What do you think?
Rate this book
The Manipulated Man
Argues that a man is a human being who works, while a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex. This book maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change.
156 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
325 people are currently reading
3599 people want to read
About the author
Esther Vilar
22 books166 followersEsther Vilar, born Esther Margareta Katzen is a German-Argentinian writer. She trained and practised as a medical doctor before establishing herself as an author. She is best known for her 1971 book The Manipulated Man and its various follow-ups, which argue that, contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews
September 23, 2024
I could not believe a woman wrote this HONEST account on her own gender and how women manipulate secretly men into believing their masculinity; though the process of growing a man starts from baby years.
there are 2 types of humans: who work and dont' work.
Truth from this book:
a man is a useful machine designed to make woman's life comfortable.
masculinity and honor are defined to motivate and make men proud of these things.
almost all men's feeling of worth/value comes from woman's praise! it is ASSUMED that only women can give praises to men.
women are perfect consumers, very easy to convince them to buy things
house cleaning is easy compared to men job.
overall, she pointed to obvious things in our society.
there are 2 types of humans: who work and dont' work.
Truth from this book:
a man is a useful machine designed to make woman's life comfortable.
masculinity and honor are defined to motivate and make men proud of these things.
almost all men's feeling of worth/value comes from woman's praise! it is ASSUMED that only women can give praises to men.
women are perfect consumers, very easy to convince them to buy things
house cleaning is easy compared to men job.
overall, she pointed to obvious things in our society.
September 23, 2024
Mind-blowing in its courage and audacity, corrosive in its vitriol against feminine wiles and subterfuge. It would be more eye-opening (and horrifying) if ALL (American) women were as Vilar claims, but luckily I have found several women that defy her stereotype. Moreover, Vilar doesn't suggest any solutions to this gender war, she just gloomily insists men are happy to be lambs to the slaughter. It reads very quickly and it's hard to prove Vilar wrong. One gets the feeling that only a woman could have written this, and probably paid a high social price for doing so.
September 23, 2024
Originally published in 1971, during the height of the Women’s Movement, this book was actually quite popular and controversial in its day. Vilar appeared on TV programs like the Tonight Show and drew the ire of feminists like Alice Schwarzer. Over time, like so many books popular in their own age, the notoriety has dwindled. But the book seems to have developed a small following within the men’s movement and the darker recesses of what is often called the “manosphere.”
In the intro written 35 years after its first publication, Vilar calls the book “a pamphlet,” which I find an accurate description for a thin polemic that often verges on extended rant. To her credit, Vilar is a clear, articulate writer, good at conveying her points and only a chore to read when she hammers at them too much. The basic gist of her thesis is that women are parasites, manipulating men into doing the work for them, so they can live free of worry in domestic wastefulness.
While this idea will immediately make most feminists (like myself) gag, quite a bit of what Vilar presents meshes with most feminism, and Vilar has identified herself as a feminist. She takes a basically constructionist, non-essentialist view that women are not born with this attitude but are taught. The general notion that the traditions of paternalism and chivalry are in fact negative and destructive to adult relationships is also in keeping with general feminist views.
Where she diverges from most feminism and probably why she drew so much criticism is where she places the primary blame. It is not men who force this system onto women, but women who use what ostensibly seems a subordinate position to subjugate men. Topping from the bottom, so to speak. Men are, after all, the ones who do the work, the ones who are expected to provide, to take the risks, to bear the hardest physical burdens. They are also the ones who are driven to learn, to think, and to create, while women are stupid, lacking creatity, and furthermore emotionless, since they don’t care about how men have to suffer for them.
It’s not that Vilar doesn’t have a point here, but she contradicts herself. On the one hand, women are stupid and uncreative, yet they expertly manipulate men through a covert matriarchy, while men believe they are really in control. It might be that much of this manipulation is unconscious, but to do it well requires some brainpower. And though she seems quite convinced that men have accomplished a lot more, she also dismisses them for needing to subjugate themselves to a god or a woman (Daddy and Mommy). She denies that men have ever been encouraged to be free, which doesn’t explain the abundance of myths where men get to go on journeys and adventures...while women get to stay behind.
Her argument often hinges on broad generalizations that are, unsurprisingly, questionable. For instance, how can she make statements like “women don’t find men handsome,” when teenage girls have been obsessing over cute boy singers and women pine after *handsome* movie stars? I can appreciate that we’re not, as a society, comfortable presenting male beauty in the same fashion as female beauty and that a lot of emphasis is placed on what men do for women, not simply how hawt they look. But come on. Maybe they didn't have really steamy covers on romance novels at the time?
I could go on, but you get the picture.
This little “pamphlet” served as an interesting respite from reading Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex,” a book that is much deeper and richer than any Vilar can conjure up. But Vilar has no problem blithely dismissing that text as merely copying the ideas of men, focusing on what they wrote of women, rather than women themselves. Now, I don’t doubt the possibility she had actually wread the book prior to writing “The Manipulated Men,” she seems to be missing the point. Part of why Beauvoir was doing was analyzing how women has been cast as the Other. By men, mostly. But Beauvoir does, in fact, cite a few female writers. And it's certainly not as if male philosophers don't typically draw on the ideas of other male philosophers in order to build on them.
Vilar dismisses educated women everywhere as trained parrots, mimicking what the men have done while creating nothing of their of their own. Considering that, as she says, men are responsible for the culture and everything, what else is one supposed to do? What other legacy have I, as a woman, got to draw from? Oddly, this criticism puts her in close company with radical feminists of a separatist bent, who she also criticizes for dithering over details.
She ends on a pessimistic note, not believing men or women will have the guts to free themselves of this system, a system I am not sure works precisely as she imagines it. What is bizarrely absent is any discussion of violence, coercion, and abuse, issues that have always been a touchstone of feminism. She does not even, like many MRAs nowadays, divert the issue to abuse (sexual and otherwise) against men. On either end, it is unfortunate that she avoids it and weakens her overall argument.
But then, this is a light “pamphlet,” one I’ve devoted far too many words to already. Mostly I wanted to pick something apart in more depth than most fans or detractors have bothered to do. I’m giving this 1 star, as it’s not really all that original and despite being decently written, features too many troublesome arguments. I just didn't like it. It’s not a horrible book, but one wishes it were merely satire. At least then I could laugh a bit more at the ridiculous things being said.
In the intro written 35 years after its first publication, Vilar calls the book “a pamphlet,” which I find an accurate description for a thin polemic that often verges on extended rant. To her credit, Vilar is a clear, articulate writer, good at conveying her points and only a chore to read when she hammers at them too much. The basic gist of her thesis is that women are parasites, manipulating men into doing the work for them, so they can live free of worry in domestic wastefulness.
While this idea will immediately make most feminists (like myself) gag, quite a bit of what Vilar presents meshes with most feminism, and Vilar has identified herself as a feminist. She takes a basically constructionist, non-essentialist view that women are not born with this attitude but are taught. The general notion that the traditions of paternalism and chivalry are in fact negative and destructive to adult relationships is also in keeping with general feminist views.
Where she diverges from most feminism and probably why she drew so much criticism is where she places the primary blame. It is not men who force this system onto women, but women who use what ostensibly seems a subordinate position to subjugate men. Topping from the bottom, so to speak. Men are, after all, the ones who do the work, the ones who are expected to provide, to take the risks, to bear the hardest physical burdens. They are also the ones who are driven to learn, to think, and to create, while women are stupid, lacking creatity, and furthermore emotionless, since they don’t care about how men have to suffer for them.
It’s not that Vilar doesn’t have a point here, but she contradicts herself. On the one hand, women are stupid and uncreative, yet they expertly manipulate men through a covert matriarchy, while men believe they are really in control. It might be that much of this manipulation is unconscious, but to do it well requires some brainpower. And though she seems quite convinced that men have accomplished a lot more, she also dismisses them for needing to subjugate themselves to a god or a woman (Daddy and Mommy). She denies that men have ever been encouraged to be free, which doesn’t explain the abundance of myths where men get to go on journeys and adventures...while women get to stay behind.
Her argument often hinges on broad generalizations that are, unsurprisingly, questionable. For instance, how can she make statements like “women don’t find men handsome,” when teenage girls have been obsessing over cute boy singers and women pine after *handsome* movie stars? I can appreciate that we’re not, as a society, comfortable presenting male beauty in the same fashion as female beauty and that a lot of emphasis is placed on what men do for women, not simply how hawt they look. But come on. Maybe they didn't have really steamy covers on romance novels at the time?
I could go on, but you get the picture.
This little “pamphlet” served as an interesting respite from reading Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex,” a book that is much deeper and richer than any Vilar can conjure up. But Vilar has no problem blithely dismissing that text as merely copying the ideas of men, focusing on what they wrote of women, rather than women themselves. Now, I don’t doubt the possibility she had actually wread the book prior to writing “The Manipulated Men,” she seems to be missing the point. Part of why Beauvoir was doing was analyzing how women has been cast as the Other. By men, mostly. But Beauvoir does, in fact, cite a few female writers. And it's certainly not as if male philosophers don't typically draw on the ideas of other male philosophers in order to build on them.
Vilar dismisses educated women everywhere as trained parrots, mimicking what the men have done while creating nothing of their of their own. Considering that, as she says, men are responsible for the culture and everything, what else is one supposed to do? What other legacy have I, as a woman, got to draw from? Oddly, this criticism puts her in close company with radical feminists of a separatist bent, who she also criticizes for dithering over details.
She ends on a pessimistic note, not believing men or women will have the guts to free themselves of this system, a system I am not sure works precisely as she imagines it. What is bizarrely absent is any discussion of violence, coercion, and abuse, issues that have always been a touchstone of feminism. She does not even, like many MRAs nowadays, divert the issue to abuse (sexual and otherwise) against men. On either end, it is unfortunate that she avoids it and weakens her overall argument.
But then, this is a light “pamphlet,” one I’ve devoted far too many words to already. Mostly I wanted to pick something apart in more depth than most fans or detractors have bothered to do. I’m giving this 1 star, as it’s not really all that original and despite being decently written, features too many troublesome arguments. I just didn't like it. It’s not a horrible book, but one wishes it were merely satire. At least then I could laugh a bit more at the ridiculous things being said.
September 23, 2024
way ahead of its time
live look at most women (and beta males) reading this:
live look at most women (and beta males) reading this:
September 23, 2024
Wow, just wow and more wow! What a book. Nothing less than a nuclear detonation. One of the few books that yanks you out of your slumber and makes you stand in the bright daylight, facing the human world as it really is. I have had heard a few of the points made in the book, from here and there, from written material and from talks with other men, and also from my own experience but after a while those thoughts would go to bed, forgotten. But then I came across this feminism and feminists online and right from the beginning that smelled fishy. But still I could not make something coherent out of it. But then Esther Vilar happened to me and what a wake up call. She tied everything together. Now everything makes sense, my mother's total selfishness, my wife'e endeavors at controlling everything and my daughter's behavior. Now its quiet clear, thanks to Manipulated Man.
Bur this book is not complete, she has laid the foundation of her theory of woman very well but offers no solutions, no advice; leaves one with realization of a problem but no ideas for possible solutions. I wish she had done that. Anyhow this book is an antidote to feminism, the mystique of feminine charm and for bursting that bubble I am humbly thankful to Esther Vilar.
Bur this book is not complete, she has laid the foundation of her theory of woman very well but offers no solutions, no advice; leaves one with realization of a problem but no ideas for possible solutions. I wish she had done that. Anyhow this book is an antidote to feminism, the mystique of feminine charm and for bursting that bubble I am humbly thankful to Esther Vilar.
September 23, 2024
An eye opening book about the way men are trained and exploited by women. I learned a great deal.
August 29, 2024
Oh my god. I'm ... speechless.
There's a scintilla of truth in here, sure, but Jesus Christ. When tons of people are pissed off at you, like they were at Ms. Vilar, it may be because you've had the nerve to "tell it like it is" - or it may just be because you've written a terrible book that is incredibly derisive, arrogant, ignorant, dismissive, poorly-thought-out, myopic, logically unsound, offensive, hateful, and straight-up ridiculous. Although, guess I should've known better than to read a book by a WOMAN, lol, amirite guys? I mean, women, "with nothing else to offer but a vagina... nothing more than conglomerates of matter, lumps of stuffed human skin pretending to be thinking human beings." Obviously one of those couldn't write a book. And that's definitely a fair and level-headed estimation of every member of the female sex, forever and ever. Joan of Arc? Marie Curie? Hypatia of Alexandria? Emmy Noether? Joan Didion? Flannery O'Connor? Malala Yousef? Pema Chodron? No, I can't think of a single case where her brilliant (and oh so daring!) analysis doesn't hit the nail on the head.
My biggest problem with this book is that there was something it might have contributed in a constructive way but instead it's destructive - reckless, unreasonable, and disrespectful. The world would be a much better place if no one listened to someone once they crossed that kind of line. There's way too much irresponsible, cheap, too-easy vitriol that gets spewed on every side of an issue in this world. It matters, and it's a shame, and this book is guilty of it in a big way. I see it suggested that this book was (somehow, partially?) meant as satire but that doesn't come across to me at all, and more to the point, that's not how it is taken now. If that happens, you did not succeed at satire. I emphatically agree that men suffer, too, that being a male can be really hard, that there are women who manipulate men, and so on. But this is not the answer. If someone tells you your unhappiness is all because of some particular group of people, you should be very suspicious.
There's a scintilla of truth in here, sure, but Jesus Christ. When tons of people are pissed off at you, like they were at Ms. Vilar, it may be because you've had the nerve to "tell it like it is" - or it may just be because you've written a terrible book that is incredibly derisive, arrogant, ignorant, dismissive, poorly-thought-out, myopic, logically unsound, offensive, hateful, and straight-up ridiculous. Although, guess I should've known better than to read a book by a WOMAN, lol, amirite guys? I mean, women, "with nothing else to offer but a vagina... nothing more than conglomerates of matter, lumps of stuffed human skin pretending to be thinking human beings." Obviously one of those couldn't write a book. And that's definitely a fair and level-headed estimation of every member of the female sex, forever and ever. Joan of Arc? Marie Curie? Hypatia of Alexandria? Emmy Noether? Joan Didion? Flannery O'Connor? Malala Yousef? Pema Chodron? No, I can't think of a single case where her brilliant (and oh so daring!) analysis doesn't hit the nail on the head.
My biggest problem with this book is that there was something it might have contributed in a constructive way but instead it's destructive - reckless, unreasonable, and disrespectful. The world would be a much better place if no one listened to someone once they crossed that kind of line. There's way too much irresponsible, cheap, too-easy vitriol that gets spewed on every side of an issue in this world. It matters, and it's a shame, and this book is guilty of it in a big way. I see it suggested that this book was (somehow, partially?) meant as satire but that doesn't come across to me at all, and more to the point, that's not how it is taken now. If that happens, you did not succeed at satire. I emphatically agree that men suffer, too, that being a male can be really hard, that there are women who manipulate men, and so on. But this is not the answer. If someone tells you your unhappiness is all because of some particular group of people, you should be very suspicious.
September 23, 2024
Pseudo-psychology that is more outdated than "Leave it to Beaver".
The whole "manipulated man" premise is based on this 1950s gender structure that is unheard of today in the modern world (when men were men, and women were women??) The idea that women's greatest goal is to be totally hot and attractive in order to "bait" and get with the wealthiest men is preposterous in modern western culture. According to the book, these hot beautiful women want to get with men that are the most well mannered, wealthy, and intelligent in order to manipulate them to their advantage and make them their slaves!? Really? Where are these hot women? I want to be enslaved!!!! Fuck freedom! I am willing to be the "manipulated man"!!!!
Today, women are totally self sufficient and can do without men in every aspect. Men are obsolete in everything, especially as "bread winners", so the hypothesis behind this whole book is totally impotent (pardon the pun). After reading this book it makes me nostalgic for a time when women were actually like this! They really stayed in the kitchen barefooted and pregnant and wore lipstick, dresses, and high heels?!? I thought it was only in black and white movies! I thought it only existed in my dreams!!! I want this book to be true!
I am totally willing to be manipulated for that...
All the women I know today are more masculine than me, make more money than me, have more tattoos than me, drink more than me, swear more than me, and are more intelligent...than me... shit...
There are so many parts in this book that when I read it, I thought the opposite is far more true today in modern society.
In addition, Mrs. Vilar loves men and is borderline obsessed with them (awesome) and hates women and thinks them an inferior species (double awesome)...There's like 5 pages where it seems like the author is masturbating to men's muscles, facial hair, and their ability to invent a multitude of things with their superior man brains...
It got weird...
An updated version of this book would be interesting, considering the total change in gender roles in the modern world. Maybe the book would be called the "Manipulated woman"???? No?...how about "No Ma'am!".... whatever... you come up with a better hypothetical modern title of the book then...dick...
There are some interesting tidbits here and there (women are callous, they know no pity, cold, calculated and emotionless... who knew!!), good humor ( woman code language and the decoder was pretty funny). In addition, it has been awhile since I have read a self-proclaimed expert in gender studies (with Freud undertones) that is totally delusional and has no idea what she is talking about except ramblings of her own pompous opinion and experiences illustrating the best solipsism only comparable to this shitty review!!!
However, the book is a lite, interesting, an easy read, and somewhat entertaining.
She states women are lazy, dumb, and intellectually inferior to men, considering the book is written by a woman, the book is inferior to my superior man brain....3 stars!!!
No Ma'am!
Quiet woman... Man quotes:
"It is only men with reduced sexual potency who can afford to make do with sporadic affairs and live the life of a hippie year after year without feeling the need of a regular reward".
"Man's sexual potency depends on psychological factors more than any other of his bodily functions. Once he has begun to doubt his potency, he gradually finds himself in more and more difficulty. His fears of becoming useless to a woman increase because, as a result of women's manipulation, he identifies his masculinity with his dependence on them."
"A woman will certainly feel happy when she has an orgasm- but it is not the most intense pleasure she knows. A cocktail party, or buying a new pair of aubergine-colored patent-leather boots, rates far higher"...HAHAHA
"Women, however, can lie with a clear conscience. They are not involved in the process of work, so their lies will harm only one person- usually the husband."
"One of the basic principles of biology is that intelligence develops only in the face of competitive stimulation."
"Most adult men live in a state of permanent hell". HAHA
"Women are never cruel to their men; men are usually not important enough to be tortured"
The whole "manipulated man" premise is based on this 1950s gender structure that is unheard of today in the modern world (when men were men, and women were women??) The idea that women's greatest goal is to be totally hot and attractive in order to "bait" and get with the wealthiest men is preposterous in modern western culture. According to the book, these hot beautiful women want to get with men that are the most well mannered, wealthy, and intelligent in order to manipulate them to their advantage and make them their slaves!? Really? Where are these hot women? I want to be enslaved!!!! Fuck freedom! I am willing to be the "manipulated man"!!!!
Today, women are totally self sufficient and can do without men in every aspect. Men are obsolete in everything, especially as "bread winners", so the hypothesis behind this whole book is totally impotent (pardon the pun). After reading this book it makes me nostalgic for a time when women were actually like this! They really stayed in the kitchen barefooted and pregnant and wore lipstick, dresses, and high heels?!? I thought it was only in black and white movies! I thought it only existed in my dreams!!! I want this book to be true!
I am totally willing to be manipulated for that...
All the women I know today are more masculine than me, make more money than me, have more tattoos than me, drink more than me, swear more than me, and are more intelligent...than me... shit...
There are so many parts in this book that when I read it, I thought the opposite is far more true today in modern society.
In addition, Mrs. Vilar loves men and is borderline obsessed with them (awesome) and hates women and thinks them an inferior species (double awesome)...There's like 5 pages where it seems like the author is masturbating to men's muscles, facial hair, and their ability to invent a multitude of things with their superior man brains...
It got weird...
An updated version of this book would be interesting, considering the total change in gender roles in the modern world. Maybe the book would be called the "Manipulated woman"???? No?...how about "No Ma'am!".... whatever... you come up with a better hypothetical modern title of the book then...dick...
There are some interesting tidbits here and there (women are callous, they know no pity, cold, calculated and emotionless... who knew!!), good humor ( woman code language and the decoder was pretty funny). In addition, it has been awhile since I have read a self-proclaimed expert in gender studies (with Freud undertones) that is totally delusional and has no idea what she is talking about except ramblings of her own pompous opinion and experiences illustrating the best solipsism only comparable to this shitty review!!!
However, the book is a lite, interesting, an easy read, and somewhat entertaining.
She states women are lazy, dumb, and intellectually inferior to men, considering the book is written by a woman, the book is inferior to my superior man brain....3 stars!!!
No Ma'am!
Quiet woman... Man quotes:
"It is only men with reduced sexual potency who can afford to make do with sporadic affairs and live the life of a hippie year after year without feeling the need of a regular reward".
"Man's sexual potency depends on psychological factors more than any other of his bodily functions. Once he has begun to doubt his potency, he gradually finds himself in more and more difficulty. His fears of becoming useless to a woman increase because, as a result of women's manipulation, he identifies his masculinity with his dependence on them."
"A woman will certainly feel happy when she has an orgasm- but it is not the most intense pleasure she knows. A cocktail party, or buying a new pair of aubergine-colored patent-leather boots, rates far higher"...HAHAHA
"Women, however, can lie with a clear conscience. They are not involved in the process of work, so their lies will harm only one person- usually the husband."
"One of the basic principles of biology is that intelligence develops only in the face of competitive stimulation."
"Most adult men live in a state of permanent hell". HAHA
"Women are never cruel to their men; men are usually not important enough to be tortured"
September 23, 2024
I wouldn't call it total garbage because she writes gracefully and makes the occasional valid point. But this isn't even remotely amusing enough to pass for satirical insight. It's basically just an exercise in shocking misogyny and I couldn't decide if I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume she was trying to be ironic or if she was just massively self-loathing. It all got too tedious to matter either way.
September 23, 2024
عرفت هذا الكتاب من أحد الصفحات الأنثوية العاملة ضد النسوية التي أتابعها، خصوصاً أن صاحبة الصفحة هي من قامت بالمراجعة والتقديم، وتم تذييل التقديم بأن هدفهم من ترجمة الكتاب ليس إقرار محتواه ولا تبنّي حلوله -الكاتبة ترى أن الحل حتى تعرف المرأة قيمة الرجل وتكف عن اضطهاده أن تنزل وتعمل معه بنفس العمل الشاقّ بنفس الظروف وبنفس الساعات-، بل الهدف من الترجمة هو مزاحمة الترجمات اليسارية التحرّرية النازلة على العقل العربي و التي قدمت الجانب المتعلق بالمرأة باعتبارها ضحية دائمة، كما أن هدف الترجمة تحطيم عقدة الاضطهاد الأنثوي من قِبل الجنس الآخر، الجنس المعيل والداعم والحامي الأول لها، ذلك الرجل النبيل الذي أقام الصروح و شيَّد النظم وأرسل بالخبر..
الرجال خارجاً لنحت المادة.. والنساء داخلاً لصناعة الإنسان.. وما دام أصل الاختلاف طبيعيَّاً فلن تكون المساواة يوماً..
..
شخصياً أرى فكرة المؤامرة سطحية للغاية، لذلك أصلاً النسوية سطحية ومجرد انفعال هرموني، لذلك لم أقتنع بفكرة الكاتبة التي تدور حول أن الأدوار الذكورية والأنثوية هي مؤامرة أنثوية منذ فجر التاريخ، وأن أغلب النساء كاذبات وعاهرات -كما تزعم الكاتبة-، وتزعم أيضاً أن مظاهر بذل الرجل لأسرته أو لإمرأته هي مؤامرة أنثوية، هذا غير صحيح لأن هذه فطرة البشر.. موسى عليه السلام ساعد الفتاتين لكيلا يختلطا بالرجال هل هذه مؤامرة منهما لكي يجعلانه يخدمهما؟ومن ثم يتزوج إحداهما؟ هذا تسطيح كبير، وإن كان غير مُستغرَب أن يرد هذا التفكير من قوم تركوا الدين والفطرة منذ وقتٍ طويل وشغلوا أنفسهم بالتفكير الندّي ، فصارت البدهيات عندهم محل إشكال، هذا لا يعني عدم وجود إناث وقحات لا يشكرن الرجل ولا يعرفن حقه وقدره -خصوصاً الزوج- وهؤلاء الإناث عقابهن الأمثل أن يحرمهن الرجل من إحسانه، ومن الصعب أن نعمّم النظرة الحالية لكثير من النساء المعاصرات على جميع النساء، الصحيح أنهن هن الشاذات بينما النَسَق الأنثوي خلال العصور كان يغلب عليه معرفة المرأة -بالذات المؤمنة- حق ربها و زوجها، وهذه مشكلة بعض الأطروحات الجندرية المعاصرة أنهم يصرّون على قراءة التاريخ بعيّنة أفراد العصر الحالي.
ذكرت المؤلفة أن المرأة معتمدة دائماً على الرجل فيما لا ولن تحسنه كعطل السيارات، وعدّت ذلك استغلالاً، وهذا أمر عجيب، فكيف يستغل الضعيف من هو أقوى منه؟ -أتكلم عن الأصل لا أتكلم عمّن تستعرض أو تستخدم الوسائل الاستعراضية المحرمة لنيل خدمات الرجال-.
طبعاً يوجد بعض الأمور التي ذكرتها أراها واقعية، مثلاً قولها أن الرجل الذي يُصبح غير قادراً على الكسب يُعتبر فاشلاً وسيخسر كل شيء كالزوجة والعائلة والمنزل، من ناحية واقعية أحياناً ومن ناحية لا دينية ومن ناحية براغماتية بحتة هذا صحيح.. لكن من ناحية القيم الدينية هذا يُعتبر حصر للإنسان في قيمته الرأسمالية، والغاية من هذه الحياة أكبر من ذلك، نعم صحيح لو نتناول الفقه الإسلامي فهو أجاز لزوجة المُعسِر طلب فسخ النكاح، لكن هل كون الشيء غير محرّم معناته أنه مرغوب؟ وأليس بقاء الأسرة ملتمّة أهم من المال الذي قد يأتي ويذهب في أي لحظة؟ أنا أتفهم عدم وجود هذه القِيَم عند الكاتبة فهي من مجتمع أوروبي رأسمالي علماني، يمجّد القوة والتنافس، بينما في تاريخنا الإسلامي كان الكثير من الأزواج والزوجات يمرّون بضوائق مالية ويصبرون على ذلك إيماناً بأن كل قضاء الله خير، فالنبي وأزواجه والصحابة وزوجاتهم كلهم مرّوا بفقر واضطهاد اقتصادي فهل نعتبرهم فَشَلة؟ وهل وجدنا نسائهن صابرات أم براغميات!؟ حاشا لله.. بل إن النظرة الإسلامية تقول :( إنما تُنصرَون بضُعفائكم)، هذا ليس له وجود في التفكير المادي المعاصر.
في نقطة العقل بين الرجل والمرأة، تذكر المؤلفة وجود اختلاف بين الجنسين في القدرات العقلية وهذا شيء أتفق معه وجاء به النص النبوي وكذلك جاءت به عدة مصادر علمية (ورد كثيرٌ منها في كتاب: المخ ذكر أم أنثى، والذي تناول الفروق المادية التي اكتشفها الطب حول أدمغة الجنسين)، حتى على مجال الإنتاج الفكري تزعم النسويات أن المرأة أُبعِدت إبعاداً عنه، وليتَ شعري إذا كانت المرأة قوية وقادرة ومساوية للرجل كما يزعمون فكيف استطاع جميع رجال العالم بجميع القرون بجميع المناطق الجغرافية المتباعدة إبعاد جميع النساء من مختلف الأعمار والأديان والمشارب!؟ بل هذا إن سلَّمنا به -جدلاً- فهو دليلٌ على ضعفنا الفطريّ كنساء، عموماً اكتساح الرجال لمجال الإنتاج الفكري والعلمي ظاهرة قديمة ومستمرة حتى بعد سياسات المساواة في الدول المساواتيِّة، لذلك العلّة ليست في إقصاء المرأة وخلاف ذلك من الأوهام، بل العلّة في أنه -غالباً- المرأة بفطرتها لا تميل للكدح والتصدّر في هذه المجالات العلمية، ومجال اختلاف الخيارات الأكاديمية بين الجنسين مجال وردت فيه دراسات كثيرة ، أذكر منها دراسة قرأتها تتكلم ميل الرجال لدخول التخصصات العلمية مقابل الإناث للبعد عن التخصصات العلمية العقلية البحتة وهي تخصصات الرياضيات والهندسة والتقنية والعلوم: https://www.aauw.org/resources/resear...
أيضاً إحدى الدراسات كشفت أن تطبيق سياسات المساواة نمَّى من التفاوت الأكاديمي بين الجنسين، ولم يجعل النساء يخترن اختيارات الرجال في الحقول العلمية المعقّدة كما يزعم الطرح النسوي الذي لا يزال يردّد أن طرح الفرص للإناث سيجعلها تختار وتنجز كالرجال بالضبط!:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...
تحدثت الكاتبة عن نقطة كانت جديدة وهي غائبة عن السرد التاريخي المعاصر، وهي وجود جماعات من النساء رفضن حقوق المرأة بالتعريف المعاصر، بل و ناهضنَ لعدم حصول المرأة على حق التصويت الإنتخابي، ربما هذا الأمر لا يتم طرحه في الخطابات النسوية المركزّة جداً على السردية المظلومية لأنه سينقل حربها من العدو الوحيد وهو الرجل إلى حرب في خندقها هي التي تزعم بأن "النساء للنساء" وكذلك سيهدم سرديّة اضطهاد المرأة لمجرد أنها إمرأة..إلخ
في هذه الروابط نبذة عن تلك التجمّعات النسائية المعادية للنسوية:
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%...
https://www.bbc.com/arabic/42964734
https://www.alarabiya.net/last-page/2...
طبعاً يتكرر نَفَسْ المؤامرة في الكتاب، على سبيل المثال ترى المؤلفة أن المرأة التي تنجب وتربي هذا الطفل هي من تدربه لهدف العمل ومن ثَمَّ وضع ثمار عمله تحت تصرف المرأة، وتزعم أن الأم تقول بهذا طوال تنشئة طفلها وتخلق فيه سلسلة من ردود الفعل المكيّفة التي تجعله يفعل كل شيء لتلبية احتياجاتها المادية..
طبعاً هذا الكلام عوضاً عن أنه هوس مؤامراتي فكلنا نعلم السيمفونية المعتادة بالغيرة والعِداء بين الكنّة والحماة، فكيف يستقيم هذا ما مع تزعمه الكاتبة؟
هذا غير أن تنشئة الذكر على الكسب والسعي ليست مؤامرة جندرية بل هذه فطرة البشر!
في تفسير آية : "فَقُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ إِنَّ هَٰذَا عَدُوٌّ لَّكَ وَلِزَوْجِكَ فَلَا يُخْرِجَنَّكُمَا مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ فَتَشْقَىٰ" ذكر العلماء أن سبب نِسبة الشقاء لآدم وحده أن الرجل هو من له المجال العام والسعي في الأرض لا المرأة المأمورة بالمجال الخاص وهو البيت، فورد في التفسير: عن سعيد بن جبير : قال: ولم يقل : " فتشقيا " رجوعاً به إلى آدم ، لأن تعبه أكثر فإن الرجل هو الساعي على زوجته.
وقد قالت العرب: " أصون عرضي بمالي لا أدنسهُ .. لا بارك الله بعد العرض في المال".
..
نجمة لكسر التابو ولأنه عكس التيار النسوي، لكنه لا ينطبق على ديننا ولا على قناعاتنا كمسلمين وشرقيين، ومليء بالهوس المؤامراتي المشابه للهوس المؤامراتي النّسوي.. دون أي دليل..
الرجال خارجاً لنحت المادة.. والنساء داخلاً لصناعة الإنسان.. وما دام أصل الاختلاف طبيعيَّاً فلن تكون المساواة يوماً..
..
شخصياً أرى فكرة المؤامرة سطحية للغاية، لذلك أصلاً النسوية سطحية ومجرد انفعال هرموني، لذلك لم أقتنع بفكرة الكاتبة التي تدور حول أن الأدوار الذكورية والأنثوية هي مؤامرة أنثوية منذ فجر التاريخ، وأن أغلب النساء كاذبات وعاهرات -كما تزعم الكاتبة-، وتزعم أيضاً أن مظاهر بذل الرجل لأسرته أو لإمرأته هي مؤامرة أنثوية، هذا غير صحيح لأن هذه فطرة البشر.. موسى عليه السلام ساعد الفتاتين لكيلا يختلطا بالرجال هل هذه مؤامرة منهما لكي يجعلانه يخدمهما؟ومن ثم يتزوج إحداهما؟ هذا تسطيح كبير، وإن كان غير مُستغرَب أن يرد هذا التفكير من قوم تركوا الدين والفطرة منذ وقتٍ طويل وشغلوا أنفسهم بالتفكير الندّي ، فصارت البدهيات عندهم محل إشكال، هذا لا يعني عدم وجود إناث وقحات لا يشكرن الرجل ولا يعرفن حقه وقدره -خصوصاً الزوج- وهؤلاء الإناث عقابهن الأمثل أن يحرمهن الرجل من إحسانه، ومن الصعب أن نعمّم النظرة الحالية لكثير من النساء المعاصرات على جميع النساء، الصحيح أنهن هن الشاذات بينما النَسَق الأنثوي خلال العصور كان يغلب عليه معرفة المرأة -بالذات المؤمنة- حق ربها و زوجها، وهذه مشكلة بعض الأطروحات الجندرية المعاصرة أنهم يصرّون على قراءة التاريخ بعيّنة أفراد العصر الحالي.
ذكرت المؤلفة أن المرأة معتمدة دائماً على الرجل فيما لا ولن تحسنه كعطل السيارات، وعدّت ذلك استغلالاً، وهذا أمر عجيب، فكيف يستغل الضعيف من هو أقوى منه؟ -أتكلم عن الأصل لا أتكلم عمّن تستعرض أو تستخدم الوسائل الاستعراضية المحرمة لنيل خدمات الرجال-.
طبعاً يوجد بعض الأمور التي ذكرتها أراها واقعية، مثلاً قولها أن الرجل الذي يُصبح غير قادراً على الكسب يُعتبر فاشلاً وسيخسر كل شيء كالزوجة والعائلة والمنزل، من ناحية واقعية أحياناً ومن ناحية لا دينية ومن ناحية براغماتية بحتة هذا صحيح.. لكن من ناحية القيم الدينية هذا يُعتبر حصر للإنسان في قيمته الرأسمالية، والغاية من هذه الحياة أكبر من ذلك، نعم صحيح لو نتناول الفقه الإسلامي فهو أجاز لزوجة المُعسِر طلب فسخ النكاح، لكن هل كون الشيء غير محرّم معناته أنه مرغوب؟ وأليس بقاء الأسرة ملتمّة أهم من المال الذي قد يأتي ويذهب في أي لحظة؟ أنا أتفهم عدم وجود هذه القِيَم عند الكاتبة فهي من مجتمع أوروبي رأسمالي علماني، يمجّد القوة والتنافس، بينما في تاريخنا الإسلامي كان الكثير من الأزواج والزوجات يمرّون بضوائق مالية ويصبرون على ذلك إيماناً بأن كل قضاء الله خير، فالنبي وأزواجه والصحابة وزوجاتهم كلهم مرّوا بفقر واضطهاد اقتصادي فهل نعتبرهم فَشَلة؟ وهل وجدنا نسائهن صابرات أم براغميات!؟ حاشا لله.. بل إن النظرة الإسلامية تقول :( إنما تُنصرَون بضُعفائكم)، هذا ليس له وجود في التفكير المادي المعاصر.
في نقطة العقل بين الرجل والمرأة، تذكر المؤلفة وجود اختلاف بين الجنسين في القدرات العقلية وهذا شيء أتفق معه وجاء به النص النبوي وكذلك جاءت به عدة مصادر علمية (ورد كثيرٌ منها في كتاب: المخ ذكر أم أنثى، والذي تناول الفروق المادية التي اكتشفها الطب حول أدمغة الجنسين)، حتى على مجال الإنتاج الفكري تزعم النسويات أن المرأة أُبعِدت إبعاداً عنه، وليتَ شعري إذا كانت المرأة قوية وقادرة ومساوية للرجل كما يزعمون فكيف استطاع جميع رجال العالم بجميع القرون بجميع المناطق الجغرافية المتباعدة إبعاد جميع النساء من مختلف الأعمار والأديان والمشارب!؟ بل هذا إن سلَّمنا به -جدلاً- فهو دليلٌ على ضعفنا الفطريّ كنساء، عموماً اكتساح الرجال لمجال الإنتاج الفكري والعلمي ظاهرة قديمة ومستمرة حتى بعد سياسات المساواة في الدول المساواتيِّة، لذلك العلّة ليست في إقصاء المرأة وخلاف ذلك من الأوهام، بل العلّة في أنه -غالباً- المرأة بفطرتها لا تميل للكدح والتصدّر في هذه المجالات العلمية، ومجال اختلاف الخيارات الأكاديمية بين الجنسين مجال وردت فيه دراسات كثيرة ، أذكر منها دراسة قرأتها تتكلم ميل الرجال لدخول التخصصات العلمية مقابل الإناث للبعد عن التخصصات العلمية العقلية البحتة وهي تخصصات الرياضيات والهندسة والتقنية والعلوم: https://www.aauw.org/resources/resear...
أيضاً إحدى الدراسات كشفت أن تطبيق سياسات المساواة نمَّى من التفاوت الأكاديمي بين الجنسين، ولم يجعل النساء يخترن اختيارات الرجال في الحقول العلمية المعقّدة كما يزعم الطرح النسوي الذي لا يزال يردّد أن طرح الفرص للإناث سيجعلها تختار وتنجز كالرجال بالضبط!:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...
تحدثت الكاتبة عن نقطة كانت جديدة وهي غائبة عن السرد التاريخي المعاصر، وهي وجود جماعات من النساء رفضن حقوق المرأة بالتعريف المعاصر، بل و ناهضنَ لعدم حصول المرأة على حق التصويت الإنتخابي، ربما هذا الأمر لا يتم طرحه في الخطابات النسوية المركزّة جداً على السردية المظلومية لأنه سينقل حربها من العدو الوحيد وهو الرجل إلى حرب في خندقها هي التي تزعم بأن "النساء للنساء" وكذلك سيهدم سرديّة اضطهاد المرأة لمجرد أنها إمرأة..إلخ
في هذه الروابط نبذة عن تلك التجمّعات النسائية المعادية للنسوية:
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%...
https://www.bbc.com/arabic/42964734
https://www.alarabiya.net/last-page/2...
طبعاً يتكرر نَفَسْ المؤامرة في الكتاب، على سبيل المثال ترى المؤلفة أن المرأة التي تنجب وتربي هذا الطفل هي من تدربه لهدف العمل ومن ثَمَّ وضع ثمار عمله تحت تصرف المرأة، وتزعم أن الأم تقول بهذا طوال تنشئة طفلها وتخلق فيه سلسلة من ردود الفعل المكيّفة التي تجعله يفعل كل شيء لتلبية احتياجاتها المادية..
طبعاً هذا الكلام عوضاً عن أنه هوس مؤامراتي فكلنا نعلم السيمفونية المعتادة بالغيرة والعِداء بين الكنّة والحماة، فكيف يستقيم هذا ما مع تزعمه الكاتبة؟
هذا غير أن تنشئة الذكر على الكسب والسعي ليست مؤامرة جندرية بل هذه فطرة البشر!
في تفسير آية : "فَقُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ إِنَّ هَٰذَا عَدُوٌّ لَّكَ وَلِزَوْجِكَ فَلَا يُخْرِجَنَّكُمَا مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ فَتَشْقَىٰ" ذكر العلماء أن سبب نِسبة الشقاء لآدم وحده أن الرجل هو من له المجال العام والسعي في الأرض لا المرأة المأمورة بالمجال الخاص وهو البيت، فورد في التفسير: عن سعيد بن جبير : قال: ولم يقل : " فتشقيا " رجوعاً به إلى آدم ، لأن تعبه أكثر فإن الرجل هو الساعي على زوجته.
وقد قالت العرب: " أصون عرضي بمالي لا أدنسهُ .. لا بارك الله بعد العرض في المال".
..
نجمة لكسر التابو ولأنه عكس التيار النسوي، لكنه لا ينطبق على ديننا ولا على قناعاتنا كمسلمين وشرقيين، ومليء بالهوس المؤامراتي المشابه للهوس المؤامراتي النّسوي.. دون أي دليل..
September 23, 2024
No comparto la opinión de la autora sobre las mujeres y no me siento identificada con absolutamente nada de lo que plantea en este libro.
Decir que odia al género femenino sería algo con lo que puedo llegar a resumir la cantidad de insultos y estupideces que plantea esta “psicóloga”.
Y realmente me da pena que hoy en día existan hombres que califiquen esto con 5 estrellas.
Decir que odia al género femenino sería algo con lo que puedo llegar a resumir la cantidad de insultos y estupideces que plantea esta “psicóloga”.
Y realmente me da pena que hoy en día existan hombres que califiquen esto con 5 estrellas.
September 23, 2024
I had originally planned to give The Manipulated Man 1 star, but I've changed my mind. There are rare instances of valid arguments and points in this book, but apart from that, I still think it's worth a read just to get a different point of view, and to be able to dismiss it as nonsense.
This book is a little crazy. Esther Vilar is almost hysterical in her condemnation of the majority of women. If you happen to be both a conspiracy theorist and a male chauvinist, this is your new bible, if you're not, (i.e. if you've been brainwashed by the wimmens,) you won't agree with the majority of ideas contained in the book.
This book is a little crazy. Esther Vilar is almost hysterical in her condemnation of the majority of women. If you happen to be both a conspiracy theorist and a male chauvinist, this is your new bible, if you're not, (i.e. if you've been brainwashed by the wimmens,) you won't agree with the majority of ideas contained in the book.
September 23, 2024
I came to this book quite by accident. I wasn't looking for it or anything of it's kind, I just stumbled across it. Having said that, this is a provocative book. There have been aspects of modern feminism that make no sense:
1) Why does feminism infantilize women? Why does it require "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings"? Why does it constantly focus on women as weak beings that can't be expected to handle responsibility?
2) Since boys have little to no contact with men beside their father from birth to their tweens, and for the last generation between divorce and birth outside of wedlock a significant number of boys don't even have that, why then do women raise their sons to be misogynistic oppressors?
3) How is it, when American women have complete freedom of choice, even choices men don't have, there is a claim that American women are more oppressed than ever before?
Esther Vilar has an explanation and it's shocking. Women she says manipulate man and do so with purpose.
According to Vilar woman condition men to exist purely for their material needs. Men are a resource. Their function is to perform the tasks that women cannot and will not do, to that end women are trained in subtle forms of manipulation from a very early age. Boys on the other hand are trained to be servants, to submit to the needs of woman, to be protective and provide. To understand everything women don't want to have to know. As part of this manipulation women are weak and stupid. According to Vilar this stupidity is chosen and not a function of intellect. Little boys and little girls she tells us are of equal intellect at birth but through lack of need women ignore those things that mean little to them, their slave will take care of it.
For the mans part his indenture is his greatest desire, he seeks a lack of freedom, a mind and soul crushing existance because he finds his highest self in serving the woman/women in his life. Her happiness, her safety, her desire is his greatest calling. A free man is a boat adrift, uncertain in his choices, uncomfortable that he has no master. Only when a man has a woman to devote his work to can he thrive, not only in his workplace but in his life. His unfreedom is his greatest source of confidence, of power because he's fulfilling the role he's been groomed from since birth. Feminism she tells us furthers the myth of the mans power. Feminists insist that women don't achieve because men are holding them back. That men alone have the power to oppress the powerful female nature. The perpetuation of this myth further enslaves the male by reinforcing the conditioning imposed by his mother. That men invented washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dish washers and other labor saving devices all in his quest to serve women is immatereal.
As the book was written in 1971 we can certainly say NAWALT. Vilars description is apt when applied to my grandmother who declared proudly "only poor woman work, [she] had a husband and sons to support her." Without question there are women who choose a career over family. Vilars calls these women "emancipated." The emancipated woman is the attractive woman who could have a family, who has the skills her mother gave her, but who has either chosen a life of financial independence through a high powered career or as the recipient of alimony. Clearly the ranks of the emancipated working women have increased. But what of the woman for whom work is a hobby? On average women work 12 years less than men. 26% of women choose to not work at all. Are these women the kind Vilars describes? The option of not working does not exist for men, in fact a man who isn't working is considered a failure. Isn't living up to his responsibilities. Nevertheless today men are expected to marry and sire children. Despite a 35% likelihood that his wife will get bored and divorce him, still putting demands on his paycheck, but dividing him from his children. But this too is slowly changing as young men see their fathers pain and understand at some level this could be them.
Whether you agree with Vilars or not, she creates a clear picture of sufficient depth to suggest plausibility. When viewed through her prism the disconnects presented by feminism suddenly make sense. Perhaps not all women are like that, but then again there may just be enough that Vilars work isn't complete fiction.
1) Why does feminism infantilize women? Why does it require "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings"? Why does it constantly focus on women as weak beings that can't be expected to handle responsibility?
2) Since boys have little to no contact with men beside their father from birth to their tweens, and for the last generation between divorce and birth outside of wedlock a significant number of boys don't even have that, why then do women raise their sons to be misogynistic oppressors?
3) How is it, when American women have complete freedom of choice, even choices men don't have, there is a claim that American women are more oppressed than ever before?
Esther Vilar has an explanation and it's shocking. Women she says manipulate man and do so with purpose.
According to Vilar woman condition men to exist purely for their material needs. Men are a resource. Their function is to perform the tasks that women cannot and will not do, to that end women are trained in subtle forms of manipulation from a very early age. Boys on the other hand are trained to be servants, to submit to the needs of woman, to be protective and provide. To understand everything women don't want to have to know. As part of this manipulation women are weak and stupid. According to Vilar this stupidity is chosen and not a function of intellect. Little boys and little girls she tells us are of equal intellect at birth but through lack of need women ignore those things that mean little to them, their slave will take care of it.
For the mans part his indenture is his greatest desire, he seeks a lack of freedom, a mind and soul crushing existance because he finds his highest self in serving the woman/women in his life. Her happiness, her safety, her desire is his greatest calling. A free man is a boat adrift, uncertain in his choices, uncomfortable that he has no master. Only when a man has a woman to devote his work to can he thrive, not only in his workplace but in his life. His unfreedom is his greatest source of confidence, of power because he's fulfilling the role he's been groomed from since birth. Feminism she tells us furthers the myth of the mans power. Feminists insist that women don't achieve because men are holding them back. That men alone have the power to oppress the powerful female nature. The perpetuation of this myth further enslaves the male by reinforcing the conditioning imposed by his mother. That men invented washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dish washers and other labor saving devices all in his quest to serve women is immatereal.
As the book was written in 1971 we can certainly say NAWALT. Vilars description is apt when applied to my grandmother who declared proudly "only poor woman work, [she] had a husband and sons to support her." Without question there are women who choose a career over family. Vilars calls these women "emancipated." The emancipated woman is the attractive woman who could have a family, who has the skills her mother gave her, but who has either chosen a life of financial independence through a high powered career or as the recipient of alimony. Clearly the ranks of the emancipated working women have increased. But what of the woman for whom work is a hobby? On average women work 12 years less than men. 26% of women choose to not work at all. Are these women the kind Vilars describes? The option of not working does not exist for men, in fact a man who isn't working is considered a failure. Isn't living up to his responsibilities. Nevertheless today men are expected to marry and sire children. Despite a 35% likelihood that his wife will get bored and divorce him, still putting demands on his paycheck, but dividing him from his children. But this too is slowly changing as young men see their fathers pain and understand at some level this could be them.
Whether you agree with Vilars or not, she creates a clear picture of sufficient depth to suggest plausibility. When viewed through her prism the disconnects presented by feminism suddenly make sense. Perhaps not all women are like that, but then again there may just be enough that Vilars work isn't complete fiction.
September 23, 2024
Entertaining, though impossible to take very seriously. Indeed, it isn't entirely clear to what extent Vilar's semi-satirical claims are even meant with a straight face instead of as a straight-up parody of feminism.
In our contemporary vernacular, Vilar's polemic could perhaps best be considered unabashed flamebait aimed at trolling feminazis—which she managed to do rather more successfully than she might have expected, given a subsequent four decades of death threats. Perhaps the book ought to have carried a warning label: "sense of humor required".
In any case, the brevity of the book and Vilar's acerbic wit make this an engaging quick read. The translators are to be commended for many eminently quotable passages which do manage to capture certain standalone nuggets of truth:
In terms of factual content, the social constructivist and behaviorist paradigm that informs Vilar's premises is "not even wrong" from the vantage point of looking back on several decades of evolutionary psychology that have established innate gender differences and have put essentialism back on the map, as best recounted in Steven Pinker's best-seller The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. If women exploit men, the roots go deeper than social conditioning.
In her superlative veneration of men as heroic beings flawed only in their unwitting desire to be enslaved and exploited by the "dimwitted, parasitic luxury items" that constitute her gender, Vilar occasionally comes close to channeling Ayn Rand. It's no wonder that the manosphere has canonized "St. Esther", though an uncritical reading will contribute little more to an understanding of sexual relations beyond an added measure of incivility.
Still, Vilar's hyperbolic invective may at least be effective as a form of shock therapy, subjecting the reader to views so politically incorrect as to be unprintable in general discourse ("by the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes"). For a generation of men raised by feminists and quite out of touch with their own masculinity, a droll dose of shock therapy may be in order.
Similarly themed works include H.L. Mencken's classic In Defense of Women as well as, reportedly, Chinweizu's Anatomy of Female Power and Matthew Fitzgerald's Sex-Ploytation which purports to update Vilar.
In our contemporary vernacular, Vilar's polemic could perhaps best be considered unabashed flamebait aimed at trolling feminazis—which she managed to do rather more successfully than she might have expected, given a subsequent four decades of death threats. Perhaps the book ought to have carried a warning label: "sense of humor required".
In any case, the brevity of the book and Vilar's acerbic wit make this an engaging quick read. The translators are to be commended for many eminently quotable passages which do manage to capture certain standalone nuggets of truth:
"The American man knows: happiness comes only through women, and women are expensive. He is ready to pay that price. As a young adult he pays in advance, as a grown-up he pays in installments, and as a corpse he is cashed in for a fortune."
In terms of factual content, the social constructivist and behaviorist paradigm that informs Vilar's premises is "not even wrong" from the vantage point of looking back on several decades of evolutionary psychology that have established innate gender differences and have put essentialism back on the map, as best recounted in Steven Pinker's best-seller The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. If women exploit men, the roots go deeper than social conditioning.
In her superlative veneration of men as heroic beings flawed only in their unwitting desire to be enslaved and exploited by the "dimwitted, parasitic luxury items" that constitute her gender, Vilar occasionally comes close to channeling Ayn Rand. It's no wonder that the manosphere has canonized "St. Esther", though an uncritical reading will contribute little more to an understanding of sexual relations beyond an added measure of incivility.
Still, Vilar's hyperbolic invective may at least be effective as a form of shock therapy, subjecting the reader to views so politically incorrect as to be unprintable in general discourse ("by the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes"). For a generation of men raised by feminists and quite out of touch with their own masculinity, a droll dose of shock therapy may be in order.
Similarly themed works include H.L. Mencken's classic In Defense of Women as well as, reportedly, Chinweizu's Anatomy of Female Power and Matthew Fitzgerald's Sex-Ploytation which purports to update Vilar.
September 23, 2024
Despite the many reviews that suggest the author is serious, it is quite obvious to me that this book is satire. Vilar begins by expressing "anger against the woman movement's worldwide monopoly on opinion", describing it as humiliating and unrealistic, and then says a response should possibly contain "a little humor". After that she never breaks character again as she goes on bashing women and portraying men as naive goodhearted hardworking individuals, being manipulated by self-centered very-stupid freeloading parasitic women.
Satire is the use of humor and exaggeration to expose and criticize people's stupidity and errors, which this book does perfectly. Its exaggeration of the right's of men and the hardship and oppression they go through makes the exaggeration and absurdity of the feminist movement become much more apparent. Vilar does not provide any references nor any solutions to the problem, further supporting that this not meant as a serious academic study.
The back of the book mentions that "Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change"
Perhaps we should have a family rights movement, that has a balanced approach in fighting for men, women, children, and even elderly rights; as all of them have their share of injustice. Feminism has created a culture where it is ok to oppress men and children to elevate a women's status, even in societies where women are already on the same level of men.
Satire is the use of humor and exaggeration to expose and criticize people's stupidity and errors, which this book does perfectly. Its exaggeration of the right's of men and the hardship and oppression they go through makes the exaggeration and absurdity of the feminist movement become much more apparent. Vilar does not provide any references nor any solutions to the problem, further supporting that this not meant as a serious academic study.
The back of the book mentions that "Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change"
Perhaps we should have a family rights movement, that has a balanced approach in fighting for men, women, children, and even elderly rights; as all of them have their share of injustice. Feminism has created a culture where it is ok to oppress men and children to elevate a women's status, even in societies where women are already on the same level of men.
Currently reading
September 23, 2024It doesn't take much reading to know what the whole book is about. I'm mostly surprised that it is written by a woman. In some ways, I can see why. The author sounds like she is bashing women, but one could interpret her as making fun of men for falling for "woman's manipulation" and she knows that even when men read it, they will continue going on wanting to please women, inventing things that will make her life easy.
September 23, 2024
10.1/10.
This is perhaps a top 3 book of mine. It is a paradigm-shifting book that really makes you question men’s eternal desire, lust, and eventual slavery to women. What do these women do for them? Nothing, except talk in banalities, put pounds of clownish makeup on their faces, and offer the grand prize of a wet hole. I recommend this work to all men, and will write a full review later.
This is perhaps a top 3 book of mine. It is a paradigm-shifting book that really makes you question men’s eternal desire, lust, and eventual slavery to women. What do these women do for them? Nothing, except talk in banalities, put pounds of clownish makeup on their faces, and offer the grand prize of a wet hole. I recommend this work to all men, and will write a full review later.
September 23, 2024
A must-read for every man. A summary of Vilar's aim functions as a good introduction to this book, which can be found in her "author's biography" section:
In essence, Vilar "argues that contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men."
This book may have just changed my life for the better. This has to be one of the best books I have ever read on the account of its non-conformity, impenitently honest intention to extricate men, in disclosing the true nature of women and its ability to remain ahead of its time.
I would like to thank someone who will be codenamed "R". - This book is rare and has been shadowbanned in the UK (possibly in other countries too) likely for not adhering to the "standards" of political correctness and feminism. George Carlin once said "political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners". Needless to say that this book is extremely difficult to obtain and "R" was kind enough to list it on eBay for an affordable price. - Thank you.
I would also like to commend Esther Vilar on her raw courage and determination in the face of adversity. She has efficiently delivered her message in spite of the armageddon of antagonism which she has faced and still faces from feminists today; over 50 years later. Usually, in forms of abuse and death threats. The mere presence of uncomfortable truth can ignite anger within the hearts of the most fiery, fiendish and foolish of foes. Nonetheless, thank you for everything Esther. My appreciation for you everlastingly goes beyond words.
I sympathise with the challenge in trying to acquire this book so here is a link to a free audiobook version from YouTube. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2687...
Lastly, I would like to emphasise the author's aim behind writing this book. It is best quoted on the back of the book itself: "...Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change".
In essence, Vilar "argues that contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men."
This book may have just changed my life for the better. This has to be one of the best books I have ever read on the account of its non-conformity, impenitently honest intention to extricate men, in disclosing the true nature of women and its ability to remain ahead of its time.
I would like to thank someone who will be codenamed "R". - This book is rare and has been shadowbanned in the UK (possibly in other countries too) likely for not adhering to the "standards" of political correctness and feminism. George Carlin once said "political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners". Needless to say that this book is extremely difficult to obtain and "R" was kind enough to list it on eBay for an affordable price. - Thank you.
I would also like to commend Esther Vilar on her raw courage and determination in the face of adversity. She has efficiently delivered her message in spite of the armageddon of antagonism which she has faced and still faces from feminists today; over 50 years later. Usually, in forms of abuse and death threats. The mere presence of uncomfortable truth can ignite anger within the hearts of the most fiery, fiendish and foolish of foes. Nonetheless, thank you for everything Esther. My appreciation for you everlastingly goes beyond words.
I sympathise with the challenge in trying to acquire this book so here is a link to a free audiobook version from YouTube. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2687...
Lastly, I would like to emphasise the author's aim behind writing this book. It is best quoted on the back of the book itself: "...Vilar's intention is not misogynous: she maintains that only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there be any hope for change".
September 23, 2024
What a horrible misogynist diatribe. The only time I've seen words this hateful was when I read feminist books. Whereas feminists make hateful remarks like, "the male is a biological accident. The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited. Maleness is a deficiency disease, and males are emotional cripples" (Valerie Salanis), this book offers such gems as, "women are nothing more than conglomerations of matter, lumps of stuffed human skin pretending to be thinking human beings." Seriously, that's how a lot of this book reads. No citations, no research, no persuasive arguments. It's just one long hatefest.
It seems useful mostly as a parody of feminism. Feminists need to know that this is how they sound when they say things like, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp, with a high heel shoved in his mouth, like the apple in the mouth of a pig" (Andrea Dworkin), or "rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" (Susan Brownmiller).
Feminism, in between its vitriolic and simplistic platitudes, makes some very good points about the ways men overpower women. Likewise, this book, in between its vitriolic hyperboles, makes some very good points about the ways women overpower men, exploiting them as beasts of burden, workhorses, and soldiers, to provide for and protect women. But, just as feminism is a shit ideology, this is a shit book. I've read that the author has received, and continues to receive, many death threats after writing it. I'm not surprised. What was she thinking?
It seems useful mostly as a parody of feminism. Feminists need to know that this is how they sound when they say things like, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp, with a high heel shoved in his mouth, like the apple in the mouth of a pig" (Andrea Dworkin), or "rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" (Susan Brownmiller).
Feminism, in between its vitriolic and simplistic platitudes, makes some very good points about the ways men overpower women. Likewise, this book, in between its vitriolic hyperboles, makes some very good points about the ways women overpower men, exploiting them as beasts of burden, workhorses, and soldiers, to provide for and protect women. But, just as feminism is a shit ideology, this is a shit book. I've read that the author has received, and continues to receive, many death threats after writing it. I'm not surprised. What was she thinking?
September 23, 2024
No doubt women will read this and conclude that it is toxic, primitive and utter chaff. But that is because the book reveals their unconscious behaviour.
And so the book is in fact an eye opener for men. Reading this book is like a stab in the neck. It will probably poison a man rather than educate him. He will no longer hold women in the same light or respect - if he agrees with some of points highlighted in the book.
Some perspectives in the book are questionable and not entirely true, however the most positive aspect of the book is how it exposes the fraudulence of the women's liberation movement and feminism.
And so the book is in fact an eye opener for men. Reading this book is like a stab in the neck. It will probably poison a man rather than educate him. He will no longer hold women in the same light or respect - if he agrees with some of points highlighted in the book.
Some perspectives in the book are questionable and not entirely true, however the most positive aspect of the book is how it exposes the fraudulence of the women's liberation movement and feminism.
September 23, 2024
Me topé con este libro en una librería vieja y no divagué en comprarlo. Este libro al parecer en México ya está discontinuado y es muy difícil de encontrar. ¡No lo tenía ni Amazon!
No puedo creer que haya sido una mujer la que escribió este ensayo, el cual es un ensayo bien HONESTO y REVELADOR sobre su propio género, y el cómo las mujeres manipulan secretamente a los hombres a través del elogio, la recompensa através del sexo y su masculinidad.
Este libro deberían regalarselo a los muchachos en la secundaria y en los bachilleratos para que realmente abran los ojos y no se lancen a lo tonto a casarse sin estar conscientes de las posibles consecuencias a las que se van a enfrentar, pues la autora no se calla nada, te dice las cosas tal como son y sin adornar las palabras de forma bonita con guirnaldas, te suelta la verdad cruda y sin aviso, pienso que a raiz de este libro muchas mujeres y sobre todo las feministas debieron odiarla.
A manera de resumen. Este libro establece las siguientes verdades:
a) Hay dos tipos de humanos: Los que trabajan y los que no. El varón es un hombre que trabaja, la mujer es un varón que no trabaja. Las mujeres no quieren trabajar y prefieren que los hombres piensen y trabajen por ellas.
b) Las mujeres ven a los hombres como máquinas desechables diseñados para hacer que la vida de la mujer sea cómoda, ella no amara tal como lo hace un hombre ya que ellas escogen a sus parejas en función a que tan útil puedes ser para darle una vida llena de comodidades y lujos.
c) La diferencia entre el amor de un hombre y el de una mujer, es que el amor de un hombre es incondicional, sincero y el de la mujer es solo circunstancial, ella estará contigo siempre y cuando tengas los medios y los recursos para darle una vida cómoda pero no le importas realmente como ser humano, para ella eres solo útil mientras ganes dinero y le proveas una vida llena de lujos, el dia en que te quedes sin empleo o no seas capaz de generar ingresos suficientes para llenarla de comodidades, ese dia se acabó el amor por ti. La autora establece que la mujer es capaz de decirte que te ama con todo el corazón o que eres un tremendo macho alfa en la cama, pero lo hace para que su hombre se sienta bien y siga siendo su esclavo.
d) La masculinidad y el honor se definen para motivar a los hombres y hacer que se sientan orgullosos de estas cosas
e) El hombre acepta e incluso busca ser esclavizado por una mujer a cambio de su validación y aprobación femenina y a cambio de tener acceso a su vagina.
f) Casi todos los sentimientos de valía y dignidad de un hombre provienen de los elogios de las mujeres. La autora asume que solamente las mujeres pueden alabar a los hombres
g) Las mujeres son las consumidoras perfectas ya que son fáciles de convencer de comprar cosas y además la mayor parte del consumismo es realizado por mujeres
h) Una mujer es capaz de llorar y derramar muchas lágrimas de cocodrilo para chantajear a un hombre de conseguir lo que quiera de él y conmoverlo a través del drama y a su vez pensar fría y calculadoramente, sin estar necesariamente triste.
i) La limpieza de la casa y demás labores domésticas es fácil en comparación al trabajo que realizan los hombres y además es el hombre el que corre más riesgos en los trabajos ya que el índice de accidentes en el hombre es más alto.
j) La frase de que la prostitución es un trabajo sucio e indigno y mal visto por la sociedad, es un invento de las mujeres normales que se propagó porque les hacen competencia desleal, así mismo muchas mujeres odian a las prostitutas por el solo hecho de que piensan que son tontas porque pueden sacarles más dinero y provecho a los hombres denegandoles o posponiendoles la recompensa del sexo el mayor tiempo posible cuando les hayan sacado suficiente dinero o favores. Y de ahi que se haga hasta lo imposible por impedir esta práctica.
l) Las mujeres reprimen su libido y su deseo sexual ya que son educadas desde niñas por las madres a sacarle una ventaja comercial a su instinto de tal manera que por más que les guste un varón, ellas solo se entregaran a aquel varón que tenga los suficientes recursos para llenarla de comodidades. El sexo deja de ser placer a ser meramente un intercambio comercial.
Este fue un libro muy interesante y revelador. Me dio mucha información sobre las mentes de las mujeres, equivalente al conocimiento prohibido. Al leerlo, me sentí como un incrédulo a quien se le confiaban algunos archivos de alto secreto del Area 51.
No puedo negar que algunas partes las leí con coraje pero fue porque durante tantos años he vivido engañado y este libro me abrió los ojos. Uno de los pocos libros que te saca de tu sueño y te hace estar de pie a la brillante luz del día, enfrentando al mundo tal y como realmente es.
Gracias Esther Vilar.
No puedo creer que haya sido una mujer la que escribió este ensayo, el cual es un ensayo bien HONESTO y REVELADOR sobre su propio género, y el cómo las mujeres manipulan secretamente a los hombres a través del elogio, la recompensa através del sexo y su masculinidad.
Este libro deberían regalarselo a los muchachos en la secundaria y en los bachilleratos para que realmente abran los ojos y no se lancen a lo tonto a casarse sin estar conscientes de las posibles consecuencias a las que se van a enfrentar, pues la autora no se calla nada, te dice las cosas tal como son y sin adornar las palabras de forma bonita con guirnaldas, te suelta la verdad cruda y sin aviso, pienso que a raiz de este libro muchas mujeres y sobre todo las feministas debieron odiarla.
A manera de resumen. Este libro establece las siguientes verdades:
a) Hay dos tipos de humanos: Los que trabajan y los que no. El varón es un hombre que trabaja, la mujer es un varón que no trabaja. Las mujeres no quieren trabajar y prefieren que los hombres piensen y trabajen por ellas.
b) Las mujeres ven a los hombres como máquinas desechables diseñados para hacer que la vida de la mujer sea cómoda, ella no amara tal como lo hace un hombre ya que ellas escogen a sus parejas en función a que tan útil puedes ser para darle una vida llena de comodidades y lujos.
c) La diferencia entre el amor de un hombre y el de una mujer, es que el amor de un hombre es incondicional, sincero y el de la mujer es solo circunstancial, ella estará contigo siempre y cuando tengas los medios y los recursos para darle una vida cómoda pero no le importas realmente como ser humano, para ella eres solo útil mientras ganes dinero y le proveas una vida llena de lujos, el dia en que te quedes sin empleo o no seas capaz de generar ingresos suficientes para llenarla de comodidades, ese dia se acabó el amor por ti. La autora establece que la mujer es capaz de decirte que te ama con todo el corazón o que eres un tremendo macho alfa en la cama, pero lo hace para que su hombre se sienta bien y siga siendo su esclavo.
d) La masculinidad y el honor se definen para motivar a los hombres y hacer que se sientan orgullosos de estas cosas
e) El hombre acepta e incluso busca ser esclavizado por una mujer a cambio de su validación y aprobación femenina y a cambio de tener acceso a su vagina.
f) Casi todos los sentimientos de valía y dignidad de un hombre provienen de los elogios de las mujeres. La autora asume que solamente las mujeres pueden alabar a los hombres
g) Las mujeres son las consumidoras perfectas ya que son fáciles de convencer de comprar cosas y además la mayor parte del consumismo es realizado por mujeres
h) Una mujer es capaz de llorar y derramar muchas lágrimas de cocodrilo para chantajear a un hombre de conseguir lo que quiera de él y conmoverlo a través del drama y a su vez pensar fría y calculadoramente, sin estar necesariamente triste.
i) La limpieza de la casa y demás labores domésticas es fácil en comparación al trabajo que realizan los hombres y además es el hombre el que corre más riesgos en los trabajos ya que el índice de accidentes en el hombre es más alto.
j) La frase de que la prostitución es un trabajo sucio e indigno y mal visto por la sociedad, es un invento de las mujeres normales que se propagó porque les hacen competencia desleal, así mismo muchas mujeres odian a las prostitutas por el solo hecho de que piensan que son tontas porque pueden sacarles más dinero y provecho a los hombres denegandoles o posponiendoles la recompensa del sexo el mayor tiempo posible cuando les hayan sacado suficiente dinero o favores. Y de ahi que se haga hasta lo imposible por impedir esta práctica.
l) Las mujeres reprimen su libido y su deseo sexual ya que son educadas desde niñas por las madres a sacarle una ventaja comercial a su instinto de tal manera que por más que les guste un varón, ellas solo se entregaran a aquel varón que tenga los suficientes recursos para llenarla de comodidades. El sexo deja de ser placer a ser meramente un intercambio comercial.
Este fue un libro muy interesante y revelador. Me dio mucha información sobre las mentes de las mujeres, equivalente al conocimiento prohibido. Al leerlo, me sentí como un incrédulo a quien se le confiaban algunos archivos de alto secreto del Area 51.
No puedo negar que algunas partes las leí con coraje pero fue porque durante tantos años he vivido engañado y este libro me abrió los ojos. Uno de los pocos libros que te saca de tu sueño y te hace estar de pie a la brillante luz del día, enfrentando al mundo tal y como realmente es.
Gracias Esther Vilar.
December 30, 2024
I read the English translation of "The Manipulated Man" which appears to not be on goodreads so I'm posting the review on this German edition instead. The version I read is the 1971 edition. I believe there is an updated version as well, although I'm not sure if it's available in English.
This book is probably the best description of male/female relations in the godless world we find ourselves in today. Esther Vilar strips away the veneer of feminism and gets to the real meat of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman in the modern world.
I emphasize that this is a modern and godless depiction of men and women both because she doesn't believe in God, but also because I believe (contrary to Vilar) that the solution to the issues she presents is a godly relationship. She argues that religion is a feminine creation that is also used to enslave men, but I disagree and I think that the fact that the issues she raises have only continued to get worse without God present in society supports me.
The book takes a very cynical approach to the concepts of love, marriage, and children which fits perfectly with the cynicism of modernity. It's anti-natalist and rejects any deeper meaning that can be found in a relationship outside of simply one party exploiting the other, specifically women exploiting men for their own benefit, and it argues its point quite well. I think that there can be no doubt that modern relationships do often boil down to two parties trying to exploit each other for their own gain. Looking at the dissatisfaction men and women have with each other, the high divorce rate, and the decreasing marriage rate highlights the depth of the problem and women most frequently get the upper hand from the con.
The book does a great job of exposing the stupidity of feminism, however, Vilar's point isn't that women should get back in the kitchen, instead she has her own ideas on what women's lib should really look like. I'll also add that the book doesn't just limit its criticisms to feminism, but rather it criticizes the entire concept of femininity and masculinity as it is perceived in Western society.
More subtly, the book also criticizes men quite frequently. Repeatedly it labels men as cowards and slaves to lust who give up greater pursuits in order to please women. These criticisms seem on target from what I've observed from how men typically carry themselves these days. The rise of porn and porn addiction coupled with the phenomenon of men dropping out of society are commonly discussed men's issues.
And even more subtly it hints that the real solution to all this is for women to start an actual liberation movement that puts them on truly equal terms with men (for example, just as likely to be the single bread-winner, just as likely to be working as a plumber as a man, just as likely to be responsible for alimony and child support, etc.). Esther Vilar concludes that this won't ever happen though because women are too corrupt and men are too enslaved.
Really the only things I can knock the book for are its outdated arguments about how men and women are equally physically capable and its poorly argued proposed "solutions" for the issues she brings up. Although, I can't be too critical of that since I think Vilar's primary point is a critique of feminism, femininity, and the idea of the "patriarchy".
I'd definitely recommend this to any man as an eye-opening glimpse into his exploitation and for truly open-minded women who aren't satisfied with the silliness of feminism or the "trad" movement.
This book is probably the best description of male/female relations in the godless world we find ourselves in today. Esther Vilar strips away the veneer of feminism and gets to the real meat of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman in the modern world.
I emphasize that this is a modern and godless depiction of men and women both because she doesn't believe in God, but also because I believe (contrary to Vilar) that the solution to the issues she presents is a godly relationship. She argues that religion is a feminine creation that is also used to enslave men, but I disagree and I think that the fact that the issues she raises have only continued to get worse without God present in society supports me.
The book takes a very cynical approach to the concepts of love, marriage, and children which fits perfectly with the cynicism of modernity. It's anti-natalist and rejects any deeper meaning that can be found in a relationship outside of simply one party exploiting the other, specifically women exploiting men for their own benefit, and it argues its point quite well. I think that there can be no doubt that modern relationships do often boil down to two parties trying to exploit each other for their own gain. Looking at the dissatisfaction men and women have with each other, the high divorce rate, and the decreasing marriage rate highlights the depth of the problem and women most frequently get the upper hand from the con.
The book does a great job of exposing the stupidity of feminism, however, Vilar's point isn't that women should get back in the kitchen, instead she has her own ideas on what women's lib should really look like. I'll also add that the book doesn't just limit its criticisms to feminism, but rather it criticizes the entire concept of femininity and masculinity as it is perceived in Western society.
More subtly, the book also criticizes men quite frequently. Repeatedly it labels men as cowards and slaves to lust who give up greater pursuits in order to please women. These criticisms seem on target from what I've observed from how men typically carry themselves these days. The rise of porn and porn addiction coupled with the phenomenon of men dropping out of society are commonly discussed men's issues.
And even more subtly it hints that the real solution to all this is for women to start an actual liberation movement that puts them on truly equal terms with men (for example, just as likely to be the single bread-winner, just as likely to be working as a plumber as a man, just as likely to be responsible for alimony and child support, etc.). Esther Vilar concludes that this won't ever happen though because women are too corrupt and men are too enslaved.
Really the only things I can knock the book for are its outdated arguments about how men and women are equally physically capable and its poorly argued proposed "solutions" for the issues she brings up. Although, I can't be too critical of that since I think Vilar's primary point is a critique of feminism, femininity, and the idea of the "patriarchy".
I'd definitely recommend this to any man as an eye-opening glimpse into his exploitation and for truly open-minded women who aren't satisfied with the silliness of feminism or the "trad" movement.
September 23, 2024
This book is an excellent for men who really want to take the red pill and free themselves. The author is a woman so I have to give her credit for writing this book. The one thing this book emphasizes is the roles of men and women. The fact the male role has not changed since the beginning of time and women’s role is in question. Esther goes into deals with how society is crumbling around us and the feminist have a big part of this. Women aren’t any happier and men are moving further away from them in western culture. These points are illustrated very well by Esther and as the title says the manipulated man the fact is true. I would recommend this book.
September 23, 2024
some valid points but most of it is just nonsense. Male chauvinists can have a field day quoting the absurd theories in this book. It'd be interesting to get a non-misogynist point of view about this book, though.
September 23, 2024
Wow so the casual racism wasn’t just in feminist circles in the 70s.
Also her basic claims contradict one another and she seems to have forgotten the part of research where u reference other texts.
This is like reading an angry blog on the internet.
Also her basic claims contradict one another and she seems to have forgotten the part of research where u reference other texts.
This is like reading an angry blog on the internet.
September 23, 2024
Ta książka powiela krzywdzące stereotypy, jest toksyczna, a treści w niej zawarte nie mają jakichkolwiek podstaw naukowych. Podejrzewam, że powstała tylko po to by wywołać kontrowersje. Jak dla mnie 100% bełkot.
September 23, 2024
When someone expresses too much hate about something without any reason or logical arguments, it should probably be true :-) This book should be read by everyone, it's not only the "bile" (i.e. The Book in its non religious sense) for all men, but also something to learn for everyone:
Why is so? I really don't know, but that's interesting. If that's biology, then it should be controlled by brains. The will is easily trainable. If no control can be applied, then it's cultural conditioning. A lot of women (and men too) are lost in their conditionings.
Examples of not "normal" people:
* Children to their advantage, children as weapons.
* Sex as the means of control.
* Obsession with control.
* Lack of conscientiousness and responsibility.
* Selective attention.
* Etc. Etc.
To be sure, I don't think it's biology, at least I rely on data, it's just your idiot parents and education".
Under "education" I mean any reasons and conditions that people (women and men) take for not to grow from their infantilisms.
"Infantilism":
Childhood irrational beliefs can become rigidly held beliefs of adulthood that confirm their dependency tendencies.
[child => adult]
Victim beliefs:
* It is awful if others don’t like me. => I must not offend my supporter or someone who cares for me.
* I am bad if I make a mistake. => I should avoid unpleasant situations at all costs.
* I shouldn’t show my feelings.
* It’s awful if others don’t like me.
* There is only one right answer.
* Adults should be perfect.
Em. manipulator beliefs:
* I must win. => People will take advantage of me if I
give them the chance.
* Everything should go my way and I should always get what I want => Being controlled or dominated by others is intolerable.
* Things should come easily to me.
* I shouldn’t have to wait for anything.
* The world should be fair and bad people should be punished.
Conclusion. Too much of women are trained to become and stay in their infantile victim or manipulator role states, which are also probably hardly seen due to their long training to apply those tactics professionally. As such, many women become not interested in what really works - science, for example, but also become interested in advantages of "playing games" as a result of their childhood playing with "artificial humans" (dolls).
Why is so? I really don't know, but that's interesting. If that's biology, then it should be controlled by brains. The will is easily trainable. If no control can be applied, then it's cultural conditioning. A lot of women (and men too) are lost in their conditionings.
Examples of not "normal" people:
* Children to their advantage, children as weapons.
* Sex as the means of control.
* Obsession with control.
* Lack of conscientiousness and responsibility.
* Selective attention.
* Etc. Etc.
To be sure, I don't think it's biology, at least I rely on data, it's just your idiot parents and education".
Under "education" I mean any reasons and conditions that people (women and men) take for not to grow from their infantilisms.
"Infantilism":
Childhood irrational beliefs can become rigidly held beliefs of adulthood that confirm their dependency tendencies.
[child => adult]
Victim beliefs:
* It is awful if others don’t like me. => I must not offend my supporter or someone who cares for me.
* I am bad if I make a mistake. => I should avoid unpleasant situations at all costs.
* I shouldn’t show my feelings.
* It’s awful if others don’t like me.
* There is only one right answer.
* Adults should be perfect.
Em. manipulator beliefs:
* I must win. => People will take advantage of me if I
give them the chance.
* Everything should go my way and I should always get what I want => Being controlled or dominated by others is intolerable.
* Things should come easily to me.
* I shouldn’t have to wait for anything.
* The world should be fair and bad people should be punished.
Conclusion. Too much of women are trained to become and stay in their infantile victim or manipulator role states, which are also probably hardly seen due to their long training to apply those tactics professionally. As such, many women become not interested in what really works - science, for example, but also become interested in advantages of "playing games" as a result of their childhood playing with "artificial humans" (dolls).
September 23, 2024
----- Segunda Impresión -----
Me equivoqué al juzgar este libro saltándome todo el contexto histórico que hay detrás. Al investigar un poco más sobre la autora, al escuchar las entrevistas y debates en los que participó pude caer en cuenta del error que muchos cometemos al leer su obra. En primer lugar, entiendo a las personas que se toman a mal el libro porque bueno, yo también lo hice. La forma tan cruda que tiene para describir a la mujer es muy irritante, además que a primera vista parece generalizar. Ahora bien, que tal si cambiaramos esa generalización a un cierto tipo de mujer. Ahí si que no pueden negar la verdad incómoda que tienen las palabras de Esther Vilar. Ya sea bueno o malo estás mujeres existen, son reales.
Si que hay otras cosas cuestionables, pero no por eso debemos saltarnos los demás aspectos certeros que demuestra, tales como la desigualdad del hombre ante la mujer. Además me parece injusto que le quiten todo el mérito que tuvo al ser una de las primeras críticas a el Feminismo.
Por ahora lo dejaré hasta aquí, necesito informarme más y darle otra lectura al libro para dar una opinión más completa.
Yo si recomiendo que busquen contexto :)
----- Primera impresión -----
No me gusta cuando llevan al extremo sus ideologías. La mujer NO es un demonio y el hombre NO es un ángel. Somos personas, somos seres humanos. Ni las mujeres nacemos con un chip listo para manipular varones, ni los hombres nacen con uno para matar y violar mujeres.
Lo mismo pensaría si dijeran que la mujer es buena y el hombre es malo. Por dios, ¡es una estupidez! La maldad y bondad no es propia de un solo género.
No negaré que hay varios cuestionamientos bastante válidos, sin embargo la explicación a ellos no es para nada certera; dado que se resumen a "La mujer es una manipuladora, todo el tiempo ese fue su plan". Bajo esta lógica se pierden apectos importantes que terminan por quitarle seriedad al asunto.
En mi opinión, Esther Vilar fue muy superficial en muchos puntos mientras que en otros (sorpresivamente) resultó atinada.
Me equivoqué al juzgar este libro saltándome todo el contexto histórico que hay detrás. Al investigar un poco más sobre la autora, al escuchar las entrevistas y debates en los que participó pude caer en cuenta del error que muchos cometemos al leer su obra. En primer lugar, entiendo a las personas que se toman a mal el libro porque bueno, yo también lo hice. La forma tan cruda que tiene para describir a la mujer es muy irritante, además que a primera vista parece generalizar. Ahora bien, que tal si cambiaramos esa generalización a un cierto tipo de mujer. Ahí si que no pueden negar la verdad incómoda que tienen las palabras de Esther Vilar. Ya sea bueno o malo estás mujeres existen, son reales.
Si que hay otras cosas cuestionables, pero no por eso debemos saltarnos los demás aspectos certeros que demuestra, tales como la desigualdad del hombre ante la mujer. Además me parece injusto que le quiten todo el mérito que tuvo al ser una de las primeras críticas a el Feminismo.
Por ahora lo dejaré hasta aquí, necesito informarme más y darle otra lectura al libro para dar una opinión más completa.
Yo si recomiendo que busquen contexto :)
----- Primera impresión -----
No me gusta cuando llevan al extremo sus ideologías. La mujer NO es un demonio y el hombre NO es un ángel. Somos personas, somos seres humanos. Ni las mujeres nacemos con un chip listo para manipular varones, ni los hombres nacen con uno para matar y violar mujeres.
Lo mismo pensaría si dijeran que la mujer es buena y el hombre es malo. Por dios, ¡es una estupidez! La maldad y bondad no es propia de un solo género.
No negaré que hay varios cuestionamientos bastante válidos, sin embargo la explicación a ellos no es para nada certera; dado que se resumen a "La mujer es una manipuladora, todo el tiempo ese fue su plan". Bajo esta lógica se pierden apectos importantes que terminan por quitarle seriedad al asunto.
En mi opinión, Esther Vilar fue muy superficial en muchos puntos mientras que en otros (sorpresivamente) resultó atinada.
September 23, 2024
Brutalmente honesto. Aunque la primera reacción en la época actual sería la de refutar lo que aquí se escribe con el consabido argumento de "eso era en los viejos tiempos"; la realidad es que el marketing femenino, ahora con más armas que nunca, se auto sostiene. Sólo hay que ver la manera tan rápida en la que las redes sociales se han convertido en un mero lugar de comercialización para la mujer en busca de marido. Un acceso de primera mano a las publicaciones femeninas, cuya definición es la de ser enteramente estúpidas, se ha puesto al alcance de un clic.
Me atrevo a decir, sin embargo, que existen ya actualmente mujeres, aun que pocas, rompiendo esos paradigmas.
Me atrevo a decir, sin embargo, que existen ya actualmente mujeres, aun que pocas, rompiendo esos paradigmas.
September 23, 2024
وكأنه بيان نازي ضد المرأة.
يبدو أن المترجمين والناشر ظنوا أن ترجمة كتاب لامرأة غربية ذات اسم أجنبي سيبعد صفة التخلف عن الكتاب، لكنه في الحقيقة من أكثر الكتب رجعية ولم يحتوي على جملة منطقية واحدة يمكن مناقشتها... كان فقط مسبات لاذعة للمرأة، وفي النهاية هجاء للرجل أيضا لأنه وقع في شراك حيلهن الغبية
تصف النساء بان عمل المنزل كثير على عقولهن الصغيرة وهي درست علم النفس وعملت في عدة مجالات خارج المنزل
لم افهم حقيقة ما تريده المؤلفة.. ولكن الأهم ما أراده الناشر بتضيع المال والوقت على نقل هكذا عمل منحط بينما أعمال كبيرة أخرى ما تزال مجهولة
يبدو أن المترجمين والناشر ظنوا أن ترجمة كتاب لامرأة غربية ذات اسم أجنبي سيبعد صفة التخلف عن الكتاب، لكنه في الحقيقة من أكثر الكتب رجعية ولم يحتوي على جملة منطقية واحدة يمكن مناقشتها... كان فقط مسبات لاذعة للمرأة، وفي النهاية هجاء للرجل أيضا لأنه وقع في شراك حيلهن الغبية
تصف النساء بان عمل المنزل كثير على عقولهن الصغيرة وهي درست علم النفس وعملت في عدة مجالات خارج المنزل
لم افهم حقيقة ما تريده المؤلفة.. ولكن الأهم ما أراده الناشر بتضيع المال والوقت على نقل هكذا عمل منحط بينما أعمال كبيرة أخرى ما تزال مجهولة
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews