Customer Reviews

Why Men Hate Women

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

 

 

this book changed my life. Ihad read lots of books about abusive men and never really understood why I had been treated the way I had been. This book finally cleared the fog. it lifted years of guilt and shame. I knew befor I had finished it that I was not responsible and that he would have hit me even if I had met his demands to be the perfect wife. I will always be grateful I found this book

I've only read parts of the book, but I have some issues with it. The author attributes misogyny primarily to issues with the relationship between mothers and sons - a very Freudian idea, and Fried wasn't exactly a model of feminist thinking. Blaming of mothers for the bad attitudes of their sons is, well, misogynistic? Not too mention pretty simplistic, and it seems to place almost no responsibility on the role of fathers.

I think the roots of misogyny run deep in our culture and come from attitudes created by MEN to justify the oppression of women by other men. It's not something that happens just because a mother didn't pay enough attention at the right times to her son. We're saturated by a culture that devalues women, a culture that has origins millennia old and is expressed through sexist stereotypes in the media, through sexual double standards, through implicit ideas that "feminine" is the same as weak and irrational, etc. Blaming mothers for this lets men off the hook and ignores the deeply ingrained biases that support misogyny, making it harder to address.

As an aside, while I agree that misogyny is widespread, I passionately disagree with his assertion that all men hate women or have contempt for women. It's true that many men (more than we'd like to admit) have conscious or subconscious ideas that women are inferior, but cultural norms affect everyone differently, and some men certainly see women as completely equal to them in every way. I certainly do. We have to acknowledge the real pervasiveness of misogyny while also not defining non-misogynist men out of existence if we really want to change things for the better. :-)

the best book I have ever read on the subject of why so many men abuse women in so many different ways. The other reviewer who talks about laughing when he read it is obviously a man who abuses women and he just couldn't stand the truth.

the best book I have ever read on the subject of why so many men abuse women in so many different ways. The other reviewer who talks about laughing when he read it is obviously a man who abuses women and he just couldn't stand the truth.

I am not familiar with the material Mr. Jukes cites so familiarly, nor even with the subject.

I bought the book many years ago after being profoundly impressed after hearing him taking call-ins from men on a London radio show, many of them quite confrontational. The relaxed ease with which he dealt with their hostility while staying utterly calm and sedate himself made me want to know more about the subject of the many ways that women are subjected to mass male "contempt" whether conscious or unconsciously expressed.

One cannot partially read this book and then comment accurately. For one thing, Mr Jukes cites not only views he agrees with but also closely examines those he does not agree with. Thus it would be easy to read a portion and misunderstand whose point of view it really is.

One reviewer thinks that Mr. Jukes blames the mother. He does not and a complete reading would reveal that. What is described in the book is the growing SEPARATION of the infant from the mother and the way the infant PERCEIVES this: for example, in the beginning the infant has no separate identity of his own to perceive. He is a part of his all encompassing "mother" (who need not be female). This care-giver is life and death for the totally dependent infant; but to mature and develope his own individuality, he cannot remain "at one" with "mother".

His utter dependence on "mother" cannot last forever not least because "mother" can never be perfect and absolutely satisfying all of the time. Sometimes "mother" is absent, though he does not wish this. Sometimes his perceived needs, fantasy or real, are not perfectly met.Supposing this is a human female she may need to sleep or eat, use the toilet, or even just take 5 minutes away from a protracted bout of crying.
The point is that NO parent is perfect or CAN be perfect and NO carer CAN be perfect in the way that the infant perceives and FANTASISES it. The "good"mother/carer understands and responds perfectly to every perceived desire. The "bad" mother/carer is the evil witch who does not respond perfectly to these desires and fantasies of the infant. He cannot excercise the sophisticated thought processes to enable himself to integrate this good and bad into one person, so he splits them into good mother/ bad witch. The rage he feels at the loss of unity with "mother" and his desire for the good mother; and the PERCEIVED neglect/cruelty of the bad witch both remain with him subconsciously. The desire he feels for that first fantasy perfect unity of oneness for the good mother/princess also remains in his subconscious.

The process is the same for male and female babies, but in their later development, they respond in very different ways as they form their gender identity.

So no, Jukes most definately does NOT blame the mother. He simply describes infant fantasy and perception, and a phychological process of change from total dependence to developing an individuality separate from the mother/carer and then later gender identity.

I titled this review "Food for thought"; A review of this book should more accurately should have been titled "Feast for thought".

For myself, I confess there were so many things that seemed so OBVIOUS to me when I looked around my world AFTER reading the book. And yet, these same so-obvious things were right under my nose my entire life and I was too inured to the status quo to even notice.

This book is unintentionally hilarious. It is also really badly written and quite embarrassing on the whole. It should have been called "Why people of both sexes hate this author". Anyone who subscribes to this stupid confused theory is either living in an alternate reality or just stupid. But really I'm not bagging this book out, it's great and should be filed with "The Rules" as one of the most idiotic books ever written. I'm in hysterics laughing now just remembering it.