Sexual Impolitics Heresies on sex gender and feminism eBook Neil Lyndon
Download As PDF : Sexual Impolitics Heresies on sex gender and feminism eBook Neil Lyndon 
Dissident writings on sex, gender and feminism from 1990-2010 includes, for the first time, the full unexpurgated, uncensored text of Neil Lyndon's revolutionary 1992 book No More Sex War The Failures of Feminism.
No More Sex War was the world’s first radical critique of feminism from an egalitarian, progressive, non-sexist point of view. It forensically takes apart that secular faith in its own terms, showing it to be informed by totalitarian dogma originally drawn from Marx and Engels. The book unearths the contradictions within the ideology of feminism, exposes its myths and falsehoods and reveals it to embody a reactionary intolerance – one which has restrained and inhibited change and equality between the sexes, rather than promoting a joyful liberation, as the sisters like to boast.
The twin intellectual achievements of the book are, with evidence, to demolish the notion that we live in a patriarchal society (the presiding presumption of all forms of feminism); and to show that change for women has taken place over the last 200 years primarily as a result of advances in contraceptive and abortion technologies. Mass-produced condoms, Dutch caps and contraceptive pills were the sine qua non of female emancipation, Lyndon argues, rather than the Pankhursts. Men as a whole, he demonstrates at length, did not opposed those advances. On the contrary, egalitarian progress for women was frequently been initiated, encouraged and promoted by men.
Feminism, then, amounts to little more than a poisonous ideological parasite on social changes that had been and are generally welcomed. It follows that the sex war which feminists declared and promoted was a pernicious misprision - “like something nasty on the pavement that had got stuck as human beings paced along and was now difficult to scrape off”, as Lyndon wrote. Everybody may unquestioningly believe in feminism, he said, but everybody might be wrong. "I was, categorically, in a minority of one but, as Ghandi said 'Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth”.'
No More Sex War was also the first to identify disadvantages and inequalities for men in the West. Feminism had arrogated and monopolised all discussion of gender so exclusively, Lyndon argued, that we simply took no notice of the absence of legal rights for unmarried fathers. We didn’t care about the systemic disadvantages of men in family law. We overlooked the inequalities of boys in education and young men in employment; and we neglected illnesses which are specific to men, such as prostate cancer. He was the first journalist to trawl through the mortality statistics and find that prostate cancer kills more men than all genito-urinary disorders for women put together.
“No More Sex War remains one of the most important and courageous books of our time, accurately locating the minefields on the path to genuine male-female equality and love. With hindsight, the story in Sexual Impolitics of Neil Lyndon’s excommunication when he revealed that the world of feminism was flat is as revealing as the Catholic church’s response to Galileo.”
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
Author, The Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are the Way they Are
"In time, Neil Lyndon will be seen as the Christabel Pankhurst of the men's movement."
David Thomas
Author, Not Guilty In Defence of the Modern Man
"Neil Lyndon - an authentic hero"
A Voice for Men
Neil Lyndon was one of the first men to dare to put forward the radical idea that men and boys, as a gender, experience sexism, discrimination and inequality. This simple idea is still as radical today as it was over 20 years ago when he first published his seminal work on men women, No More Sex War. Lyndon is not a ranting, irrational misogynist; he is a rigorous and intellectual commentator whose writings provide a vital, counter-cultural viewpoint from the frontline of gender politics."
Glen Poole, author of Equality For Men and
Sexual Impolitics Heresies on sex gender and feminism eBook Neil Lyndon
British journalist Neil Lyndon has published a book that for the first time reprints the “original, uncensored, unexpurgated text” of his classic 1992 book No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism. While directed to the UK, the great majority of his analysis and conclusions is also applicable to the US, in some cases with some minor adjustments. The litany of injustices relating to No More Sex War with which the author opens his book may make it hard for some readers to sympathize with him or like him.This would be a shame because the book is as refreshing and illuminating to read now as it no doubt was more than two full decades ago when it first appeared in its unfortunately modified form.
Lyndon is a more trenchant observer of the gender wars than virtually all other authors to address the overall “battle of the sexes” in broad strokes; so far as this reviewer can recall, the authors’ only possible competitors in this regard are Warren Farrell and Tim Goldich. Lyndon shows that many years on from when the National Organization for Women first got started, we now are frankly confronting an ideological battle for supremacy between feminism and common sense.
The author comes across as simultaneously reasonable and radical, justifying his description of feminism as a “reactionary” force through which “we have all, women and men, been harmed in our personal lives and in our political potentialities…” by quoting chapter and verse of its effects on males and indeed, on all of us.
Lyndon has a great feel for the ease with which, using one hand, we condemn “men” while simultaneously, with the other hand, taking back our claims for supposed exceptions such as our spouses, good friends, fathers and sons. By the beginning of the 1990’s, the author writes, “Men as a generalised whole (not your husband nor hers, bien entendu) had become useless and the unspeakable evil, the object of a light smirk of dismissal and the irredeemably condemned for whom, as I am about to show, no imprecations, no damnings, no luridness of language was excessive.”
The author takes Rosalind Miles to task for demonstrably false claims she made that men’s most common doctor’s visits relate to impotency and that physical violence is a uniquely male phenomenon and accordingly “it is to masculinity itself that we must look for the answer to its origins and for any hope of its remedy.” Why, Lyndon queries, “do feminists of all persuasions and shades of opinion want to insist that men share universal characteristics of behaviour and habits of thought? Why are they so unwilling to acknowledge similarities between men and women and differences between men?”
Lyndon eloquently, passionately contests the common claim of a uniquely female way of working, suggesting instead how remarkably unchanged professions have been by women’s entrance into them en masse over the past few decades. Perhaps even more to the point, men’s suggested sense of entitlement or comfort in the workplace is nothing more than a myth. “Anybody who assumes that men discover and enjoy in institutions a comprehensive sense of belonging which women lack has not been listening to men or must willfully be ignoring realities for the sake of a fictitious account.”
The author makes a very passionate and generally persuasive argument that the single most important event in women’s “emergence into public and commercial life on equal terms with men” was the appearance of the pill and of available, legal abortion. He also points out that feminists largely ignore the critical roles played by these developments. Lyndon also provocatively shows that several government-brokered and important gains by women in the UK in the sixties—doubled university enrollment, greatly expanded access to legal abortion, and divorce reform—occurred without significant opposition and did not result from feminist campaigning.
Only a few nits can be picked with this superlative, even exciting, book. Periodic lapses into obscenity do not strength his case. The repeated misspellings of Naomi Wolf’s and Ashley Montagu’s names do not inspire confidence. I also think Lyndon concedes far too much when he writes, “It is beyond argument or dispute to say that all post-nomadic societies have confined women in one form or another of domestic ghetto, usually without material rewards or rights. Nobody can deny—why should they want to?—that in all Western societies down to the present age, political and economic powers, honours and distinctions, titles, perks and pride of ownership have been the sole property of men.” Finally, the book’s structure is a bit unfortunate, with several essays from subsequent years simply reprinted following—and duplicating some of the material from--No More Sex War. It should however also be said that these essays contain many penetrating insights and much original thinking bringing together ideas from a wide range of disciplines.
On the other hand, this is perhaps the best book regarding gender that manages to contextualize pertinent issues within the larger society and within broader concerns not directly related to sex. So it is that Lyndon interestingly posits that the critical factor is not sex but class. “The evident and incontestable truth… is that very great numbers of women in the West have taken pleasure in commercial competition, in acquisition and in domination… They have flung themselves into those roles and styles with abandon and gratification.” The diminution in recent years of—in Germaine Greer’s words--“social provision for the very young, the very old, the imbecile and the outsider” proves that “it is simply pea-brained cant to say that, if women were running the world, a better and more humane set of priorities would be established and care would be sympathetically provided for all who need it. As far as the administration of the social welfare institutions is concerned, women already have a very big hand in running the world.”
Lyndon also writes trenchantly and with robust common sense in debunking claims than almost half of women have been raped and showing how flirtation and wooing naturally introduce unclear situations not susceptible to post hoc political analysis. In short, “The storm of hysteria which envelops the subject [of rape] may well be taken as an indication of the falsehood with which it has been willfully endued by the sisterhood. They cannot permit a calm discussion of the evidence because the evidence is so plainly contrary to their declared analysis and aims.” Lyndon takes some risks when he goes on to discuss in some detail just how rarely rape in fact occurs, as this clearly flies in the face of feminist mythology, yet as usual his analysis is refreshingly down to earth. The author then goes on to provide an analysis of domestic violence that complements his discussion of rape, concluding that “the issue of domestic violence has been comprehensive blown-up for polemical purposes.” Lyndon crowns his achievement by pointedly comparing what may be fairly called our overreaction to the relatively modest numbers of women and children forced to seek refuge from domestic violence with our almost complete lack of concern with the vastly greater numbers of homeless men. “I count this extraordinary discrepancy in sympathy and ineptitude in political practice among the cardinal failures of feminism and of the style of politics feminism has promoted.”
The author evidences an admirable breadth of vision and a truly moving compassion for all of humanity. A hearty round of applause for this unique and highly meritorious masterwork. Don’t miss it, especially given a tiny price that suggests that it may be the greatest value in the history of pro-male gender equity literature!
Product details
|
Tags : Buy Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on sex, gender and feminism: Read 3 Books Reviews - Amazon.com,ebook,Neil Lyndon,Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on sex, gender and feminism,POLITICAL SCIENCE Human Rights
People also read other books :
- You Will Never Leave Me edition by C K Stringfellow Literature Fiction eBooks
- The Janet Evanovich Collection The Stephanie Plum Novels Books 4 to 16 plus four Between the Numbers novels edition by Janet Evanovich Romance eBooks
- No Apologies edition by Jamie Dossie Literature Fiction eBooks
- The Root of Evil Thomas Dixon 9781287483144 Books
- The Word "Eternal" and the Punishment Of The Wicked edition by FD Maurice Religion Spirituality eBooks
Sexual Impolitics Heresies on sex gender and feminism eBook Neil Lyndon Reviews
A very logical and methodical dismantling of feminazi theory. There is no patriarchy, this oppressive class was invented to enable truly hateful people
Neil Lyndon's Sexual Impolitics, should be on the reading list of every course on gender--that is, on both women and men. The author is a journalist, not an academic. His book is more accessible than many treatises to anyone who can read and think. At any rate, it is both entertaining and blunt. It is free of both dense theorizing, moreover, and political correctness. It is a cri de coeur, a passionate and energetic response to the destructive sexual polarization of our time and therefore an appropriate topic for analysis by those who claim to care about sexual or any other form of justice.
Whether this book actually will appear on academic reading lists is another matter. Lyndon tells readers how his adversaries either attacked his writings or ignored them and how he eventually lost his job for persevering in his attempt to explore the anomalies and contradictions in some feminist literature. He writes, in short, of being silenced (which is something that many feminists consider a problem unique to women). As a male academic who writes about misandry, I know that many of my colleagues--both female and male--will either ignore my books and those of my co-author or prevent them from being published in the first place. Silencing dissenters is not only less messy but also more effective, after all, than attacking them. Our adversaries will do so no matter how thoroughly documented our research and no matter how formal or neutral our style, simply because we do not support the current orthodoxy--by which I mean ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. They will allow no one to challenge any feminist theory except from the perspective of its effect on women or sexual minorities (or, in some cases, on other minorities as well). This is not an argument for abandoning scholarship, however, in favor of journalism. It is an argument for listening just as carefully and compassionately, or at least as prudently, to men as to women.
To the extent that I find anything lacking in this book, it would be a discussion of war as the primary paradigm of masculine identity in Western societies since the late eighteenth century. More specifically, I refer to the advent of "universal" (male) military conscription in Revolutionary France. For the first time, a government linked citizenship with military service. Women did not have to become soldiers, so they did not become full citizens. Because all men did have to become soldiers, at least in theory, this became the fate that all men shared and that all men had to prepare for in one way or another. It was, lamentably, the source of their collective identity as men. Like the sexual revolution, this military revolution was both profound and unprecedented. Earlier regimes sometimes forced ordinary men into service (leaving enough men to produce food for the state and without arms to threaten the state), but they saw no need to justify this form of oppression with any philosophy about a social contract. Rulers had power, and everyone expected them to use it for good or ill (although their ability to enforce measures of this kind was somewhat limited before the rise of modern bureaucracies). But it would be foolish to expect Lyndon or any other author to cover every topic.
Lyndon's greatest insight is that the current state of affairs is not the result of some titanic and historic conspiracy of men against women. Women have indeed faced marginalization in the public realm until very recently, he says, but not because men have hated women and therefore subjugated them. The characteristic functions of women both historically and cross-culturally are due instead, he says, to the obvious fact that only women could gestate and lactate. To survive, therefore every society had to ensure that women could give birth to and care for infants. And this led, at least in our society, to what women now (but did not always) see as confined lives. That changed, radically, with the very recent advent of reliable contraception and legalized abortion. Suddenly, after countless millennia, women were free to reject or put off motherhood. And this meant that they were free also, for the first time in history, to leave the private realm and enter the public one. At first, both sexes enjoyed their new freedom from ancient restrictions. It was not always easy to break away from deeply engrained notions of family life, let alone propriety, but profound social and other cultural changes came nonetheless and with remarkable speed. Far from facing implacable hatred from young men, young women found support from them. After all, young men wanted the responsibilities and burdens of manhood (those of their fathers and earlier male ancestors) no more than young women wanted the responsibilities and burdens of womanhood (those of their mothers and earlier female ancestors). As hippies, for instance, both young men and young women celebrated the new order.
And yet, it all went wrong. The hippies were naïve. After approximately one decade, women were beginning to feel ambivalent about their own freedoms, let alone those of men. Some women found that change was coming too quickly; they wanted their careers but also children and listened with increasing anxiety to the ticking of their "biological clocks." Other women found that change was not coming quickly enough; they blamed men for not being sensitive enough to their needs either in the workplace or the home. Nonetheless, no social revolution in history had ever moved so quickly. Almost overnight, in historical terms, governments (relying on the votes of both women and men) rewrote laws and institutions revised policies with women in mind.
This brings me to a mystery that neither Lyndon nor I can explain fully the emergence of ideologically oriented feminism, with its ultimate focus on the conspiracy theory of history ( also known as the origin of patriarchy) and the resulting implacable hostility toward men. Unlike egalitarian feminists, ideological feminists rejected reform and embraced revolution. And to do that they needed an enemy class. Lyndon points out the parallels between their rhetoric and that of Marxist rhetoric. The new "bourgeoisie" were men, the new "proletarians" women. I agree, but I think that ideological feminists tapped an additional source, albeit unwittingly. I refer to the nationalism or even racism that Romanticism had fostered. The notion of class warfare was not very different from that of race warfare (although, in theory if not always in practice, members of one class could defect to the other). And sexual warfare is very close to racial warfare, because both sex and race are biological categories with innate characteristics. In any case, neither idea was new in the nineteenth century; both emerged from long histories in the West (and not only in the West) of dualism "us" versus "them." Lyndon is correct in noting the obvious fact that ideological feminists have openly promoted contempt for men as an enemy class. As he puts it, many women believe that all men are Idi Amin. (Here in Montreal, many believed, and said, that all men are Marc Lépine, the mass murderer who shot fourteen women before shooting himself in 1989). Lyndon adds that some feminist books or essays would be indistinguishable from Nazi ones by replacing the word "Jews" with "men." And even women who rejected that approach in theory often trivialized, ignored or even condoned it in practice, nonetheless, as a way of "pushing the envelope" for women.
In effect, writes Lyndon, feminism has become a "secular faith." And I agree. My own research in the field of religious studies has focused on that very phenomenon political ideologies that come to function very much (though not quite completely) as religions do. They provide adherents with meaning, purpose, moral principles, myths, rituals, symbols, pilgrimage sites, special days, special writings, communities and, most important of all, collective identity. But I will return to that.
Much of Lyndon's book is about the results of this mentality. It was in this context, for instance, that countless jurisdictions rewrote their legal codes. Doing so made it easier for women to divorce their husbands and take full custody of the children, for unmarried women to sue their partners for alimony, for women to sue men for creating or ignoring workplace environments that women might find offensive, for courts to make allegations of rape easier for women to "prove," for police officers to arrest men--not women--after allegations of domestic violence without requiring any proof and so on.
It was in this context, too, that companies and universities rewrote their policies on contact between the sexes. Codes of sexual etiquette on campus, for instance, now require one partner (usually the man) to gain an explicit and even enthusiastic "yes" not only to sexual overtures but to every step along the way to intercourse. Those who fail to provide a "preponderance" of evidence to defend themselves find themselves behind closed doors with access to neither lawyers nor their accusers. Students now have a right to sue their professors (usually men) for stating facts that make them feel "uncomfortable" in class. And then, there is affirmative action to hire more women than would otherwise be likely (even though, with so many more male students than female students dropping out of school, that premise will soon be very hard to sustain).
And it was in this context that academics reversed their stance on the study of sexual difference. For a brief period, they had opposed any research that might reveal sexual differences. They had assumed that any differences would favor men, not women. Now, though, they began to emphasize any research that might reveal sexual differences. They assumed now that any differences would favor women, of course, not men. At the same time, universities set up departments of women's studies, which promoted the works of both egalitarian and ideological feminists. (Later on, these became departments of "gender studies," even though the focus remained exclusively on promoting the interests of women and sometimes sexual minorities.)
Meanwhile, how many researchers or politicians worry about the fact that so many more men than women are killing themselves or dropping out of either school (to become an economic underclass) or society (a criminal underclass)? For that matter, how many worry about the fact that men in our time do not even live as long as women? How many tax dollars go to pay for research on that?
Now, all of these punitive measures and double standards make sense only on the assumption that men deserve collective punishment and that women deserve collective revenge. If it were true that men embody collective guilt for crimes against women in the past, apparently, then maybe they should expect collective suffering in the present (even if only to "level the playing field" for women). Men are the means to an end, in other words, not ends in themselves. This mentality is definitely not what egalitarian feminists have ever had in mind. Nor does it produce the kind of world that most women have ever wanted for their own sons.
Questions remain. How did we get here? More specifically, why did many women embrace, or at least condone, theories that rely on the explicit or implicit demonization of men? And why have feminists only recently begun to acknowledge this as a feminist problem? I think that the early man-haters obviously had, or believed that they had, something to gain by heaping ridicule, contempt and malice on men. Some of them must have believed that they had nothing much to lose by separating themselves from men or even separating all women from men. Lyndon argues, however, that sexually liberated women suddenly experienced a great horror. They were suddenly terrified of male sexuality, in other words, and therefore associated it with implacable evil. They might well have experienced a great horror, but I suggest that they were terrified mainly of their own newly revealed sexuality and projected that onto men. In any case, most women do not want to sever themselves completely from men. So, why do they condone the ranting of those who do? One obvious answer would be that they do so in the interest of political expediency closing ranks against anyone who challenges a feminist claim no matter how grotesque that claim might be. And what about male feminists? Why do they use ideological versions of feminism to attack other men? They consider themselves honorary women, I suggest, and therefore believe that they are exempt, as repentant sinners, from the charges. They buy self-respect (and presumably respect from women) at the cost of separating themselves from other men.
But I think that one thing is clear. Feminists did not invent radical dualism, which has long been a characteristic feature of some theological ideologies, fundamentalist ones in our time, and has therefore become a characteristic feature of all secular religions--that is, of all political ideologies on both the left and the right. The appeal of religion in an increasingly secular age, its secular equivalents, is hard to ignore. No matter how loathsome and dangerous these religions or secular religions are for outsiders, they clearly serve a need for insiders that modernity per so does not serve. We ignore history, including our own history, especially since the 1930s, at our own peril.
British journalist Neil Lyndon has published a book that for the first time reprints the “original, uncensored, unexpurgated text” of his classic 1992 book No More Sex War The Failures of Feminism. While directed to the UK, the great majority of his analysis and conclusions is also applicable to the US, in some cases with some minor adjustments. The litany of injustices relating to No More Sex War with which the author opens his book may make it hard for some readers to sympathize with him or like him.
This would be a shame because the book is as refreshing and illuminating to read now as it no doubt was more than two full decades ago when it first appeared in its unfortunately modified form.
Lyndon is a more trenchant observer of the gender wars than virtually all other authors to address the overall “battle of the sexes” in broad strokes; so far as this reviewer can recall, the authors’ only possible competitors in this regard are Warren Farrell and Tim Goldich. Lyndon shows that many years on from when the National Organization for Women first got started, we now are frankly confronting an ideological battle for supremacy between feminism and common sense.
The author comes across as simultaneously reasonable and radical, justifying his description of feminism as a “reactionary” force through which “we have all, women and men, been harmed in our personal lives and in our political potentialities…” by quoting chapter and verse of its effects on males and indeed, on all of us.
Lyndon has a great feel for the ease with which, using one hand, we condemn “men” while simultaneously, with the other hand, taking back our claims for supposed exceptions such as our spouses, good friends, fathers and sons. By the beginning of the 1990’s, the author writes, “Men as a generalised whole (not your husband nor hers, bien entendu) had become useless and the unspeakable evil, the object of a light smirk of dismissal and the irredeemably condemned for whom, as I am about to show, no imprecations, no damnings, no luridness of language was excessive.”
The author takes Rosalind Miles to task for demonstrably false claims she made that men’s most common doctor’s visits relate to impotency and that physical violence is a uniquely male phenomenon and accordingly “it is to masculinity itself that we must look for the answer to its origins and for any hope of its remedy.” Why, Lyndon queries, “do feminists of all persuasions and shades of opinion want to insist that men share universal characteristics of behaviour and habits of thought? Why are they so unwilling to acknowledge similarities between men and women and differences between men?”
Lyndon eloquently, passionately contests the common claim of a uniquely female way of working, suggesting instead how remarkably unchanged professions have been by women’s entrance into them en masse over the past few decades. Perhaps even more to the point, men’s suggested sense of entitlement or comfort in the workplace is nothing more than a myth. “Anybody who assumes that men discover and enjoy in institutions a comprehensive sense of belonging which women lack has not been listening to men or must willfully be ignoring realities for the sake of a fictitious account.”
The author makes a very passionate and generally persuasive argument that the single most important event in women’s “emergence into public and commercial life on equal terms with men” was the appearance of the pill and of available, legal abortion. He also points out that feminists largely ignore the critical roles played by these developments. Lyndon also provocatively shows that several government-brokered and important gains by women in the UK in the sixties—doubled university enrollment, greatly expanded access to legal abortion, and divorce reform—occurred without significant opposition and did not result from feminist campaigning.
Only a few nits can be picked with this superlative, even exciting, book. Periodic lapses into obscenity do not strength his case. The repeated misspellings of Naomi Wolf’s and Ashley Montagu’s names do not inspire confidence. I also think Lyndon concedes far too much when he writes, “It is beyond argument or dispute to say that all post-nomadic societies have confined women in one form or another of domestic ghetto, usually without material rewards or rights. Nobody can deny—why should they want to?—that in all Western societies down to the present age, political and economic powers, honours and distinctions, titles, perks and pride of ownership have been the sole property of men.” Finally, the book’s structure is a bit unfortunate, with several essays from subsequent years simply reprinted following—and duplicating some of the material from--No More Sex War. It should however also be said that these essays contain many penetrating insights and much original thinking bringing together ideas from a wide range of disciplines.
On the other hand, this is perhaps the best book regarding gender that manages to contextualize pertinent issues within the larger society and within broader concerns not directly related to sex. So it is that Lyndon interestingly posits that the critical factor is not sex but class. “The evident and incontestable truth… is that very great numbers of women in the West have taken pleasure in commercial competition, in acquisition and in domination… They have flung themselves into those roles and styles with abandon and gratification.” The diminution in recent years of—in Germaine Greer’s words--“social provision for the very young, the very old, the imbecile and the outsider” proves that “it is simply pea-brained cant to say that, if women were running the world, a better and more humane set of priorities would be established and care would be sympathetically provided for all who need it. As far as the administration of the social welfare institutions is concerned, women already have a very big hand in running the world.”
Lyndon also writes trenchantly and with robust common sense in debunking claims than almost half of women have been raped and showing how flirtation and wooing naturally introduce unclear situations not susceptible to post hoc political analysis. In short, “The storm of hysteria which envelops the subject [of rape] may well be taken as an indication of the falsehood with which it has been willfully endued by the sisterhood. They cannot permit a calm discussion of the evidence because the evidence is so plainly contrary to their declared analysis and aims.” Lyndon takes some risks when he goes on to discuss in some detail just how rarely rape in fact occurs, as this clearly flies in the face of feminist mythology, yet as usual his analysis is refreshingly down to earth. The author then goes on to provide an analysis of domestic violence that complements his discussion of rape, concluding that “the issue of domestic violence has been comprehensive blown-up for polemical purposes.” Lyndon crowns his achievement by pointedly comparing what may be fairly called our overreaction to the relatively modest numbers of women and children forced to seek refuge from domestic violence with our almost complete lack of concern with the vastly greater numbers of homeless men. “I count this extraordinary discrepancy in sympathy and ineptitude in political practice among the cardinal failures of feminism and of the style of politics feminism has promoted.”
The author evidences an admirable breadth of vision and a truly moving compassion for all of humanity. A hearty round of applause for this unique and highly meritorious masterwork. Don’t miss it, especially given a tiny price that suggests that it may be the greatest value in the history of pro-male gender equity literature!
0 Response to "⋙ PDF Sexual Impolitics Heresies on sex gender and feminism eBook Neil Lyndon"
Post a Comment