Rating: 
Summary: One of the 10 most important books I've read
Review: Perhaps it took a woman to really tell this story, to look at men's feelings, needs, fears, and articulate them so clearly. She never excuses oppressive or violent behavior, but she keeps digging for the root causes of this behavior, and for my money she hits it dead center. I've believed for years that men's abuse of women is not rooted in male/female relationships, but in male/male relationships, and definitions of masculinity that are inherently abusive. Over and over she lays this out in a very compassionate and straightforward style, letting the facts speak for themselves.The section on the My Lai massacre is almost unbearably poignant, looking not just at that incident but the whole macho/military lash-up that led to it, and it's bureaucratic aftermath. The sections on the Long Beach shipyards and the Citadel military academy show two very different aspects of male bonding; in the former a mentor/apprentice tradition that not only built life-long relationships but record-breaking productivity, and in the latter a sado/masochistic smoke screen that covers a simple need for fraternal domesticity and human (non-sexual) contact. Yes, the book does ramble on some, and some of the material is a lot more riveting than the rest. But it's all relevant, all well done, and all worth the read.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a bad book but not on Backlash's level
Review: Stiffed is not up to the landmark level Susan Faludi reached with Backlash, to be sure. However some of the negative reviews derive their "facts" from something other than what's contained in this book.
Comments on Faludi's appearence seem to be based upon confusing/lumping her with Naomi Wolf (both are strong writers but they bear little resemblences in their grooming standards). Other "reviews" seem to be based upon what they think might be in the book as opposed to what's actually in the text. (Reading Stiffed would provide those "reviewers" with a stronger grasp of the actual book.)
I've now read the book five times and will surely read it many times more in the future. I bought it at a local bookstore when it came out (in the pre-online shopping jump). Backlash was and is an amazing book. As her follow up to Backlash, Stiffed can not help but suffer from comparisons.
The hardcover editions of both demonstrate that smaller type was used for Stiffed -- especially on the subheadings. Backlash weighed in at 460 pages and Stiffed weighs in at 608 -- in smaller type. So Faludi certainly gets in more words here.
That makes it all the more surprising to me that Stiffed did not provide more enjoyment. (Where, for instance, is the humor evidenced in Backlash -- as when Faludi answers two questions for Susan Brownmiller?)
Her case studies are strong. That's not the problem. It's her scope and the way she puts it together. She devotes a section to Promise Keepers, or rather local Promise Keepers groups where men share their feelings and experiences. I was distressed reading this section. The groups seem to serve some need for the men involved in them and let's hope they bring the peace the men seem to think they do. But regardless of that, they are a part of the larger group Promise Keepers and I feel it was remiss on Faludi's part not to present an analysis of the larger group. Now maybe Faludi, as a woman, can't get a close up look to the larger group.
I attended one gathering (and I believe women weren't allowed at this conference -- they certainly weren't allowed to speak). Nationally known male figures spoke and what they said was troublesome to me. (Along the lines of not sharing a relationship but controlling it and commanding it as a birthright -- my take on the conference.) It wasn't the let's-all-help-each-other-man crowd Faludi met in the "encounter" (my word, not hers) groups she attended. (The language at the conference I attended covered all bases but quickly fell to cursing -- cursing at police officers and security guards who were attempting to maintain peaceful exiting from the stadium and safe crossing to the parking lots -- when an unexpected hail storm hit the stadium.) Maybe I caught them on a bad day. But I don't think Faludi can really comment on a sub-group without commenting on the larger group they belong to.
With that section, I felt Faludi missed her premise at the outset. With one or two others, I felt she didn't carry her points far enough.
This was especially true of her examination of the history of Details magazine. I felt we got half the story and that it wasn't connected in the manner that was required or carried far enough. (One aspect ignored was over the controversy generated by the Stephen Dorf and Michael Stipe cover stories. Most readers of the magazine remember the editorial reigns changing hands at this time.)
Some critics have argued Stiffed is a Backlash retread. I would disagree. In fact, had she approached the book as a male study equivalent, I think Stiffed would have been a better book.
It would have given it a firmer structure. Backlash didn't hop from group to group. Chapters dealt with certain subjects: entertainment, fashion, myths, etc.
In an interview while promoting Stiffed, Faludi did a great job analyzing the then recently released film Fight Club. It was exactly comments like those that are missing in the book. Although Fight Club hadn't shown up in the theaters prior to Stiffed's publication there were many other movies she could have analyzed and discussed.
It's been suggested in another review that she's ripping apart what she proposed in Backlash. I feel that's a misreading. Backlash's central thesis is not opposed to the findings in Stiffed. Both books deal with the cultural myths and ideas we're given as opposed to the realities we live.
As for the comments that she's somehow been harsh on males, I disagree completely. She was far more vigorous when exploring women (and men) in Backlash.
I also would argue that Backlash had endnotes worth reading. If you've read Backlash but skipped the endnotes, go back and read them. Some just cite sources but many include additional comments from Faludi. That's not the case with the "endnotes" to Stiffed which, with about fifteen exceptions, are strictly citations.
Maybe Stiffed was the victim of the typical sophomore slump. Or maybe she could hear her detractors as she wrote and attempted to respond to that within the text of this book. Maybe it was an editing decision on the part of publishers. No one really knows but Faludi.
Despite all of that, it's still a book worth reading. It has many sections that dazzle. Hopefully on her next book, Faludi's humor will be more present and she'll examine underlying causes
-- large and small -- more. But that doesn't mean Stiffed is a bad book. Or even just an okay book. It is a notch below Backlash but it's still filled with provocative insights. (And few books ever achieve what Backlash did.) No one can dispute that Faludi can convey the particulars of a meeting -- her eye for key details remains as strong as her insights -- and she remains a writer worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Good writing and insights, plays it safe
Review: Susan Faludi successfully takes a journalistic approach to "Stiffed." This is an improvement over the mock academic style of "Backlash," which was widely criticized for weak research and glaring errors. "Stiffed" is very well written, and each section can be read independently. Faludi does a good job of bringing each narrative back to the central theme of how society has failed men. But like "Reviving Ophelia," careful readers will note that every person who is portrayed as a helpless victim of society or the media just happens to come from a family dominated by abuse, abandonment, alcoholism, or death. And that their adult lives mirror these problems as if they are trying to recreate these family relationships through their marriage or jobs. Coincidence ? Or is it really the media's fault ? In fact, parts of "Stiffed" seem to actively rebuke the role of society. Most people aren't fighting "society" or the media, their struggles are with dysfunctional "families" at work and inappropriate personal relationships. Faludi looks at both issues, and the book is most convincing when it uses the theme of family tragedy to tie together the narrative threads. The role of society seems trivial in comparison, although "Stiffed" does explain the anger of men that feel society has somehow betrayed them for not repairing them. A woman reading "Stiffed" in that frame of mind might actually get some insights about men. Faludi seems to be on the right track in that she at least touches on family histories, which are often a taboo in this field. I'd like to see her do another book about women comparing the relative importance of society/media with the effects of abuse, abandonment, alcoholism, and death. Which one really causes women (and men) to marry jerks ? "Stiffed" just doesn't go far enough. But that's a marketing dilemma, after all. Looking at family history is old hat, going back over a century. A post-modern expose' of societal hypocracy and conspiracy used to seem so hip and so much more comforting, but in our post-post-post-modern era, maybe Faludi will really bring it back home next time.
Rating:
Summary: Why Doesn't Ms. Faludi Talk More Clearly About the ERA?
Review: This is an excellent book, but it is marred I believe by two flaws. (1) It fails to address the central stream of feminist thought flowing directly from Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the original Women's Convention of 1848 together with the Declaration of Women's Rights and Women's Suffrage which ended in the granting of Women's Suffrage with the 19th Amendment in 1920, but failed to result in real equality due to the failure to enact an Equal Rights Amendment. The Central Stream re-emerges again with the movement for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, and after the passage of several Constitutional Amendments, the ERA is passed by all but the three states necessary, Susan B. Anthony is on a Dollar Coin, but then the Republican Party changes against ERA and the ERA fails. This failure of the ERA to pass should really be the central and starting point of any reasonable discussion of feminism or why men do not treat women as equal. More pertinently, Faludi does not emerge or posit a coherent political strategy for the re-passage of the ERA and its ratification and adoption by the 3/4 of the states necessary. (2) The book is bogged down in literary critical theory muddles which mask and mystify in Marxian/Habermasian/Foucoultian fashion the central issue of the gender gap and what it means. Are men suppose to raise kids? Are men supposed to always earn more money? Are these matters culturally different depending upon the ethnicity, religion or geography of the individuals involved? For example, and if you saw My Big Fat Greek Wedding you know what I am talking about, I am from a tightly knit Greek American family from the Northeast. Family and gender roles are tightly defined by the church, by parents and by our 200 or more relatives here and around the world. There isn't a minute in our busy days when we have time to think about Simone de Bouvier or Sartre, although my husband and I are both well educated and have read all of the theory and philosophy referred to in Ms. Faludi's book. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING WE'RE DOING BECAUSE FAMILY ROLES IN A TRADITIONAL SOCIETY DON'T CHANGE BECAUSE SOME WRITER WRITES DOWN WORDS. The reason Greek and Jewish people have been around for 3500 years is a stable family structure which puts a value on kids, with defined parenting roles. If we mess around with that, we lose our ethnic and our spiritual identity. So for these two reasons, I don't think Ms. Faludi addresses her topic adequates--the ERA and plain talk about men and women. --Mary M. Zissimos
Rating:
Summary: Why Doesn't Ms. Faludi Talk More Clearly About the ERA?
Review: This is an excellent book, but it is marred I believe by two flaws. (1) It fails to address the central stream of feminist thought flowing directly from Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the original Women's Convention of 1848 together with the Declaration of Women's Rights and Women's Suffrage which ended in the granting of Women's Suffrage with the 19th Amendment in 1920, but failed to result in real equality due to the failure to enact an Equal Rights Amendment. The Central Stream re-emerges again with the movement for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, and after the passage of several Constitutional Amendments, the ERA is passed by all but the three states necessary, Susan B. Anthony is on a Dollar Coin, but then the Republican Party changes against ERA and the ERA fails. This failure of the ERA to pass should really be the central and starting point of any reasonable discussion of feminism or why men do not treat women as equal. More pertinently, Faludi does not emerge or posit a coherent political strategy for the re-passage of the ERA and its ratification and adoption by the 3/4 of the states necessary. (2) The book is bogged down in literary critical theory muddles which mask and mystify in Marxian/Habermasian/Foucoultian fashion the central issue of the gender gap and what it means. Are men suppose to raise kids? Are men supposed to always earn more money? Are these matters culturally different depending upon the ethnicity, religion or geography of the individuals involved? For example, and if you saw My Big Fat Greek Wedding you know what I am talking about, I am from a tightly knit Greek American family from the Northeast. Family and gender roles are tightly defined by the church, by parents and by our 200 or more relatives here and around the world. There isn't a minute in our busy days when we have time to think about Simone de Bouvier or Sartre, although my husband and I are both well educated and have read all of the theory and philosophy referred to in Ms. Faludi's book. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING WE'RE DOING BECAUSE FAMILY ROLES IN A TRADITIONAL SOCIETY DON'T CHANGE BECAUSE SOME WRITER WRITES DOWN WORDS. The reason Greek and Jewish people have been around for 3500 years is a stable family structure which puts a value on kids, with defined parenting roles. If we mess around with that, we lose our ethnic and our spiritual identity. So for these two reasons, I don't think Ms. Faludi addresses her topic adequates--the ERA and plain talk about men and women. --Mary M. Zissimos
| 
