Customer Reviews

Men Are Not Cost-Effective: Male Crime in America

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

One reviewer claims to have picked this book up in search of evidence that the feminist movement has become a hate movement and was disapointed to see that this book doesn't support their misconceptions. That "search" is sadly misguided, unlike this book.

The title alone should tell you this book is different than any other feminist theory out there. Stephenson does not uncover anything new--we all know that men are the vast and overwhelming majority perpetrators of crime in the US. What she does so stunningly in this book is show you how much the cost to our society really is, monetarily and otherwise.

A mind-changing read for anyone interested in feminism, crime, social issues, and culture.

June Stephenson's argument seems interesting at first glance. Crime costs us. More men than women are criminals. So tax men more. Stephenson argues for an extra $100 a year, just to drive home the point to male taxpayers.

It's easy to discredit this argument on its own small-minded, mercenary terms.

There's already a tax on men. It's called income tax. Men have higher incomes than women, so they already pay much more tax than women. Enough to pay for the social costs of crime, it might be argued. In fact, the same male aggression which causes crime might just be the dynamo which drives our economic growth, creating wealth for both genders. Besides, men are the victims of violent crime more often than women; for example, homicide is the leading killer of black men under 25, is it not?

Even if Stephenson's argument held water, the vast bulk of the book doesn't advance it. The first discussion of the book's thesis occurs on page 360 of 374. I would have expected Stephenson to provide a more detailed proposal for how such a tax scheme might operate. And clear reasons why it's better than the current crimnal justice system.

Sadly, the first 360 pages consist of lurid descriptions of male crime, presumably so we don't forget how wicked men are. I find it frustrating that none of these descriptions are backed up with footnotes or endnotes, but acknowledged in the text, making it very difficult to check Stephenson's facts. (odd for a book written by a woman who is a practising researh psychologist, according to the blurb)

Not that any of the facts are controverisal--we already know men are more violent than women. What Stephenson fails to acknowledge is that the violence takes a toll on men, too; arguably a much higher toll. It's hard not to interpret these 360 pages as simple misandry.

Reducing every social argument to a matter of money dehumanises the debate. In this case, the argument isn't just inhumane, it's scarcely even made.

Unlike the other reviewer, I think this book had some interesting points about responsibility. The things that seemed to annoy the first reviewer, such as the entire middle of the book, which just contains "facts" about crime and how much it costs this nation, were to me the strongest points of the book. As it turns out, from this perspective, men are not cost effective. Does this mean they are evil and wicked and we should get rid of them? Well, no, I don't think so and I don't think the author was suggesting that. Although a gender tax, which is the solution the author suggests in an effort to coerce men into taking responsibility for their own actions and to self-regulate themselves, may seem like an extreme idea--and it is certainly an idea that will never come to fruition--the book provides a jumping off place for continued thought about where we are today in this country and where the inequalities lay.

90% of the book is simply reprinting crime stories from news sources while pointing out that the perpetrators are all MEN! Such innocuous vapidity would scarcely rate notice except for the author's willingness to condemn all men because of their gender. I originally picked up the book because I though it might be evidence that the feminist movement was transforming into a hate movement, but the author is obviously just an ignorant marginal crank, and does not even represent the most radical feminists. It is worth reading for a laugh, but those with limited free time should concern themselves with only the very beginning and the conclusion, the bulk of the book is just regurgitation of familiar news events without any analysis at all. This is not a book that presents a thoughtful insight based upon a careful considered study of societies ills, rather it is simply a vast compendium of facts collected to support a pre-determined hypothesis; that all men are by nature wicked. Her `solution'? Tax all men as punishment for their natural wickedness. A conservative pundit who pointed out that blacks commit more than their share of crimes and suggested that they be singled out for `special treatment' would be roundly condemned by all as an obvious racist. If anyone had noticed this book, I suspect the author would have received similar treatment.

In the following book, Ms. Stephenson explains why women are also not cost-effective. She suggests that females pay user fees every time they use a product invented by men. What happens is that women basically need to stand perfectly still, naked outdoors for all of eternity to avoid using, well...anything.