This book offers anecdotes, but no evidence. He claims that the written word alters people's brains to make them less feminist, but offers no evidence. Where are the experiments? If, as he claims, the media is what matters, and not the content, then you should be able to measure changes in people's attitudes before and after they read certain books. If he is correct, reading feminist books should make people less feminist. The spoken word has much more power to manipulate emotions than does the written word. If you want to whip a mob into a frenzy, you want the spoken word. When people read, they take time and think about what they are reading. The spoken word is highly linear. It comes at you at its pace, not at yours. People are a lot more likely to burn witches because they are whipped into a frenzy by the spoken word than they are by reading a book.
One of his examples is to claim tha the left side of the brain is the "bad" side, while the right side is the "good" side. One of his examples is that the dominant hand is the hand that holds the weapon, while the other hand is the one that holds the baby. But while that baby is being held in the left hand, the dominant hand is holding the spoon. The dominant hand is simply the hand which we are best able to use. It is much better better for fine work and is more accurate, whether that accuracy is with a weapon, threading a needle or feeding a baby.
The use of goddess imagery does not imply feminism. Look at American coinage, there used to be female imagery on the coinage in the late 18th through the 19th century. But in the early 20th century, the female image was replaced by male image. But the 20th century was clearly more feminist than the 19th century. He gives the credit for feminism to television, glossing over the fact that the suffrage movement was a literary movement. It wasn't TV that obtained the vote for women, it was the written word.
He does to great lengths to scrub male symbolism. Consider the myth of Cybelle and Attis. Attis is contrary to his agenda, so he dismisses Attis as a footnote, saying essentially that all Attis does is to die and rise again. But this role as an agricultural god was very important in ancient mythology. Perhaps as people are more estranged from where their food comes from, the less value is placed in the gods and goddesses of agriculture. He also makes the peculiar claim that the bull is a female symbol, because, according to his claim, the bull's skull and horns looks like a uterus and falopian tubes. It really doesn't. You would have to arrange them just right and squint to see them like a bull's skull. The bull is a symbol of male virility for good reason, its genitalia is just the most obvious reason. Everyone who sees a bull notices this. Most people don't get a look at a bull's uterus.
It is ironic that people who love books like this book so much. Imagine two people, the first person has many books, the second has few. Which of these two people are more likely to be feminist? If Slain was right, the second person, the non-reader would be the feminist. But it is the first, the person with many books is much more likely to be a feminist. If he's right, those who listen to anti-feminist speakers should become more feminist, while those who read feminist books should become less feminist.
Shlain makes a major mistake. The written word great power, but the power doesn't lie in the written word itself. The power lies in its permanance. The written word remains, even when you aren't there. It can persist for centuries after your death. And you can distribute identical texts far and wide. The permanence of the written word allows one version to dominate and replace every version which was not written down. We know mythology only from the versions that were written down. How many other versions of these stories do we not have because no one wrote them down? Patriarchal societies did not arise because of the written word. The written word allowed those who wanted power to control the messages that people were exposed to.