Customer Reviews

Women Respond to the Men's Movement: A Feminist Collection

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

 

 

All in all, I actually enjoyed this book. There are many powerful voices (bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, etc.) within, and in general they try to bring a contructive, balanced approach to tackling the issues within.

The most glaring fault, to me, was that the writers almost exclusively addressed the mythopoetic branch of the men's movement. Many of the essays mentioned or alluded to the fact that there were other factions in the men's movement, but almost none addressed them. Honestly, I don't know much about the rest of the men's movement, but for a collection which contained such a diversity of approaches (from straight essays to fiction to "backtalk""), I was rather surprised at the lack of diversity in discussion.

As there were a number of essays, there is obviously a variation in quality throughout. Many of the essays seemed to quote Iron John (not a book that I'm tremendously fond of, in general) grossly out of context, whereas others (Barbara Kingsolver, for example) seemed to take great effort to create a balanced account. Some of the same points are repeated throughout the collection, sometimes stated much more cohesively than others. It is difficult, because of this, to write a review for the entire book, but I would say that it is definitely worth reading for anyone trying to develop a better understanding of men's studies.

I am a human and equal rights and animal activist. And I also have been a participant in the mythopoetic men's movement. I went through my own 'initiation' weekend, and helped staff several myself.

The majority of these essays appear reactive and relatively unfounded, the work of fellow activists who have shot first while only squinting briefly at the target. The essays seem to have a few major points in common: 1. Bly's Wild Man is a dangerous force to emulate. 2. The cure for men (and society)is to be feminists first. 3. Men need to take action in society, not simply abandon it on weekends to whine.

In response to these essays, there's a few statements: 1. Bly's book is not a bible, but an influence. He is a poet, not a sociologist. The Wild Man is a metaphor for natural energy, as in Jungian (NOT Freudian) libido, not a code of conduct. Likewise, any reference to becoming a warrior is one of the mindscape - a vivid image of resolve to do battle with one's own 'shadows', not a promotion of warmongering. Stop being so literal. 2. Taken from the FMF website (feminists.org): Feminism is 'the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women'. A major focus of the work that I have done and seen is in establishing autheniticity in self, groups and society as a whole and removing structures that promote the continuation of falsehood, especially surrounding gender and sexuality. We have helped each other overcome addictions, to porn, to predation, to bigotry and to victimhood. 3. The movement I've been a part of centers on establishing a mission in the world. Mine: I challenge the world to live compassionately and reverently through learning, leading and loving.

I've done my share of protesting, sign holding and candlelight vigiling in the name of truth and rights for all. The essays within this book don't reveal much truth about the men I have worked with in the mythopoeic movement. They reveal plenty as to the closemindedness and reactionary nature of most of the essayists. In such, it's useful in guaging the resistance of some leading feminists toward seeing allies instead of perpetrators. I expected to see guiding thought that would help direct men and women alike toward healing, but found victimization and blame.

I picked up this book imagining it would feel motivational to read radical feminist dialogue. Instead I grew impatient and was disappointed with this collection. The opening story by Ursula le Guin is juvenile in both setting and understanding, and the succeeding essays do not rise above this immature beginning.

Maybe I feel this way only because there is nowadays no apparent "men's movement" to reinforce macho and threaten me as a woman. Or maybe it is because I am a wife and a mother of boys that I think it shortsighted to condemn those who wish to empower men. To blame men as a gender for the disempowerment of women is to overlook a lot of social and economic complexities or our world. Life is hard for people of both genders.

This is a collection of armchair rhetoric to enflame the opposition. I can imagine that ultra-conservative anti-feminists would get a lot of ammunition out of quotes from this ill-conceived book. It is a shame, because there is still a lot to be said for feminism and women's rights. This book, however, is more an example of stray radicalism gone wrong - a sort of "backlash" against an imaginary enemy - than any clear thinking about real social issues.

Perhaps the worst book ever written on any subject ever. If books on architecture were written as badly as this book "about" Iron John, all our buildings would collapse. A perfect example of what is wrong with postmodernism. Any word or symbol a person emits means what the postmodernist says it means not what the speaker means.

A single line from Bly means that he both wants to destroy the environment and wants to preserve it. We are given that standard '90s charge--failure to condemn. How do we prove this? We prove it with a quote. Exactly one line down in Iron John I found an example of what Bly supposable failed to say. When Bly says that men have been injured by the British Enclosure Acts we are informed that this is "fascist".

How many abolitionists said that white people must change spiritually? All of them. But this group of women insists that men should not change spiritually. No doubt about it, postmodernists cannot read.

great book! The woman below is seriously misinformed. Men may have problems, but it is not as bad as what is smacked against women. I hope political correctness dies, and this real problem be unveiled to American women. Also, what may have not applied in 2001 does today. This book needs an update as it was written in 92.

This book's sole redeeming value is in demonstrating that there's not a mass men's movement because women won't allow it. I'll let feminist Donna LaFramboise put it this way: "Taken as a whole, it is condescending, derisive and arrogant in tone, as well as a display of feminine busybody-ness at its worst. On the one hand, men are repeatedly condemned for thinking they're the center of the universe. On the other, these women insist feminists have the right to be pronouncing on the men's movement as well as dictating terms to it. Writer after writer declares that a "real" men's movement should be properly concerned not with whatever it decides its priorities to be, but with women's issues..." (e-me for the source)