Main Edition
US
FR
Caitlin Moran, big fan of 'party vag sounds' (Matthew Horwood/Getty Images)
It’s a brave soul that dares offer advice to the opposite sex these days. Women authors tend to stick to listing men’s flaws so that female audiences can enjoy the resulting catharsis. Men are pretty much banned from making any generalisation about women, good or bad.
But Times columnist Caitlin Moran is bolder. With her new book, What About Men?, she goes where few women have gone before. Having noticed that young men seem to be in crisis, she now attempts to get inside the mind of the modern male in order to help him out.
Early signs suggest that it’s not going down brilliantly with the Other Side; even the Times reviewer has reservations. And the Twitter commentariat is enjoying posting outraged screenshots of excerpts. “Patronising”, “shallow” and “one-dimensional”, have been some of the verdicts from men so far.
I’ve read the book, and though the intentions behind it are admirable, I agree that it has problems. Moran apparently thinks not just that masculinity is wholly cultural, but that there’s only one version of it, entirely based on her husband, his mates, and some sons of her friends. Every bloke in the world likes rock music, wears disgustingly decrepit gym gear and won’t talk to his friends about fatherhood or relationships. Equally, she seems to think that all women are exactly like she is — dorky, warm, garrulous and funny. They dish out copious tea and sympathy, enjoy avid discussions of pop culture and bodily functions, and bond over how terrible the Seventies were.
She reduces the issue of whether any behavioural differences between the sexes are partly due to biological factors, to the straw man of whether there are “massive differences between male and female brains”, ignoring the potential influence of smaller brain differences, or of pre-natal and circulating sex hormones. (And this in a section where, two pages later, she observes without any apparent sense of tension that “girls develop their fine motor skills earlier than boys”.) She flat-out denies that there are “any major differences in the language skills of boys and girls”, ignoring swathes of evidence that suggest otherwise for early childhood. I’m not saying such questions are definitively settled in either direction, but it smacks of laziness to pretend they are.
She also takes a “creative” approach to explanations of behavioural difference, as exemplified by her Just-So story of how the male conversational style developed (that is: heavy on banter and technicality; light on in-depth analyses of the couples on Love Island). Boys start school at a disadvantage to girls because they can’t hold a pen. A catastrophic chain of developmental events then unfolds, according to our author. While girls race ahead with their communication skills, boys lose confidence, start reading comic books rather than Little Women or Anne of Green Gables, and take refuge for their lack of ability to understand the social world in jokes about gay people, and descriptions of the internal combustion engine. For the unreconstructed sexist who suspects that women should steer clear of scientific explanation, Moran’s approach here is unfortunately likely to serve as further confirmation.
And then there’s the relentlessly ribald writing style. I’ve never positively wished for sensitivity readers and trigger warnings before, but there’s a first time for everything. Demystifying sex for the reader is one thing; making him grimace so hard his face seizes up, another. If, as Moran seems to think, bedroom preferences are formed by exposure to certain scenarios early on in life, hers seem to have been shaped by reading too many Viz magazines. I came away from the book mostly thinking we need to Make Sex Sexy Again as a matter of national emergency.
For instance, on women (and I apologise in advance for this), “if we’re very ‘vocal’, and loud, during sex – ‘YES! YES!’ – it might be because we’re aware we’re doing fannyfarts, and don’t want you to hear the party vag-sounds that are happening ‘down there’”. Male ejaculation is “Nature’s splendid custard-y firework display”. Whereas men allegedly never discuss their genitalia, we women “tell each other, constantly, to rejoice in our minges” (we do what?). Moran recounts how she once spent a whole afternoon, stoned, talking to her husband’s testicles and “seeing how they reacted to my varying chats”. (Spoiler: they shrivelled). If this prose is really aimed at teenage boys as it sometimes pretends to be, let’s just say that the birth rate is not likely to improve anytime soon.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMs. Stock’s patient, balanced approach adds persuasive weight and even additional moral force to her arguments. Always thoughtful and reasonable, but readable too. Unlike the author whose work she reviews, Stock refers to her personal experience without assuming it is representative, let alone universal.
Moran’s book sounds reductive and unserious, an exercise in some form of female chauvinism, with snarky condescension to boot. If it’s one-tenth as awful as the review suggests, it can be safely skipped by this guy. I don’t suppose that every more-often-male behavior–like checking on that noise in the night or doing nearly all of the most dangerous jobs (with notable exceptions like the “job” of childbearing)–would be banished from the feminized wonderland Moran imagines. All we menfolk need to do is stay tough and strong, while adopting feminine personalities and interests that would enable a shallow thinking woman to see them as (near) equals. What an incentive! As our resident Mr. O’Mahony once remarked: include me out.
Thanks to Dr. Stock for practicing and articulating an equalitarian form of feminism–one in which equality needn’t be confused with sameness–and for advancing what I’d call a sensible humanism.
Thanks AJ, you’ve saved me the trouble of writing the same response.
Seconded.
Thirded! (?) A very good article, Ms Stock.
And fifth! This article brightened up a rather dull lunch break.
Ditto – and not what I expected.
Have now renewed my subscription, which I’d deliberately allowed to lapse.
Ditto – and not what I expected.
Have now renewed my subscription, which I’d deliberately allowed to lapse.
And fifth! This article brightened up a rather dull lunch break.
Thirded! (?) A very good article, Ms Stock.
No trouble at all, Steve, though I like to think our responses might differ a little. But your point (on another comment board) about the “numerical benefit” of posting first could hardly be better demonstrated than it is here. Not sure I’ve ever been so “upvoted” in my life, in a literal or figurative sense.
Seconded.
No trouble at all, Steve, though I like to think our responses might differ a little. But your point (on another comment board) about the “numerical benefit” of posting first could hardly be better demonstrated than it is here. Not sure I’ve ever been so “upvoted” in my life, in a literal or figurative sense.
Absolutely. One might also add: What does Caitlin Moran (assiduously self-promoted and by the Times) know about anything?
Moran’s writing is not entirely without value.
There’s some benefit to knowing what women really think of men.
A majority of men go through life in blissful ignorance about how they are regarded. As a result they simp to women and don’t realise they are being rinsed and taken for fools. There’s many a true word said in jest.
“There’s some benefit to knowing what women really think of men.”
Caitlin Moran is not “women.” What she thinks of men is what she thinks of men. Whether that’s useful to any men other than her immediate family is not demonstrated.
In the various reviews of her book and the associated comments more than one woman has expressed such views. It seems they don’t like her “drawing back the curtain” on what women really think. Too much of that and men might stop pandering.
In the various reviews of her book and the associated comments more than one woman has expressed such views. It seems they don’t like her “drawing back the curtain” on what women really think. Too much of that and men might stop pandering.
I am a woman and the suggestion that I hold any thoughts in any way similar to the vacuous Moran leaves me, well, shriveled.
The book reviewer in The Times has no doubt that Moran speaks for the majority of women.
“If you want to know what women talk about when they are talking about you… you should rush out and buy a copy immediately.”
She’s probably providing an insight into what women think about men that most women don’t want men to know.
Oh William you boring little man, YOUR feelings towards women are clear, you’re just great at drawing back the curtain on those.
Perhaps Caitlin knows you?
Chatty Willy has lots to say indeed, and it’s very dull and simplistic.
Thank you for being a beautiful example of patriarchy, you inspire way more insights and warnings than any reductive article, such as Moran’s, could ever offer.
Based on your reaction it’s obvious Moran’s writing reveals more about women than you would like.
Based on your reaction it’s obvious Moran’s writing reveals more about women than you would like.
Oh William you boring little man, YOUR feelings towards women are clear, you’re just great at drawing back the curtain on those.
Perhaps Caitlin knows you?
Chatty Willy has lots to say indeed, and it’s very dull and simplistic.
Thank you for being a beautiful example of patriarchy, you inspire way more insights and warnings than any reductive article, such as Moran’s, could ever offer.
Me too
The book reviewer in The Times has no doubt that Moran speaks for the majority of women.
“If you want to know what women talk about when they are talking about you… you should rush out and buy a copy immediately.”
She’s probably providing an insight into what women think about men that most women don’t want men to know.
Me too
There are those nasty women who hold men in contempt like the occasional man who is contemptuous of women.
It’s a bit of a guess but the latter, while terribly destructive, maybe be easier to spot and, chances are, will end up in prison. A beguiling and sexy woman will ill intent will probably get away with great harm.
Yawn yawn and snore…
Jonathan, babe, do you actually know any human women? Or is it just ones on telly you’ve based this on…?
Your response smells like incel?
And it’s really cute that you notice the ‘occasional’ contemptuous man that ‘will end up in prison’, do you realise how silly your comment is?
I love that KS writes something informative and interesting and the best you lot can do is imitate play school.
I think you just confirmed what I wrote.
Sacha – if your most beloved young male relative asked you to help him find romantic success with a woman what advice would you give him? Do you think your advice would bring him or his lover happiness? Or would he end up … an incel?
I think you just confirmed what I wrote.
Sacha – if your most beloved young male relative asked you to help him find romantic success with a woman what advice would you give him? Do you think your advice would bring him or his lover happiness? Or would he end up … an incel?
Yawn yawn and snore…
Jonathan, babe, do you actually know any human women? Or is it just ones on telly you’ve based this on…?
Your response smells like incel?
And it’s really cute that you notice the ‘occasional’ contemptuous man that ‘will end up in prison’, do you realise how silly your comment is?
I love that KS writes something informative and interesting and the best you lot can do is imitate play school.
“There’s some benefit to knowing what women really think of men.”
Caitlin Moran is not “women.” What she thinks of men is what she thinks of men. Whether that’s useful to any men other than her immediate family is not demonstrated.
I am a woman and the suggestion that I hold any thoughts in any way similar to the vacuous Moran leaves me, well, shriveled.
There are those nasty women who hold men in contempt like the occasional man who is contemptuous of women.
It’s a bit of a guess but the latter, while terribly destructive, maybe be easier to spot and, chances are, will end up in prison. A beguiling and sexy woman will ill intent will probably get away with great harm.
She was funny for awhile. But ultimately she is what my mother would call a “potty mouth”
Moran’s writing is not entirely without value.
There’s some benefit to knowing what women really think of men.
A majority of men go through life in blissful ignorance about how they are regarded. As a result they simp to women and don’t realise they are being rinsed and taken for fools. There’s many a true word said in jest.
She was funny for awhile. But ultimately she is what my mother would call a “potty mouth”
Fourthed lol – enjoyable read. These days, any article where the author “eschews didacticism”, as my old A level English teacher used to put it, gets my vote, as they’re in a shrinking minority.
Good point. That’s a lesson I could stand to observe more often myself.
Good point. That’s a lesson I could stand to observe more often myself.
As usual an enjoyable read by Kathleen Stock, even if it about a book I have no intention of reading.
Trying to write about men in general is a fool’s errand. Even trying to write about a subset of women such as lesbians would be pointless as is easily observed by comparing the writing of Stock and Bindel on Unherd.
Even the Guardian columnist Gabby Hinscliff managed to notice that all men are not emotionally continent in commenting on Moran’s latest book.
Well said. Our categorized assessments are usually far weaker than they seem to us. If one is talking about 100 million men, let’s say, even 1 percent inaccuracy misses a million people. Heuristic devices or rule-of-thumb shortcuts have their place, but we should try not to stop there.
I despise all absolutes and superlative statements are the worst!
I liked the irony of “all absolutes”
I liked the irony of “all absolutes”
Good point. Stock and Bindel feminist, lesbian journalist who both can interesting. But their outlooks seem widely different
Well said. Our categorized assessments are usually far weaker than they seem to us. If one is talking about 100 million men, let’s say, even 1 percent inaccuracy misses a million people. Heuristic devices or rule-of-thumb shortcuts have their place, but we should try not to stop there.
I despise all absolutes and superlative statements are the worst!
Good point. Stock and Bindel feminist, lesbian journalist who both can interesting. But their outlooks seem widely different
Agree completely!
Well articulated!
I immensely enjoy KS’s writings on Unherd, she is the main reason I come here. She is very funny in that subtle, highly intelligent way that cuts thru BS like a surgical blade and the pus is out even before the patient could have winced. Her “Why philosophers are so weird” still makes me roll on the floor every time I re-read it.
Thanks AJ, you’ve saved me the trouble of writing the same response.
Absolutely. One might also add: What does Caitlin Moran (assiduously self-promoted and by the Times) know about anything?
Fourthed lol – enjoyable read. These days, any article where the author “eschews didacticism”, as my old A level English teacher used to put it, gets my vote, as they’re in a shrinking minority.
As usual an enjoyable read by Kathleen Stock, even if it about a book I have no intention of reading.
Trying to write about men in general is a fool’s errand. Even trying to write about a subset of women such as lesbians would be pointless as is easily observed by comparing the writing of Stock and Bindel on Unherd.
Even the Guardian columnist Gabby Hinscliff managed to notice that all men are not emotionally continent in commenting on Moran’s latest book.
Agree completely!
Well articulated!
I immensely enjoy KS’s writings on Unherd, she is the main reason I come here. She is very funny in that subtle, highly intelligent way that cuts thru BS like a surgical blade and the pus is out even before the patient could have winced. Her “Why philosophers are so weird” still makes me roll on the floor every time I re-read it.
Ms. Stock’s patient, balanced approach adds persuasive weight and even additional moral force to her arguments. Always thoughtful and reasonable, but readable too. Unlike the author whose work she reviews, Stock refers to her personal experience without assuming it is representative, let alone universal.
Moran’s book sounds reductive and unserious, an exercise in some form of female chauvinism, with snarky condescension to boot. If it’s one-tenth as awful as the review suggests, it can be safely skipped by this guy. I don’t suppose that every more-often-male behavior–like checking on that noise in the night or doing nearly all of the most dangerous jobs (with notable exceptions like the “job” of childbearing)–would be banished from the feminized wonderland Moran imagines. All we menfolk need to do is stay tough and strong, while adopting feminine personalities and interests that would enable a shallow thinking woman to see them as (near) equals. What an incentive! As our resident Mr. O’Mahony once remarked: include me out.
Thanks to Dr. Stock for practicing and articulating an equalitarian form of feminism–one in which equality needn’t be confused with sameness–and for advancing what I’d call a sensible humanism.
This really matters. Kathleen Stock has a kindness and understanding of men and boys that goes beyond the idiocy that has over taken politics, the media and education.
Boys are told that they basically have original sin and will go round abusing any woman within twenty paces and that girls are innocent, saintly and exploited people who, none-the-less, can do everything just as good as any boy.
You know I think a crazy thing that men and women and boys and girls are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses; one sex is no better or worse than the other.
I heard Kathleen Stock a couple of years ago talking to Andrew Sullivan and she spoke movingly of her first kiss with another woman and how powerful an effect it had on her. Yet she also spoke well of her ex husband and it was clear she liked men and appreciated men.
I didn’t expect to come to admire her even more
Some people belong to an earlier age, of reasoned and balanced judgement, of emotions respected but not put on a pedestal, and of self-insight. Then we have the modern era. But if it’s any consolation, my two kids (thirty-ish) don’t think like Moran but more like Stock. The problem is that infantile intellectualising like Moran’s is what sells. That, along with a kind of Marxist-like infiltration of media and public sector institutions, is why we hear so much of this tripe nowadays.
I dont think its marxist drivel…..Its just drivel.!
I dont think its marxist drivel…..Its just drivel.!
“You know I think a crazy thing that men and women and boys and girls are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses; one sex is no better or worse than the other.”
That’s my take on things also, but I agree it’s now deeply unfashionable in this age of the new original sin. Growing up in the wonderfully free 1970s, I assumed that rationality was here to stay, how naïve was that lol.
Aye. Her kindness and willingness to understand really come through.
Camille Paglia’s writing about men is also very good – sympathetic without making excuses. She wrote an article explaining the different types of male friendship. It was illuminating and pointed out how in some ways male friendships can be healthier than female ones. As a lesbian she also has some funny comments on how hard it is to figure out when a woman is interested in you and expresses some sympathy for men on that front. That said – even if the book discussed is not very good I think the author gets credit for trying.
Yes, I’m glad you mentioned Paglia. She is quite brilliant and once you get used to her somewhat odd and intense voice–both in speaking and writing–there’s a lot to learn, speaking for myself anyway.
I was going to say the same. I rate Camille Paglia as highly as I rate Kathleen Stock. A balanced view of the dispositions of both sexes is so often missing in discussions.
I was going to say the same. I rate Camille Paglia as highly as I rate Kathleen Stock. A balanced view of the dispositions of both sexes is so often missing in discussions.
Yes, I’m glad you mentioned Paglia. She is quite brilliant and once you get used to her somewhat odd and intense voice–both in speaking and writing–there’s a lot to learn, speaking for myself anyway.
The current militant feminist angle (“I’ll smother men’s free spirit and sense of adventure with ‘thou shalt not’ overbearing, stifling compassion…”) only works as long as the female espousing such a view doesn’t have a son of her own. Once a son comes along, the feminist often realizes how futile it is for the current estrogen-laden anti-male fad to fight against biological evolution.
Men have relatively greater upper body strength and more aggression because, surprise, their ancestors survived and procreated in the bloody dust-ups between villages and tribes. Women (surprise again) also wanted a man who could survive because it also meant their survival. There’s a reason that many women today (among them, vocal feminists) expressed how ‘sexy’ Zelenskyy is when he wears his green fatigues and fights ‘pro aris et focis.’ Women have the same story from a different angle.
How can we as a species walk away from tens-of-thousands of years of evolution in a mere 50 years? Slow-moving evolution retorts back with a smile, “nope.”
Wishing it all away is like planting one’s feet inches from the incoming ocean tide, pointing a finger with a stern look, and demanding the waves to “stop.” Perhaps such a gambit might add a moment of light laughter within a book such as Anne of Green Gables (or Anne of Avonlea – yes, I had older sisters), but it surely doesn’t happen with positive consequences in the real world.
And in the absence of positive manly role models for our future generations, those poor boys who are also being frozen out of educational opportunities will feel the urgent biological need to scurry out from under mom’s skirt as soon as possible and they’ll very possibly end up within the den of iniquity belonging to Andrew Tate or one of his ilk.
This is not what success looks like for men or anyone else.
Insightful remarks.
A rather strange-but-brilliant poet and “cultural critic” called Robert Bly (1926-2021) emphasized the critical need for “positive manly role models” (like that phrase), promoting mentorship and “initiation” for younger males, by men who need not be their fathers (in Bly’s model it’s usually better if they’re not). Bly’s so-called mythopoetic men’s movement was mocked by many–not with no cause at all–as a bunch of hairy white dudes crying together around drum circles in the forest.
But there is something of substance and enduring value in his work too. His book The Sibling Society talks of a present-day culture (in 1995, and now) in which many men never quite grow up, due to a lack of connection to deep social and artistic roots: a society of easy, shallow equals that doesn’t truly honor the father or the mother.
Insightful remarks.
A rather strange-but-brilliant poet and “cultural critic” called Robert Bly (1926-2021) emphasized the critical need for “positive manly role models” (like that phrase), promoting mentorship and “initiation” for younger males, by men who need not be their fathers (in Bly’s model it’s usually better if they’re not). Bly’s so-called mythopoetic men’s movement was mocked by many–not with no cause at all–as a bunch of hairy white dudes crying together around drum circles in the forest.
But there is something of substance and enduring value in his work too. His book The Sibling Society talks of a present-day culture (in 1995, and now) in which many men never quite grow up, due to a lack of connection to deep social and artistic roots: a society of easy, shallow equals that doesn’t truly honor the father or the mother.
Some people belong to an earlier age, of reasoned and balanced judgement, of emotions respected but not put on a pedestal, and of self-insight. Then we have the modern era. But if it’s any consolation, my two kids (thirty-ish) don’t think like Moran but more like Stock. The problem is that infantile intellectualising like Moran’s is what sells. That, along with a kind of Marxist-like infiltration of media and public sector institutions, is why we hear so much of this tripe nowadays.
“You know I think a crazy thing that men and women and boys and girls are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses; one sex is no better or worse than the other.”
That’s my take on things also, but I agree it’s now deeply unfashionable in this age of the new original sin. Growing up in the wonderfully free 1970s, I assumed that rationality was here to stay, how naïve was that lol.
Aye. Her kindness and willingness to understand really come through.
Camille Paglia’s writing about men is also very good – sympathetic without making excuses. She wrote an article explaining the different types of male friendship. It was illuminating and pointed out how in some ways male friendships can be healthier than female ones. As a lesbian she also has some funny comments on how hard it is to figure out when a woman is interested in you and expresses some sympathy for men on that front. That said – even if the book discussed is not very good I think the author gets credit for trying.
The current militant feminist angle (“I’ll smother men’s free spirit and sense of adventure with ‘thou shalt not’ overbearing, stifling compassion…”) only works as long as the female espousing such a view doesn’t have a son of her own. Once a son comes along, the feminist often realizes how futile it is for the current estrogen-laden anti-male fad to fight against biological evolution.
Men have relatively greater upper body strength and more aggression because, surprise, their ancestors survived and procreated in the bloody dust-ups between villages and tribes. Women (surprise again) also wanted a man who could survive because it also meant their survival. There’s a reason that many women today (among them, vocal feminists) expressed how ‘sexy’ Zelenskyy is when he wears his green fatigues and fights ‘pro aris et focis.’ Women have the same story from a different angle.
How can we as a species walk away from tens-of-thousands of years of evolution in a mere 50 years? Slow-moving evolution retorts back with a smile, “nope.”
Wishing it all away is like planting one’s feet inches from the incoming ocean tide, pointing a finger with a stern look, and demanding the waves to “stop.” Perhaps such a gambit might add a moment of light laughter within a book such as Anne of Green Gables (or Anne of Avonlea – yes, I had older sisters), but it surely doesn’t happen with positive consequences in the real world.
And in the absence of positive manly role models for our future generations, those poor boys who are also being frozen out of educational opportunities will feel the urgent biological need to scurry out from under mom’s skirt as soon as possible and they’ll very possibly end up within the den of iniquity belonging to Andrew Tate or one of his ilk.
This is not what success looks like for men or anyone else.
This really matters. Kathleen Stock has a kindness and understanding of men and boys that goes beyond the idiocy that has over taken politics, the media and education.
Boys are told that they basically have original sin and will go round abusing any woman within twenty paces and that girls are innocent, saintly and exploited people who, none-the-less, can do everything just as good as any boy.
You know I think a crazy thing that men and women and boys and girls are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses; one sex is no better or worse than the other.
I heard Kathleen Stock a couple of years ago talking to Andrew Sullivan and she spoke movingly of her first kiss with another woman and how powerful an effect it had on her. Yet she also spoke well of her ex husband and it was clear she liked men and appreciated men.
I didn’t expect to come to admire her even more
Funny, I always thought of Caitlin Moran’s attitude as being that of a teenage boy The attention seeking, constant gurning in photographs, telling tales and of course the obsession with sex. Her shtick wore out several years ago. Will she still be doing this in her fifties? Cringe
We should “tell each other, constantly”, to rejoice in our cringes.
She near enough is fifty
By her own admission she is from a very large family of ‘benefit scroungers’. Thus not a good example.
By her own admission she is from a very large family of ‘benefit scroungers’. Thus not a good example.
Ditto Kathy Lette
We should “tell each other, constantly”, to rejoice in our cringes.
She near enough is fifty
Ditto Kathy Lette
Funny, I always thought of Caitlin Moran’s attitude as being that of a teenage boy The attention seeking, constant gurning in photographs, telling tales and of course the obsession with sex. Her shtick wore out several years ago. Will she still be doing this in her fifties? Cringe
” For the unreconstructed sexist who suspects that women should steer clear of scientific explanation, Moran’s approach here is unfortunately likely to serve as further confirmation.”
It’s clear Kathleen Stock is well past the traumatic phase of her ejection from bien-pensant society and is firmly into the phase of enjoying herself at its expense.
And damn right, too.
” For the unreconstructed sexist who suspects that women should steer clear of scientific explanation, Moran’s approach here is unfortunately likely to serve as further confirmation.”
It’s clear Kathleen Stock is well past the traumatic phase of her ejection from bien-pensant society and is firmly into the phase of enjoying herself at its expense.
And damn right, too.
On a related note, I have been amused by the recent stories about the commercial disaster that has befallen Disney. They paid a king’s ransom for LucasFilm but have only managed to release flop after box office flop.
The cause seems to be wishful thinking among their execs that there are no differences between boys and girls and so they have tried to remake Star Wars and Indiana Jones with female leads!
If it helps, these are the facts. Boys like action films, girls like romances. True the odd woman likes Zulu and the odd man likes Love Actually but they are not typical of their sex.
Fiction is essentially wish-fulfilment. You imagine yourself in the role of Bond or Superman and to make that happen for the (male) audience, it is essential that a man had the starring role.
Girls will not flock to cinemas to watch action films no matter who is the lead and boys will not do so if a woman is the lead.
The Disney team tried to bend reality to their will and may end up seriously damaging their company.
A salutary lesson: Go woke, go broke!
The other thing they do is make the female characters absolute girl bosses who are AMAZING at everything, with no arc of character development to make them more sympathetic and interesting – see Rey in Star Wars for instance. She’s like an insufferable head girl with a light sabre.
WOMEN-IN-CHARGE!
21st Century paradigm. Just follow BBC Radio 4 and work out the proportions of women vs men CEOs interviewed daily. It’s not just in films that the thrusting, cutting, decisive women-in-charge rule. Misandry is rife.
WOMEN-IN-CHARGE!
21st Century paradigm. Just follow BBC Radio 4 and work out the proportions of women vs men CEOs interviewed daily. It’s not just in films that the thrusting, cutting, decisive women-in-charge rule. Misandry is rife.
I am trying to imagine a scenario where I actually pay money to watch Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Nope. It’s not happening. Her mission to destroy every male-led popular movie franchise continues. Eventually someone will realise hiring her is like filling a dumper truck with $100 bills and setting light to it.
ZULU?
Are we still allowed to watch such a stirring film?
It was on TV the other day. Members of the African nations who fought the battle provided extras. Chief Buthuleizi famously featured in several scenes. Indeed, African descendants of the battle would attend an anniversary dinner at the Royal Welsh Fusilier’s mess well into the 1980s. Anyone who thinks that film racist is wrong, it is nothing but respectful to the African combatants.
Thank you.
Are you sure about the Royal Welsh Fusiliers?
In 1879 the Regiment concerned was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.
Two years later, under the Childers Reforms it became the South Wales Borderers.
There have been so many amalgamations, it ended up as RWF or RRW
Ah but only the singing of welshmen could match the singing of the Zulu warriors.
“They’ve got marvellous basses but no top tenors”
I shall be singing Men of Harlech in the shower
I love you Charles Stanhope. keep on truckin’!
There have been so many amalgamations, it ended up as RWF or RRW
Ah but only the singing of welshmen could match the singing of the Zulu warriors.
“They’ve got marvellous basses but no top tenors”
I shall be singing Men of Harlech in the shower
I love you Charles Stanhope. keep on truckin’!
Thank you.
Are you sure about the Royal Welsh Fusiliers?
In 1879 the Regiment concerned was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.
Two years later, under the Childers Reforms it became the South Wales Borderers.
It should be part of the National Curriculum.
As an ex Royal Engineer; try to stop us. Chard VC being RE. Must have training film.
I watched it a few weeks ago and it was great and I’m a girl.
It is one of my mum’s favorite movies. For the record, she is also female.
Big laugh when you stipulated, for the record, your mother’s sex category.
Big laugh when you stipulated, for the record, your mother’s sex category.
As I said:
It seems there are a lot of odd women over here at UnHerd 😉
You betcha!!
You betcha!!
Helen – clearly you must be trans. Speak with your physician for some gender affirming care.
It is one of my mum’s favorite movies. For the record, she is also female.
As I said:
It seems there are a lot of odd women over here at UnHerd 😉
Helen – clearly you must be trans. Speak with your physician for some gender affirming care.
It was on TV the other day. Members of the African nations who fought the battle provided extras. Chief Buthuleizi famously featured in several scenes. Indeed, African descendants of the battle would attend an anniversary dinner at the Royal Welsh Fusilier’s mess well into the 1980s. Anyone who thinks that film racist is wrong, it is nothing but respectful to the African combatants.
It should be part of the National Curriculum.
As an ex Royal Engineer; try to stop us. Chard VC being RE. Must have training film.
I watched it a few weeks ago and it was great and I’m a girl.
Except that *Buffy the Vampire Slayer* and *Xena the Warrior Princess* _were_ very popular with girls. Buffy was popular with boys, too — I am not sure about Xena. Maybe bad movies are just bad movies?
Buffy was a teen romantic drama with action sequences. Popular with girls for the Girl Power, the high school popularity struggles, the love affairs and the teenage angst and with boys for the pretty actresses.
And the action scenes.
Even so, Wonder Woman is most of a century old now–pretty popular across the sex divide. (The “babe factor” is surely part of that: the original drawings, Gal Godot–and remember Lynda Carter?) Good point about the girl boss trope and the likely audience split but, as you stated yourself, not quite an absolute?
And the action scenes.
Even so, Wonder Woman is most of a century old now–pretty popular across the sex divide. (The “babe factor” is surely part of that: the original drawings, Gal Godot–and remember Lynda Carter?) Good point about the girl boss trope and the likely audience split but, as you stated yourself, not quite an absolute?
Excellent point. My wife and I were both huge Buffy fans. I think it was one of the best TV series ever. Not to denigrate Buffy which is in a class of it own – I think men are happy to watch bad ass female leads when they are also very attractive. Think Sigorney Weaver in Aliens, Linda Hamilton in Terminator, Nina Jojovitch in Resident Evil. Which contradicts a comment I made above and shows the truth of the famous quote about what makes a good movie “Nobody knows anything.”
Buffy was a teen romantic drama with action sequences. Popular with girls for the Girl Power, the high school popularity struggles, the love affairs and the teenage angst and with boys for the pretty actresses.
Excellent point. My wife and I were both huge Buffy fans. I think it was one of the best TV series ever. Not to denigrate Buffy which is in a class of it own – I think men are happy to watch bad ass female leads when they are also very attractive. Think Sigorney Weaver in Aliens, Linda Hamilton in Terminator, Nina Jojovitch in Resident Evil. Which contradicts a comment I made above and shows the truth of the famous quote about what makes a good movie “Nobody knows anything.”
I live in Florida and you’d have to drug me and throw me in a trunk to get me anywhere near DisneyWorld. The brilliant entertainment company of my childhood has become a poisonous cultural filth factory. It has seriously damaged itself, and I hope Walt gets satisfaction.
Incidentally, “Zulu” is a top 20 film for me.
The gay rom-com that came out last was probably the apogee of this. Even men who aren’t homophobic show in studies a really strong negative unconscious physiological reaction to seeing men kissing. As you said we watch films and identify with the lead actors. So I can’t imagine women who love rom coms identifying with the male lead characters either. It is a tribute to the power of echo chambers that anyone was prepared to risk money making this.
I couldn’t stand ‘Love Actually’. I detest romantic movies and even more romantic comedies and fantasy. I like psychological thrillers, movies based on true stories, true crime and documentaries and I used to love Eddie Izzard. Perhaps when you say “girls’ like romance you mean exactly that, girls not women.
That is what I meant Clare but I would say this male/female difference persists into adulthood. If you look at TV viewing habits, they divide quite clearly by sex. Obviously some things appeal to both sexes – psychological thrillers might be a good example. And then there are men and women with broad tastes that cross the sex divide. But we shouldn’t pretend that distinct and innate differences don’t exist, on average, between the sexes. In fact, in my opinion, we should celebrate this fact.
I’ll take your word for it, because I don’t know anyone who watches TV!
I’ll take your word for it, because I don’t know anyone who watches TV!
That is what I meant Clare but I would say this male/female difference persists into adulthood. If you look at TV viewing habits, they divide quite clearly by sex. Obviously some things appeal to both sexes – psychological thrillers might be a good example. And then there are men and women with broad tastes that cross the sex divide. But we shouldn’t pretend that distinct and innate differences don’t exist, on average, between the sexes. In fact, in my opinion, we should celebrate this fact.
The TV series ” Wish me Luck ” was about the SOE and written from the women’s perspective. Pearl Witherington CBE was the adviser.
Pearl Witherington – Wikipedia
I find it odd that feminists never use examples of the heroism of women in WW2 as examples to young girls. Is it because they are whiners while women such as Pearl Witherington were not ?
If one wants to see an action film which depicts true courage try ” Carve her name with Pride ” about V Szabo GC of whom O Sansom GC said ” She was the greatest of us all ! Also ” Odette ” about Sansom GC. Gloria Steinem said she did not want to be like her mother. What if her mother had been Szabo GC or Samsom GC, both were mothers who left their children to fight ?
You have just described why my husband and I can never agree on a TV show. LOL
The other thing they do is make the female characters absolute girl bosses who are AMAZING at everything, with no arc of character development to make them more sympathetic and interesting – see Rey in Star Wars for instance. She’s like an insufferable head girl with a light sabre.
I am trying to imagine a scenario where I actually pay money to watch Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Nope. It’s not happening. Her mission to destroy every male-led popular movie franchise continues. Eventually someone will realise hiring her is like filling a dumper truck with $100 bills and setting light to it.
ZULU?
Are we still allowed to watch such a stirring film?
Except that *Buffy the Vampire Slayer* and *Xena the Warrior Princess* _were_ very popular with girls. Buffy was popular with boys, too — I am not sure about Xena. Maybe bad movies are just bad movies?
I live in Florida and you’d have to drug me and throw me in a trunk to get me anywhere near DisneyWorld. The brilliant entertainment company of my childhood has become a poisonous cultural filth factory. It has seriously damaged itself, and I hope Walt gets satisfaction.
Incidentally, “Zulu” is a top 20 film for me.
The gay rom-com that came out last was probably the apogee of this. Even men who aren’t homophobic show in studies a really strong negative unconscious physiological reaction to seeing men kissing. As you said we watch films and identify with the lead actors. So I can’t imagine women who love rom coms identifying with the male lead characters either. It is a tribute to the power of echo chambers that anyone was prepared to risk money making this.
I couldn’t stand ‘Love Actually’. I detest romantic movies and even more romantic comedies and fantasy. I like psychological thrillers, movies based on true stories, true crime and documentaries and I used to love Eddie Izzard. Perhaps when you say “girls’ like romance you mean exactly that, girls not women.
The TV series ” Wish me Luck ” was about the SOE and written from the women’s perspective. Pearl Witherington CBE was the adviser.
Pearl Witherington – Wikipedia
I find it odd that feminists never use examples of the heroism of women in WW2 as examples to young girls. Is it because they are whiners while women such as Pearl Witherington were not ?
If one wants to see an action film which depicts true courage try ” Carve her name with Pride ” about V Szabo GC of whom O Sansom GC said ” She was the greatest of us all ! Also ” Odette ” about Sansom GC. Gloria Steinem said she did not want to be like her mother. What if her mother had been Szabo GC or Samsom GC, both were mothers who left their children to fight ?
You have just described why my husband and I can never agree on a TV show. LOL
On a related note, I have been amused by the recent stories about the commercial disaster that has befallen Disney. They paid a king’s ransom for LucasFilm but have only managed to release flop after box office flop.
The cause seems to be wishful thinking among their execs that there are no differences between boys and girls and so they have tried to remake Star Wars and Indiana Jones with female leads!
If it helps, these are the facts. Boys like action films, girls like romances. True the odd woman likes Zulu and the odd man likes Love Actually but they are not typical of their sex.
Fiction is essentially wish-fulfilment. You imagine yourself in the role of Bond or Superman and to make that happen for the (male) audience, it is essential that a man had the starring role.
Girls will not flock to cinemas to watch action films no matter who is the lead and boys will not do so if a woman is the lead.
The Disney team tried to bend reality to their will and may end up seriously damaging their company.
A salutary lesson: Go woke, go broke!
“Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse,”
As often as not, one’s feelings are best kept to oneself.
Quite. One might liken feelings to backsides: we all have them but it’s better not to air them in public.
People differ quite a bit on this measure I find (as they do of course in many respects). I’m a gay man, and I do tend to offload onto my partner! I find this helpful; whether he’s always quite so keen is another matter!.
I very much take after my mother in this, as did my sister, while my (very loving) father was much less talkative – and my brother took after him.
Perhaps those are simply feminine and masculine traits, but despite quite a lot of camping it up among gay men, they are men and not women.
Exactly, and I think the shift away from this is generational. See my short blog on this, including some sensible words from the late Prince Philip:
https://ayenaw.com/2023/01/12/pour-vivre-heureux-vivons-caches/
Really enjoyed your blog, Frank: concise and witty! Thanks for the link.
Excellent blog article. I shall remember it when I read one of your comments I disagree with. You really won’t be interested in my response.
Yeah, well he was an alpha male.and had no time for other people’s feelings. We’re all different. There are feeling types, thinking types and gut types. Head, heart and body.Check out the Enneagram of personality it’s enightening.
If a man is in a fight protecting a woman, the last thing she needs is a man who is concerned about his feelings; she needs a man who is indifferent to pain and fear.
Fortitude, the strength of mind to endure pain or adversity with courage.
The most galling thing to an attacker is to hit a man with all his strength and the other man to laugh at his feebleness. ” My Grandmother hit me harder and she was only 5 ft one” . As “Jesus said turn the other cheek”.
I don’t know about being protected by a man, I’ve always had to fight my own battles.
I am talking about a physical assault.
I am talking about a physical assault.
I don’t know about being protected by a man, I’ve always had to fight my own battles.
If a man is in a fight protecting a woman, the last thing she needs is a man who is concerned about his feelings; she needs a man who is indifferent to pain and fear.
Fortitude, the strength of mind to endure pain or adversity with courage.
The most galling thing to an attacker is to hit a man with all his strength and the other man to laugh at his feebleness. ” My Grandmother hit me harder and she was only 5 ft one” . As “Jesus said turn the other cheek”.
Really enjoyed your blog, Frank: concise and witty! Thanks for the link.
Excellent blog article. I shall remember it when I read one of your comments I disagree with. You really won’t be interested in my response.
Yeah, well he was an alpha male.and had no time for other people’s feelings. We’re all different. There are feeling types, thinking types and gut types. Head, heart and body.Check out the Enneagram of personality it’s enightening.
…not least, because in many cases people share them in order to make themselves feel better…at the cost of making the other person feel worse! Essentially, selfish rather than “caring”…
Unless you’re in an intimate relationship or with a best friend.
Quite. One might liken feelings to backsides: we all have them but it’s better not to air them in public.
People differ quite a bit on this measure I find (as they do of course in many respects). I’m a gay man, and I do tend to offload onto my partner! I find this helpful; whether he’s always quite so keen is another matter!.
I very much take after my mother in this, as did my sister, while my (very loving) father was much less talkative – and my brother took after him.
Perhaps those are simply feminine and masculine traits, but despite quite a lot of camping it up among gay men, they are men and not women.
Exactly, and I think the shift away from this is generational. See my short blog on this, including some sensible words from the late Prince Philip:
https://ayenaw.com/2023/01/12/pour-vivre-heureux-vivons-caches/
…not least, because in many cases people share them in order to make themselves feel better…at the cost of making the other person feel worse! Essentially, selfish rather than “caring”…
Unless you’re in an intimate relationship or with a best friend.
“Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse,”
As often as not, one’s feelings are best kept to oneself.
Realising I’d gone right off Caitlin Moran was one of the sadder moments of my reading career I think. I read “How To Be a Woman” twice and absolutely loved it. It was funny, irreverent, the right amount of ribald and – in places – incredibly touching. It’s still on my shelf.
I don’t know quite what happened in the meantime. Maybe I matured a bit and realised that middle-aged women who still need to continually provoke with bawdy language are actually a bit sad. Even though British women of my generation and older probably did need a bit of a shove out of lingering British prudishness about our bodies…still relying on the “vag-fart”-schtick is so tiresome. Women don’t need to “rejoice in their minges” to be empowered: it is quite sufficient for us to be on friendly enough terms with them that you can have a good time and keep everything “down there” tickety-boo from a health point of view. (To any ladies reading this: don’t be shy, go and get your smear test done.)
I also find Moran a lazy writer – and the signs of that were right there in “How To Be A Woman” when she recounts tales of her sozzled 90s lifestyle and dashing off pieces 5 minutes before the submission deadline. Fine, it was a good story – but if you fail to evolve beyond that, then you become tired and predictable.
Was in a 2nd hand bookshop last week and was briefly excited when I saw a copy of Moran’s novel “How To Build a Girl”. But then I saw an Ian McEwan and thought: “Yes, that’s where the quality is”. And bought that instead.
Why is it that Moran has more attention than K Adie who covered N Ireland, 1990 Gulf War and Jugoslavia? In Adie’s autobiography there is a photograph of French Naval surgeon fishing for bullets and shrapnel bits in Adie’s ankle.
Why is it left wing metropolitan women never celebrate the acheivements of women such as Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher or K Adie ?
Why is it that Moran has more attention than K Adie who covered N Ireland, 1990 Gulf War and Jugoslavia? In Adie’s autobiography there is a photograph of French Naval surgeon fishing for bullets and shrapnel bits in Adie’s ankle.
Why is it left wing metropolitan women never celebrate the acheivements of women such as Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher or K Adie ?
Realising I’d gone right off Caitlin Moran was one of the sadder moments of my reading career I think. I read “How To Be a Woman” twice and absolutely loved it. It was funny, irreverent, the right amount of ribald and – in places – incredibly touching. It’s still on my shelf.
I don’t know quite what happened in the meantime. Maybe I matured a bit and realised that middle-aged women who still need to continually provoke with bawdy language are actually a bit sad. Even though British women of my generation and older probably did need a bit of a shove out of lingering British prudishness about our bodies…still relying on the “vag-fart”-schtick is so tiresome. Women don’t need to “rejoice in their minges” to be empowered: it is quite sufficient for us to be on friendly enough terms with them that you can have a good time and keep everything “down there” tickety-boo from a health point of view. (To any ladies reading this: don’t be shy, go and get your smear test done.)
I also find Moran a lazy writer – and the signs of that were right there in “How To Be A Woman” when she recounts tales of her sozzled 90s lifestyle and dashing off pieces 5 minutes before the submission deadline. Fine, it was a good story – but if you fail to evolve beyond that, then you become tired and predictable.
Was in a 2nd hand bookshop last week and was briefly excited when I saw a copy of Moran’s novel “How To Build a Girl”. But then I saw an Ian McEwan and thought: “Yes, that’s where the quality is”. And bought that instead.
As always with Kathleen Stock, impressed. Keep it up
As always with Kathleen Stock, impressed. Keep it up
If that’s the poor, undignified sap she’s married to, no wonder she’s got a low opinion of men in general.
Quite agree – and the mental image is one I’m sure we could all have more happily lived without.
I gather she comes from Irish ‘itinerant’ stock, normally referred to as ‘tinkers’,* so such gratuitous vulgarity is to be expected.
(*Perhaps Mr O’Mahony might advise on which is the polite usage?)
Traveller/Pavee
Anyway, I’m pretty sure she’s not one
Gypsies?
Precisely, that was the word I was looking for!
Precisely, that was the word I was looking for!
Gypsies?
Traveller/Pavee
Anyway, I’m pretty sure she’s not one
Quite agree – and the mental image is one I’m sure we could all have more happily lived without.
I gather she comes from Irish ‘itinerant’ stock, normally referred to as ‘tinkers’,* so such gratuitous vulgarity is to be expected.
(*Perhaps Mr O’Mahony might advise on which is the polite usage?)
If that’s the poor, undignified sap she’s married to, no wonder she’s got a low opinion of men in general.
I would have no objection to a Tube sign which read “INTRUSIVE STARING OF A SEXUAL NATURE IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND IS NOT TOLERATED” if there were also Tube signs which read “Short skirts, tight pants, and low-cut blouses are invitations for sexual attention. If you do not want sexual attention or consider it harassing, do not dress that way.” Both sexes have a role to play in ending sexual harassment.
A very Muslim approach to the problem.
Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I’ll pass on.
Also a very Confucian and Hindu and Shinto and Jewish and Christian and on and on. I believe all religions on earth oppose murder, too! This says nothing about religion in general or about those religions in particular – but says a lot about the human condition and commonalities in human experience.
In this case, differences between how men and women approach sex are among those obvious facts of the created order visible to everyone in every time and place.
PS. The really funny thing about that Tube sign is that it acknowledges that you can know why a person is staring at you. Is it because of the wart on your nose? The terrible burn mark on you cheek? Or perhaps the low-cut blouse you chose to put on this morning? It’s rude to stare at a person with a burn mark because they never wished to draw attention to themselves; on the other hand, the party-goers in sexy dress just want the attention of some men, not others.
It’s worse than that. Sometimes a woman dresses to impress (establish their status over) other women, completely disregarding the effect on men.
Although (young) men often behave poorly to impress other men, completely disregarding the effect on women.
It’s worse than that. Sometimes a woman dresses to impress (establish their status over) other women, completely disregarding the effect on men.
Although (young) men often behave poorly to impress other men, completely disregarding the effect on women.
I worked at a school for girls, they were great. In most of the years they wore a pretty horrible brown uniform, in the sixth form they could dress as they pleased.
There was no shortage of low cut tops.
I complained to a senior colleague who took this complaint to the girls. “He shouldn’t be looking” they said.
For the record, I wasn’t (my wife then as now is pretty gorgeous) but it felt so disrespectful and, given their reaction, the chance of being accused of looking at them with lust in my heart was a handy weapon for a mean girl.
I liked working there and, in fairness, I never heard of any student being so spiteful but it was one blight.
My Mother who lived in France when she was seventeen pitied women who showed too much as they showed their insecurity, desperation for attention and lack of sophistication. Obviously the girl’s mother does not know a good dressmaker. If a girl is well brought up she will wear clothes which will flatter her figure, complexion and move easily, while giving off subtle hints.
My Mother who lived in France when she was seventeen pitied women who showed too much as they showed their insecurity, desperation for attention and lack of sophistication. Obviously the girl’s mother does not know a good dressmaker. If a girl is well brought up she will wear clothes which will flatter her figure, complexion and move easily, while giving off subtle hints.
As a straight, biological female, an SBF i’m sick of seeing big boobs.
Also a very Confucian and Hindu and Shinto and Jewish and Christian and on and on. I believe all religions on earth oppose murder, too! This says nothing about religion in general or about those religions in particular – but says a lot about the human condition and commonalities in human experience.
In this case, differences between how men and women approach sex are among those obvious facts of the created order visible to everyone in every time and place.
PS. The really funny thing about that Tube sign is that it acknowledges that you can know why a person is staring at you. Is it because of the wart on your nose? The terrible burn mark on you cheek? Or perhaps the low-cut blouse you chose to put on this morning? It’s rude to stare at a person with a burn mark because they never wished to draw attention to themselves; on the other hand, the party-goers in sexy dress just want the attention of some men, not others.
I worked at a school for girls, they were great. In most of the years they wore a pretty horrible brown uniform, in the sixth form they could dress as they pleased.
There was no shortage of low cut tops.
I complained to a senior colleague who took this complaint to the girls. “He shouldn’t be looking” they said.
For the record, I wasn’t (my wife then as now is pretty gorgeous) but it felt so disrespectful and, given their reaction, the chance of being accused of looking at them with lust in my heart was a handy weapon for a mean girl.
I liked working there and, in fairness, I never heard of any student being so spiteful but it was one blight.
As a straight, biological female, an SBF i’m sick of seeing big boobs.
A very Muslim approach to the problem.
Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I’ll pass on.
I would have no objection to a Tube sign which read “INTRUSIVE STARING OF A SEXUAL NATURE IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND IS NOT TOLERATED” if there were also Tube signs which read “Short skirts, tight pants, and low-cut blouses are invitations for sexual attention. If you do not want sexual attention or consider it harassing, do not dress that way.” Both sexes have a role to play in ending sexual harassment.
Kudos to Kathleen Stock for wading through this drivel. I stopped buying The Times on Saturdays because of the vapid verbal diarrhoea of Caitlin Moran, along with the weekly self-aggrandising of the execrable Giles Coren. Forunately we are spared both in the Sunday Times. The picture above this article says it all.
Kudos to Kathleen Stock for wading through this drivel. I stopped buying The Times on Saturdays because of the vapid verbal diarrhoea of Caitlin Moran, along with the weekly self-aggrandising of the execrable Giles Coren. Forunately we are spared both in the Sunday Times. The picture above this article says it all.
I think most of us men have just stopped bothering to try and explain ourselves to women.
It does ZERO good. No matter what you say, most of them will have a reason to tell you why what you think, experience or feel is weird or wrong because it is not what they think, experience and feel, and then come up with all the different ways you could try to change.
UGH….
AND…INEVITABLY….when you DO open up about something, it turns into a competition, an opportunity for them to tell you how awful they have it and how often that has to do with the men in their lives, fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, whomever, if it has a d**k it has to be the source of her problems.
To be blunt….I find that MOST women are a bit neurotic. Like they are 80% normal and 20% neurotic. Just enough for you to relax and get comfortable before the shit storm with 100 mph crosswinds hits. You want to know why men are stoic and develop a knack for not talking, its cuz you have to be to weather the storm and keep your sanity. If you start talking, and God forbid try to help or offer a suggestion for whatever the freakout is that is creating the moody monster, the all you are doing is feeding the storm. Fathers do it with their wives and teenage daughters. Sons do it with their mothers and sisters. Husbands to it with wives. It is a survival mechanism.
You are hanging about the wrong women. Plenty of wonderful women out there who understand the essential differences between men and women, and celebrate each in their sphere (and understand the implications of those differences on sexual behavior, too). But you do have to fish in the right ponds. Personally I’m surrounded by them every Sunday in the pews around me.
Spot on. My wife, at least, is thoughtful and positive.
Spot on. My wife, at least, is thoughtful and positive.
Daniel – that has been my experience exactly: the emotional flush is inevitable, regardless of education, profession, income, etc. the 20% of course is an average, with some more and some less comprehensible.
Of course, we mustn’t forget the 80% (+-), but the 20% shows up, often when you least expect it (you’re right, there are no words or action to but the thumb back in the dike).
Men often blow a gasket, often about trivial things that relate to one’s sense of manliness, but it’s relatively easy to understand what the cause is in most cases. Long live the difference!
There are compulsive talkers of both sexes, however it does seem to be more so with females. It drives me nuts. It’s a narcisssistic personality disorder. One can not get a word in, it’s exhausting.. I just walk away if I can.
You are hanging about the wrong women. Plenty of wonderful women out there who understand the essential differences between men and women, and celebrate each in their sphere (and understand the implications of those differences on sexual behavior, too). But you do have to fish in the right ponds. Personally I’m surrounded by them every Sunday in the pews around me.
Daniel – that has been my experience exactly: the emotional flush is inevitable, regardless of education, profession, income, etc. the 20% of course is an average, with some more and some less comprehensible.
Of course, we mustn’t forget the 80% (+-), but the 20% shows up, often when you least expect it (you’re right, there are no words or action to but the thumb back in the dike).
Men often blow a gasket, often about trivial things that relate to one’s sense of manliness, but it’s relatively easy to understand what the cause is in most cases. Long live the difference!
There are compulsive talkers of both sexes, however it does seem to be more so with females. It drives me nuts. It’s a narcisssistic personality disorder. One can not get a word in, it’s exhausting.. I just walk away if I can.
I think most of us men have just stopped bothering to try and explain ourselves to women.
It does ZERO good. No matter what you say, most of them will have a reason to tell you why what you think, experience or feel is weird or wrong because it is not what they think, experience and feel, and then come up with all the different ways you could try to change.
UGH….
AND…INEVITABLY….when you DO open up about something, it turns into a competition, an opportunity for them to tell you how awful they have it and how often that has to do with the men in their lives, fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, whomever, if it has a d**k it has to be the source of her problems.
To be blunt….I find that MOST women are a bit neurotic. Like they are 80% normal and 20% neurotic. Just enough for you to relax and get comfortable before the shit storm with 100 mph crosswinds hits. You want to know why men are stoic and develop a knack for not talking, its cuz you have to be to weather the storm and keep your sanity. If you start talking, and God forbid try to help or offer a suggestion for whatever the freakout is that is creating the moody monster, the all you are doing is feeding the storm. Fathers do it with their wives and teenage daughters. Sons do it with their mothers and sisters. Husbands to it with wives. It is a survival mechanism.
Other titles where the subject matter has been mastered by the author include:
‘Successful Blitzkrieg’ by Vladimir Putin’Mastering Public Health’ by Matt Hancock’Impartial Jurisprudence’ by Harriet Harman’Modesty and Keeping It Real’ by Kanye West
Kanye West wrote a book? He says he’s never read one.
Kanye West wrote a book? He says he’s never read one.
Other titles where the subject matter has been mastered by the author include:
‘Successful Blitzkrieg’ by Vladimir Putin’Mastering Public Health’ by Matt Hancock’Impartial Jurisprudence’ by Harriet Harman’Modesty and Keeping It Real’ by Kanye West
Oh, damn, damn, damn! It’s only nine o’clock in the morning of 7 July, and 69 people have already read and commented on this article (at least one being sent in 11 hours ago on 6 July). It’s not only that so many people have written what I would have written but also that I’d be tempted to repeat even what I myself have written so many times. And yet I do want to add one point, and that will require some repetition.
Moran’s book, which I can evaluate only from Stock’s review of it, is not the worst book that women have written about men or even close to that distinction. Her attitude toward men is indeed condescending and demeaning, sure, but not hateful. Her book is indeed ignorant and vulgar, okay, but not sinister. Stock’s review not only establishes a need to restore the dignity of men but also to restore the honor of women. In both ways, though, she’s almost wasting her time on Moran’s trite stereotypes. I look forward to a book or an article by Stock on the feminist sources of misandry per se. I’ll return to that in a moment.
By approximately 1980, second-wave feminists were turning an admirably egalitarian worldview into a profoundly cynical ideology. (I can think of many examples from this time, mainly in my own particular field. These included luminaries such as Gerda Lerner, Maraija Gimbutas, Merlin Stone, Robin Morgan, Mary Daly, Marilyn French, Catherine Keller, Shulamit Firestone, Andrea Dworkin and so on.) For decades, with increasing sophistication and institutional support, feminist ideologues have indulged in the dehumanization and even demonization of men, their supposedly archetypal enemies since the dawn of human history. This was no longer a political drive to foster careers for women. It was a conspiracy theory of history, an all-purpose explanation for the rise of patriarchal tyranny. It was an assertion that men, both primordial and modern, are innately linked with evil (which dovetails with the more recent woke claim that some people, defined biologically, are collectively and irremediably evil). In other words, feminist ideologues crossed a moral Rubicon, and they did so politically in the name of women.
Even though these ideologues never actually represented all women or perhaps even most women (except at universities), they did presume that they had the moral and ideological authority to speak for all women. Consequently, only women with Stock’s moral and intellectual integrity can begin to reverse the damage–not only the psychological and legal damage to men but also the resulting damage to women themselves. If anything could ever establish the foundation for inter-sexual dialogue, this would be it.
I’m glad to see you weigh in, Paul, unjust (regional?) delay notwithstanding. I get what you mean about treating Moran’s book more seriously than it may deserve, but I also appreciate Stock’s refusal to merely ridicule or rant away in response to what seems a trivial effort.
I think Dr. Stock is steadily moving from an more academic to a general readership, and that her writing style seems to be getting even better over time. (Admittedly, I haven’t read any of her scholarship, nor the most recent book that resulted in such a tempest in a teapot–and the loss of her professorial position). I guess my main point is this: Stock’s fair-minded, egalitarian approach, while not the historical or present-day norm, is a lot better than nothing.
For those who weren’t there or haven’t seen it, I strongly recommend the video of Dr. Stock’s recent visit to Oxford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuR_yuDqOXw
For those who weren’t there or haven’t seen it, I strongly recommend the video of Dr. Stock’s recent visit to Oxford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuR_yuDqOXw
Indeed, the early bird catches the late worm, Paul. As one who goes to bed in the early hours of the morning, I’m doomed to never comment first or even the first day. Ah well.
I’m glad to see you weigh in, Paul, unjust (regional?) delay notwithstanding. I get what you mean about treating Moran’s book more seriously than it may deserve, but I also appreciate Stock’s refusal to merely ridicule or rant away in response to what seems a trivial effort.
I think Dr. Stock is steadily moving from an more academic to a general readership, and that her writing style seems to be getting even better over time. (Admittedly, I haven’t read any of her scholarship, nor the most recent book that resulted in such a tempest in a teapot–and the loss of her professorial position). I guess my main point is this: Stock’s fair-minded, egalitarian approach, while not the historical or present-day norm, is a lot better than nothing.
Indeed, the early bird catches the late worm, Paul. As one who goes to bed in the early hours of the morning, I’m doomed to never comment first or even the first day. Ah well.
Oh, damn, damn, damn! It’s only nine o’clock in the morning of 7 July, and 69 people have already read and commented on this article (at least one being sent in 11 hours ago on 6 July). It’s not only that so many people have written what I would have written but also that I’d be tempted to repeat even what I myself have written so many times. And yet I do want to add one point, and that will require some repetition.
Moran’s book, which I can evaluate only from Stock’s review of it, is not the worst book that women have written about men or even close to that distinction. Her attitude toward men is indeed condescending and demeaning, sure, but not hateful. Her book is indeed ignorant and vulgar, okay, but not sinister. Stock’s review not only establishes a need to restore the dignity of men but also to restore the honor of women. In both ways, though, she’s almost wasting her time on Moran’s trite stereotypes. I look forward to a book or an article by Stock on the feminist sources of misandry per se. I’ll return to that in a moment.
By approximately 1980, second-wave feminists were turning an admirably egalitarian worldview into a profoundly cynical ideology. (I can think of many examples from this time, mainly in my own particular field. These included luminaries such as Gerda Lerner, Maraija Gimbutas, Merlin Stone, Robin Morgan, Mary Daly, Marilyn French, Catherine Keller, Shulamit Firestone, Andrea Dworkin and so on.) For decades, with increasing sophistication and institutional support, feminist ideologues have indulged in the dehumanization and even demonization of men, their supposedly archetypal enemies since the dawn of human history. This was no longer a political drive to foster careers for women. It was a conspiracy theory of history, an all-purpose explanation for the rise of patriarchal tyranny. It was an assertion that men, both primordial and modern, are innately linked with evil (which dovetails with the more recent woke claim that some people, defined biologically, are collectively and irremediably evil). In other words, feminist ideologues crossed a moral Rubicon, and they did so politically in the name of women.
Even though these ideologues never actually represented all women or perhaps even most women (except at universities), they did presume that they had the moral and ideological authority to speak for all women. Consequently, only women with Stock’s moral and intellectual integrity can begin to reverse the damage–not only the psychological and legal damage to men but also the resulting damage to women themselves. If anything could ever establish the foundation for inter-sexual dialogue, this would be it.
…I think I may have a crush on Ms Stock…no offence intended, but if I ever see you in a pub Ms Stock, I’m buying you a drink…from a distance, obviously..!
I definitely have a crush on KS after the pics of her arriving at Oxford Union.
Though obviously I also admire her for her mind and her incredible writing!
I definitely have a crush on KS after the pics of her arriving at Oxford Union.
Though obviously I also admire her for her mind and her incredible writing!
…I think I may have a crush on Ms Stock…no offence intended, but if I ever see you in a pub Ms Stock, I’m buying you a drink…from a distance, obviously..!
I’m sure I can’t be the only one. But I think it odd how I seem to agree almost 100% with anything Kathleen Stock ever writes even though I’m a bloke and she’s a girlie.
I’m sure I can’t be the only one. But I think it odd how I seem to agree almost 100% with anything Kathleen Stock ever writes even though I’m a bloke and she’s a girlie.
Also: jeez. Men are great. (That’s not to say there aren’t toxic ones; of course there are, just as there are toxic women). But I find the good ones to be exceptional company. Funny, helpful, knowledgable about the stuff they’re interested in (and I find asking questions about whatever that is to be a great conversational vector), and yes, great for reaching things down from high shelves and opening jars.
Men are great. Let them pursue the things they’re interested in as a result of evolutionary drive and hormones (ambition, skill, being providers, being protectors, being useful, being funny) and stop constantly bashing them.
Amen
Amen
Also: jeez. Men are great. (That’s not to say there aren’t toxic ones; of course there are, just as there are toxic women). But I find the good ones to be exceptional company. Funny, helpful, knowledgable about the stuff they’re interested in (and I find asking questions about whatever that is to be a great conversational vector), and yes, great for reaching things down from high shelves and opening jars.
Men are great. Let them pursue the things they’re interested in as a result of evolutionary drive and hormones (ambition, skill, being providers, being protectors, being useful, being funny) and stop constantly bashing them.
I winced through this entire article, but it does rather explain why I usually find myself talking not with the women but with the men at a social gathering.
Yes, my sister once said she preferred going to the pub with men – and that was back in the bad old 80s.
Sounds like your sister and I would get along!
Sounds like your sister and I would get along!
Same here – I prefer male company to female company in general, although there are a few exceptions to that rule. However, I find Kathleen Stock is totally on my wavelength.
Yes, my sister once said she preferred going to the pub with men – and that was back in the bad old 80s.
Same here – I prefer male company to female company in general, although there are a few exceptions to that rule. However, I find Kathleen Stock is totally on my wavelength.
I winced through this entire article, but it does rather explain why I usually find myself talking not with the women but with the men at a social gathering.
A more pertinent question would be ‘what does Moran know about anything?’. Her columns are stereotypical examples of women who think they’re funny trying to be ‘edgy’ and ‘zany’, and failing miserably.
A more pertinent question would be ‘what does Moran know about anything?’. Her columns are stereotypical examples of women who think they’re funny trying to be ‘edgy’ and ‘zany’, and failing miserably.
The more interesting question is why Morans book gets pride of place in the front windows of major book shops here in Dublin and why she is hosted to talk with authority about men on morning shows and the BBC etc.
The more interesting question is why Morans book gets pride of place in the front windows of major book shops here in Dublin and why she is hosted to talk with authority about men on morning shows and the BBC etc.
PSA: Nina Power’s ‘What Do Men Want’ is a far more successful and far less irritating book with a similar premise and smaller marketing budget.
Thank you Charles! Very kind. Nina
Thank you Charles! Very kind. Nina
PSA: Nina Power’s ‘What Do Men Want’ is a far more successful and far less irritating book with a similar premise and smaller marketing budget.
Bad choice of breed. Prone to obesity, hip problems, and drooling.
Definitively unthreatening, therefore… Perhaps the analogy stands after all?
I have two Podengos. Better choice for comparison with male values. Loyal, affectionate, killers of rats and geckos, disobedient and loud. The most extreme of the two is a b***h.
Perhaps the Patterdale Terrier or even the renowned Staffordshire Bull Terrier?
Sounds about right.
Definitively unthreatening, therefore… Perhaps the analogy stands after all?
I have two Podengos. Better choice for comparison with male values. Loyal, affectionate, killers of rats and geckos, disobedient and loud. The most extreme of the two is a b***h.
Perhaps the Patterdale Terrier or even the renowned Staffordshire Bull Terrier?
Sounds about right.
Bad choice of breed. Prone to obesity, hip problems, and drooling.
Another inspiring read from the great Kathleen Stock – thank you, spot on as usual!
Another inspiring read from the great Kathleen Stock – thank you, spot on as usual!
The thing I like about Kathleen Stock is that she doesn’t seem to hate men.
Morans book sounds like the norm for her – silly.
The thing I like about Kathleen Stock is that she doesn’t seem to hate men.
Morans book sounds like the norm for her – silly.
Good review. I had not heard of Caitlin Moran until now, and it would be fine never to hear of her again. She sounds like a real whackadoodle.
Good review. I had not heard of Caitlin Moran until now, and it would be fine never to hear of her again. She sounds like a real whackadoodle.
I’d very much like to buy shares in Ms Stock. She just gets better and better.
I’d very much like to buy shares in Ms Stock. She just gets better and better.
Why must she always be pulling some stupid face or other in photos too? It’s really very tedious. I used to really like her writing but more and more I find her humour forced and fatuous. And I note she steers clear of commenting on ANYTHING to do with the whole trans-industrial complex and how it erodes women’s rights, even as she continues to trumpet herself as a feminist. That’s because she knows what side her bread is buttered. She’s coming across as more and more smug.
Why must she always be pulling some stupid face or other in photos too? It’s really very tedious. I used to really like her writing but more and more I find her humour forced and fatuous. And I note she steers clear of commenting on ANYTHING to do with the whole trans-industrial complex and how it erodes women’s rights, even as she continues to trumpet herself as a feminist. That’s because she knows what side her bread is buttered. She’s coming across as more and more smug.
I’m greatly relieved to know I don’t need to buy the book and read it, but of course this leads me to the conclusion that there is more than one type of woman. It must be a great relief to both Caitlin Moran and Kathleen Stock to know that they are distinct, discrete but in Moran’s case, hardly discreet.
I’m greatly relieved to know I don’t need to buy the book and read it, but of course this leads me to the conclusion that there is more than one type of woman. It must be a great relief to both Caitlin Moran and Kathleen Stock to know that they are distinct, discrete but in Moran’s case, hardly discreet.
Moran’s book is not serious. It’s a pitch for beach reading aimed at women who want something new to gossip about. It’ll probably turn a good enough profit for publisher and author, but, shallow and driven by marketing performativity as it is, the book will be forgotten by Christmas. Moran might even have her next chunk of journo-wisdom ready to drop by then.
Moran’s book is not serious. It’s a pitch for beach reading aimed at women who want something new to gossip about. It’ll probably turn a good enough profit for publisher and author, but, shallow and driven by marketing performativity as it is, the book will be forgotten by Christmas. Moran might even have her next chunk of journo-wisdom ready to drop by then.
Just where are the voices of men of all ages in all of this? Their absence is deafening.
Perhaps it lies in the refrain “just leave us alone”?
Just where are the voices of men of all ages in all of this? Their absence is deafening.
Perhaps it lies in the refrain “just leave us alone”?
Great article , and Caitlin Moran? Just look at her photo and imagine what she was like at school. Nuff said !
Great article , and Caitlin Moran? Just look at her photo and imagine what she was like at school. Nuff said !
These “troubled” young men, we assume, are geeky, white males. What of black youth?
Don’t ask.
Presumably, they are really cool….because a proportion of them deal drugs, treat women like a commodity, and stab people…but it’s not their fault, it’s all down to “way-CISM..!” Makes no sense at all to demonise the young men who try to deal with it, but wearing a Bobby’s Uniform…and sometimes need to be pretty tought-minded to do it…except to people like Caitlin Moran.
I think most middle class whites are scared so behave as lickspittles. My experience is that Irish scaffolders who box earn their respect and are left alone.
I think most middle class whites are scared so behave as lickspittles. My experience is that Irish scaffolders who box earn their respect and are left alone.
Presumably, they are really cool….because a proportion of them deal drugs, treat women like a commodity, and stab people…but it’s not their fault, it’s all down to “way-CISM..!” Makes no sense at all to demonise the young men who try to deal with it, but wearing a Bobby’s Uniform…and sometimes need to be pretty tought-minded to do it…except to people like Caitlin Moran.
Don’t ask.
These “troubled” young men, we assume, are geeky, white males. What of black youth?
Kathleen. I love your takedowns of the great bores of today. Moran with her callow takes on every issue and (as Jonathan Raiment points out), has the mentality of a teenage attention seeker, is one of a long line. (Madonna, Dua Lipa, Kylie), Please please get them all collated (with your takedowns to come) in a book for Christmas.
Kathleen. I love your takedowns of the great bores of today. Moran with her callow takes on every issue and (as Jonathan Raiment points out), has the mentality of a teenage attention seeker, is one of a long line. (Madonna, Dua Lipa, Kylie), Please please get them all collated (with your takedowns to come) in a book for Christmas.
Strangely the following “Ugly Psychology truths no one wants to admit” about differences between men and women from psychologist Adam Lane Smith also popped up on my Twitter today. https://twitter.com/TheBrometheus/status/1676925337194704897
I’m getting flashbacks to “Mens are from Mars, Women are from Venus” – must be summer.
Strangely the following “Ugly Psychology truths no one wants to admit” about differences between men and women from psychologist Adam Lane Smith also popped up on my Twitter today. https://twitter.com/TheBrometheus/status/1676925337194704897
I’m getting flashbacks to “Mens are from Mars, Women are from Venus” – must be summer.
I didn’t know that dogs can construct buildings, roads or bridges or make cars and trains or clean sewers or climb ladders to rescue people. (Of course a small minority of the people who do this are women and I have the same respect for you).
I didn’t know that dogs can construct buildings, roads or bridges or make cars and trains or clean sewers or climb ladders to rescue people. (Of course a small minority of the people who do this are women and I have the same respect for you).
I don’t think it is unfair to say more women than men will read this book. and those that do from either sex have plenty of time on their hands. Unless the male reader describes his self as a feminist, A lost cause say no more. Or the book is a present from a caring significant other. In which case appearing to read it is a sensible course of action.
Most men will walk past it in search of one thing more meaningful to read, probably in relation to a serious hobby. Or the latest release of a best seller from a favourite author.
I don’t think it is unfair to say more women than men will read this book. and those that do from either sex have plenty of time on their hands. Unless the male reader describes his self as a feminist, A lost cause say no more. Or the book is a present from a caring significant other. In which case appearing to read it is a sensible course of action.
Most men will walk past it in search of one thing more meaningful to read, probably in relation to a serious hobby. Or the latest release of a best seller from a favourite author.
Moran knows about the men she knows.
Moran knows about the men she knows.
I think the fact that is being overlooked here is class. And there is such snobbery adrift it is not surprising. Caitlin Moran comes from a background where women do often show greatest intelligence. Their men folk came from a tradition of being sidelined and used, if not for cannon fodder, for the industrial machine.
And there were the wives, no chance of feminine wiles, think of Solourner Truth ‘ain’t I a woman?’ Think of DH Lawrence’s mother, what chance did his father in the mines have to encourage his education.
Whereas of course at the privileged end women were denied education and men were hot-housed to become the rulers, the bosses, in control.
Class determines so much behavior and the majority of our society exists in the lower end and the males are floundering.
I think Caitlin Moran wants to help them. So I think we should get off our high horses and not be so unfairly judgmental.
Women are used to drawing the short straw and in a typical human way have learned to play the game to their best advantage. I think she is generously offering a helping hand to the majority of boys who are not privileged.
I think the fact that is being overlooked here is class. And there is such snobbery adrift it is not surprising. Caitlin Moran comes from a background where women do often show greatest intelligence. Their men folk came from a tradition of being sidelined and used, if not for cannon fodder, for the industrial machine.
And there were the wives, no chance of feminine wiles, think of Solourner Truth ‘ain’t I a woman?’ Think of DH Lawrence’s mother, what chance did his father in the mines have to encourage his education.
Whereas of course at the privileged end women were denied education and men were hot-housed to become the rulers, the bosses, in control.
Class determines so much behavior and the majority of our society exists in the lower end and the males are floundering.
I think Caitlin Moran wants to help them. So I think we should get off our high horses and not be so unfairly judgmental.
Women are used to drawing the short straw and in a typical human way have learned to play the game to their best advantage. I think she is generously offering a helping hand to the majority of boys who are not privileged.
“Youthful coping strategies in response to all this undifferentiated guilt-tripping may include heading towards Andrew Tate videos or heading towards the gender clinic, but either way a different and more nuanced way of doing things would be a lot better.”
The sheer brilliance of this statement cannot be overstated. Living in a world of men and boys it is plain as day the dynamic that has been created and yet the mainstream doubles down and crosses their fingers for a better outcome. Oh well, if that does not work we can always censor the crap out of it to control the failing narrative.
“Youthful coping strategies in response to all this undifferentiated guilt-tripping may include heading towards Andrew Tate videos or heading towards the gender clinic, but either way a different and more nuanced way of doing things would be a lot better.”
The sheer brilliance of this statement cannot be overstated. Living in a world of men and boys it is plain as day the dynamic that has been created and yet the mainstream doubles down and crosses their fingers for a better outcome. Oh well, if that does not work we can always censor the crap out of it to control the failing narrative.
I think both women would benefit from watching Matt Walsh’s recent commentary on a Trans emote about masculinity
‘Why Women Will Never Know What It’s Like To Be A Man’on the Daily Wire
Interesting review. My view on that is that, as an engineer, it’s better to have a mediocre answer to a good question than a perfect answer to a mediocre question.
Moran adresses, quite poorul, a good question. Further attempts by other members of the intellectual community may build on this not totally worthless stepping stone.
I think you might have missed the point here. Caitlin Moran is a comedian and a feminist. I doubt her book was meant to inform or educate her readers. I have not read her book, but judging from your review, her intention was to ridicule, humiliate and demean men, especially young men. On that metric, surely she has succeeded.
Did she allude to her next book in her last sentence? Maybe if nothing else Moran prompted a thought, and it’d be a book many of us would welcome.
Moran’s book of course will sell and generate media interest. She’ll be all over place being interviewed next few weeks. At least it may help generate a further discussion/consideration of the subject and that’d be positive.
That was my thought. I haven’t read the book, and am not likely to, but when I saw an article about it I thought it was a step in the right direction
The relentless “women’s lives are awful and it’s all men’s fault,” trope does need some counterweight. This won’t be it, but if it provokes some debate on what might not be perfect in a man’s life, it’s a start.
Why would you welcome it? We all have limited time in our lives, why waste precious hours on shallow self-congratulatory trivia like this?
Those who downvoted j watson seem to have mistaken the hypothetical book for one from Moran. The commenter means that Kathleen Stock may be motivated to write a book in response to her; the book reviewed could then be said to have an indirect benefit. Correct, j watson?
Yep. That’s the book we’d like to read isn’t it.
Yep. That’s the book we’d like to read isn’t it.
Those who downvoted j watson seem to have mistaken the hypothetical book for one from Moran. The commenter means that Kathleen Stock may be motivated to write a book in response to her; the book reviewed could then be said to have an indirect benefit. Correct, j watson?
That was my thought. I haven’t read the book, and am not likely to, but when I saw an article about it I thought it was a step in the right direction
The relentless “women’s lives are awful and it’s all men’s fault,” trope does need some counterweight. This won’t be it, but if it provokes some debate on what might not be perfect in a man’s life, it’s a start.
Why would you welcome it? We all have limited time in our lives, why waste precious hours on shallow self-congratulatory trivia like this?
Did she allude to her next book in her last sentence? Maybe if nothing else Moran prompted a thought, and it’d be a book many of us would welcome.
Moran’s book of course will sell and generate media interest. She’ll be all over place being interviewed next few weeks. At least it may help generate a further discussion/consideration of the subject and that’d be positive.
As the father of two young men I was delighted to read Caitlin. She is opening a topic that its largely ignored and doubtless there are flaws with her approach but huge kudos for bring the discussion into the open.
As the father of two young men I was delighted to read Caitlin. She is opening a topic that its largely ignored and doubtless there are flaws with her approach but huge kudos for bring the discussion into the open.