So yes, this book is one of the most horribly self-righteous homilies on how the poor, emotionally tragically sad, snoogie-woogums-needing men are suffering SO MUCH!! by all that abuse they're foisting on the women! It's not that they actually want to dominate or anything, right? — though Gilmore has apparently forgotten some shockingly honest Indian men in a study he quotes, who were "quite conscious of their masculine privileges and violently jealous of them … many of them openly acknowledged that their misogyny served to buttress their position and to keep women in servitude" (179). As the study's author notes, these men were consciously "'using' misogyny as a way of maximizing their [the men's] power and privileges. Putting women down made it easier to justify their [the women's] subordination" (179).

Gosh, Mr. Gilmore! Maybe this supposed ambivalence is not as universal as you're claiming! Further, for those cases where it does appear, maybe it can be more easily quantified as the uneasiness these petulantly bratty men experience upon performing actions they know are wrong — rather than this charmingly victim-free appearance he's suggesting? Further, why am I surprised he prefers a sort of: "my inner demons made me do it!" transference of responsibility for one's own actions — or worse: "I need women so badly — so it's their fault I was mean to them! They made me do it by not loving me enough, the big meanies!"

While this very much made me feel like either throwing the book across the room or throwing up, I must confess: it gets worse. His conclusions on what causes misogyny are the worst kinds of rambling ivory tower blather, and I say this as a person who loves learning. I'm condensing a little here due to increasing revulsion, but Gilmore's assertions seem to be that men are misogynistic because of: "chronic warfare" (221); the "mismatch between sexual evolution and restraint" which is "probably sharper, more physiologically driven, in the male than in the female because of the peremptory power of the testosterone-driven male libido" (222 — and I confess to guffawing incredulously at this dumbfoundingly predictable male-applauding decree!); men's "unbearable frustration" at being "helplessly dependent upon women for the basics of life, more so than are women upon men" — truly a terrifying "challenge [to] his manly self-image" (223)! The author concludes the section by deciding that if his assertions are correct, then "we may conclude that most men (or many men) are indeed pathological to some degree" (224).

Okay, guys: don't you find this even just a little, well… insulting?

But wait! Qualification, tapdance, dodge — that's not what he really thinks! No, he proudly announces that his beliefs are "not really a theory at all but rather an eclectic combination of prior propositions with a few additions" (225). Doesn't that sound wonderfully, obfuscatingly erudite? Let's see what it actually means: "Freudian castration anxiety, behaviorist frustration-aggression theory, psychic-dependency theory, and the notion that all men experience regressive impulses" (225).

Sooo… isn't that just academia-speech titivation of pretty much the same thing he just said he didn't really believe? Well, let's give him a little slack here, and instead jump to his suggestions on how to fix this misogyny — mostly because this level of blitheringly incompetent indecision is starting to drag.

So what are these suggestions? Welp, first gotta make sure he covers his ass, yupyup, by the requisite pointless yammering about how there may be no cure but gosharooties, maybe we can "mitigate the problem" and "facilitate sexual reconciliation" (228)! Isn't that a lovely denial of any male responsibility, as well as complete negation of the possibility of any female pain? Moving on to the actual suggestions: — wow, they're almost breathtakingly Pollyannaish! He suggests sexual desegregation, noting (without any hint of irony!) how well desegregation has fixed American racism. Silly me — I hadn't realized racism was all fixed and concluded once it didn't bother old white male professors anymore!

Okay, what else. Ah, a wonderful one: men should raise their sons more, to alleviate "the mother's monopoly over infant care" (229)! Those pesky moms, somehow forcing their poor baby boys to fixate on them due to also forcing the dads to… what… to suffer forcing violent and brutal attacks of misogyny on the women…? Yeah, no. Argh. What's next: education! Oh, but wait, it can't be mean or anything or it might hurt the widdle feelings of the poor boys and men! -and since this is all about teh MENZ let's not even notice how we've completely eliminated women from this equation — including the fact that "hurtful education" pretty much summarizes what misogyny does to women in convincing them they really are less than human. No double standards here, nopenope!

And to put the cherry on top of this disgustingly navel-gazing concoction, Gilmore concludes, "sadly, all this is probably wishful thinking" (229). Haha, sorry, kids! He's just wasting our time so he can hear himself talk! Oh, but wait — there's more! A stirring call for men to accept their own wholeness so they can "appreciate the loveliness, gentleness, and beauty of women" because "only through such a therapeutic gender alliance can men and women be happy together" (230).

Quite frankly, I find this appallingly shortsighted. Gilmore has put women up on a pedestal that deprives them of both personality and agency, and he actually has the gall to believe this is what is required for happiness? Yeah, no — how about women just dump all these pathologically dependent boys, and head off on their own? That sounds a lot happier than waiting for the magic empathy fairies to turn up and sprinkle these guys with "happy-good boy" fairy dust so we'll all live happily ever after.

In conclusion, I find I do not consider this to be a book. I see it instead as a paper collecting — and badly interpreting — various studies on misogyny, with an insultingly timid, indecisive ending tacked on at the last minute. Concisely, this author appears to be cluelessly under-researched, uncomprehending of what research he did find, overly impressed with himself, breathtakingly oblivious to his old white male ivory tower privilege, in serious denial of any sense of personal responsibility for one's actions, staggeringly sexist — against both women and men — and just plain wrong.

…and now my venting is done, whew! If you read this far, congratulations on your dedication, and thank you. :)

 

Similar Posts: