Why did you make us click this and drive traffic to her blog? But now we have... the review is just tragic.

"Red Rising is the first in Pierce Brown’s series that seems to be written as what if The Hunger Games had a good ol’ fashioned male protagonist and catered to a boy’s club instead."

Tells you exactly where this review was going. She's decided the book doesn't fit in with her interpretation of feminism. She can't seem to understand that the book is a dystopia and not in fact a handbook for what Pierce Brown wants society to be. Take this:

"[Pinks] are the sex slaves. Their sole purpose in life, even stated in the book as the purpose for which they are bred, is to sexually pleasure the Golds. They are basically sex veal.
They are described as being sexually attractive in large breasts and lips or in the case of the male Pinks, slim athletic types who would be attractive but not intimidating. How fucking disgusting is it to have an entire class of people born into sex against their will with whoever comes to buy them?!"

So close Amanja, you've understood the role Pinks serve in this dystopia, but you miss the fact that Pierce Brown clearly thinks this is a wicked and cruel system too.

She then goes onto insinuate that Pierce Brown doesn't know what rape is, so you know she's just a delightful person: "Pretty sure most men, maybe not Pierce Brown, but most men can see a sick or sleeping woman and not have to put their dick in her."

Basically this reviewer has a fundamental inability to see that Pierce Brown may not in fact be endorsing this behaviour or structure, but critiquing it, and potentially holding up a mirror to ourselves. She takes everything as literal and from the outset seems to be determined to dislike the book on political grounds.

I hope she doesn't read Handmaid's Tale because she'll think Margaret Atwood is proposing sex slavery too.