Scan barcode
habelhamessafaa's review against another edition
2.0
to be totally frank, i found the forwarding more appealing and informative than the whole debate. it seemed that they were debating without any sort of organization or linear thoughts; instead thoughts were thrown here and there. they were interrupted.. Thus, I didn't find both teams convincing. I like to point out their mention of Miley which i found rather dull and out of point in there- talk about feminists tearing other feminists down. but it has been always like this. In all fields, old generation will always disapprove of new generation ways.. it doesn't matter if we're on the same side of change, if we're walking towards the same direction.. it's always their way that's right, accepted, wit, and well-fit. why? i wonder.
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
anubhasy's review against another edition
4.0
Cogent and entertaining arguments from four brilliant women. While I don't necessarily agree with all the arguments put for the motion, there was something to take away from each woman's speech.
Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part.
Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part.
habelhamessafaa's review against another edition
2.0
to be totally frank, i found the forwarding more appealing and informative than the whole debate. it seemed that they were debating without any sort of organization or linear thoughts; instead thoughts were thrown here and there. they were interrupted.. Thus, I didn't find both teams convincing. I like to point out their mention of Miley which i found rather dull and out of point in there- talk about feminists tearing other feminists down. but it has been always like this. In all fields, old generation will always disapprove of new generation ways.. it doesn't matter if we're on the same side of change, if we're walking towards the same direction.. it's always their way that's right, accepted, wit, and well-fit. why? i wonder.
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
occupationleaf's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This is four women discussing the idea of men being obsolete, based the progress that women have made. Caitlin Moran, who argues that this is silly and we should look at the economy instead, is, as always, funny and rude and the best part of everything.
dorritx's review
2.0
This was a big fat disappointment!! The debaters were not really debating the point in question- Camille Paglia was stubbornly fixated on how we don't value manual labor anymore (which acc to her is intrinsically male) (whose side you on Camille??), Maureen Dowd mentioned Ted Cruz one time too many and Caitlin Moran didn't like the question. Hanna Rosin seemed to be the only one who actually debating the thing but even her argument didn't reach into the depths and answer whether the structures our world functions on (build by men, for men) are being eroded or molded or what! That left out families, politics, sex, gender, masculinity and femininity and oh, about everything else too.
Some fault, it seems to me, lies in the phrasing of the debate question. Maybe if the debate was titled, 'Are women winning?', they would have concentrated on how well women are doing, and not whether men going obsolete is a good thing or not. It's too bad de Beauvoir is dead, because she would have been so so good in this debate. There's this 1967 video (on yt) in which she says that things are worse for women more than they had been when she wrote The Second Sex (49). What would she have to say for today?? Have (some) women achieved subject status or have men just been bought into object status along with women? So much to be said!! And this 1 and a half hour debate didn't even tap on it.
Lastly: a big boo to the men in the YouTube chat (there were ONLY men) who truly deserve to be obsolete, why did the sponsors of the debate look so sleepy and washed out?, the panelist was also kinda off, the after debate interviews were better and should have been longer (as should have the debate).
Some fault, it seems to me, lies in the phrasing of the debate question. Maybe if the debate was titled, 'Are women winning?', they would have concentrated on how well women are doing, and not whether men going obsolete is a good thing or not. It's too bad de Beauvoir is dead, because she would have been so so good in this debate. There's this 1967 video (on yt) in which she says that things are worse for women more than they had been when she wrote The Second Sex (49). What would she have to say for today?? Have (some) women achieved subject status or have men just been bought into object status along with women? So much to be said!! And this 1 and a half hour debate didn't even tap on it.
Lastly: a big boo to the men in the YouTube chat (there were ONLY men) who truly deserve to be obsolete, why did the sponsors of the debate look so sleepy and washed out?, the panelist was also kinda off, the after debate interviews were better and should have been longer (as should have the debate).
martha_is_reading's review against another edition
4.0
Don't be misled by the clickbait title - this is not the work of the stereotypical "Angry Feminist" suggesting that we do away with half the human race. Nor is it jut the work of Caitlin Moran (but that's a Goodreads admin point!)
This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sectors.
I picked this up in the library for the exact reason I'm telling you not to judge it - the title made me laugh because it's totally absurd. In the opening words of the 'For' argument, Rosin admits:
So you can see there is a lot more to this debate than an outlandish proposition. It's not a clear cut topic by any means, and the four speakers agreed on a number of areas. There was far too much ground to cover in a relatively short debate, but the speakers touched on areas such as the crisis of masculinity, the intersection with class in the case of the 'working class man' and the many faces of feminism.
There will no doubt be critics who will scream "but how can four women be debating whether or not men are obsolete?! How dare they!" To them I say - men have been debating the value of women for many centuries, so frankly it was refreshing to have the tables turned and have an all-female panel offering up eloquent, balanced arguments. Certainly the male chair, Rudyard Griffiths felt safe with Moran and Paglia arguing against the motion:
This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sectors.
I picked this up in the library for the exact reason I'm telling you not to judge it - the title made me laugh because it's totally absurd. In the opening words of the 'For' argument, Rosin admits:
"For one thing, we haven't figured out how to harvest their sperm without, you know, keeping them alive"
So you can see there is a lot more to this debate than an outlandish proposition. It's not a clear cut topic by any means, and the four speakers agreed on a number of areas. There was far too much ground to cover in a relatively short debate, but the speakers touched on areas such as the crisis of masculinity, the intersection with class in the case of the 'working class man' and the many faces of feminism.
There will no doubt be critics who will scream "but how can four women be debating whether or not men are obsolete?! How dare they!" To them I say - men have been debating the value of women for many centuries, so frankly it was refreshing to have the tables turned and have an all-female panel offering up eloquent, balanced arguments. Certainly the male chair, Rudyard Griffiths felt safe with Moran and Paglia arguing against the motion:
Caitlin Moran: Aren't you enormously grateful that I'm not saying that men should be exterminated?
Rudyard Griffiths: Thank you.
Caitlin Moran: We're not going to come around and just put you all in big dumpsters -
Rudyard Griffiths: My Y chromosome will live to see another day.
The debate started with the audience voting against the motion 82-18...but how did they vote after closing arguments? I'll mark the rest of my review in spoilers for when you've had a chance to read the arguments...The crux of this debate is really around the definition of obsolescence (a word which I am now in love with). As Rosin argued in her opening statement, the fundamental biological need for the male half of the population remains. However, it was her eloquent closing argument that really sealed the deal in the minds of the voting audience: "I think there is some confusion out there about what you are voting for if you vote for us. When we say men are obsolete, that doesn't mean they are worthless, or that we want to stomp on them, or that we hate them....the twin combustion engine technically makes the bicycle obsolete. That doesn't mean that we hate the bicycle or want to throw it away...You are allowed to preserve the parts of manhood that you love and value...while at the same time recognising that there needs to be some adjustments if men, and particularly certain men, are going to survive the modern world.
Arguably it was this closer that swung the audience from 82-18 opposed, to 56-44 opposed - a huge swing that was deemed a victory for Rosin and Dowd arguing for the motion.
Aside from my obvious interest in the content, this book really piqued by interest in the art of debate, and I would encourage all to read this with that in mind; in this new, uncertain age of Brexit and Trump, we must never lose our ability to speak and debate.
More...