New book: "The Woman Racket"

It's Right there with "The Manipulated Male" by Esther Vilar. Thanks for letting us know about this, Matt.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Thanks, I just ordered it at Amazon. Anyone who writes a 300 page tome, discrediting gender feminist patriarchal theory. deserves a look, in my book.

From the author's web excerpt:

"With life expectancy as it was a century ago, a woman would have spent all or almost all of her life within a family: first her natal family, and then (without any transition) into the one she created herself. She may well have not survived long enough to see her eldest child follow suit. By the late twentieth century, huge increases in longevity meant that a woman could expect to live fully half her adult life free of any sort of child rearing. This one factor alone, it has been argued, explains the rise of feminism."

And, one might suggest, also the rise of consumerism dedicated primarily to subordinating male labor to satisfying females' domestic desires.

You can read several dozen pages of the book on the site link above, including the entire index, which shows this guy is extremely well-versed in history and political economy.

But $40.00 is a pricey read. Maybe ask your local library to order it to expand their women's studies shelf? ;-)

That is a little pricey bro.

I think I'lle wait a little while on this one and see what others are saying about it!!

Besides many so-called "scientific studies" sold as books that claim to debunk pro-woman ideology usually do so by placing some outdated male bashing , pro-feminist , ideology within its pages.

I've read very few books that say women are greedy, feminism is based on false claims of oppression, men are not inferior, the laws are stacked against men, etc., etc., etc.

Instead we get stuff like what Vilar wrote "today's man needs feminism more than women do."

Uh huh sure skeezer...

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Vilar's complete quote follows, suggesting that it is important to put words into actual context before assuming no coherent statement was made:

"As absurd as it may sound, today's men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women's Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this "men's society", men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently."

(The Manipulated Man, Esther Vilar.)

One could take issue with Vilar's notion that men like to see themselves as she described above.

But her theoretical point is that feminists need a straw macho man if their imagined Evil Patriarchy is to continue to be strategically useful.

So it is what women imagine men to be that counts.

I'll post a review of it on my website. That way you'll know it is a safe read. Until then we may get yet another book with subtle praises of feminism, women, etc.

All neatly packaged under the guise of liberating men.

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Roy
"But her theoretical point is that feminists need a straw macho man if their imagined Evil Patriarchy is to continue to be strategically useful."

scott.
Desperate, insecure, eunech type males, need the macho straw man to attack (in front of the girls) also. These desperate eunech type males are like Don quiote chasing windmills with a toothbrush.

Guys. Please. I'm not even going to click on the link. I'm sure the author makes some valid points in the book, but anyone who says,

"Right from first principles, and evident in all of the social research, it is axiomatic that not women but men -- or, rather, the majority of men -- must always be the principal disadvantaged sub-group in all societies."...

Determining that one class of people needs to be below another, implies that one class needs to be above another. That's called fascism. In fact for all I know, a feminazi could have written the book under a pen name.

Please don't waste my time by telling me I'm "not being open to the ideas.." I beseech you, take a look at the whole picture of what the author is saying.

-ax

I can assure you that the book has no "subtle praises of feninism, women, etc" whatsoever.
It will be virulently attacked for not including any.
The purpose of the book is to present the up-to-date science that explains why it is that there is such profound anti-male prejudice. Until now all we have had is such as Warren Farrell's 'The Myth of Male Power', that has identified the problem but has not supplied any reason why we have the problem in the first place. Once we can understand how a phenomenon arose -- and confirm that it is indeed real -- then it can be tackled.
We now know why it is that there are the sexes: the male functions as the 'genetic filter' for the whole lineage (whereas the female is allowed to get on with the business of reproduction per se). It is from this insight that all of the profound sex differences emerge -- and they are far more profoundly 'chalk and cheese' than had hitherto been suspected.

'Axolotl' is displaying extreme ignorance and bigotry here.
My argument is that it follows from the most fundamental biological principles that the majority of the males of any species -- and the human species is no exception -- will constitute the major 'disadvantaged' sub-group.
It is this that underlies the profound prejudice we see against men, as well as the relative disadvantage experienced by most men.
To recognise this is to explain what is going on. This is most certainly not to advocate it! It is the political process that has ridden piggy-back on this -- the extreme feminism that is now all-pervasive -- that is indeed the 'fascism' of political correctness. It is ANTI-'fascism' to point out what is is going on and to campaign to counter it! That is what my book does.