It is these same people, it seems who presume that the book is anti-male, male-bashing, not researched, only examines a few men, and doesn't talk to divorced men. In response to those criticisms...
Anyone who has read the book in full (even in part), can see that Faludi clearly wants to empathize with men, and is moved by many. Indeed, she mentions that her hypotheses changed as her research progressed.
There may be approximately 10-15 "stars" but for each of those "stars," Faludi details the experiences of 10-15 additional men. She never claimed to be conducting a quantitative study, but a qualitative one in nature, and thus having a large sample size is really not the point.
She *absolutely* details the experiences of divorced men. That a reviewer would say that, and that others would quote her, is completely irresponsible. As only one example, several of the Promise Keepers she interviewed were in the process of a divorce.
Lastly, Faludi is not a left wing zealot. Indeed, she has done more than nearly every woman in this country to bring moderate, rational feminism to the mainstream. The hypocrisy of lambasting Faludi for being an "idealogue" while in the same breath telling her "to shut up--so she can see what real masculinity is" or calling her a "alpha she-wolf" is so blatant, it's laughable. To call Faludi an idealogue while suggesting Gertrude Himmelfarb instead (a right-wing matriarch), is similarly ridiculous.
Feel free to discuss her theses--but keep unfounded and disgusting personal attacks off the board. And if you haven't read the book--stay off the board altogether!
"Stiffed" is very well written, and each section can be read independently. Faludi does a good job of bringing each narrative back to the central theme of how society has failed men.
But like "Reviving Ophelia," careful readers will note that every person who is portrayed as a helpless victim of society or the media just happens to come from a family dominated by abuse, abandonment, alcoholism, or death. And that their adult lives mirror these problems as if they are trying to recreate these family relationships through their marriage or jobs. Coincidence ? Or is it really the media's fault ? In fact, parts of "Stiffed" seem to actively rebuke the role of society. Most people aren't fighting "society" or the media, their struggles are with dysfunctional "families" at work and inappropriate personal relationships.
Faludi looks at both issues, and the book is most convincing when it uses the theme of family tragedy to tie together the narrative threads. The role of society seems trivial in comparison, although "Stiffed" does explain the anger of men that feel society has somehow betrayed them for not repairing them. A woman reading "Stiffed" in that frame of mind might actually get some insights about men.
Faludi seems to be on the right track in that she at least touches on family histories, which are often a taboo in this field. I'd like to see her do another book about women comparing the relative importance of society/media with the effects of abuse, abandonment, alcoholism, and death. Which one really causes women (and men) to marry jerks ? "Stiffed" just doesn't go far enough.
But that's a marketing dilemma, after all. Looking at family history is old hat, going back over a century. A post-modern expose' of societal hypocracy and conspiracy used to seem so hip and so much more comforting, but in our post-post-post-modern era, maybe Faludi will really bring it back home next time.
