Rating: 
Summary: Mixed bag.
Review: Reading the previous reviews, it's easy to assume that the people who hated it are women, while those who love it are men. This is one of the many books that the people who could learn something from won't touch, while those who already believe the basic premise will simply have those beliefs reinforced. I fall in to the latter group. I've long noticed that images of men that appear in the media don't have their counterpart images of women - too politically incorrect. So I like realizing that, while I may be totally prejudiced and mistaken in that belief, I'm not the only one who thinks that's what's going on.So, no problem with the over all premise. I guess what I dislike about this book, is that it doesn't speak to the average person. By the time I get through reading some of the analyses of the media it discusses, I'm at the "Who cares?" point. For instance, the name 'Bridge' comes under analysis as being symbolic of transcendence, technology, and maleness, as opposed to earthiness, practicality, and femaleness, in the movie Mr. and Mrs. Bridge. Now maybe it really does contribute to an overall point about men, but I think it would be lost on most viewers of that movie - and maybe it's simply a name. If there is as much misandry going on as the authors state, then understanding the symbolism behind that name doesn't seem overwhemingly important. It's a bit too *academic*, from my point of view. I mean, that analysis isn't going to do much towards getting fairer and more balanced representations of males into the media. While that may well be the authors' purpose, it's a purpose that is somewhat lost on me. So, while I think it's a worthwhile book in many ways, I'd like to see something that simply helps me to figure out if it's just my imagination that there's a lot of misandry in the media and culture, or not. I mean, is that entirely impossible to be objective about? We can pretty much count on feminists to either deny the existence of misandry, or to justify it. We can pretty much count on women to think that men have all the advantages. We can pretty much count on many men to be more sympathetic to these authors' viewpoint. Is there no way to know if there are significantly more negative references to men than to women in books, movies, television, songs, greeting cards, etc. etc.? That in itself, seems like a yes or no question, to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Battered Man
Review: Reading this book is an enlightenment. It is a joy to see the door open and have the light of day stream in on we men who have been imprisoned/locked up in a man hating dungeon of radical feminist ideology.
The highest praise for the integrity and veracity of this book that I can give is to say that this book is the arrow, that splits the arrow, that hit squarely the bullseye. Great shot Robin Hood (authors). I look forward to your next two books. Please hurry, we men desparately need your keen insights to confront the overempowered, overwhelming, abusiveness that we have endured for far too long.
Rating:
Summary: You Go Guy
Review: Spreading Misandry is clearly one of the most important books of the new millennium. The battle of the sexes, it turns out, was won. Not by the men, though we've heard time and again how women have suffered under patriarchy. Nathanson and Young reveal how radical feminism took root and then took over. Pop culture took its cue from it and has depicted men, typically, over the past few years as one of two things: evil or inadequate. Think Sylvester Stallone. Think Tim Allen. Actually, just start thinking. That's what this book encourages. No, it's not a license for men to fight back, or to respond to hate with hate. It says that stereotypes and hatred of all kinds are unhelpful and injurious. Ladies, it's time to stand by your man again, as he stands by you. A must read, especially for Oprah.
Rating:
Summary: The arrow that splits the arrow that hit the bullseye
Review: The other reviews here which gave this book 5 stars have summed up exactly what I think about this book and in turn how I feel about what it says. I just want to add one thing:
thank you God, thank you God, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Rating: 
Summary: Are men victims?
Review: This book has a simple thesis. Over the past decade popular culture has shown hatred towards men, or misandry. An ideological, essentialist, separatist feminism has had remarkable success in denouncing men and masculinity, dehumanizing them and ultimately demonizing them. Nathanson and Young are very worried about these trends: "Popular culture both mediated and fostered the teaching of contempt for men. This was now the Establishment." This thesis is thoroughly flawed at every conceivable level. Essentially the book consists of potted movie reviews, combined with crude and tendentious interpretation. But let us consider the problems with misandry as a concept. Most anti-semites are gentiles. Most misogynists are men. But most of the directors and scriptwriters accused of spreading misandrist ideology are not women. I am aware of the concept of self-hatred, and it has been used (often very crudely) against non-Zionist Jews and less than militant African-Americans. What Nathanson and Young ask us to believe, however, is that when Jay Leno jokes "You know how you can tell when pigs are drunk? They start acting like men," he is displaying the kind of sycophancy and abasement one associates with centuries of repression and slavery. We are asked to believe that these self-hating men include Martin Scorsese (for Cape Fear) and Ridley Scott (for Thelma and Louise). How, one may ask, does one reconcile this self-hatred on Scott's part with the masculine virtues of Gladiator (or the more recent Black Hawk Down)? If Nathanson and Young were merely arguing that there were misandric elements in popular culture their failure to discuss the many non-misandric and outright misogynist elements would not be so problematic. But as they say misandry has become the establishment, one must ask how this could have occurred when men make up the majority of every conceivable elite in North American society. How could misandry have flourished at the same time as pornography has boomed and become more explicit? Considering that Nathanson and Scott look at only a very few feminists one might ask how an eccentric theologian like Mary Daly and an abusive vitriolic polemicist like Andrea Dworkin could wrap Hollywood around their fingers? So much for basic principles. As it turns out Nathanson and Scott are numbingly tendentious in their arguments and analysis. Home Improvement is considered an attack on men. But this obviously confuses an attack on a variety of masculinity with men in general. Nathanson and Scott's approach is that a work is misandric if all the men are bad and all the women are good. But clearly this is flawed. Consider the fifties sitcom "The Honeymooners." As every viewer knows the wife is considerable more sensible and thoughtful than her blustering husband. Does this make it man-hating? What about Vertigo, Forutnata and Jacinta or The Secret Agent? Emma Bovary is clearly superior to her two lovers, her ineffetive husband and the loathsome M. Homais. Teresa Durbeyfield Clare is much more deserving of our sympathy than her father, her seducer or her husband. Are we to conclude that Flaubert and Hardy are misandrist radical feminist ideologues? More problems. At one point the authors suggest that wishing to be separate from men is man-hating. Before conservatives rush to ratify this argument, they should realize that this would imply that much male sociability, priestly celibacy and the male dominted worlds of the army and the Straussian conference are inherently misogynist. In criticizing the Simpsons, the authors state "Bart is, to be charitable, a fool." Actually although he is lazy and foolish, he is also sly, witty and on occasion very inventive and resourceful. Deceived, the 1991 Goldie Hawn vehicle, must be man-hating because the only male character is the villain. In spending seven pages on the 1990 movie He Said, She Said (!), the authors argue the movie is man-hating because it supports monogamy. In spending 10 pages on Mr and Mrs. Bridge, the authors assert that it is act like racism or anti-semitism to suggest that marriages are sometimes hampered by unimiginative husbands. One could go on about their tendentious interpretations (my favorite, the fact that the community the battered wife escapes to in Sleeping with the Enemy is so much nicer than her old one is a clear sign of Goddess Worship). The penultimate chapter is unforgiveably shoddy. In order to confute feminism with racism, Communism and Nazism, they discuss the concept of ideology in which only those four are discussed. That most scholars use the term "ideology" as a neutral description for any coherent system of political thought is conveniently ignored. In discussing feminist ideology they only (briefly) discuss the unrepresentative feminists mentioned above, and insinuate that feminists all believe the same thing. Stating that feminism is the product of Marxist Enlightenment and a romantic essentialism is ridiculously crude. (What happened to Wolstonecraft, Condorcet or John Stuart Mill?) The authors call feminists "collectivist," but when conservatives criticize their views on abortion, they ususally state that they are unforgiveably selfish. No reconiciliation of these arguments is made and it is at this point one loses all patience with this book.
Rating:
Summary: Serious Articulate and Important
Review: This book is a serious and articulate academic work, a well documented and insightful examination of misandry in our popular cultural expressions. It is surprisingly easy to read for a book of such intellectual and critical caliber. It is the first part of a three-volume set to be called Beyond the Fall of Man. I presume that Man here is meant to mean men, not women, illustrating the authors' observation that in our current social context the convention that we belong to one species is no longer to be presumed. The larger purpose of the trilogy according to Nathanson and Young is to "help reverse the current polarization of men and women by laying the foundation for a new social contract between the sexes - one that takes seriously the distinctive needs and problems of both sexes. But this is far beyond the scope of this volume." In the words of authors, the "immediate goal in this [first] book has been the rather modest one of describing a phenomenon or, to be more precise, the link between two phenomena: pop cultural misandry and ideological feminism." The authors have focused first on clearly illustrating the spreading of misandry, deliberate or unwitting, throughout much of contemporary popular culture. They support their observations meticulously within a formally structured approach. The first seven chapters are a detailed examination of instances of misandric commercial entertainment productions. The authors take an abundance of examples from the various genres in the visual arts, organize them in groupings according to their differently nuanced misandric themes, and examine each instance in a thorough critical exercise. They go to great lengths to avoid any examples but those that are clearly and unequivocally misandric. The latter part of the book is an exploration of the implications of the phenomenon they have documented. To explain this relatively recent trend in the cultural idiom of Western societies in general and North America in particular, the authors investigate the relationship between popular cultural expressions of misandry and the historical development of feminist thought and influence, both academic and popular. In doing so, they situate both these phenomena within the context of the practical legacies of postmodern philosophical thought and its offshoots. Nathanson and Young have succeeded without any doubt in defining the characteristics of the phenomenon that they isolate, and in demonstrating it's astounding ubiquity. They also go a long way to showing its intimate relationship with the assumptions, uncritical and unconscious or critical and deliberate, of the politically correct views on gender legitimated by the academic world. One may, and certainly many will, find fault with their views on the pervasiveness of misandry in today's cultural forms, or on its meaning and importance, but the fault will not be due to any lack of intellectual rigour on the part of the authors. If anything they have been more thorough than should be necessary. Were it not for the contentious reception they could anticipate, such an exhaustive analysis in support of their theses might be considered unnecessary. This book has shown me how ignorant I was at any conscious level of the rampant misandric sub texts peppering the daily fare we are being served by popular culture. As a man I have become used to a kind of generalized rhetorical misandry in the public discourse over the years, which I credited as the temporary by product of a justified and necessary feminist political movement. I compared it to the somewhat similar anti-white discourses that accompanied black and native militancy in the sixities and seventies, which I also refused to take personally or to consider as more than an impermanent expedient for sympathetic political ends. But if the authors are right, and I believe they are in the light of cumulative personal experience, misandry (and its uncritical acceptance) is not such a relatively innocuous and temporary political event. It is an indication of a far more serious malaise. Being the rhetorical culprit does become tiring. Any white, middle-aged, north- American, middle-class, etc, male can vouch for it. If one has a strong sense of personal identity, a good sense of perspective, and at least a little sense of humour, it is by no means a truly great burden. But once being the universal culprit becomes by definition fully personal, a fundamentally defining identity, almost an inescapable raison d'être, how can it not be hard to bear, and to what end should it be borne? I think Nathanson and Young, among other things, have hit upon the subtle fact that to remain enfranchised and politically effective in our society today almost requires becoming a vocal victim. This means victimizers are both in demand and in dwindling supply. Men (imagined in whatever particular variant expedient to the circumstances of the moment) are traditionally handily cast in that role, and today, they are rapidly becoming the only candidates for the job. What happens when, as a group, they too must claim the rights of victims, or simply decide to do so in self-defense, or out of political self-interest? If all victims are equal, and both women and men are victims, equally worthy by definition, where do we look for the unworthy victimizer required by ideological definition? Put another way, as unlikely as it may sound, the growing misandry Nathanson and Young have found in popular culture, if pushed to its logical conclusion within the context of the ideological and philosophical roots they have identified is an indication of a deep and pervasive misanthropy to come. As a philosophical foundation for political life, public human interaction, it bodes ill for the prospects of humanity does it not? I think the book is an extremely responsible and courageous enterprise, particularly given the prevalent climate in the academic environment the authors inhabit and among the peers with whom they share it. I should like to thank them both for opening my eyes and my mind to the dimensions of a problem to which I have given only scant attention.
Rating:
Summary: Read it for your sons and grandsons!
Review: This book is absolutely enlightening! Just about any man who is honest with himself already realizes that male bashing is an allowable pastime within out pop culture. Not long ago, I walked into my front room to find my son upset at his favorite cable cartoon channels. He told me glumly that every man on there was stupid or incompetent or evil. I sat down with him, and sure enough, he was right. The big stupid guy looking for a date, but the women all physically assaulted him. The superhero girls saving the stupid city mayor (who has a smart and capable female assistant who really runs the city). The girl crime fighter, with a comic sidekick boy, who repeatedly needs rescuing. Yep, it's so blatant that a 12 year old could see it! But how deep is this? Did my son merely fixate on a few anomalous exceptions? This book goes to great length to show just how widespread misandrous (anti-men) expressions have become in our culture, and how we got here. Don't read this book for yourself, read it for your sons and grandsons. There's something insidious going on here, and if you care for the young men who will inherit this country, then you need to get alarmed at the world that is being made for them.
Rating:
Summary: Spreading Misandry
Review: This book is destined to become a landmark publication. The scholarship of Nathanson and Young is examplary. The problem that is addressed is one of the problem of all cultural awareness, when one is in the midst of the problem it no longer exists. Nathanson and Young bring the issues into stark relief in a tightly (but comprehensively) argued text that is extraordinarly easy to read. This book must be read and this book will produce insight and change. I wait for vols II and III.
Rating:
Summary: More of the treacherous same
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Much-Needed Book
Review: This excellent book presents convincing evidence of the pervasiveness of misandry (contempt for men) in popular culture. Written in a very scholarly manner and carefully documented, it analyzes numerous movies, cartoons and tv shows to prove this point. The reader is clearly shown how men are ridiculed and insulted in virtually every advertisement, cartoon and movie by individuals (male and female) who feel duty-bound to put men down at every opportunity.
Some readers wonder why so few men complain about this kind of treatment. The reason is clear. Western culture has a double standard whereby women may complain endlessly, but men must say nothing. Thus if a man dares to complain about misandry, he is likely to be reviled as a whimp, a whiner or a male chauvinist pig. Faced with such vilification, is it any wonder that men are reluctant to speak out? They know full well that they will never be taken seriously.
While some of the misandry emanates from men, much of it comes from feminists as well. All this and more is addressed in this well-written book. It should be required reading for all social science students.
|
