You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
elly29 's review for:
fast-paced
Mostly a waste of time. It is at many points sexist, and at some points outrightly misogynistic. It is also incredibly outdated for 2022 (first published in 2003 after 6yrs of writing).
This book is a product of patriarchy and remains working within the paradigm of patriarchy. I agree with the main points he makes (they are general and it's hard to disagree), which can be boiled down to 1) be yourself 2) be honest 3) treat your needs as valid and reasonably out them first, and although there may be some discord or strife it is okay and healthy relationships benefit from disagreements and fights.
But the ways in which he frames how "weak men" are raised in the society of the 80s and 90s was deeply flawed and myopic. He seems to blame women for raising weak men... when women are responsible for raising/nurturing children... And that part of the problem is that there is a 20:1 ratio of female to male elementary teachers (and doesn't say that's the case because teachers are not well paid and that traditionally female professions are lower-paid "care" positions...) At one point, he says that men need to recognize their fathers were human beings who make mistakes... as far as I recall, not once did he acknowledge that women/wives/girlfriends were people with their own needs and flaws and were deserving of respect as people. (He does say in the chapter on sexuality that women have sexual needs, and that a man who focuses too much on pleasing his partner and her needs is shortchanging himself... make of that what you will.) But acknowledging women as more than just sex machines for whom you rack up good deeds and expect a periodic payout of sex? That's called objectification, and *not in one place* did Glover acknowledge that this was a bad thing that white patriarchal society implicitly teaches its members.
The book itself was poorly written: repetitive (it is a self-help book, so repetitiveness to get his point across is a standard component of the genre), filled with prospective generalizations, lacks contextualization of psychological theories (he is Freudian without acknowledging it, subscribes to part of John Bowlby's research on childhood attachment theory without discussing that at all), to name a few sins. Sure, he liberally uses anecdotes and examples from his own practice (I'm sure with consent from his patients and changed names to protect their privacy) to illustrate his points. But as Glover has a PhD in marriage and family, I'm appalled that he only specifically references Camille Paglia (some writer for "Salon"?) and John Bly during the entire 200 pages of his book. AND! When he references it, he does so from a white heteronormative male perspective that centralizes white culture -- the quotation marks around "primitive" don't help. What bothers me most is the lack of specifics -- just, "tribal cultures have a ritual where the men come and steal away the boys from their mothers, who weep and wail and clutch at their sons and really ham it up while doing so". Where is this culture? How does it compare throughout the world? Can you give me at least two examples of how that contrasts with what we do/don't do as the white part of American society? Ugh. So annoying and awful, and every page of writing made me want to hurl the book across the room.
The conclusion was okay, and brought this book back up from a 1 star to a 2 star. But as I said above, it's a waste of time. There are better and more recent books out there. Top of mind that I've read are "Attached" by Levine and Heller and "Principia Amoris" by Gottman.
This book is a product of patriarchy and remains working within the paradigm of patriarchy. I agree with the main points he makes (they are general and it's hard to disagree), which can be boiled down to 1) be yourself 2) be honest 3) treat your needs as valid and reasonably out them first, and although there may be some discord or strife it is okay and healthy relationships benefit from disagreements and fights.
But the ways in which he frames how "weak men" are raised in the society of the 80s and 90s was deeply flawed and myopic. He seems to blame women for raising weak men... when women are responsible for raising/nurturing children... And that part of the problem is that there is a 20:1 ratio of female to male elementary teachers (and doesn't say that's the case because teachers are not well paid and that traditionally female professions are lower-paid "care" positions...) At one point, he says that men need to recognize their fathers were human beings who make mistakes... as far as I recall, not once did he acknowledge that women/wives/girlfriends were people with their own needs and flaws and were deserving of respect as people. (He does say in the chapter on sexuality that women have sexual needs, and that a man who focuses too much on pleasing his partner and her needs is shortchanging himself... make of that what you will.) But acknowledging women as more than just sex machines for whom you rack up good deeds and expect a periodic payout of sex? That's called objectification, and *not in one place* did Glover acknowledge that this was a bad thing that white patriarchal society implicitly teaches its members.
The book itself was poorly written: repetitive (it is a self-help book, so repetitiveness to get his point across is a standard component of the genre), filled with prospective generalizations, lacks contextualization of psychological theories (he is Freudian without acknowledging it, subscribes to part of John Bowlby's research on childhood attachment theory without discussing that at all), to name a few sins. Sure, he liberally uses anecdotes and examples from his own practice (I'm sure with consent from his patients and changed names to protect their privacy) to illustrate his points. But as Glover has a PhD in marriage and family, I'm appalled that he only specifically references Camille Paglia (some writer for "Salon"?) and John Bly during the entire 200 pages of his book. AND! When he references it, he does so from a white heteronormative male perspective that centralizes white culture -- the quotation marks around "primitive" don't help. What bothers me most is the lack of specifics -- just, "tribal cultures have a ritual where the men come and steal away the boys from their mothers, who weep and wail and clutch at their sons and really ham it up while doing so". Where is this culture? How does it compare throughout the world? Can you give me at least two examples of how that contrasts with what we do/don't do as the white part of American society? Ugh. So annoying and awful, and every page of writing made me want to hurl the book across the room.
The conclusion was okay, and brought this book back up from a 1 star to a 2 star. But as I said above, it's a waste of time. There are better and more recent books out there. Top of mind that I've read are "Attached" by Levine and Heller and "Principia Amoris" by Gottman.