|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any idea how big the initial print-run was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just got my copy at Indigo, along with Hoff-Sommers' book.
I've seen some of the TV press concerning the book. It's getting some considerable attention here in Canada -- like the co-author said. I've heard some feminists commenting upon the book claim that while it is okay to talk about misandry as a "concept", it doesn't really exist in our society. Yeah right...
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The initial print run was 25,000 I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else read the reviews at Amazon? There are many femi-nuts placing bigoted reviews there. Maybe some people who do not hate men should also review the book?
I am glad it is selling well: It is about time!
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnes & Noble at bn.com has copies of "Spreading Misandry" in stock and ready to ship. They also have a free shipping offer going. You have to order two items.
A men's book that would be a good candidate for reading is Rich Zubaty's "What Men Know That Women Don't."
It is in e-book form and is sent by e-mail from Virtualbookworm at:
http://www.virtualbookworm.com/merchant.mv?
Actually it is an encouraging sign that "Spreading Misandry" is hard to get from some sources. It shows that the publishers seriously underestimated the market for men's rights literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @03:35PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just posting this so you can see what type of mentalities exist out there:
""Spreading Misandry" is a perfect example of the sort of "misery politics" that are flourishing in this age of disempowerment-as-virtue. The dripping self-pity leaking through the torpid writing almost, but not completely, drowns out the shrill misogyny,and the keening whine of victimization. Nathanson and Young are the Robin Hood and Maid Marian of the men's movement (though it is far from clear which is which) flinging far-fetched and inaccurate movie and pop culture references against the wall of their thesis like so much wet toilet paper, clearly praying that something will stick. It doesn't. Any reader who expects enlightenment from a book whose authors brag--up front--that their research isn't scientific, will be sorely disappointed. The major question Nathanson and Young completely fail to answer is why--if men are so victimized and held in "contempt"--so few of them are complaining. No one, it seems, is as bothered by this "victimization" as Nathanson and Young. The one question it DOES answer, definitively, is why the men's movement so unpalatable to most men. Aside from the patronizing arrogance inherent assuring an entire gender that they are "victims" and too dumb to know it (and victims of evil "idealogical feminists" at that), it seems doubtful that said "victims" have been waiting miserably for this tag-team writing duo to ride to their rescue. They likely are too busy leading actual lives involving spouses, children, jobs, and friends(or any combination thereof), enjoying the incredible benifits and responsibilities of being a man in this society, to join the authors in their weepy pity party. This clammy priapus-gazing is so off-putting that any sympathy for men's rights and issues may shrivel at the point where the reader sees what it looks like reflected back at them in Nathanson and Young's version, which means they have done the men's movement a huge disservice. Most ominous of all is the threat of two more shrieky volumes. This book is bound to make a radical feminist out of any belly-scratching, beer-swilling hairyback...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I managed to obtain a copy. The criticaster who wrote this "review" was provoked to ad hominem attack in lieu of substantive commentary and analysis. It was perhaps good fortune that the initial printing was limited: it tends to bolster one's impression that the reviewer hasn't read the book. It's not an intellectually honest review, nor is it particularly witty or relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @03:36PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This book is not news--and it's not true, either, but most male readers won't notice that in their rush to assign blame for so-called "misandry" to feminists instead of other men. Focusing on popular culture of recent years neatly provides a context to ignore the fact that most allegedly hateful imagery of men is the product of male writers and male ideologies--as, really, the conflict between the U.S. and Afghanistan proves more clearly than anything else should ever need to--and has a history predating feminism by centuries. Men suffer, sure, but is it really because of feminism? Or has feminism really done them a most unintended favor by providing them with a scapegoat to blame for the harm they do one another? And does the negative representation of men in popular culture really damage their ultimate control of culture or their individual power in their personal or professional lives? Lately women's names often turn up on books that are apologies for men and for male power; one should be vastly suspicious of all such writings and clear on the reason why women write such books in the first place: men do still control culture, and the fastest way for a woman to make her name as a scholar or a writer is by pitying them and slamming feminists. This book is superficial at best, and no one should be surprised that its female co-author has a background in religious studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd argue, anonymous, but methinks you might be a troll.
Nevertheless, it is *obvious* that men *are* complaining. Look at this site, f'rinstance. The reason *you* don't hear the complaints is because mainstream media tends to ignore them.
Likewise, I don't think anyone is "assigning blame" anywhere. And why do you assume that if one decries misandry he or she is automatically a misogynist? Sounds like you've got quite a double-standard there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @04:48PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist,
I think these two views/posts above are direct lifts from the Reader Reviews posted on Amazon.com
I think the anon poster is simply posting them to show some feminist views of the book. Unless of course, the Anon poster above is the actual writer of the Amazon reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist,
I think these two views/posts above are direct lifts from the Reader Reviews posted on Amazon.com
I think the anon poster is simply posting them to show some feminist views of the book. Unless of course, the Anon poster above is the actual writer of the Amazon reviews.
Aha. It wasn't clear to me that those were from Amazon.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I've mentioned before, people that LIKE the book can post a review, too. And I would encourage them to do so. I will, once I've finished reading the book.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I've mentioned before, people that LIKE the book can post a review, too. And I would encourage them to do so. I will, once I've finished reading the book.
I shall do likewise if I can ever get my hands on a copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've attempted to respond. Like the criticaster used to instant gratification from Ms Magazine who lamented the one week wait before seeng her masterpiece in print, we'll see if my comments are accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @05:45PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
If you go to the Ms Magazine discussion boards you can read about an effort to organize feminists to write bogus reviews of this book on the Amazon site. There is a discussion about how one didn't need to read the book in order to trash it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you save this - its gone already. When you see something like this ya gotta grab it quick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a page from my manual on handing anti-male trolls. This troll is rather smug, but we can disarm it in numerous ways; today, we'll illustrate the substitution technique: we use search/replace feature of our text editors to replace every occurrence of "men" with "blacks" to see how appallingly bigoted the troll is.
For example, consider the passage:
Focusing on popular culture of recent years neatly provides a context to ignore the fact that most allegedly hateful imagery of men is the product of male writers and male ideologies--as, really, the conflict between the U.S. and Afghanistan...
Using the search/replace technique, we obtain the following unconscionably racist passage:
Focusing on popular culture of recent years neatly provides a context to ignore the fact that most allegedly hateful imagery of blacks is the product of black writers and black ideologies--as, really, the conflict between the U.S. and Afghanistan...
The translation helps us see how bigoted the troll is. We clearly recognize its redneck origins. Any genuine concern for the welfare of human beings wouldn't write off an entire group on the grounds that it caused its own misery, and therefore, it deserves what it gets. This is an unimpressive troll of modest ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
today, we'll illustrate the substitution technique: we use search/replace feature of our text editors to replace every occurrence of "men" with "blacks" to see how appallingly bigoted the troll is.
Hey, that's the same tactic I use! In person! *G* BTW, I ordrered the book from my local library's ILL (interlibrary loan)system. Let's see if it comes in...
On a side note, I'm sick to death of gender feminists and hypocrites (almost always in the same category). My mom (who says she's equalitarian) saw a rather misandrist commercial that pictured the guy as insensitive and stupid [the girl says, "I love you", but they guy is too dumb to say anything until she leaves], and laughed her @$$ off, muttering, "What a dumb sh*t!". I kinda got mad at that. And my mom also believes that 25% of women get raped and that women earn 75 cents on the dollar, among other things. My mom says she's for equal rights and that she loves men, so what's up??
I wonder if it's human nature to put the "people like us" as superior to "the people who aren't like us".
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if it's human nature to put the "people like us" as superior to "the people who aren't like us".
A very valid and deeply inciteful matter to ponder. I suspect that it is human (and successful animal) nature to think in this way and that this is just part of the greater view of "Those (people, species, whatever) like us are superior to those (people, species, whatever) who aren't like us."
Probably functioned well throughout evolution.
BTW: I don't think that it is a contradiction to say that, while I consider you an equal, it is a very special pleasure to have a woman like you contibuting to our discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A very valid and deeply inciteful matter to ponder.
Thomas! You meant, "insightful," not tending to incite! That was the troll's job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This book is not news--and it's not true, either,
but most male readers won't notice that in their
rush to assign blame for so-called "misandry" to
feminists instead of other men. Focusing on
popular culture of recent years neatly provides a
context to ignore the fact that most allegedly
hateful imagery of men is the product of male
writers and male ideologies--as, really, the
conflict between the U.S. and Afghanistan
proves more clearly than anything else should
ever need to--and has a history predating feminism by centuries."
One thing I've never understood is the following: How can one maintain that misandry doesn't exist (ie, "alleged" hatred of males), yet then proceed to blame men for its effects (rather than feminism)?
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I pointed out in my pending Amazon review is the anti-male bigotry of that statement. It's not carefully reasoned: no argument is given whatsoever for the introduction of the U.S./Afghanistan conflct in the context of misandry--it's a red-herring, so let's ignore it as so much spam, or a random burst of bits. If there is an unexpressed argument connecting it with the "patriarchy"--a notion with no more substantive scientific content than the luminiferous ether--I'll let them do the expatiating.
It's not at all clear in what sense a focus on popular culture provides a "context to ignore" the true source of misandry--either it's an appropriate context in which to consider the source, or it isn't, but it's not a "context to ignore"; it's a context in which misandry is present. It's the job of the authors to make the connection between misandry in popular culture and certain assumptions of ideological feminism, whether these are held by men or women or both.
If the poster wishes to deny the ideological feminist connection and redirect the blame to men, she should establish this. Even so, the attitude is the typical, "men did it to themselves, so they get what they deserve." The poster makes no pretense of hiding her own misandry--just skip below for my comments on how her prose scans when you substitute "blacks" for "men" and "whites" for "women" in case this isn't immediately evident. She is therefore attempting to blame her own misandry on men--a completely irresponsible, intellectually dishonest act that is morally no better than racist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's amusing to consider the role of women throughout history in choosing mates with the "reviled" masculine characteristics we see today. Somehow a combination of scientific ignorance and ideological feminism stands between us and the obvious: the effect of millenia of female sexual choice on the male, who in many ways evolved to what he is as a consequence of female choice. Apparently, ideological feminism has the formidable theoretical task of explaining away the possibility and any responsibility for sexual choice as a biological determinant of the modern homo sapien male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to note that these 'reviews' of spreading misandry are so misandric themselves. It's the same old BS about how men are to blame for all the bad things in the world. To claim that feminists aren't to blame for misandry but that men are is like claiming that it's not the person using the gun that's to blame for the murder but the gun itself. There also persists this idea of 'kind'. You know how it works: if someone is harming their own kind it doesn't really matter, it only matters if they're harming another kind. The problem with this is that the division into kinds is imposed on people from outside the situation, for reasons of their own, ignoring differences that don't suit them and the perceptions of the people involved. A man who spreads misandry is not seen by me as my 'kind'. He could never be my kind, not even if Hell froze over. To me he is the same kind as feminists who have worked so hard to demonise and denigrate men. He has more in common with them than he does with me. Indeed, since when does being a man mean you can't be a feminist?
As a card-carrying whining moaning man (oh why can't we just shut up and put up with everything!) I don't give two hoots who's sticking the knife in, only that a knife IS being stuck in. Men don't complain? Yeah, men do complain, and increasingly so. Men don't notice? I noticed manhating ten years ago, and there are those on this site who noticed it a lot earlier than that. Like me they probably thought they were the only ones who had. Apparently those oh-so-clever women lived with misogyny for thousands of years, and even then they needed 'consciousness raising' in order to see 'sexism' everywhere!
And speaking of women:
"Lately women's names often turn up on books that are apologies for men and for male power; one should be vastly suspicious of all such writings and clear on the reason why women write such books in the first place: men do still control culture, and the fastest way for a woman to make her name as a scholar or a writer is by pitying them and slamming feminists."
Right, so that would be why there are so many men's studies books and so few women's studies ones. How could we be so dumb as not to realise that? I expect I'll see 'Spreading Misandry' heavily promoted in all the bookstores around here, what with men controlling everything. It'll be a bestseller for sure.
I suppose when women control cuture men won't have to put up with any of this crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to note that these 'reviews' of spreading misandry are so misandric themselves. It's the same old BS about how men are to blame for all the bad things in the world.
An observation from the desk of Mars--thank you!
There also persists this idea of 'kind'. You know how it works: if someone is harming their own kind it doesn't really matter, it only matters if they're harming another kind.
This is a form of bigotry. The misandrist reviewer goes further, however: she wants to make the point that it's men doing it to men, and therefore 1) it doesn't "count"--only women's sufferning registers on the moral radar and 2) men get what they deserve. The reviewers manage to combine the worst elements of anti-male bigotry and competitive feminism in a few turbid snotty sentences.
Apparently those oh-so-clever women lived with misogyny for thousands of years, and even then they needed 'consciousness raising' in order to see 'sexism' everywhere!
Ah well you see, unlike a sociologicaly substantive empirical hypothesis, this assertion of gender feminism is impervious to evidence to the contrary: the atrgument is that women are "oppressed" (where "oppressed" is taken as an "undefined" term) by men who have all the power, so women needed to have their consciousness raised to perceive the depths of what men were doing to them, and for which men owe women eternal reparations; men, on the other hand, "have the power" so it's "their stupid fault" if men can't tell that they've been slandered and libeled as a gender; moreover, another axiom of gender feminism impervious to empirical evidence is that women never oppress men, and therefore assuming that misandry is a form of oppression--something we'll never know because gender feminists have never bothered to define this term in the invariant way needed for the fundamental premise of ideological feminism--it follows that men and not women must be responsible for misandry. All the thinking of the trolls, or whatever process they use in lieu of thinking, is carried out a priori on the basis of a few handy bigoted axioms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These Amazon reviews reminds me of a quote by Jonathan Swift –
“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the two negative reviews on Amazon, or very similar to it I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
A very good quote, A.J. It has happened numerous times in the natural scientific sphere (Copernicus, Galileo, Harvey, etc.), and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the social sciences too.
And a note on the constructions of politics and of corporations: The far left is essentially the far right, with many of the asme ideas put tinto different words; even the mightiest CEO of a corporation has to kneel down to the consumers. Economic and political systems, are, in my opinion, a circle.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoyed it thoroughly. While I do not agree with everything the authors say I do feel they make some very astute observations about the way in which misandry has infiltrated into society. They also tend to wander from time to time but usually remain on task for the majority of the text. It also tends to be slightly academic in its writing (I actually had to break out the dictionary a few times).
Although book's main focus is on the misandric films of the 80's and 90's (some of which will surprise you) the principles used for examining film can be used for examining other areas of society as well. The moral theoretical lens they use (hence the religious studies author) dismisses the typical feminist Mulvey film lens and places men and women on equal ground.
Now to address the troll attacks on the book.
The authors do NOT blame feminism as a whole but only the ideological feminists, such as Gilligan, that feel women are morally (or in anyway) superior to men. They go to great lengths to make it very clear that they are not attacking feminism or the need to address women's issues. I seriously doubt anyone that sees the book as an attack on women, feminists or feminism as a whole has not read the book or has personal feelings of guilt.
I not only recommend this book but also am anxiously awaiting the next two. (I can not wait to use it as a reference for my gender in the media class this term.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
