Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "A study claiming to shed light on why boys will be boys and girls will be girls sparked a flurry of reaction in 1997..." (more)
Key Phrases: oppression stories, lesbian battering, joint counseling, New York, New Jersey, Anita Hill (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

In this stirring rebuke to the doomsday writings of feminist authors such as Susan Faludi (Backlash), Cathy Young provides a commonsense approach to resolving the political and personal war between the sexes. There is no "war against women," proclaims Young, who smartly rebuts the phony scholarship of advocacy groups on a series of controversial issues, from the incidence of domestic violence (not as frequent as you might think) to the wage gap (much smaller than you've been told). Young's intelligent handling of this data--the strongest aspect of the book--allows her to advance dozens of contrarian ideas. Although many of her targets are on the political left, she certainly is no right-winger. In fact, Young embraces many aspects of the sexual revolution, and devotes an entire chapter to attacking conservative authors such as George Gilder and F. Carolyn Graglia for their views on gender. In the final chapter of Ceasefire, Young offers a series of proposals for de-escalating the gender wars: don't assume sexism is the root cause of all women's problems, rewrite sexual harassment law, demand that husbands and wives serve as equal parents, and so on. Many readers will haggle with Young over several of her interpretations, but by book's end she probably will have them on her side. A well-argued and carefully reasoned polemic. --John J. Miller

From Kirkus Reviews

A call for men and women to stand down from the gender wars, culminating with a 12-step program that is intended to lay common ground in ``trying to make life better for all of uswomen, men, and our children.'' The author's thesis is that, as feminists of the 1970s achieved the goals they appropriately soughti.e., equality in the workplace and elsewhere in societyideologies hardened. Young disputes the feminist belief that the personal is political; whats personal is personal, she claims, and the battle for equal rights is not an excuse for portraying men as fundamentally malevolent.'' Although feminists themselves are divided regarding various issuespornography, most visiblythey share, according to the author, ``a propensity for sweeping statements based on modest evidence.'' Young offers evidence that other basic feminist credos are mistaken: e.g., that male violence is directed primarily against women or that male privilege comes without any price (men die younger, she points out). Young, a journalist who describes herself as a ``dissident feminist,'' contends that rape is not a bias crime. She also examines the men's movement, where men often take on the role of victim, and what she views as the confused response from political conservatives regarding gender roles. The 12 steps to an egalitarian society include such seemingly innocuous (but, on examination, distinctly provocative) propositions as Take gender politics out of the war on domestic violence and In politics, stop treating women as an interest group and acting as if womens claims were more legitimate than mens. A bucket of cool water on whiners of both sexes, along with a convincing appeal to look ``fairly and compassionately at both sides of these conflicts.'' -- Copyright ©1999, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 368 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (February 22, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684834421
• ISBN-13: 978-0684834429
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (60 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,048,941 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

43 of 45 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A thoughtful debunking of destructive gender based myths., March 17, 1999

By A Customer

It is symptomatic of the times that any criticism of feminist orthodoxy can only be delivered by a woman. Even then, any hint of allegiance to conservative politics is an automatic disqualifier. It labels one as a reactionary mouthpiece for the alleged forces of patriarchy. Fortunately, there are a growing number of young women challenging feminism's victim-cult politics. Unfortunately, contemporary pioneers for sanity in gender politics such as Rene Denfeld and Christina Hoff Sommers are not likely to get equal time - if they get any at all - in university women's studies departments.

Equally so, Cathy Young, a regular columnist for the Detroit News and contributor to Reason Magazine, is not likely to hit the recommended reading lists of those with a partisan interest in the exploitation male female differences. As the title Ceasfire! suggests, the gender war has gone too far and, as Young exhaustively documents within its covers, damaged too many innocents.

Says Young, "Things were simpler a decade ago, when there were just feminists and anti-feminists." But today there are two feminisms. One is 'equity' feminism; that is simply the commonsense call for equal rights and opportunities. Young is solidly in this camp. No problem there, but its radical counterpart, dubbed 'gender' feminism, defines itself in warlike terms against male oppression. Proclaiming victim status for women leads to a hoard of injustices, not only against men, but nearly as often against women.

Young doesn't suggest men and women are androgynous, but unlike suggestions of Mars and Venus, she places them both solidly on planet earth. They share substantially the same ability to wrong each other - and that they do. Chapter by chapter, myths which are promoted by feminism's fringe, but nonetheless widely accepted in today's political climate, are systematically exploded.

Among these are the tenets of (I dare not say, but Young does) the battered women's movement. Young doesn't deny the existence of domestic violence, only that it can be a two-way street. As she points out, respected University of New Hampshire researchers consistently report women as often as men initiate aggressive physical contact - the so-called 'first punch.' This is a human problem, not part of the feminist declared "epidemic of male violence against women." Mainstream media, as Young repeatedly reveals, either submerges, misreports or misunderstands these complicated dynamics. From there, legislation is enacted on false assumptions.

By and large, gender feminism denies the inherent capacity for violence by women. Women's transgression are dismissed as reactions to an oppressive patriarchal world. Men are presumed guilty, both in feminist theory and in practical application of the law. But recent studies reveal that lesbians (presumably they are feminists) have high rates of violence toward their own partners.

However, Ceasfire! is not an anti-women polemic. A chapter headed "The Conservative Mistake" points at the confusions attached to this issue. A paradox exists. Radical feminism posits that women are moral superiors to males, i.e., they would never file a false claim of rape, they have an inherent capacity civilize and nurture which brutish oaf men lack. Old fashioned Victorian morality agrees - so do some traditionalist conservatives. Women are the fragile guardians of good - a civilizing force - who must be placed on pedestals and protected.

Young notes this "strange convergence of radical feminism and patriarchal conservatism - and the alienation of both ideologies from real life." She points us to the confrontation between the Christian fundamentalist Promise Keepers and the National Organization of Women. Despite initial appearances as polar opposites, they both campaign on a platform of male irresponsibility. Unwittingly, they are working from the same premises.

Another strand of conservatism, agreeable with equity feminism, points to the progress women have made in recent years. Here the belief is "how ridiculous it is to talk about American women as an oppressed group." Indeed, there are statistics the National Organization of Women prefers to avoid.

Young's conclusions are pragmatic. Her twelve proposals are directed toward balance, not vindication of any particular viewpoint. The theme is the de-politicization of gender issues, but one does not ask for balance unless the status quo is skewed, and Young is clear about that. We need to get along. Women have sons and husbands; daughters have fathers and brothers - our issues are family ones. We are the same species.

But radical feminism cannot maintain its cohesion without an enemy. That is why Young's friend and colleague Christina Hoff Sommers once warned, "When feminists quote statistics, reach for your common sense." The "its always his fault attitude" is the mantra of a movement that doesn't want peace. That is the balloon Young seeks to puncture.

Popular media seldom probes for deeper truth. Whether that is due to political ideology, a lemming-like like tendency to follow the herd, or the rushed atmosphere of daily production, false and misleading examples of advocacy research are too often presented as authoritative. Its is a straight line from an interest group press release to the front page - once there, falsehood is elevated to truth. Young has produced a comprehensive counterpoint to the standard wisdom. She wants us to "Get the facts straight." Ceasfire! is directed toward those who prefer truth and insight over perjury and manipulation.

36 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Worthwhile; insightful., October 1, 1999

By	Timothy P. Scanlon (Hyattsville, MDUSA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

We on the left have a tendency to make a hero of the "victim" whoever he or she may be. To do so, we need our "reasons." We concoct statistics of victimhood, rely on our gurus (e.g., Catherine McKinnon, et al), usually avoiding decadent "male" critical thinking, to develop abstractions to prove the victimhood of same. When our findings are challenged, we throw flames at the straw person into which we've transformed the challenger, claiming most often that the challenge is of no merit because of the credentials, political affiliation, or alleged diabolical objectives of the challenger. As the challenges become more substantial, the flames become hotter.

While the person who recommended the book to me is one whom I trust, I had some reservations about it as Young is affiliated with the Cato Institute, a conservative libertarian think tank. I was relieved to find that, while the book seems aimed at a conservative readership--there is a chapter dedicated to the mistakes of conservatives--by and large the book is a pretty safe analysis of contemporary feminists who are so dedicated to their status as victims that they've endorsed a veritable "paleo-sexism" as Young calls it. And this victimhood is, to me, the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be about! The feminists I've admired have insisted on claiming their own turf, on demanding their rights as citizens, not insisting that their rights are contingent upon their subservience to the omnipotent men.

Oh, and Young had the audacity to acknowledge that women too abuse their kids--and their spouses--much more than many a feminist or court is willing to acknowledge. Thank you, Ms. Young. If a man were to say the same thing, he'd be accused of bitter cynicism. You've at least opened the door to that dimension of honesty.

While I am a strong advocate of women's equality (and racial equality, and...) to the degree that most people from Cato would probably despise me, the present wave of feminists have infantilized themselves. That I do not advocate. Between some women claiming they've been "sexually harassed" on claims that are so abstract that if a man were to claim the same he'd be laughed out of court, and redefinitions of rape to ensure the place of comfortable women in the realm of the rape victim, there seems to be something wrong with the claims. (A Democratic congressman of my acquaintance was recently accused of abuse by his ex-wife. Her attorney implied that the charge itself, despite evidence, should be enough to convict him, or at least seriously challenge his reelection prospects. If I were in a position to do so, I'd have her disbarred!)

Then there are the emotive statements, "if such-and-such were a men's disease, its research would be funded," and the dubious studies by those catering to the latest feminist fads (many of which have been refuted by Christina Hoff Sommers, and others). Young does a pretty commendable job of exposing these fallacies. For instance, the amount spent on breast cancer has surpassed that of prostate cancer by a factor of 50, relative to the number of victims of each! And if I hear one more reference to Faludi's screed "Backlash," I may get into book burning.

Young is wise in covering some dimensions of the "men's movement." And I agree with her approach. It seems that Warren Farrell, in "The Myth of Male Power," may have a good point or two. But he seemed to want to make men into victims too. How about both sexes help each other out and not claim that "other" is subjecting "us" to unspeakable horrors. Then there is the bizarre and dangerous misconception that the "us" are our allies and the "other" our enemies. (Do such claims sell that many newspapers, or that much air time?)

I suspect that a little of Young's speculation meets the needs of her ideology too; there is a little of "it seems to me," or "probably..." But her closing recommendations as to "get a life" (my phrase, not hers) are sound. And I don't see anything wrong with women and men (blacks and whites; gays and straights...) working together. I have this wild fantasy that we'll be able to get something done if we learn to do so!

What's more, I don't see the book as a cheap shot at feminism. (That's one of those flames, of course, aimed at Young). Rather, she exposes fallacies that need to be exposed if we are to work together, instead of against each other. While reading it, you might consider other victimologies, e.g., recovered memory, satanic abuse and other travesties, and ask where they correlate with victim feminism.

28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Writing about gender in a sane manner - what a novelty!, February 3, 2000

By	Diana Lynton (Porto, Portugal) - See all my reviews

First of all let me assure you that there is nothing wrong with American women. There is something very wrong, though, why American feminism "group-think", notably "victim feminism" (Oh, come on, is there *really* any other kind of influential feminism nowadays?). Which strikes me as very, very odd. Blame it on my European identity, cultural and otherwise, but the increasingly virulent rethoric of victim feminism makes absolutely no sense to me. It takes women who are born into one of the richest societies in the civilised world and clothes them in the garments of a Third World-esque "oppression". The irony is, of course, that most of these women have not met with much oppression during their lives and that they have a world of opportunities open to them in a way undreamt to their ancestors, both male and female.

Not that I intend to deny that the odd male chauvinist still exists, but to claim that the way to eliminate anti-woman attitudes is by encouraging anti-male attitudes is unacceptable in my book. And for anyone with more than a nodding acquaintace with moral and ethics, it is not only unacceptable, it is positively totalitarian. Another thing that I find intriguing (and I say intriguing to avoid the over-emotional conotations of "downright angry") is this mindless connection of victimhood with power. I look at the real victims: at the Third World children who die of hunger in countries brimming with natural riches, at refugees that wait and wait for a peace that will never come, and wonder where does all this "patriarchal oppression" rethoric comes from. I have a little game to pose to those women who are bent on blaming men for their every personal shortcomings. I have a little game to pose to those men whose feelings of self-loathing are so intense that they have to rationalise them into that tiresome "I am oppressive by nature, deserving of contempt, blah, blah, blah" mantra: how about growing up into a full human being for a while? How about starting to assume full responsibility for your actions once in a while? Oh, I can sympathise with these trends. I can sympathise completely. It is easier to say "We live in a society that oppresses women" than to say "If I do not develop my full potential it is my fault". It is easier to say "I'm not being promoted because I am a woman" than to say "I'm not being promoted because I'm not qualified enough". It's easier to say "I'm not violent, I'm a victim" than to assume responsibilty for your bad actions and accept the just punishment. But ultimately, this is counter-producive. It is only a form of neo-paternalism.

And what is so good about Young's book is that she sees this. She is able to see through all that screechy rethoric and poke at the deep truths beneath it. She knows that although there are certainly individual men and women who are victims of one thing or the other, neither women nor men are "victims" or "oppressed" or anything else. Real feminism was always about equality, about fairness for *all*, women and men, whites and non-whites, etc. It was never about moral superiority or claiming a privileged victim status. It was about realising how traditional sex-roles hurt both women and men, by imposing rigid behaviour rules and forcing them to follow expectations no one could keep. Where have those ideas gone? We live in a world of professional worriers. A bizarre world where people would rather distort the truth than to sigh in relief with the fact that, say, spouse battering rather than being a epidemic, constitutes unnaceptable and devious behaviour.

It takes bravery to write such a book in contemporary America, although I think there would be much less fuss here in Europe. Only a woman could have gotten away with it, although Ms. Young still has to contend with the screechy no-brainers of (mostly) "gender feminists" whose hate-mail is protected by the very right to free speech they seek to abolish, simply for suggesting that men and women should work together to achieve common goals and that we should stop thinking about "women" and "men" and start thinking about "human beings".

Of course that such ideas, given the present thwarted state of gender politics, come across as revolutionary. To me though, a woman fed on a diet of real equality and critical thinking, to whom humanity consists in assuming your faults along with your virtues and accepting the consequences of your deeds, Ms. Young's ideas come across as solid, commonsensical sanity.