The point of customer reviews is to, uhm, actually REVIEW THE BOOK, not to air your psychological issues with women. May I suggest a psychologist who likes a challenge? You might even get a woman one...
Perhaps others could take your advise as well. Am I to undertsand that your position is that anyone who rejects the obvious falsity of feminism "has psychological issues with women?" Nice ad hominem.
And an Anime geek anonymously questioning my social success is truly rich. I wish any young woman considering this book could see a picture of every reviewer to know exactly what they are signing up for. (hint: number of proms attended per capita is about .6).
In case you are really wondering, women like me quite a bit, my dear - because I am not afraid to initiate. I am the wolf with the red roses, that you stunted feminist types despise, mainly because I have no interest in you.
The fact that you use the phrase 'ad hominem' in this context makes me wonder why you don't respond to the most substantial point Phillips makes: that you're supposed to be reviewing a book, now trying to convince everyone that feminism is the new Scientology. One also wonders why you use ad hominem attacks to reply to a supposed ad hominem. In any case, your feeble grasp on evolutionary biology and psychology no doubt leads you to believe that so-called "social construction" does not exist at all. But of course that is obviously false.
Perhaps you would benefit from psychiatric care to relieve egomania.
Point the first; I have browsed the book in a Barnes and Noble, quite enough to see that it is derivative tripe, poorly executed - much like the greatest hits of Wham! sung by Hootie and the Blowfish.
Next, I reserve the right to respond to ad hominems in kind. Turn about is fair play . . . sauce for the goose . . . etc.
I always appreciate the efforts of your kind to extrapolate my very true statements of fact in such a manner that they do not at all resemble what I had actually written, and then to claim some kind of reward cookie for your imagined victory. I do believe that I stated "[t]he two sexes are demonstrably not the result of an artificial `social construct.'" Apparently you find something untrue about this rather clear statement of objective fact, and will produce evidence that the two common genital configurations of the human race are a result an oppressive patriarchy? You would be the first, of course. Even a cursory look at the higher mammals, primates in particular, demonstrates that males and females exhibit different roles and behaviors, entirely outside of any society which could impose artificial "constructs." So-called sex based social constructs are merely exaggerations and restatements of the biological facts that undergird them; they are not capricious instruments of oppression.
I do believe that the point that I and many others have been making and which your kind fails to understand - and quite purposely so - is that biology and endocrinology interact with culture in differentiating the sexes, gradually at first, and precipitously through puberty when, for example, the typical male is flooded with several times his baseline testosterone level. So yes, the distribution of pants and skirts between the sexes is a social construct - but the high degree of its seeming arbitrariness is commensurate with its irrelevance to your broader dogma that the sexes are equal in abilities.
The culture has absorbed more than its fill of feminism as an ideology and political movement, and is in the process of consolidating and rejecting all but its most modest objectives. The "stereotype" of the feminist as simultaneously weak and mean, physically unattractive and unsuccessful in traditional social exchanges, of possessing an irrational hatred of men, boys, and family - has proved true. You've earned it, girls - now feast upon it. Even the vast majority of college-aged women who dabble in "feminism" know only the formulaic malapropisms and shibboleths of "patriarchy," "misogyny" and "equal" all of which they eschew for social success and positive, fulfilling relationships with men whom they love and are attracted to qua men. You will only get exceedingly more radical, and more bizarre, as you continue to see the tide of your ideology recede and traditional familial relationships retake their rightful place.
Finally, I would wager half of my testosterone - perhaps the left one - that my psychological state is a great deal healthier than any ten regular posters at pandagon or feministing.
I presume your laughter is in fact nervous laughter - that my words are persuasive to nine of ten young women who are normal, mature and/or maturing, and who like being women. If you didn't perceive that my statements would have an effect deleterious to your ideology, you simply wouldn't have bothered. No reasonably attractive woman needs your discredited ideas, principally because they are best suited as identity-substitutes for sufferers of manifold psychological pathologies which need not be discussed at length.
You are quite correct - I have never met a feminist - with the single caveat "outside of a university." This fact is a testament to the ossification and recession of your ideology into obscurity, as it can only exist in a place impervious to reality, such as the academy, or in government where it is unduly coercive, pernicious, and the cause of the backlash which will be the end of all of this nonsense. For the rest outside of the academy and government, I suppose we avoid one another because I prefer to make time with physically attractive, feminine, happy women - a population quite nearly exclusive of "feminists." Quite literally, no woman with "options" aspires to be Kate Millet. "Feminists" self-select from the physically unattractive, unnecessarily mean, socially inept, humorless, uptight, self-loathing, spiteful, and unmotivated - it is a lifestyle, in case you haven't noticed, and one that does not simply have a "marketing problem." Marcotte is a fantastic exemplar of this fact. I wish that she had a greater public profile, because I couldn't fabricate a worse persona with which to smear "Feminism." At least Al Sharpton has a sense of humor, and is "in on the joke," as it were.
Yes, there is a party going on, and no, you are not invited. Its just like in high school, remember? I suppose you've gathered by now that the Quarterback is never going to look in your direction, haven't you? Please stop trying to ruin everybody else's good time, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.
Why is it that you feel the need to use such stereotypes when regarding feminists? And by the way, just because you use big words in your comments does not make you sound any more smarter on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
Do tell, sweetheart, what on earth would make me sound "more smarter?"
"Feminism" is an ideological subset of Marxism, appropriating the Master/Servant dialectic and imposing the same upon the sexes in a Patriarchy/Oppressed paradigm. There have evolved various schools of this ideology which do not deserve individual treatment at this time, other than a reference to "gender feminism," which dominates discourse from the feminist perspective because it is the only remaining feminist sub-ideology which rejects enough contrary empirical evidence to maintain the objectives of the early feminist movement. The central dogma of gender feminism is "non-essentialism," viz, that the two sexes are the result of "social constructs."
Does that sound like I know a smidge about a subject you claim I know nothing about?
The stereotypes are not stereotypes without reason, and unfortunately for your "movement" they are held by the vast majority of young women, who would only read this book because they were coerced to do so by a stereotypically butch-in-birkenstocks professor, and would harbor resentment because of it. I will continue to point this "stereotype" out whenever possible, because it is the single most powerful a deterrent in the "gender wars" as they are perceived by Feminists.
In fact, I would say that they really aren't so much stereotypes as the qualities which draw a person into a worldview that salves the emotional pain of an obvious failure to achieve a level of social success. Of course the ugly will seek an ideology that tells them that being ugly - rejecting male standards for women - is a virtue. This is true of the Left in general - witness, for example, the attraction of aimless, chronic marijuana using layabouts to socialist and collectivist ideologies.
Now, I am aware that many teens and twentysomethings dabble in some "feminist" wordplay as part of the maturation process - but it is entirely the nebulous language of "equality," and the psychologically healthy of these eschew it once they find that feminist nonsense is a cumbersome disadvantage in pursuing happiness in relationships with actual, living, breathing men. I have heard that the vast majority of women quite enjoy relationships with men.
To that end, you might take notice of the fact that most women have fathers, brothers, and sons whom they love and support - it is precisely the lived experience of women that is the greatest bulwark against the wholesale cultural implementation of your agenda. You cannot change this. Your efforts are futile. You will continue to fail miserably. I will continue to laugh at you.
Leamas, the mere existence of the book -- and of the "unnatural" feminists you posit -- refutes your argument.
It's simple: if it were really innate, I couldn't buck it. If it were really unnatural, I couldn't do it.
I can't resist my body's need for fuel: the biochemical reality is that I need food, and the act of eating is therefore biologically determined.
What I eat, on the other hand, is heavily culturally determined -- pork, roaches, beef, root vegetables are all off the menu in certain gatherings. When and where and with whom I eat are all also influenced by culture.
And so it is with "femininity". If it's innate, every woman has it at every time in every action, just the same as she has her ovaries and XX chromosomes. If at any time any woman doesn't have it, then it is demonstrably culturally constructed.
(Incidentally, you might want to reconsider the construction of your comment that you "have heard that the vast majority of women quite enjoy relationships with men." It sounds disturbingly as if you've never experienced any yourself, but only heard of them by report.)
Finally, I'd just like to point out that *my* lived experience *is* the "wholesale cultural implemenation of the [feminist] agenda," from my egalitarian, child-free, blissfully happy long-term relationship and my tech-workin', high-payin' profession, and all the way down to my no-makeup, no-hairspray, no-heels, no-pantyhose physical presence. And my husband, brothers, cousins, father, nephews, friends, etc., couldn't love me more if I were a winning lottery ticket dipped in chocolate and smothered in whipped cream.