Customer Reviews

The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity

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

 

 

When watching staged newscasts of politicians strutting around in military regalia and lugging carcasses through the woods, do you ever get the feeling that there's some, well, compensation going on? In _The Wimp Factor_, Ducat analyzes how our culture's interpretation of gender interacts with politics and political discourse from a psychological perspective. Ducat hypothesizes that since men must continuously prove themselves masculine to be accepted as such, they develop an unconcious fear of feminine "contamination," femiphobia, which spills over into the political arena. Each chapter looks at a different example of the gendering of politics, such as how Bill and Hillary Clinton's images changed before and after the Lewinsky scandal and how gendered language shapes voter perceptions of issue politics. The result is a very interesting and accessible book that contains scathing analysis with a witty sense of humor. Ducat focuses on men and masculinity, which leaves short shift for some other aspects of the topic and can leave the impression that he is being oversimplistic. For example, the section on the psychology of right-wing women was disappointingly brief. However, despite some out of context quotes lifted by other reviewers, Ducat does not essentialize all women as good and all men as evil, nor does he pretend that gender is the only factor at work in politics. He simply stays within the bounds of his topic. The biggest criticism I have is that the Freud-speak does become tiresome after a while (unless you happen to be a die-hard Freudian, I guess).

This was a good book, interesting theories, definitely of the psychoanalytical
school of thought. More interesting however, how any critisim of Bush illicits
such rabid and fanatical shrieks of defensive denial and "liberal", which has
some how been corrupted into the equivalent of "communist". Claiming to be dis-
crediting his analysis without providing sources is essentially meaningless as
Mr. Ducat DOES have sources to back up his claims. Screaming the loudest does not
make it so!

The recent election left me with an uncomfortable feeling. Many people that I know supported Kerry but didn't vote for him. Most cited reasons such as "He is kind of wimpy" or "I don't think he is strong enough to lead us right now." When I stumbled across Ducat's book, I found a spring board for exploring people's uneasiness with "less than manly" politicians".
Some of Ducat's theories aren't supported with enough evidence, but overall it is an interesting and slightly alternative view of politics and gender. Definately worth a read.

This book is an amazing tour de force of the political and psychological landscape in America today. From George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" while adorned in a flight suit to John Kerry tramping through the Michigan woods in a camoflague jacket totting a shotgun, the "politics of anxious masculinity," as Stephen Ducat calls the phenomenon, couldn't be more pervasive. Ducat's scholarship shines throughout this erudite, entertaining look at what passes for masculinity in our media-driven culture, surpassed only by his wit and sense of humor. While Freud might have asked, "What do women want?", Ducat's prescient analysis of who men mistakenly think thery are is likely to remain relevant long after late December, when this crazy election is likely to be settled, for better or (W)orse.
Scott Lines, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Berkeley, CA

For whomever said that Ducat's arguments aren't new, you're right. They are what I have been thinking for years. This is an outstanding analysis of the testosterone injected world of American politics, the first of its kind I have ever seen. I've been reading books on politics and current events since I was twelve and I must say this marriage of gender studies and political science is long overdue. And unlike Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, Stephen Ducat actually has credentials! ::GASP:: A genuine psychologist talking about psychology- who'd 'ave thunk it? Seriously, though, you should read the book. At the very least, you will be forced to question what affects your opinions as a member of the voting public. And as for the "Kid" who reviewed this book, I suspect it's an adult who is pretending to be a barely literate grade schooler so that no one will be able to identify her.

While U.S. citizens like to think that they are residing in the "home of the brave," the truth is we're a very frightened population. The constant warnings that one country or another is a threat to our existence, the hysteria over immigrants, the endless stream of cop shows; it all serves to frighten the people of our military empire. That's where the tough guy marketing of Bush comes in, he was sold to the voting public (which skews heavily toward wealthier people, with 100 million mostly poorer people not voting or not even registered to vote) as the sort of strong man who would protect us, while keeping us in denial about the terror we bring to other human beings in the world Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.
In place of the corporate uniform, we would see Bush dress up with a cowboy hat, sporting a large belt buckle, clearing brush on his ranch (which was purchased as a prop shortly before the 2000 election), and crawling into an oversized gas-guzzling pick-up truck. Yee Haw!
Meanwhile, our military is in the Middle East once again killing tribal people in a continuation of the Indian Wars.

Oddly, another part of the marketing of Bush as a macho man was the regular rhetorical question (from right-wing PR agents like Sean Hannity), "wouldn't you rather drink a beer with Bush than Kerry?" Well, considering that Bush is a recovering alcoholic, "no."

Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism touches on some of the themes of "The Wimp Factor." Anarchist philosophers also expose the idolatry of authority and manipulations of religiosity and sexism that "leaders" have been employing since the beginning of empire. In Christianity and Patriotism, Leo Tolstoy wrote that "every government explains its existence and justifies all its violence on the ground that if it were not there things would be worse" (sound familiar?). People interested in issues of authoritarianism may want to explore the works of thinkers like Rudolf Rocker An Anarchist Rabbi: The Life and Teachings of Rudolf Rocker, Emma Goldman Emma Goldman: American Individualist (Library of American Biography Series) (2nd Edition) (Library of American Biography) and Alexander Berkman Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman Reader, 2nd Edition.
Scared people will applaud, or at least submit to, the "strong" man. The best way to discover courage and find our own authentic identities is to undertake a course in intellectual self-defense. Ducat's book is an important contribution, and I'd also recommend Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (the companion book to the award winning film).

"The ability and inclination to use physical strength is no indication of bravery or tenacity to life. The greatest cowards are often the greatest bullies. Nothing is cheaper and more common than physical bravery. Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of the cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause. True courage and manhood come from the consciousness of the right attitude toward the world, the faith in one's own purpose, and the sufficiency of one's own approval as a justification for one's own acts." - Clarence Darrow, Resist Not Evil

I enjoyed this book and learned so much that I bought copies to give to friends. I wondered where these macho fixations came from (especially in the Republican Party) and now I have a better understanding of their origins.
I think it is must read.....even more so in this important political year.

Thedore Roosevelt bought a farm in Montana becuse no one considered him manly?

How is it an author can use Teddy roosevelt as the achetype for fake masculinity, go over his entire bigraphy and leave out Roosevelt's combat and leadership experience with the rough riders cavalry?

the authoer then goes into the supposedly greek term "binoumenos." Properly redenered it would be of course be "benoumenos." The incorrect rendering is not a supriose since the ancient Greeks NEVER used this term, rather it is a thoroughly modern and revionist concept having to do with supposed parsing of who did what in a homosexual relationship. Only a modern revisionist, who actually has NO background in ancient Greek sociology would use the "bi" because ducat thinks it comes from bi-sexual. It doesnt. It is the verb beno (I enter); and the ajective "benoumenos" = he or she which is intered.

Obscure criticism of Ducat? Hardly. It points out the revsionism by people who proport to know ancient sociology but have nothign more than a false and unstudied revsionism they are using to prove something else. And what is that somethign else? The author's thesis is that the West's leaders are feminized and need to "fake" " their masculinity much as the dominent partner in a homosexual relationship.

Yeah, you read that right. this author's theory means Kerry and Bush are essentially gay, but that American political culture is Bush has been successful as portraying himself as the "top" or "butch" element.

Thee author also portrays Bush sr. as effeminate, apparently not knowing Bush Sr fought in World War Two.

When push comes to shove, what is the conclusion? the author is specifically upset about the narrowing gender gap. Rather than ascribing this to the growing independence of women, the fact that women are more and more likly to consider a range of political issues, ie a maturation and good phenomena, it is women's fault! they are fooled by fake masculinity!

I happened to come across a book by Stephan J. Ducat called The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity. I read the back cover, along with the chapter titles, and felt utter revulsion. Yet, in the spirit of knowing one's enemies, I begrudgingly further enriched the wealthy psychoanalyst author by purchasing it for the purposes of review and refutation. I lament to report that the quality of this work is quite poor. To adapt a quote of Gertrude Stein's, "there's no there there."

The Wimp Factor offers nothing new and is a rank bouillabaisse of cliché and dogma. It's stock is boiled from political correctness and within it swirl chunks of radical feminism, socialism, and anti-white racism. It cannot be recommended as Ducat's positions are so stereotyped and unoriginal that they are entirely devoid of educational value. On the very first page of his Preface, the narrator lets his readers know that his voice will be a polemical one as he describes a politician's need to be seen hunting as a way of letting the "male electorate" know that "he still likes to kill things."

Not only is the author a peddler of hackneyed emotion, he is also a very poor psychologist. No insight on men is offered that could not be cut and pasted from the clipboards of Katha Pollitt or Barbara Enhrenreich. Ducat is a jargon-enriched Michael Moore who is devoid of the filmmaker's creativity. The analysis here is strictly Manichean. Ducat views women, gays, people of color, and Democrats as being good while all white heterosexual males, and Republicans in general, are evil. It's really quite tiresome. The only new thing presented is a vast expanse of psychological gobbledygook that is smeared upon everyone with a differing opinion. The extensive morass of pseudo-intellectual constructs are land mines on the page and make this thin book seem the length of War and Peace.

In my opinion, this book should have been titled, "My Personal War on Men and Masculinity", as I have yet to encounter any work, outside of radical feminism, where men are held with such abominable contempt. Ducat is an individual who seems to hate everything about his own gender. We find that men, and our politician's need to appeal to them, is the causation behind most of America's problems. The reader is often treated to strangely Dworkinesque rhetoric like "Politics for these authoritarian priests of patriarchy" and "while male privilege cannot be explained as simply an attempt to induce envy in women, it can often serve that function." His view of women is as inaccurate as it is cliched: "The new link between women's goodness and the issues of charity, education, and social reform led to an unprecedented gendering of political issues, and, correspondingly, to florid expressions of femiphobia." Women's goodness? Are all women inherently good? Of course not. It seems that Ducat has never mixed with the general population. Some women are good and others are not. That's always the case when one examines the personalities of a sample size that, in this world, exceeds three billion souls. Assertions to the contrary illustrate how little leftists know about human behavior.

This author refers to our culture as one "that disparages the feminine." Does it? In my mind, far more evidence suggests that we celebrate the feminine. Television is awash with talk shows dedicated to the processing of emotional issues that were once treated by stoicism alone, and independent cable channels are available which are dedicated specifically to the proclivities of a female audience. Furthermore, it is common in daily conversation to hear phrases such as "a man expressing their feminine side" even though nothing I've ever read or seen suggests that such gender rotating halves exist. What about the pink ribbon? A crusade has been initiated to end breast cancer but no such grand social movement started up to end prostate cancer-a disease which claims far more lives. By this point in our new millennium, half of society actually believes inanities like "a women would never lie about rape." Yet would they believe that there is anything under the sun a man would not lie about? Has Ducat not heard of affirmative action or the horrors of the Sexual Harassment Industry? The only way that this author could realistically regard this nation as being biased in favor of men is if he had spent the last 365 days in a Bronx madrassah.

The Wimp Factor provides political correctness with a new ism and phobia for its ever-increasing lexicon through its coining of the word, "femiphobia." This is something that Ducat diagnoses in all men who don't want to be women, act like them, and resent being called a sissy. Contrarily, if a woman is perfectly happy being a woman and has no interest in being a man or compared to a man then she is [you guessed it] absolutely normal. I suppose that if one already buys spurious concepts like "homophobia" then such additional notions like femiphobia are easily accepted.

RE: "From George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" while adorned in a flight suit..." from Scott A Lines review...

FAA regulations require that a flight suit be worn when piloting a military aircraft. Secondly, Mr. Lines and Mr. Ducat might make note that George W Bush is a former military aviator / pilot with six years experience and an honorable discharge. As such, Mr. Bush has earned the right to wear a flight suit - and most particularly when compelled by federal law to do so.

The muddled "thinking" of Lines's review on this point exemplifies the kind of deliberate political distortion and lack of objectivity that the author, Ducat, has used to base the entire convoluted premis of this book.

If you are a person already inclined toward the consumtion of the book's bias, and are merely seeking reassurance to further entrench your views, than this is the book for you.

If you are a person who places any kind of value on objectivity, historical truth, and accuracy in non fiction, save your money. There are plenty of other books that better explore the inner workings and intricacies of modern politics, and they're better written and researched to boot. In short, I really don't think anyone would be happy with the purchase of this book.