;DR, when people sell "empowerment" with words that prominently feature "girl," be wary. Also, diets are a scam and you shouldn't ever shrink yourself in any way in order to fit in. Second also, fuck all MLMs (you aren't a boss or SHEO if you don't set your own prices). Final als0: capitalism taints everything.
Anywho, the early 00s were bleak. I think Mean Girls does a good job of capturing the essence of what it was like in a lot of ways, although obviously the issues couldn't be settled as easily as "just let people do their thing in peace."
But Gilbert does a fantastic job of breaking down sectors of society: politics, music, reality tv, celebrity, diet and more to really did into what made Gen X and millennials so fucked up. While the narrative is overwhelmingly straight and white (and touches a lot on the interesting aspects of white feminism that make it abhorrently NOT feminist), she also examines the fetishization and misogynoir of Black women during this period, and touches on some queer and trans lines.
TL;DR, when people sell "empowerment" with words that prominently feature "girl," be wary. Also, diets are a scam and you shouldn't ever shrink yourself in any way in order to fit in. Second also, fuck all MLMs (you aren't a boss or SHEO if you don't set your own prices). Final als0: capitalism taints everything.
September 22, 2025
In Girl on Girl, journalist Sophie Gilbert explores how pop culture at the turn of the century promoted misogyny and the objectification of women. I enjoyed the elements of nostalgia included in the book, revisiting many aspects of the late 1990s and early 2000s pop culture. Of course, the way women were treated at the time, especially by the media, wasn’t cool. Gilbert shares the often unattainable standards of this era and how the media, often along with the general public as well, shamed female celebrity pop stars.
I listened to the audiobook of Girl on Girl, which felt more like recounting and chronicling rather than sharing new revelations.
I listened to the audiobook of Girl on Girl, which felt more like recounting and chronicling rather than sharing new revelations.
April 29, 2025
An investigative odyssey into modern pop culture, from the 90s-today. From Madonna’s Sex book to the #Girlboss era, Sophie Gilbert takes us back through the pornified pervasive culture of our millennial foundations.
Wow, it was truly horrifying to see how wild and misogynistic mainstream pop culture (music, movies, celebrity) was when I was growing up (and still is). There’s been a very clear pathway from then to now and the trad-wife/incel epidemic. Of course we couldn’t discern this growing up, but it was really eye opening to journey back through it all.
This is such a HUGE topic, and I think Gilbert does an excellent job of hitting major touchstones. Including, the Spice Girls, Britney Spears debut, Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl performance, early reality TV (An American Family, Flavor of Love, The Real Housewives franchise, etc.), American Pie, Hostel, Girls, Glossier, the list goes on.
This is a must read for millennials, gen-z, and anyone interested in pop culture. I’m so happy it’s out in the world and I can’t wait to talk about it with everyone!
Thank you to the publisher for the ARC.
Wow, it was truly horrifying to see how wild and misogynistic mainstream pop culture (music, movies, celebrity) was when I was growing up (and still is). There’s been a very clear pathway from then to now and the trad-wife/incel epidemic. Of course we couldn’t discern this growing up, but it was really eye opening to journey back through it all.
This is such a HUGE topic, and I think Gilbert does an excellent job of hitting major touchstones. Including, the Spice Girls, Britney Spears debut, Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl performance, early reality TV (An American Family, Flavor of Love, The Real Housewives franchise, etc.), American Pie, Hostel, Girls, Glossier, the list goes on.
This is a must read for millennials, gen-z, and anyone interested in pop culture. I’m so happy it’s out in the world and I can’t wait to talk about it with everyone!
Thank you to the publisher for the ARC.
Currently reading
November 21, 2025From the intro: "I wanted to understand how a generation of young women came to believe that sex was our currency, our objectification was empowering, and we were a joke."
Also: "In a 2013 study, the social psychologist Rachel M. Calogero found that the more women were prone to self-objectification—the defining message of postfeminism and porn alike—the less inclined they were toward activism and the pursuit of social justice."
"I've always wondered why people diminish girlhood as somehow cosseted or twee, when the reality of coming-of-age as a young woman is so raw, filled with emotional violence and literal blood." p8
"The power of what women really want is so forceful, so potentially iconoclastic [...] that the only way to control it is to distract us with self-loathing, and the lifelong project of disciplined self-maintenance." p122
Ann Powers: "A lot of what the '90s was about was this huge question of 'How do we live as women within some kind of idea of the feminine without having it wreck us?'."
"In 2007, the sociologist Rosalind Gill theorized that postfeminism was less an ideology than a 'sensibility.' Its identifying features included the obsessive monitoring of one's own and other women's bodies, a preoccupation with self-discipline and self-surveillance, a makeover paradigm, an emphasis on individual gratification over collective effort, a belief in gender essentialism, and a preference among women to present themselves as active sexual subjects rather than passive objects." p102
Tressie McMillan Cottom: "Beauty isn't actually what you look like; beauty is the preferences that reproduce the existing social order."
John Berger: "The spectator-buyer is meant to envy herself as she will become if she buys the product. She is meant to imagine herself transformed by the product into an object of envy for others, an envy which will then justify her loving herself. One could put this another way: the publicity image steals her love of herself as she is, and offers it back to her for the price of the product."
Also: "In a 2013 study, the social psychologist Rachel M. Calogero found that the more women were prone to self-objectification—the defining message of postfeminism and porn alike—the less inclined they were toward activism and the pursuit of social justice."
"I've always wondered why people diminish girlhood as somehow cosseted or twee, when the reality of coming-of-age as a young woman is so raw, filled with emotional violence and literal blood." p8
"The power of what women really want is so forceful, so potentially iconoclastic [...] that the only way to control it is to distract us with self-loathing, and the lifelong project of disciplined self-maintenance." p122
Ann Powers: "A lot of what the '90s was about was this huge question of 'How do we live as women within some kind of idea of the feminine without having it wreck us?'."
"In 2007, the sociologist Rosalind Gill theorized that postfeminism was less an ideology than a 'sensibility.' Its identifying features included the obsessive monitoring of one's own and other women's bodies, a preoccupation with self-discipline and self-surveillance, a makeover paradigm, an emphasis on individual gratification over collective effort, a belief in gender essentialism, and a preference among women to present themselves as active sexual subjects rather than passive objects." p102
Tressie McMillan Cottom: "Beauty isn't actually what you look like; beauty is the preferences that reproduce the existing social order."
John Berger: "The spectator-buyer is meant to envy herself as she will become if she buys the product. She is meant to imagine herself transformed by the product into an object of envy for others, an envy which will then justify her loving herself. One could put this another way: the publicity image steals her love of herself as she is, and offers it back to her for the price of the product."
August 31, 2025
Tarkka, analyyttinen ja kuitenkin hieman loppua kohden lässähtävä tietokirja tämän vuosituhannen popkulttuurista ja sen vaikutuksista naiskuvaan, jonka keskellä joka päivä elämme. Alkuosa, tai oikeastaan kirjan kolme ensimmäistä neljännestä, olivat vahvaa, terävää ja runsaasti lähteistettyä ja osuvaa analyysia. Mutta ihan viimeisten kappaleiden (eli oikeastaan 2010-lukua ja etenkin sen loppua käsittelevien osuuksien) kohdalla terävyys katosi ja muuttui ehkä enemmän arvailuksi ja paikoin jopa mutkia aika rankastikin suoriksi vetäväksi ja irralliseksi. Loppu osan popkulttuurin "syyttäminen" esimerkiksi nyky-yhteiskunnan tilasta on myös varsin heppoisalla pohjalla, ja vaikka vuoden 2008 lama mainittiin, taloudellisten resurssien jakautumisen yhä suurempi kuilu, yhteiskunnan rakenteelliset tekijät ja esimerkiksi globaalin äärioikeiston nousun tapaiset ilmiöt kadotettiin pohtiessa sitä, voisiko tämä kaikki oikeastaan johtua siitä, ettemme enää tee romanttisia komedoita.
3,5 tähteä, joka tapauksessa, koska suurin osa tästä teoksesta oli hurjan hyvää kamaa.
3,5 tähteä, joka tapauksessa, koska suurin osa tästä teoksesta oli hurjan hyvää kamaa.
June 9, 2025
I think I’ve read most - if not all - of these criticisms before so it wasn’t very fresh or exciting.
I was not prepared for how much porn is centered and vilified. Which is fine - I think she has a point in some cases. But if I knew I’d be reading graphic, sterile descriptions of violent pornographic scenes I probably wouldn’t have picked this up.
Mostly this was depressing, and then I think Gilbert must have realized that, so she made a last ditch effort to provide a light at the end of the tunnel in the final chapter.
She almost got somewhere but many others have beat her there.
2.5 maybe a 3?
I was not prepared for how much porn is centered and vilified. Which is fine - I think she has a point in some cases. But if I knew I’d be reading graphic, sterile descriptions of violent pornographic scenes I probably wouldn’t have picked this up.
Mostly this was depressing, and then I think Gilbert must have realized that, so she made a last ditch effort to provide a light at the end of the tunnel in the final chapter.
She almost got somewhere but many others have beat her there.
2.5 maybe a 3?
July 10, 2025
Chapters 9 and 10 lost me a bit but overall this was a super nostalgic and interesting read. However, major TW’s for very graphic discussion on porn culture, rape, violence against women, etc. I personally found the second half of the book to be quite unrelenting compared to the more pop culture centered first half.
May 26, 2025
Rounding up. Not groundbreaking but I good synthesis that talks about a lot of stuff I like
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,215 reviews