This book isn't misogynistic. It's misandrist.

[Rachel]

WARNING: Severe spoilers ahead, do not read if you've not finished the book! Also, long post. It's hard to get my point across and be brief, sorry.

SECOND WARNING: People may disagree, but come on let's be adults and keep it civil. These are just my opinions and things I took from reading the book (which I absolutely LOVED by the way, gave it 4/5 stars). Let's all respect that opinions can differ; nobody is right/wrong. :)

This book has the undertones (and sometimes big, neon overtones) of an author who is a raging and unreasonable feminazi, who wanted to slip in how much she hated men (and ugly or fat women, since feminazis are often horrifically misogynistic without even realising it) whilst writing a book that is otherwise phenomenal.

[Note: I googled after I wrote that and found out that Flynn is indeed quite an 'activist' of feminism, which kind of explains everything really.

Were these moments of misandry just from Amy's POV, I'd chock it up to simply 'this is how her character behaves', with lots of nasty comments about how useless men are, all the insults casually thrown regarding unusual looking, ugly or fat women, etc.

But... well, it wasn't. It was also evident in how all of the men versus all of the women were generally portrayed:

The men were all mean, sexist, creepy, weak, mama's boys, perverted, controlling, old fashioned (in a bad way), gender-role-enforcing, rapists, a threat to women everywhere.

The female characters - whilst vindictive and bitchy - were portrayed as outspoken, strong, independent, people who are not to be messed with, but also victims (thanks to men), in control, sexy, witty, dangerously clever, etc. Many of the women were also portrayed as completely unlikable, outspoken to the point of either abusive or just plain horrible (and yet this is the feminism that Flynn actually elieves people gave up their lives for?)

I know, or at least I think, that you're not MEANT to like Amy. Or Nick. They are two people who are both victims and perpetrators alike. There's a lot of hate in their lives and a lot of it is their own doing. But I get the feeling we were meant to somehow pity Amy at some point. I didn't. I thought Amy was brilliantly written, but not likable at all and female or not, she doesn't deserve forgiveness, she deserves a slap.

Flynn seemed eager to slip a feminist agenda into the prose that added nothing directly to the story. There was one point where beautiful, thin, perfect Amy gained some weight, dyed her hair a dull 'hamster' colour, got a tan, her skin looking leathery and aged as a result, looked very low maintenance.

And then we have the feminist agenda, slipped in like that slide of porn in Fight Club: it was a relief to Amy because, as a normal, fat, ugly woman, she no longer got male attention (which she hated), she no longer had to please men (which she hated), and so on.

Um... sorry, what? This is AMY we're talking about.

We know quite a lot earlier that Amy is nothing if not an attention whore, ESPECIALLY when it comes to men. She was a whore, in many respects. She used her gender, her sexuality, her ability to fuck a man senseless, her ability to become a victim at a moment's notice to get men to do what she wanted. It's literally the whole plot of the book, so why even say any of this?

And finally, there's more undertones of misandry by how others reacted to the whole situation.

Example: The women were never truly under suspicion. They took Go to the station briefly (as protocol), but there was no media uproar about it, just them asking Go 'did Nick kill Amy?', and the whole Amy killing Desi thing was brushed over because Amy = poor little female pretty victim creature and Desi = gross rapist I mean he's a man of COURSE she's telling the truth.

And then there's how Nick was thrown to the wolves almost instantly, until he started pandering to the victim in Amy (I love you baby, come home, I am an idiot, I am a bad person), and then as soon as he wasn't begging any more they hated him again.

Just some things I noticed, sorry this got so long but as amazing as the book was, all this misandry REALLY annoyed me!

[Nuran]

I think your hatred is making you see with cloudy vision.

Nick and Amy are equals by the end of the book, they’re both equally good at playing mind games.

Amy is a brilliant character but I’ve never pitied Amy. She tried to justify her actions with lame excuses like the crazy, sociopath and liar she is. The writer has proven she is a liar time and time again, that she is capable of playing mind games, and the character was very honest about this as well, that she’s capable of both being honest and a liar at the same time, and you are suppose to take her reasoning with a pinch of salt, you are never meant to truly trust her or motives.

If you trusted and pitied her then you fell for her mind games. She wasn’t just playing mind games with the other characters but with the readers too.

As for the fat thing, it was never about attention, she hated ‘amazing amy’ and the attention that came with it, the responisblitiy that she had to live up to the happy, pretty, go lucky namesake. She wanted to be like for who she was, but she didn’t think anyone would like the real her because she’s nasty and cold and she knew it, so made herself the cool and pretty girl, who she also hated. She blamed her parents for forcing her to be someone else.

She always pretended to be someone who should be liked to fit in, she never pretended to be anyone that wouldn’t be liked until after she faked her death. Being plain was so different, it was like a breath of fresh air. No doubt, she would have hated the lack of attention eventually, which you see at the end.

In the end, she decides being yourself is overrated, and that you and everyone needs to be a better version of themselves, physical and behaviour wise.

And Amy attacked both men and women, men was not her only target, or did you forget her best friend in school, her mother or how she hated and didn’t get on with any of the women in the town she moved to. Amy is just a hateful character to anyone. How you see her hatred is only aimed at men is beyond me. The reason she attacked Desi was not because he was a man, but because he was an obstacle that go in her way. She would have done the same if Desi was a women. It would be her best friend incident but ten times worse. She would have totally have played out the ‘single, white female’ storyline if Desi was a woman.

Congratulations, you didn’t fall for her mind games and took pity but unfortunately, you let her get under your skin because you didn’t see her from a clear perspective but mistaken hatred of what the writer was trying to achieve and you totally missed the point and didn't understand her at all.

[Rachel]

I don't have 'hatred', that is a very strong word to use and not really fitting. I loved the book, I even loved the characters evilness all of them. There is no hatred or even anger here. You misunderstand. It was an observation, if a lengthy one.

She literally spoke about both Nick and Desi as men who she could control. She used her attractive body and ability to play victim and the predictable, male weakness for that victimhood to get her own way. She knew that Desi's want for her body would be his undoing, she faked a rape (this is very gender specific, more people pity raped women than men).

Her ENTIRE ploy was based on one thing: women are victims who would never do anything THIS bad, but men are assholes who are likely to do something like this. it was how she got the press to lynch him, it was how she got that feminazi Ellen to smear him, it was how she turned her own parents and his twin sister against him.

If you didn't spot that, then honestly I am perplexed as to how, because my opinions aside, this is exactly what happened!

Literally this was the whole plot. The whole POINT was that 'it's always the husband'. This is even said several times through the story. Even his own twin sister blamed him with zero evidence.

I agree with your points generally on Amy's temperament. It's how Gillian Flynn spliced in these undertones that I am talking about, if that makes sense.

[Nuran]

Rachel wrote: "

“women are victims who would never do anything THIS bad”
“The whole POINT was that ‘it’s always the husband’"


I saw these book points, I’m not sure how these book points justify that this book is misandrist because they don’t.

They are a current stereotype and perception of the public that lives and breathes today. Stereotypes aren't true, we all know that, but yet they persist.

Amy used the stereotype and turned it against Nick.

As for the public turning against Nick, that was to show how powerful a stereotype and mass media can be. How mass media can be a weapon and a way to control what the public thinks. How mass media can spin every small things and make an innocent look completely guilty.

If anything, Gillian is breaking these stereotype and telling the public that it isn’t true. That yes, sometimes the woman is the perpetrator and antagonist and the husband is the innocent victim. How you turned this into Gillian attacking men, I don't know.

Gillian was attacking stereotype and mass media. Gillian is saying ignore stereotypes, don't believe everything you see on tv or newspaper otherwise someone innocent might get locked away.

[Cassandra]

Yeah Amy did do all of those things, but it's not celebrated as a good thing. If it were then maybe you would have a point. And Go did have reasons. Amy was very good at making it look like Nick did it and he didn't handle anything very well making him look even more suspicious. It's like Nuran said, Gillian was making a point about the 24/7 news cycle and the court of public opinion. It's about how Amy took the idea of women as victims and spun it on its head. Amy was a terrible person who did terrible things. You're not supposed to cheer for her.

And do you know why they always assume the husband did it? It's not misandry. It's because you are most likely to murdered by somebody close to you. So, when somebody is killed, they look to your significant other, then to your family, then friends, and the farther and farther out of your social network. You don't just go, oh yeah, it was probably some rando on the street and start there, because it is almost always a lot closer to home. I feel like you're mistaking a legitimate and sensible investigation tactic for some nefarious message about men being evil.

Honestly I feel like this book has a really low opinion of everybody. Not just men and it certainly isn't singing womens' praises.

[Aleksandra]

Cassandra wrote: "Yeah Amy did do all of those things, but it's not celebrated as a good thing. If it were then maybe you would have a point. And Go did have reasons. Amy was very good at making it look like Nick di..."

Cassandra, I agree with every sentence, you've written!

[bubblegumpopper]

I have to totally disagree. If anything, Amy comes off way worse in this book than Nick does. I wouldn't say this book is about misogyny or misandry; it's just about 2 pretty horrible people making each other miserable. And I agree with Nuran (who said it way better than I would have) that Flynn was villainizing the media culture we live in, not any gender.

[Susie]

So this story is about a larger, global dynamic of male vs female superiority? And I thought it was about which of the two nasty, hateful people would end up more screwed over by the other.

Rachel, you're reading way, way, way too much into this. It's fiction, a story with characters that are assigned specific traits to make the story twist and turn more. Actually, I'd like to see Flynn write a sequel in which Nick manages to get free of Amy.

[Nuran]

Cassandra wrote: "do you know why they always assume the husband did it? It's not misandry. It's because you are most likely to murdered by somebody close to you. So, when somebody is killed, they look to your significant other, then to your family, then friends, and the farther and farther out of your social network. You don't just go, oh yeah, it was probably some rando on the street and start there..."

That is a good point that I forgot. It's a good, legitimate reason why Nick was the main suspect and they would have probably moved on from him to other suspects if they didn't find the fake diary painting him in a bad light. It wasn't to do with Gillian being misandrist (which I highly doubt she is).

[Becca]

I dinit finish it yet, im at the part where Nick is trying to tell them that Amy is FUCKING INSANE!! so yea


And is it weird that im reading this and im only 13??

[Nuran]

Becca wrote: "

And is it weird that im reading this and im only 13??"

Not weird. You find that a lot of readers on goodreads had moved on to adult books around 12/13. I started reading Stephen King's books at 13.

[Becca]

Lol its very... Graphic I geuss u could say

[Susie]

Becca wrote: And is it weird that im reading this and im only 13??"

Not at all. Read anything you can get your hands on that interests you. I can access the public library on my e-reader and I love it.

[Sonia]

I don't find it misandrist at all, and I think it's important to note that Amy used her pregnant neighbour as well. She manipulated her, lied to her, and used her. The point is is that Amy is not a misandrist, she just was a sociopath. I think she hated everyone, she wouldn't let her mother grieve her previous miscarriages and resented her parents. Of course she hated Nick most of all, but she wasn't a misandrist.

And let's not forget, being a feminist doesn't make you a misandrist.

[Kathy]

Rachel wrote: "WARNING: Severe spoilers ahead, do not read if you've not finished the book! Also, long post. It's hard to get my point across and be brief, sorry.

SECOND WARNING: People may disagree, but come on..."

I agree.

[Michael]

I agree with the original poster in certain ways - the book and film comment on the innate misandry in society (accidentally, I presume). Specifically that only the men can be the villains in the public eye. The sad part is the numerous facts in our real society that don't see the light of day - men are 40% of domestic violence victims, men have their lives destroyed by false rape claims on a daily basis, men are strung up and ridiculed in the numerous talk shows set up to pander to women (In the UK - Jeremy Kyle, Loose Women, even 'This Morning' will have 99% of their interviews, where 1 person is in the wrong, pick the man). The characters in Gone Girl simply follow a genuine, current failing in our society

[Mila]

I find the character Amy to be very misogynistic. She embodies every stereotype there is that MRAs have about women. There is not much to say about her, as she is a cartoonish and one-dimensional sociopath.

[D.J.]

I thought there were a lot of subverted messages in the novel. Amy's comments on the 'cool girl' came across as feminist, but she makes it clear that they are roles she chooses to play to manipulate people rather than roles that are imposed on her. Then she makes use of the bugbear of the anti-feminist brigade: the false rape allegation.

If Nick had been an upstanding figure of a man or even an innocent victim, I might have seen a juxtaposition between good man and bad woman. Instead, he's a weak man who reacts to his marital problems by cheating and ultimately caves to her manoeuvring. The real opposition to Amy comes from other women, Go and Boney, who Nick ultimately rejects by aligning himself with Amy.

While Amy certainly uses gender politics in her manipulation, I can't see that the author taking any particular position. I read it as a tale of deeply flawed and compelling characters. I found it more misanthropic than either misogynistic or misandrist, by which I don't mean that Flynn herself is a misanthrope. I have no idea what her personal views are.

Looking at the Goodreads discussions, I find it interesting to see how many people have read it as taking a side. I really can't see it.

[Mila]

I meant the character Amy is misogynistic (and wholly unoriginal) in her conception. She embodies every negative stereotype there is about women to the point where she comes across as one-dimensional. Go and Boney are similarly one-dimensional. In fact, they seem to fade as characters.

[D.J.]

Mila, I agree with everything you say about Amy but I'm seeing it in the context of a lot of unpleasant characters. The stereotypical controlling man is represented by Desi and looking at some of the other threads, Nick is a bit of a hate figure as well. I can't see that the men in the novel come off any better or worse than the women but I don't think that makes the novel misandrist.

Nick is a bit of a wally, but there's a whole other conversation to be had over whether Amy is nastier than Desi or just better at planning.

Thinking about it, I'm now wondering if Gillian Flynn set out to provoke exactly the conversation we're having.

[Mario]

Becca wrote: "I dinit finish it yet, im at the part where Nick is trying to tell them that Amy is FUCKING INSANE!! so yea


And is it weird that im reading this and im only 13??"

No its not weird but maybe your mom or dad should gently break your fingers so that you don't ever again post swear words in your commentary or better still beat the living shit out of you. Methinks you are not 13 but some idiot trying to be funny.

[Susie]

Rachel wrote: "WARNING: Severe spoilers ahead, do not read if you've not finished the book! Also, long post. It's hard to get my point across and be brief, sorry.

SECOND WARNING: People may disagree, but come on..."

It's a story. About two hateful people with their own agendas. The only likeable person in it is Nick's sister. The fact that Flynn is a feminist has no bearing on the story. If it did, Amy would be all good and all men would be bad. Get over the political agendas and look at it as just a freakin' story!

[Susie]

Mario wrote: "Becca wrote: "I dinit finish it yet, im at the part where Nick is trying to tell them that Amy is FUCKING INSANE!! so yea


And is it weird that im reading this and im only 13??"

No its not weird ..." Breaking someone's fingers because they used a swear word in commentary is a bit extreme, don't you think?

[Alex]

Misogynist is a word that has been in common usage for many years. I have never known what the opposite is, someone who hates men. I always thought maybe misanthrope. Thanks to this thread I have discovered the correct term, misandrist.

[Susie]

Let's pile up all of the books written by men who make it clear in by their words that they hate women and then pile up all of the books written by women who make it clear by their words that they hate men and see which stack is taller. After that, complain all you want about misandrist authors. Up until the women's pile is bigger than the men's pile, it would be advisable if men didn't complain about misandrist books, as they really have no leg to stand on.

Geez, the Bible and books commenting on what the Bible says about women and their supposed roles in society must reach the top of the Sears tower!

[Sthep]

I think you've hit the point when you said they were not made to like. Actually, I think this book is all about how horrible people can be. At the beginning we met them by her journal and they drew us the perfect picture perfect of a couple, and then we realized none of the things written in there were real. Then it came the truth: Amy was batshit crazy and Nick was an asshole.
Yes, Amy hates man (Actually she hates everybody but herself) and has a strong opinion on herself and she's the definition of everything bad in this world. That's true. And yes, Nick is just as bad, but he needed to be that bad for this book to come out the way it was ment to be. We were not ment to feel pity for any of them, on the contrary: I think we were ment to hate them, and that we did.
But I have to admit you have a point: The author makes her characters each time to hate not only man, but everybody in general. Fat people, parents, man, other woman, kids, etc, etc. Maybe is because most of her character have this twisted dark side attached to them. Who knows? But believe me, Amy and Nick were just an addition to the disliked-crazy-mentally unestable characters.

[Robin]

Rachel wrote: "WARNING: Severe spoilers ahead, do not read if you've not finished the book! Also, long post. It's hard to get my point across and be brief, sorry.

SECOND WARNING: People may disagree, but come on..."

I actually disliked Amy because she was a narcissistic personality type. She was much less approachable and likable then Nick was. He was himself throughout the book. She seemed to me a shallow and mean-spirited.

[Robin]

Sonia wrote: "I don't find it misandrist at all, and I think it's important to note that Amy used her pregnant neighbour as well. She manipulated her, lied to her, and used her. The point is is that Amy is not a..."
Make the a second the Kathy.

[Maggie]

Rachel wrote: "I don't have 'hatred', that is a very strong word to use and not really fitting. I loved the book, I even loved the characters evilness all of them. There is no hatred or even anger here. You misun..."

Yes, you do have hatred. It comes across loud and clear to those of us reading your post, which is really a diatribe. Amy hates people, both genders, because she was used by her parents early on. Why would she be loving towards anyone? She doesn't know how. I think you missed the point of the story. I didn't have the same impression of the male characters that you got at all. Just because Flynn is active in women's issues does not mean she is a man hater. With that kind of logic, we would have to believe that every member of the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Rotary Club, the Shriners, were all women haters. If Flynn had reversed the roles of Nick and Amy, what would your reaction be? It is because she made the woman the worse villain (let's face it, there aren't many admirable characters in this book), that the book was such a huge hit. Frankly, I think this book tells more truth about relationships than most people want to admit to.