Customer Reviews

The Woman Racket: The New Science Explaining How the Sexes Relate at Work, at Play and in Society

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is by the same Steve Moxon who, in 2004, wrote the book "The Great Immigration Scandal" - a work which exposed serious problems within England's Home Office, and eventually led to the resignation of the Immigration Minister.

This new book, covering a subject completely unrelated to the previous works's topic, draws on biology and evolutionary psychology theory, as well as recent findings of scientific research in other areas, to destroy the myth promulgated by radical feminists, of women as "oppressed" and men as their "oppressors". Along the way, the reader is given a "popular science" (yet fairly heavy) account of how the male DH (dominance hierarchy) begins with the male gamete's competition to fertilize the female egg, through the extension of this paradigm of male competition to the behaviour of adult males. Also, the "place" of the female, while lying outside the strict DH, is expained largely by the female's fundamental desire to find and mate with men of perceived high status (which Moxon apparently considers to include ecomomic, political, and social standing, in addition to the male's physical attractiveness).

Being a men's rights activist, what I really like about the book is its devastating critique of "radical" or "ideological" feminism (what Moxon calls "extreme" feminism). Destruction of feminist myths is infused throughout the book, as the other major topic besides the aforementioned, and includes, among a wide range of phenomena, topics such as why men are in such poor health compared to women, feminist lies concerning domestic violence and rape, and workplace gender issues. Each of these topics is tied in with the biological, evolutionary, and other aspects of differences between men and women

Overall, I find this book to be an excellent companion to Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power", which describes the "what", whereas Moxon purports to give the corresponding "why". In fact these two books, plus Nathanson and Young's "Legalizing Misandry", will give the sophisticated reader a firm grasp of men's and gender issues, the "why" of our current situation regarding gender relations, and the extent to which ideological feminists have caused much harm to society.

Edit 11/18/09: If I had to review this book again, I would give it only 4 stars. The reason is that Moxon devotes an entire chapter to how the political Left has screwed everything up, with the supposed applicability to feminism being that the Left is at fault for historically 'causing' the problem. But regardless of the validity of that opinion, this kind of thing has little or no place in the book, and in fact it encourages divisiveness in the men's movement along political lines, and scares off potential men's rights allies who lean left. Of course this is not a "men's rights book" as such, but effective men's and father's movements are necessary components to bring about the end of radical feminism and its evils. Besides, Moxon should have at least realized that inclusion of a political rant would alienate a lot of people who might otherwise be attracted to the parts of the book which are objectively based.

Length:: 9:15 Mins

Hi, I'm Bernard Chapin and I've decided to dedicate an episode of Chapin's Inferno--a wandering cauldron of politically incorrect commentary--to this superlative work by Steve Moxon.

Steve Moxon could put the whole Star Trek team to shame. He really has gone in places where no man dared go before (and probably won't dare go for some years yet).

Beginning with the historical and biological facts surrounding men and women, The Woman Racket goes from interesting, to very interesting, to fascinating, to exciting.

Any man or woman with a sense of justice will on the one hand feel anger at what the book reveals, and on the other feel a sense of optimism that the crooks behind the scam of feminism -- politicians, journalists, social services, judges -- are finally being exposed.

To echo Five Points Higher's review, this book is the ideal follow-up to Warren Farrell's classic The Myth of Male Power. It is as well-researched and well-referenced. It completes the picture superbly in a post-2000 context.

The author presents some interesting ideas, which is useful. Males as genetic filters - the idea that the lives men live, in competition with other men, puts more of their traits out there for field testing, with the most useful ones being passed on to both men and women, because the men with them are more likely to be selected by a woman - I'd never heard that one.

Men are all in competition, in the sense that women are much more able to find a man to impregnate her than a man is able to find a woman willing to be impregnated. And, women get much more help in supporting children, in modern times, than men get in finding a mate. It's there. But, since the author is trying to convince us all of his point, it comes across like we're all cutthroats, constantly trying to make other men look bad, and ourselves good. Either I'm so used to it, or it's really not as extreme as the author necessarily makes a case for, on an everyday basis.

Another major point the author makes is that women and alpha males are the chosen people. The rest of males, which includes most of us, are very much second rate. We serve a purpose, but we're never going to get what we want in life - which is all the sex we want - because women will choose us as a last resort. This could be said better, but this gets at the main point.

Another aspect of this book is that it sees human behavior as entirely natural, with origins in evolution, instead of as a vast male conspiracy, where all men work together to keep women subservient. Since I've missed all the secret meetings, this seems more logical and accurate to me.

So, there is a patriarchy, but it doesn't do most men any good. It serves alpha males and women. This, in contrast to the feminist notion that all women are below all men on the social pecking order. Well, that does ring true, in my experience - or in how I create/process my experience. Feminists tend to see men as a bloc, with anything that serves men with power as serving ALL men. It never felt or seemed that way to me. Further, it seems very evident that the women who hang out with the men on top are much more powerful, and receive many, many more benefits than do the vast majority of men who aren't alphas. And, it has always seemed that the men with the power are much more willing to help women out than they are to help most men out.

I don't like many aspects of feminism, since I believe that they only look at women's lives, and carefully ignore any evidence to the contrary. I mean, I'm all for equal rights and equal responsibilities. But, you'll very seldom hear a feminist look favorably on men, in general, about anything. To me, they lie by omission a lot. Like everybody else, they see what they want to see. Yes, that very much includes me - and I obviously have my own prejudices.

So, you'd think somebody like me would think this a great book, since it looks at things that feminists don't seem to want to think about. But, what I don't like about this work is that the author doesn't simply present facts and draw conclusions. IMHO, he has a very serious political axe to grind, which makes his presentation of evidence seem very biased and selective - much as some feminists do, from my point of view. It appears to me, that grinding that axe is much more important to the author than is making a case for how things came to be the way they are, that this book was, in fact, written to help the author with his axe. For me, that sharply diminishes the objectivity and validity of this book.

Its about time someone has begun to put right the imbalance. I'm sick and tired of hearing feminists say just how wonderful women are, and how evil men are! This book shine light on areas which have been avoided for a long time. I had always thought that the best book on this subject was 'The myth of male power', but this is equally good, well written and thought provoking. Not to be missed.

Our government in Spain is implementing the sexist laws against men already in place decades ago in other countries, with devastating results. Just today I read in a local Spanish paper that aggressions perpetrated by kids to fathers, mothers, even grand parents have doubled in recent years. Girls already account for 40% of the aggressions. The article mentions single parents' families ruled by mothers or families with a diminished paternal figure are more prone to this type of domestic violence. Still, regular readers or feminist do not seem to see the connection. This boy should be an eye opener for many radical feminist still lobbying for disgraceful sexist laws in my country.

This is a book mostly for men, but there is information here that can be communicated to some women, as well. Have you wondered why women are the way they are in the western world? There is not one book that explains this better than "The Woman Racket". It is thoroughly documented, and sets aside trashy modern "knowledge" (sociology, and the likes of it) to explain why the sexes are the way they are, and why they deal and treat each other the way they do.

Have you ever wondered why you short men get the stiff arm from women, why women get credit for work that men have done beforehand, and why men adapt to women's demands no matter how destructive or silly they are? Have you ever wondered why men are the best....and the worst when it comes to any skill or topic? R-e-a-d t-h-i-s b-o-o-k, and you will find out. I guarantee it! You will never see women, men, and yourself in the same way again, and you will notice how women and the media (and men) are good at deceiving ourselves into making women something they are not.

Judging by the reviews I'd seen other people give this book I was expecting a groundbreaking look into a very controversial issue but what I got was a mediocre, poorly referenced rant that focuses primarily on British sociology rather than on the West as a whole. The wording in the book is very articulate and precise but the lack of footnotes and lack of studies or articles to back up his assertions left me with the picture of someone who wanted us to more or less take his word for it rather than giving the reader avenues to explore the subject deeper. The references and footnotes are what separate a good author from a great one in regards to nonfiction books in my opinion. Also the book relies way too heavily on evolutionary theory when there should be a wealth of sociological studies and news articles on gender issues to prevent us from having to rely on theory to this extent. When all this is taken into account the book is overpriced and will not give you an intellectual grounding necessary to be able to hold your own in a discussion on the subject, being as it is the book is overpriced. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.

This has to be one of the most important books about men and women published in the past 20 years. It should be read by anyone interested in how men and women relate to each other, along with Esther Vilar's 'The Manipulated Man' (1971), Christina Hoff Sommers's 'Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women' (1994), and Swayne O'Pie's 'Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism' (2011).

The amount of research behind this book is remarkable. Even for someone as interested in gender politics as myself, there were many facts, figures, and nuanced arguments I hadn't encountered before. A 'must read' for anyone seeking perspectives on the relationship between the genders which actually explains what we see in the real world, not in the imaginary world of modern-day feminists, which is the product of feminists' fantasies, lies, delusions and myths - a world in which men are always bad, and women are always good (and when women aren't good, bad men are the reason).

There are growing signs that women are sick to death of being 'represented' by a small band of man-hating and family-hating angry women - radical feminists - and accepting that (a) gender-typical men and women are different, and (b) these differences largely account for the different life choices made by men and women, which explain the phenomena about which the feminists whine endlessly -employment line choices, the gender pay gap, gender imbalance in the boardroom, and so much more. 'The Woman Racket' is particularly interesting in its descriptions of the psychological dfferences between men and women, and how they largely explain men's and women's life choices. Anyone interested in this issue might also read Prof Susan Pinker's 'The Sexual Paradox', Prof Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate', Prof Louann Brizendine's 'The Female Brain', and Prof Simon Baron-Cohen's 'The Essential Difference'.

the prelude: systemic oppression as stimulus for collective activism...

Consider: for as long as men and women have engaged with one another--and, generally speaking--men have dominated, exploited, abused, raped, vilified, or otherwise disenfranchised their other-gendered partners on the planet. And--again, generally speaking--such hideous behaviour went without redress or reparation as well. That is, not only was it condoned, the "permission" was codified as well, i.e., endorsed by the State. Women were treated like chattel, i.e., the man's movable property. This was the nightmare reality of many women's existence since time out of memory.

Further, and although feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft had published works arguing to women's rights--e.g., A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)--and the Suffragettes had been a political force to reckon with here in the US early in the last century, the feminist movement came into its own as recently as the sixties at places like Cal-Berkeley--a split second ago in the full, historical context of the matter of women's disenfranchisement! And, how could it have been otherwise that the academy is where the issue would be addressed? Outside of the university, the topic was generally off the table, but within its halls--ostensibly, a site of inquiry into values, ideas, etc., unhindered by norms taken for granted without--the issue was fixed, i.e., for analysis, dialogue, and, ultimately, activism. Specifically, in the academy feminism became praxis, and not merely ideology or socio-political scholarship.

sound and fury: a myriad of voices and a struggle to coalesce...

Having established the essential fact of male domination and abuse, the "remedy" for socio-political and economic gender inequity--inequity occurring most egregiously in the Third World--for many here at Empire has been to apply to misandry, endorsed by the media, and manifest via contempt or even in more pronounced violence and malicious behavior. Moreover, it is not merely coincidence that some of the most salient acts of malicious sexism by women against men have occurred at the wellspring of the modern feminist movement, i.e., in the universities across America. It is the ur-ground of their manumission--which they had carved out for themselves within the moment of general upheaval taking place in America. And it is also in the academy, first and foremost, in which they staked their claim on a relatively level field of gender interaction, but now where legitimate contention degenerates into retributive Power-play enmity and injury to male colleagues and students alike.

And, owing to the prolonged narrative of male dominance and abuse--and with the attendant fixing of victimizer/victim identities--the malicious sexism by women becomes received by both "victimizer" and "victim" as condign, often tacitly, but accepted, for all that, via a collective "guilting" of the male and an assumed punitive "redress" of wrongs. Further, the effect of assumed, ill-defined, and largely tacit politicized gender identities in the academy is in knowing service, ultimately, to a base inversion of the Power construct. That is, the victim now assumes, to whatever degree, the coveted--and corrupting--role of wielder of Power, while the "guilt" of the victimizer, in "accepting" this penance, is remitted for the moment. Identities are always tenuous, and, therefore, the perpetuating of those politicized, now internalized gender identities necessitates hyper-vigilance. And, as always, the corporate media serves no minor role in the service of libidinous Power--i.e., here assigned yet another precinct in which to play out--helping to sustain said internalized identities via management of consent.

Yet regarding said misandry, still others identifying themselves as feminists--quote-unquote--abjure and even condemn the animus, retribution, and malevolence approach to solving the pressing issue of the capitalist predation of women in the Third World. That is, there does not obtain socially, economically, or culturally a unique model called "feminist," which stands for the thoughts, ideas, conclusions, and praxes of all those--men and women both--who identify themselves via a now politically- and semantically-charged rubric.

Similarly, the conflating of all particular contention as informed by a generalized "misogyny" can undo a vital cause owing to, e.g., animus or mercenary impulse. As this occurs, the aim of improving the material welfare of women in toto may degenerate from the collective addressing global goals to one where, e.g., the executive becomes self-focused, insisting, nevertheless, upon her own "feminist" motives. The values and ideals which inform the cause are marred by what is merely self-serving behaviour, and its integrity and vital momentum impaired.

plurality versus paradigm: defining a feminist model...

To continue, as there does not occur one feminist identity amidst the plurality of voices within the collective, so, too, is there not one claim of misandry that can be generalized into one, all-purpose grievance against, e.g., spouses, colleagues, authorities, etc., deemed irresponsible, or worse. That is, there exists in every sphere of influence an ongoing "negotiation" of identity, niche, rights, etc., for women--and, by association, for men as well--now called upon as they are to apportion material and political gains. And, as said negotiation is a work in progress, an uneasy truce obtains until essential fluid boundaries and norms can be agreed upon and then established.

And, within the plurality of identities, ideologies, drives, etc., at both poles, an appeal to individual integrity as a premise for the effective working out of collectivized terms seems essential for a cause to sustain itself. Specifically, a cause would seem to demand authentic participants committed to moral objectives. To the degree that this does not obtain here, and as there is no "feminist"--save as a media ideal and asymptote--it is ludicrous, therefore, to speak of "the feminist movement"--definite article. The wished-for ideal of a feminist "model" contrasts with the plurality of contradictory, dissenting voices, and what remains an ill-defined "center."

a cause deferred: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother..."

Further, and despite the validity of grievances against males guarding their prerogatives all the while defrauding women--i.e., their personal rights and material needs, and, generally speaking, the great necessity and legitimacy for the collective known as the feminist movement--there exists within its precincts a co-opting, as it were, of the cause by those having no real interest in the collective well-being. That is, when are the "feminist's" actions more properly considered merely self-serving behaviour--the true focus belied via a pretentious claim of having acted to serve the cause--and when are they accomplished in the genuine interest of the collective, and possibly at some cost to the activist?

Putting this into context, what of the student not receiving an anticipated grade who then attacks a male professor via various means--i.e., means both received and outside of channels--and then considers her behaviour "feminist activism"? Or, what of the department chair hiring a faculty and staff biased in favor of women, and believing that behaviour to be responsible feminism? Or, someone having their third abortion, all the while believing not that the act is morally bankrupt, or that her own behaviour is suspect and should be reconsidered, but that it is her prerogative as an enlightened, emancipated feminist. Or, again, the now-single mother and the gender battering her male child endures, without compunction on her part, as men in toto are actively portrayed in the various media--i.e., movies, television, journals, etc.--as inherently base and demanding remedial feminist reorientation and "adjustment" away from perceived "masculine" traits.


"innocent" is a discrete legal identification--not a moral or existential one

To continue, the notion of "victimhood"--whether applied to the targets of fascist atrocity in Europe, white racism, or misogyny--does not, in truth, translate directly into "innocence." That is, whether the "victim" identity is shared within the collective or is the discrete viewpoint of an individual, the assumption of correspondence between "victim" and "innocence" is false. Similarly, the choices and actions of a participant in the feminist cause do not elide from the very real possibility of her own self-focus and drives, i.e., she is a Self (with a history, psychology, etc.) before she is a participant. Said another way: 1) we never cease to be responsible, no matter what has occurred, and 2), victimhood does not--indeed, cannot--"annul" responsibility. The notion of responsibility posited here occurs less in the sense of culpability--or "blame"--and more towards the moral imperatives of "obligated," and "involved." For the "feminist" to assume that she is no longer responsible as an individual, i.e., that the moral imperative does not apply is to see a cause degraded.

Further, there inheres the fact of malicious acts occurring against women by women--for example, the female executive determined to profit from labor exploitation--which acts elide from the concept of misogyny, qua misogyny, but which, nevertheless, may inflict serious, even long-lasting harm to those "victims of victims." This malign behaviour does not occur within the conventional context of the lexeme, but its reality is an ongoing feature in class conflict--i.e., unfocused exploitation and abuse--and the effects are, nonetheless, just as injurious to women, both actual and in the long term. This truth holds as well for the inversion of the term, i.e., misandry, whereas men may also victimize men in the interest, again, of sustaining class privilege and entitlements, both their own and in the aggregate of the investor class.

Yet, with the influence of a media marketing a gender mythology there remains the "feminist" whose focus remains fixed upon "the woman's adversary"--i.e., the male--even at this current stage of corporate globalization, investment deregulation and the designed volatility of late capital. Specifically, the "feminist" participant in Empire who denies the verities of predatory capitalism in favor of a politicized myth stressing gender identity as the "feminist" cause célèbre does so in the service of the investor agenda, to the detriment of men and women alike. Or, via the anarcho-syndicalist model: "no war but class war."

courting Power: libidinous, variable Power as diffuse phenomenon...

The global issue of corporate exploitation bears consideration, then, in order to address the social malaise in the modern era in a holistic, all-inclusive manner. To forego objectivity in favor of subjective bias via a common obscuring of goals is seen, again, in the predisposition to myth-making regarding the other gender. And, the tendency to mythopoesis has sapped vital momentum at both poles, yet persists, e.g., within the feminist canon many decades after the fact of its emergence.

Ultimately, Power--quote-unquote--like its reflection, injustice, is a diffuse phenomenon, unremitting, but with shifting sites of dominance, and often resisting identification. The counter-resistance, as it were, would seem to require an equally fluid tactic of confrontation, influencing its paths while mindful of the libidinous nature of its being. Anything less would unwittingly feed the Power/injustice agenda by, e.g., becoming Power/injustice itself. That is, a mere inversion of the Power/injustice verity--i.e., "now I (or we) have the Power..."-- is not a defusing of Power/injustice, but its proliferation. And, for the "feminist" to heedlessly court Power is to betray what is not, in fact, an alternative, presumably improved, Weltanschauung but, rather, a prolonging of both women's and men's immiseration, particularly--and most notably--via Empire.

authentic, objective activism versus the dissembling, "feminist" Self...

Therefore--and within the context of both gender and class conflict "injustice"--which disenfranchisement, which abuse, which exploitation, which "rape" is construed by one or the other injured gender as the more baleful, the more damaging, the more disruptive of lives--and, therefore, the one meriting address? If one gender pole is reified a false ideology inheres. That is, in the context of a Self suffering under a veritable program of neo-liberal coercion, injustice and oppression on a global scale, when one pole is stressed or valorized and another denied the whole is compromised, and the motives are deservedly suspect. To prescind from the larger issue at hand, i.e., the fact of greed for capital--our own avarice and that of others--as the one, all-encompassing reality in the world is to eclipse the echt task and the possibility of enduring reform, in lieu of a diversion, i.e., the always-volatile yet seductive political and professional leverage. That is, the integrity and drive of the moment is degraded and, ultimately, lost when seduced by Power.

To conflate instances of injustice occurring in the world (including those occurring incidentally to a woman, i.e., where both men and women are victims) as owing to male gender bias is not only to misperceive the problem at hand--and, therefore, miss the moment of confronting and resisting the global agent--but, rather, is at cross purposes with what one imagines we might achieve--i.e., for men and women in thrall to investor privilege and entitlements--through, e.g., dialogue. All of the gains to be realized via said authentic dialogue may be forfeited with imputations of misogyny used as a political or personal opportunism.

imputations of misogyny and exclusive terrains of injustice: a cause co-opted...

Yes, both misandry and misogyny exists as matters of fact, both are unconscionable, and both obtain--by degrees--within the global arena. But the prior "sin," as it were, occurs "locally," i.e., within the individual, and what was valorized--and, which fault does not scruple to injure either male or female. As an example of unfocused exploitation, the male as entrepreneur who unselectively exploits both men and women, as well as the female as entrepreneur who similarly "rapes" both men and women for material gain, again, with indiscriminate application and calculated finesse. This prior lapse, taken in the aggregate--i.e., within the context of an entire investor class--is the global narrative, and does contain the issue of "gender conflict" as well, so diffuse is its effect.

To prescind from, e.g., the fact of late capital's global depredations via agents of both genders, or the abiding reality of class warfare, and to argue, instead, to exclusive terrains of injustice, e.g., misogyny--as the university professor exhorting her male colleagues, but actually belying her own self-interest and vulgar careerism while doing so--is to see a vital cause co-opted, often for crude self-aggrandizement. As there does not yet exist a "masculist" organized collective pursuing political aims, the potential for the always-corrupting pursuit of Power--in that arena--obtains largely at one pole only, which pursuit obscured but grounded, in fact, within the purely subjective aims of a dissembling, "feminist" Self. Again, the "feminist" courting Power qua Power merely inverts that which corrupts and, specifically, the dynamics of exclusion and inequity which inform it remain intact, regardless of gender.