and not in a good way d:

We had to put Shaila down tonight.  She collapsed at about 5:45 pm, and when we took her to the vet, she had another but worse incident.  It turns out that she had some sort of cancer around her heart, and her heart was surrounded by fluid.  They drained it to make her more comfortable, but there wasn’t really anything that could be done.  Merlin doesn’t quite understand what’s happened, and…well, we’re wrecked.  Not much to say other than that.

I already miss her so much, but she’s with Barstow now.  We just never imagined that we’d lose them only 4 months apart.

I support everyone’s right to write whatever they want, of course. 

that being said, do we really need a book with an oppressive matriarchy in this the year 2017?

( One city-state, the Society of Cousins, is a matriarchy, where men are supported in any career choice, but no right to vote—and tensions are beginning to flare as outside political intrigues increase.

Carey can finally become independent of the matriarchy that considers him a perpetual adolescent.)

It just doesn’t feel necessary. Reversing gender-based oppression 1:1 never really works; if you really wanted to get into a matriarchal world it would have to be radically different. For example, I loved Melanie Rawn’s Exiles series, but her attempt at an oppressive matriarchy is kind of silly - men have to cover themselves and, I think, can’t own property or something, but are in almost every other way equal to women, and it’s not really important to the plot. 

Basically, if you’re going to do an oppressive matriarchy, either you’re a ‘40s pulp writer who’s doing it for titillation, or you’re Commenting. I haven’t read this book, so I can’t comment on how he does it, but from the reviews, it seems like he’s barely, if at all, Commenting. 

This post in more in sorrow than in anger, and if it’s anger at all, it’s anger that this took the space of one of the thousands of more interesting projects that exist in the world.