This is a backdated post containing a book review I originally published to Goodreads. Thing is, Goodreads might not last forever, or could change their setup altogether. I know my blog will last as long as I do.
Although his account was removed, and so his comments, as the result of his attack-worthy comments to me (and even going after me on Twitter!), my comments are still on my review thread (and below the review) if anyone wants to read the tea.
Series: Educated Rants and Wild Guesses #1
Published by Becker and Malloy LLC on 31 October, 2017
Genre: #nothanks, Non-fiction
# pages: 60
With candid honesty Oliver Markus explores the age-old question: "Can men and women ever really be just friends?" Women think so. But every man knows that it's impossible. Read this book and find out what really goes on in a man's mind. You will never look at opposite-sex friendships the same way again.
The title of this book alone made my eyes roll—which is the reason I decided to read it. Because it can’t be as sexist, and misogynistic, right? Right??
Cats = women, and dogs = men. I’m a cat (woman). I don’t know what it’s like to be a dog (man). Except…I do. I have dissociative identity disorder. An alter is male. I understand a bit more about men than the average non-Multiple woman should, probably.
Mallow goes from generalizing all men to explaining how even women—who cannot understand men because women = cats and dogs = men, and cats don’t know what it’s like to be a dog because they’re cats.
He essentially saying it’s the fault of women who have “big tits” for attracting men—and that women’s sole goal in life, when they work to look nice, is for men. Because how dare a woman think she’s looking good for herself? “When you show off your curves, what you’re really doing is advertising to the whole world: ‘Look at me! I’m a healthy female! I’d be a perfect mate! Come mount me!'”
Then, after several pages of criticizing Christians and manipulating scripture to justify his arguments for men not seeing women equally, he explains that the Bible condones (and that God “supposedly” said) rape is okay—all by means of copy-pasting into the book opinion pieces from websites like BuzzFeed and Time. No authors are named, so I know not who wrote any of the articles.
Then comes this childish “(POOF!)” after these copy-pasta passages from opinion columns. I’ve used opinion columns for journalistic approaches to topics—but I make a point to include links and/or properly cite my sources, and to include experts. Because that’s what journalists are supposed to do. All journalists are biased—there’s no lacking it, despite how we lie to ourselves—but including experts and properly explaining their expertise is what best proves the point. There is none of that in this.
He names two powerful men as examples of what men would do to women if they could still do whatever they wanted, and includes the #metoo hashtag as a know-what-I-mean after.
The approach to, and text within, this book—regardless of what other men have reviewed about it—is misogynistic. Sexual objectification is a way of seeing another as a mere object of sexual desire instead of human, and misogyny includes “ingrained prejudice against women”. Prejudice includes bias, among other sub-definitions, but explaining them all would take more energy and time than I have the energy and time for—and I shouldn’t have to.
Women shouldn’t have to justify their humanity and insist to men their being more than sexual objects to fulfill the needs of men.
The major difference I have noticed between elder generations, and the generations of Millennials and beyond is that Millennials are working to raise their children better—especially their boys—because they realize it’s not just men to blame, but the societal standard for how men are expected to act.
However, for any person to know they have these issues—objectifying women, objectifying anyone—and to not work to overcome them so they can see all humans as people? It’s ridiculous. The blatant ignorance and deliberate prejudice is the problem—not the preordained male’s biological-thus-internalized need to mate with whatever woman—sorry: sexual object—they see. Because there are good guys. The men who think these non-misogynistic men are nonexistent need to pop their bubbles and work to meet those good guys—or work on themselves and—oh, I don’t know—be the change women (and society) needs.
Rated 2/5, because it’s edited well and Malloy obviously tried. The book was free on Amazon, otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it.
Again, as the author’s account was removed, so were his comments due to their content. He was really, really bad.
Dec 17, 2017 at 12:10am
Reviews are not written for authors, but for readers.
Some related posts:
Dec 17, 2017 at 04:52pm
What we write and intend to mean with our diction does not always reflect how others perceive it.
My impression from it was more that you wrote the book to perpetuate the reason men do these things, but my knowledge of life is based not on “just because”. I believe it is a choice to do this or that to other people, including women. It is hard to change our ways as a people — I totally get that — because we’re raised to be and believe in certain things, and influenced by the world around us, but…at the end of the day, we do have a choice. The difference is who acts upon that choice and who does not.
The thing about allies is that the ones who are don’t need to label themselves or emphasize through words — they just are. When they are told they may be wrong by members of the group they claim to support/not be against (.e.g. not a misogynist, so women), but continue to reiterate that they are not, that is not allyhood.
Regardless of how wrong you think I perceived/understood your book, it does not matter. It is how I perceived it. Intentions do not override the end result. Continuing to reply to me, as you have with others who disliked the book/rated it poorly, is considered “bad author behavior”. The point of reviews, and the review system, is not for them to be in favor of the author, but for them to help readers figure out whether the book is one they will like, and would like to spend money and/or time on. The articles I linked to in my previous comment explain this in more detail.
I will not be removing or changing my review, because it wasn’t you I despised, but your book — though replying like this, trolling me, etc. does not help the case of the author (you).
I do request you leave this be, because I imagine we are not going to be agreeing on this anytime soon. You think you’re right, and I have my own thoughts on it based on my personal experience and what I’ve seen. My mind is not going to change because of something you say, because I am neither easily swayed nor my mind easily changed.
Moreover, opinion columns and “quoting” great chunks from them, but excluding author names, is not valid sourcing. You are wholly bias in your book, which is fine for the people who like that kind of stuff — but my issue with it is that you perpetuate things based on conjecture and didn’t include unbiased stuff, like a hypothesis of “Can men change?” It’s all about “because sex sex sex”, though I have lived a life in which I have seen that that is not all it is about — that many men do love more than they lust, and that the issue of the lust lies not solely on men, but the way society objectifies humanity as a whole.
Dec 18, 2017 at 02:57pm
I’m simply expressing the perception I got.
But still, it doesn’t matter. Authors and reviewers are not supposed to interact about the review like this. Authors don’t have any place to respond to reviews—especially negative and/or low ones—like this.
Dec 18, 2017 at 10:31pm
At this point, it doesn’t matter. You’ve crossed a boundary authors are not supposed to cross.
Please do not continue replying to this review.
Dec 19, 2017 at 12:25am
I didn’t leave a review to have a conversation with the author. I left a review because I review books I read. I shared my perception of it.
Regardless of whether I perceived you properly, the problem here is that you replied to my review defensively. I linked three articles in a previous comment about reviewers and authors, and how they are not supposed to interact and why. They explain that authors don’t make themselves look good when they do.
It’s not personal; I was reviewing your book. Sure, I mentioned the author (you), but that’s not my way of putting out a “Welcome” rug for you to come respond. Separate yourself from your book.
For an author to respond to negative reviews because the reviewer/reader misunderstood understood something, and they need/want to prove them wrong, screws up the whole book review dynamic. Book reviews are not for authors. They’re not even for promotional purposes. They can be used in marketing and for promotional purposes, but they are for readers first. And that is why I review the books I read.
Dec 19, 2017 at 10:53pm
My review = perception of the novel. Reviews are opinions of the readers.
My opinions are not fact…they’re opinion.
Dec 20, 2017 at 06:46pm
It’s not about admitting I was wrong. The whole point of what I am saying is that reviews are not for authors. Reviews are for readers. It doesn’t matter whether reviews are right or wrong.
The links I referred you to refer to this incident — authors interacting with reviewers who’ve left bad reviews to prove them wrong, or whatever.
It doesn’t help your reputation among readers. I don’t care how many books you sold or how popular you are. It doesn’t matter. My review was not written for you. And I don’t care if you judge me.
Dec 21, 2017 at 01:37pm by my friend, Jamie
Yo Oliver it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong or whether or not a reader “gets” what you were going for in your book. People will digest content differently and that’s their right, and it’s also Jane’s right to write her opinions of a book in her review.
You’re making yourself look really bad by arguing with reviewers.
If you loved this post, please share or buy me a pretzel:
Leave a comment