Чоловіки про фемінізм

by Michael Kaufman, Michael S. Kimmel, Майкл Кауфман

Вітаємо! Ми — доктори Майкл Кауфман та Майкл Кіммел. І ми обоє часом опиняємося в ситуаціях, коли змушені пояснювати одне й те саме. Зазвичай якийсь хлопець каже: «Звісно, я за рівність і все таке. Але жінкам давно вже не потрібен той фемінізм». Хтось додає, що нині права жінок не порушуються. Інші думають, що ґендерна рівність суперечить природі… Ми вирішили розібратися, що з цього правда, а що міф, і створили цей невеличкий довідник. З нього ви дізнаєтеся, в чому насправді полягає користь фемінізму. Чи дійсно цей рух на часі? А може, він враховує права не лише жінок, а й чоловіків? Заінтриговані? Тоді гайда будувати світ рівних можливостей разом!

Книжка видана в рамках глобального руху солідарності за ґендерну рівність HeForShe, заснованого структурою Організації Об’єднаних Націй ООН Жінки, яка зосереджує свої зусилля на досягненні ґендерної рівності та розширенні прав і можливостей жінок. Рух HeForShe в Україні впроваджується за фінансової підтримки Швеції.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Psychology, Gender and Sexuality, Gender, Philosophy, Sociology

208 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Michael Kaufman is the author of three novels and six non-fiction books. His first mystery, "The Last Exit" hits the stores in January 2020. His previous book, "The Time Has Come: Why Men Must Join the Gender Equality Revolution" draws on decades of work in fifty countries as an advisor and speaker with the United Nations, governments, NGOs, companies, trade unions and universities. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, the Globe and Mail and a slew of other places.

source: Amazon

Reviews

[Lena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Feminism for beginners (or for those who refuse to understand the obvious). Authors' attempt to explain main problems concerning feminism discussion is worth some credit, but it's too simplified and generalized. I mean, what kind of men is it for, if the authors had to throw light on the pretty obvious things. Also it sometimes contain comments like 'feminism is useful for men, because...' which is disturbing, cos if you defend someone's else right just because its good for you, you don't really believe in it.

[Book Princess (Anastasia) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5/5 🌟

Дуже добре написана книга. Стисло, інформативно, поділена на маленькі статті в алфавітному порядку, наприклад Секс, Сексизм, Спорт і т.д.

Деякі розділи мали форму невеличких інсценізацій, але не всі були вдалі, як на мене, деякі трохи дивні.

Якість українського видання бездоганна! Дуже якісний папір, гарні ілюстрації, дуже класне поєднання зеленого і рожевого, ляссе! Коротше, я в захваті. Книгу через це неймовірно приємно тримати в руках.

[Katie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I actually like Michael Kimmel (Guyland is a fantastic book), but this book sucks. It's pretty condescending to men in general and young men specifically. This idea that we should have to dumb down our conversations about gender, sexuality, and feminism in this kind of bro-y, "just us guys" kind of way is damaging to men and women, but especially men. Not to mention the implication that all guys care about sports (most of the analogies in this book relate to sports and other apparently "male"-oriented topics). It's based on the same limiting premises as Sexy Feminism, which is (as you can probably infer) a similar book that is meant to appeal specifically to women (whatever THAT means).

If you really want a good, easy-to-read, understandable primer on feminism that doesn't make you feel like an idiot, read bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody. Or hell, visit Feministing.com or blackgirldangerous.org -- there are blog posts out there that are a thousand times better than this garbage.

[Olha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Просто про фемінізм. Дуже просто.

Українське видання дуже гарно оформили: що верстка, що ілюстрації всередині прямо кличуть тебе купити цю книжку. От я і купила одразу після презентації на Книжковому Арсеналі, встигнувши навіть отримати автографи.

Книжка складається з коротких інформативних розділів, які покривають дійсно дуже багато базових і важливих тем. Пояснюється базове типу навіщо жінкам автономія і що таке ґендер, а що таке стать, чи потрібне у наш час джентльменство з відкриванням дверей, чому сексистські жарти – це дуже погано і подібне, але водночас автори не забувають про теми мізогінії та мізандрії, пояснюється, що таке зворотній сексизм, чи потрібні квоти для жінок, чи феміністки проти проституції, побіжно згадуються різні течії і хвилі фемінізму.

Загалом Майкли все дуже правильно написали у книжці, але мені геть не сподобався їхній стиль.

Дуже помітно, що книжка писалася для чоловічої аудиторії. До того ж, як мені здалося, не надто розумної. Майкли писали все дуже простими словами, постійно нагадуючи, що феміністки насправді хороші і не ненавидять чоловіків (хоча залежить від течії насправді), а «ми, чоловіки,» маємо дбати про жінок і турбуватися, тому мусимо допомагати їм у боротьбі за рівноправ’я. Здавалося, ніби автори намагаються донести цю інформацію першокласнику. А ще у більшості випадків я не сприймала гумору Майклів. Усі жарти були якісь такі дивні й недолугі, що не уявляю, яка людина з них посміється, хоча оту прямолінійну мораль мабуть таки з жартів винесе.

Мені не догодити: книжку Тамари Марценюк «Чому не варто боятися фемінізму» я прочитала наполовину, а потім відклала, бо мозок вибухав саме від академічної побудови речень, а от у «Чоловіки про фемінізм» мене дуже бісила поверхнева подача. Автори не дуже заглиблювалися в тему, а просто написали увесь текст «від себе». Вибачте за самовпевненість, але так і я можу.

Отже, «Чоловіки про фемінізм» – обов’язкове читання для тих, хто взагалі нічого не знає про фемінізм і кому підходить простий та поверхневий виклад (наприклад, для старших поколінь чи любителів «традиційних цінностей»). Але якщо ви вже розбираєтеся і десь на шляху до фемінізму, то навряд ця книжка для вас.

[Oksana · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Фемінізм - це цілком демократична цінність." - і з цим я погоджуюсь на всі 100%. Звісно, роботи зі змінами в мізках людей ще ого-го як багато, але хочеться до цього прагнути. І цю книжечку варто прочитати усім, хто досі не усвідомив, що феміністки чи феміністи - це не агресивно налаштовані проти чоловіків люди, вони просто хочуть рівності, а відкривати двері перед жінкою потрібно не лише тому, що вона заслуговує якогось особливого ставлення, а тому, що ви так само зробили б і перед чоловіком, бо це прояв ввічливості, доброти.

[Lani · Rating 2 out of 5]

Obviously I'm not the target audience here, being both a girl and mostly beyond the 'Feminism 101' part of my life. But the book was cheap for the Kindle and I was curious about whether it would be something to recommend to others.

I didn't really appreciate the 'just between us guys' voice of the authors, but again, I know I'm not the target audience. It often came off as somewhat embarrassing and belittling to the reader, but maybe I wasn't reading with the right attitude.

The book does generally address sort of the 'hot topics' of feminism and tries to Slowly and In Small Words explain the Female Perspective to Men. But I can't think of anyone I could suggest the book to, a guy open to a book about feminism is likely a little more aware than this book assumes, and the ones who need such a dumbed down approach are unlikely to read this on purpose.

I think I would rather introduce an interested guy to some intelligent examples of feminist thought. There are plenty that are geared towards 'beginners' or that make their points without the jargon. I'd rather give a guy some credit and assume he can read a book that doesn't talk down to him.

[Yevhen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Книга з неймовірним, першокласним оформленням.
На жаль, наповнення книги не було таким ідеальним.
Місцями стиль написання і подання матеріалу викликало здивування. Складалося враження ніби автори звертаються до своїх читачів, як до якихось дурників.
Хоча, не буду приховувати, окремі теми були дуже цікавими, а дещо дізнався нового!

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good intentions, if a little too simplistic and cutesy. Might be a good intro for the completely uninitiated.

[Kasiastarko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Думаю, що книжка непогана, якщо ви тільки знайомитеся з фемінізмом, а для бувалого на цю тему читача - нічого нового.

[Soren_Schneider · Rating 1 out of 5]

Діжка правди з ложкою популізму, але на смак все одно як суцільний популізм

Я дуже розчарований цією книгою. Дуже. Іноді бували моменти, коли її хотілося просто знищити через неймовірну наглість. Вона полягає у тому, що у дуже правильні месседжі, яких десь 90% книги, автори примудрилися докласти 10%, якнайменш, сумнівної відсебятини не заснованої ні на чому і без посилань на джерела, які могли б підтвердити їхні тези. Причому гаразд, якби це були просто неперевірені речі, це можна було б списати на те, що це їх point, але у даному випадку це нагла підміна понять тоді, коли їм зручно. "Десь ми узагальнимо, щоб було зручно, а десь більш предметно розпишемо свою дуже цінну точку зору на якесь питання, бо в цьому випадку в нас був під рукою ґуґл. Десь ми будемо засуджувати людей за певну модель поведінки, а десь ми будемо самі так поводитися".

Те, що в цій книжці забагато популістських тез на 200 сторінок, це найголовніший мінус. Але на цьому не все. Ця книжка навіть структурно натякає на те, що її було написано щоб якомога швидше позбавитися людини, яка ставить ці питання. Хоча я слабо собі уялвяю, що така людина справді існує. Бо розглянуті питання розкриваються НУ ДУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУУЖЕ (чуєте цю нудьгу?) поверхнево, не вдаючись у серйозну аналітику. Ще мені здалося, що автори або самі сексисти, або взагалі не розуміють для кого пишуть цю книг��, наче вони не визначилися хто їхня ЦА. Подекуди складається враження, що зі мною розмовляють мовляв я ходжу в початкову школу і дорослі дяді намагаються мене вчити життю, причому якби ж то були сп��авжні інсайди, але ніт. Мені просто кажуть "небо блакитне, травичка зелененька". Тезу про неозначність їхньої ЦА підтверджує гумор, який, якщо чесно, важко назвати гумором. Більше нагадує формат, якби найбільш прогресивний дід на Однокласниках керував би блоґом, де намагався лобіювати певні думки через анекдоти та притчи. Причому іноді жарти настільки дурні, що вони прямо впливають на якість викладання матеріалу. Серйозно. Є цілий розділ, який написано у стилі метаіронії, яка не розкриває усю серйозність проблеми і не дає відповіді на питання "І як же її вирішити, пани Майкли?".

Я її таки залишу в своїй колекції, щоб іноді повертатися до неї у якості посібника "ЯК НЕ ТРЕБА ДОНОСИТИ СВОЇ ДУМКИ". Причини вже перерахував: недоречні жарти у книзі з претензію на соц-поп, популізм який претендує на окремий жанр літератури "попу-поп" та поверхнева подача інформації. Не те щоб ця книга якесь зло, як треба знищити. Ні. Тут, якщо проковтнути увесь негатив, дійсно є зерно правди, і його більше. Але ця книга не виконує свою головну функцію. Вона лише підтверджує факти, з якими погодиться будь-яка здорова людина. Ця книга нечитабельна. Вона претендує максимум на щось типу "дуже довгий пост на Фейсбуці який хтось вирішив надрукувати". Єдине, чому я зовсім не позбавив себе толерантності та написав про цю книгу відносно спокійний відгук - це те, що вона мені коштувала третину своєї вартості. Хай буде гарним сувеніром та ремайндером "чому популізм це погано".

[Alexandra Tobor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hm. Die Deppen, für die dieses Buch geschrieben wurde, würden es nie in die Hand nehmen.

[Katrina Sark · Rating 4 out of 5]

p.23 – Chivalry – Feminism is not a reaction against politeness or kindness; it’s a reaction against inequality and the perception that women are weak, passive, and helpless.

p.44 – Feminism – Do you believe that women should:
• Have the right to vote?
• Go to college?
• Drive a car?
• Open a bank account in her own name?
• Enjoy sex?
• Work in whatever occupation they might choose, and get paid the same as men when they do the same work?
Did you answer yes? Then you better lie down. You’ve probably caught feminism.

p.48 – Friendship – That scene (when Harry tells Sally that men and women can never be friends because of sexual attraction) pretty much summed up the situation for decades. In fact, a lot of smart people figured that men were so emotionally shut down that deep friendships with either sex were just about impossible. (One psychologist even coined a clinical term for men’s incapacity for emotional expressiveness: alexithymia.)
Harry [from When Harry Met Sally] was wrong. Men and women can be friends. Men and women are friends. Sex doesn’t always get in the way. And even if it does, you deal with it. But here’s the amazing thing about friendship: You make friends with people you consider your equals. You consider your friends your peers. You don’t make friends with your boss, or your college dean, or with some low-life you wouldn’t wasn’t to be seen with.

p.49 – What does friendship have to do with feminism, you ask? That’s easy. Feminism encouraged women to be more assertive and confident. And feminist women encouraged men to be more emotionally available and expressive. And the more confident women get, and the more expressive men get – well, the more equal women and men are. And the more capable they are of being real friends. Greater gender equality makes our friendship possible, which is great for both women and men.
Harry may have misinformed Sally that men and women were from different planets, perhaps Mars and Venus. Happily, we live on planet Earth – and we Earthlings are capable of friendships between equals.

p.59 – Good Relationships: A Recipe – This recipe generally feeds two people. (Experiment with larger numbers at your own risk.) It works whether you have committed to a lifetime of eating together or you have hooked up just for one-night snack. (Modify the intensity based on length of meal.)
Blend together, the ingredients for respect:
• 1 part respect for the independence and autonomy of the other person (just because you’re in a relationship doesn’t mean the other person is your property)
• 1 part respect for the other person’s feelings
• 1 part respect for her/his sexual desires
• 1 part self-respect (so you don’t betray yourself, do things you’ll regret, or get walked all over)
Add:
• I part honesty, which means, be honest with the other person and also honest with yourself (but do this in a way that doesn’t hurt or humiliate the other)
Carefully mix in:
• Empathy, this means feeling what the other person is feeling. How does it feel to be treated that way (by you or by someone else)?
• Communication skills. Good communication is based on empathy and honesty. It is based on having the courage and respect to be as clear as possible. Remember you communicate not only by what you say, but what you don’t say. You communicate with body language. Most of all, good communication relies on good listening.
Fold in:
• An awareness of your own feelings, fears, emotions, insecurities. Know thyself.
• A willingness to take emotional risks (but do so carefully so one person isn’t way ahead of the other)
Leave out:
• Jealousy
• The stupid idea that you’re incomplete if you’re not with someone
• Generalizations in an argument
• The notion that life is a movie scene

p.98 – Listening – If we men wasn’t to really understand what women’s lives are all about, we’ve got to do some listening. (Similarly, as two guys who happen to be white, the only way we can really understand the reality of racism in the lives of black, Hispanic, indigenous, Muslim, or Asian men is to ask them about their lives and then listen to what they have to say.)
• Try not to get defensive. Just listen.
• Remember that listening to women doesn’t mean feeling guilty about being a man.
• Pay attention.
• If you don’t agree, don’t flip into attack mode. Wait your turn to speak. Ask some questions. Clarify. Find common ground.
• Listening means we recognize that e live in a society where certain groups still dominate the airwaves. In our culture, that means that men, white people, heterosexuals, and the middle-class and wealthy, for example, tend to control the education system, media, government, and big religious establishment with the result that they still have a disproportionate say in defining what is real. Listening gives a chance for you to hear other voices.

p.112 – Patriarchy – Patriarchy literally means “rule of the fathers” and comes from the Old Testament – all power was given to male elders. Today, its meaning is more general: male domination of all the major institutions of society, including government, religion, education, the economy, the military, and the media.

p.113 – The history of male-dominated societies is a history of power struggles among men, whether in individual competition, wars, or blood feuds. And we raise boys to succeed by encouraging them to be tough, aggressive, and stoic, to try to inhabit a suit of armor that allows is to express only some things and suppress a whole lot else. It’s pretty strange – men live in a society in which we’re supposed to be “in charge” but the cost is that we live shorter lives, die younger, and have to cut ourselves off from our real selves. What kind of “power” is that?

p.116 – PMS – Pre-Menstrual Syndrome – a rush of hormones preceding a menstrual cycle. Gloria Steinem once commented that during the few days before menstruation a woman’s estrogen level drops to its lowest point in her menstrual cycle. That is, those are the days during which, hormonally, she is most like a man.

p.132 – Race and Racism – Feminism is the exploration of the experiences of different women. And just as feminists speak out against sexism and discrimination against women as a group, feminists speak out against bias and discrimination against particular groups of women.

p.172 – A Short History of Women’s Rights:
1790 – France: equal inheritance rights (later abolished)
1833 – U.S.: first coeducational university, Oberlin, established
1838 – Pitcairn Islands: women get the right to vote
1839 – Britain: mothers allowed to be guardians of their own children after divorce
1842 – Sweden: compulsory elementary school for boys and girls
1848 – U.S.: Seneca Falls conference starts women’s suffrage movement
1854 – Norway: equal inheritance rights
1872 – U.K. women’s suffrage movement begins
1893 – New Zealand: women’s suffrage won
1917 – Canada: women’s suffrage won
1918 – U.K.: women’s suffrage won
1920 – U.S.: women’s suffrage won
1947 – Sweden: equal pay for both sexes
1967 – U.K.: abortion legalized
1971 – Switzerland: women’s suffrage
1971 – U.S.: Ms. Magazine founded
1973 – U.S. abortion legalized
1988 – Canada: abortion legalized
1993 – U.S.: marital rape made illegal
1994 – U.K.: marital rape made illegal
2006: United Arab Emirates: women’s suffrage

[Lidiia Moshenska · Rating 5 out of 5]

Хоча я точно не є аудиторією цієї книги, проте вона мені дуже зайшла, а 17-річна я була б просто б в захваті. Все написано дуже чітко, структуровано та лаконічно. Якби більше хлопців (так, саме юнаків) її прочитали, то ми б жили в трохи кращому світі.

[Jameson · Rating 4 out of 5]

While serving as a good introduction to some of the most basic issues of feminism, The Guy’s Guide to Feminism doesn’t reach those who don’t fit its niche audience.

The Guy’s Guide to Feminism is a broad spectrum encyclopedia of feminist issues written for the uninformed man. However, anyone who has taken a women’s studies class, or even read an article on feminism will find this book a recap at best.

The style of The Guy’s Guide to Feminism is the only element of the book that most people haven’t seen before. Authors Michael Kaufman and Michael Kimmel have a unique sense of humor all their own, which, when condensed down into written form, looks like a hodge-podge male-skewed encyclopedia on women’s issues. Although some of the entries [Especially “Genital Cutting” and “Intersectionality”] are effective in their messages, the majority of the entries suffer from a confused mix of genres from faux ‘Q&A’s with the authors to the repurposing of the “Priest and a Rabbi walk into a bar” joke, which serve to muddle the argument with mostly “miss” humor that detracts from the seriousness of the issue.

Another problematic element of this text is that the issues discussed almost always end in the payoff for men. For example, in the Housework section, the authors actually suggest that if the reader does more housework, he will have sex with his wife more in exchange. I’m confused why the authors thought that this was how to get men involved in feminism. The objective of the text should be to show men that feminism is about mutual respect and equality, not promising men that sharing in housework is such a feat of feminism that women will be throwing themselves at them. There are plenty of other examples of this trope throughout the text, and it causes the reader to question the motivations the authors had for writing the text. Although most of their messages seem to be in agreement with those of modern feminism, the perpetuation of this “reward system” for men being allies to feminism is insulting to anyone who calls themselves a feminist because they believe in equality.

In the book’s defense, it is written for men--a specific kind of men; the kind of men who hate feminism because they have to do more housework if their wives/girlfriends are independent. In this sense, the book is effective. Sure the issues are cut short and the solutions to every problem are solved by men leading feminism, but at least the reader can, for once, put aside his hatred of feminists to think that maybe the section about domestic violence may actually be right. That the embedded test about alcohol and consent that he scored a 1 out of 4 on might actually be telling him something about his lifestyle and the way he treats women. Kimmel and Kaufman realize that the average man is opposed to feminism from hearing the name alone. Keeping this in mind, what they are doing is rebranding feminism for men; stamping an NFL logo on it and wrapping it in bacon. They are not trying to solve the problems of male opposition to feminism or even question male gender expectations. They know their audience, and they want to impart any piece of their message that they can.

[Greta Stuhlsatz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm really not entirely sure how I feel about this book. It was set up as an alphabetical list of issues that men need to be aware of in the context of feminism. The authors (for whom I have the utmost respect) seemed to experiment with different ways to present the material so it was more accessible (a screen play for the pornography section, a surfing analogy for the different waves of feminism section). While they were very unique and creative I think sometimes the way the authors represented the material distracted from the message and it perhaps didn't come through the way it was supposed to. There were some sections that seemed to be a very advanced (on the feminism journey) explanation of the topic and others that seemed very 101. Because of this, I'm not sure at what point (on their journey) I would recommend this book to friends who were confused about or thinking about feminism. Anyway, it was a very short, easy read, so it wouldn't be too much of a waste of time if you read it and ended up hating it.

[grayson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although I was really looking forward to this book, I wasn't thoroughly impressed. Not to knock the work of the Michael K's, but I think this "guide" was a bit redundant. This book would be nice if one didn't really know the first thing about feminism - maybe it could be used in a survey course or something of the sort. Props to the authors for concise, alphabetized sections/chapters. Thumbs down, though, for the constant "all of us guys" (actual quote) tone and generalizations about a lot of things (such as the cover, which I personally like - but not every dude is into sports). I was also disappointed at the book's lack of mention/inclusion of trans* people/gender identity, and the quick brush over the concept of gender/sex. Last, while the book does have a really positive tone, the sarcasm and constant jokes laced throughout were a buzzkill for me. Not exactly what I expected.

[mette sophie · Rating 5 out of 5]

━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━
“And if men are so biologically ill equipped to sew or cook, how come most of the famous surgeons and chefs are male?”
━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━

⟡ Short Summary
This isn’t your typical “let’s talk about feminism” book. The Guy’s Guide to Feminism isn’t angry, preachy, or boring — it’s clever, calm, and surprisingly funny. Written by Michael Kaufman and Michael Kimmel (aka the Michael K’s), it’s literally a guide for guys who want to understand feminism without getting lost in academic jargon or online arguments.

The book breaks everything down into short, sharp sections like “Consent,” “Body Image,” “Parenting,” and even “Chivalry” - all written in a way that feels like your funny older brother explaining stuff over lunch. It makes you laugh, then makes you think. And then punches you in the feelings.

⟡ Writing Style

“Want better sex? Of course you do! Brother, does feminism have a deal for you…”

The tone is casual and conversational. They use humor a LOT, sometimes dry, sometimes cheesy on purpose. But underneath all the dad-joke energy, the points land. Big time. It’s like they’re sneak-attacking your brain with facts.

That said, they don’t sugarcoat anything. They call out real issues. Rape culture, sexism at work, the pressure to be a “manly man”. Then they explain how feminism isn’t just about women, it’s about fairness for everyone.

⟡ Characters and Emotions

Okay, it’s nonfiction. There aren’t “characters” exactly, but the vibe is still very human. You feel the Michaels in every word; two guys who are passionate, thoughtful, and done with all the tired anti-feminist nonsense.

“It pisses us off when a guy doesn’t support his own kids.”

Like. That’s not a soft, diplomatic take. That’s real.

And then there are quotes that feel way too relevant to ignore, like:

“How would you feel if every time you went out on a date, you worry you could join the one in four women who’d been sexually assaulted?”

Suddenly, the statistics aren’t just stats. They hit you in the gut.

“Expressing emotions is a vital part of being human. Keeping them inside is bad politics and bad for our health.”

This part? Honestly healing.

⟡ Pacing and Structure
The book is fast and snappy. Each section is like a mini essay or a rant — in the best way. No fluff. No dragging. You can read it in order, or jump around based on whatever topic hits that day’s existential crisis.

Still, I wouldn’t have minded a few deeper dives. Some sections were so strong that I wanted more pages, more examples, more “mic drop” moments. But I also get that the point was to keep it breezy and accessible.

⟡ Themes and Message

“Feminism is not a reaction against politeness or kindness; it’s a reaction against the inequality and the perception that women are weak, passive and helpless.”

The biggest theme? Feminism isn’t anti-man. It’s pro-equality. The book hammers home that being a feminist doesn’t make you “less of a man” — it makes you more human.

They also talk a lot about how sexism hurts *everyone*, not just women. Like:

“And if men are so biologically ill equipped to sew or cook, how come most of the famous surgeons and chefs are male?”

It’s the kind of statement that makes you raise your eyebrows and nod like, okay, fair point.

And the critique of how women are constantly sexualized? On point.

“It’s a creepy problem when eight year old girls are pimped by advertisers to get all dolled up to look sexually alluring.”

Yes. This. More people need to say this out loud.

⟡ Ick/WTF Moments (but we kept reading)
Honestly? Almost none. This book doesn’t have “ick” moments the way a cringey romance novel might, but it does have moments that make you angry at the double standards and at how casual inequality has become.

One moment that made me pause was specifically:

“[…] and then—if you get angry, they accuse you of being a lesbian—as if that were a crime—or say how pretty you are when you’re angry.”

Also, this:

“Okay, forget the attraction. Just have sex with whomever we choose. (Uh, within reason of course. And the law. No close relatives, and no children.)”

The parenthetical made me cackle, but also; it’s real. Consent, safety, and basic respect shouldn’t be revolutionary. And yet.

⟡ So Why 5/5?
Because it slaps. It’s short, sharp, and makes a solid case for why feminism is for everyone: not just women in politics or angry girls online. It’s written in guy-language on purpose, which makes it extra powerful. I can see why some might feel like it’s too dumbed down, but I think that’s what makes it a great book. It makes guys think, which is the whole point!

But overall? It’s the perfect intro book for someone who says “I’m not a feminist, but…” or “I just don’t get what the big deal is.” Hand it to them. Immediately.

⟡ All in All
This book is for guys, sure: but also for girls, teachers, parents, everyone. It’s like a Feminism 101 course, but written by your funny uncles who also happen to be sociology professors. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, but it takes feminism seriously. And that’s the balance that makes it great.

━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━
“Feminism implores, encourages, and challenges men to be fully involved in parenting.”
━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━

[Paulmhr · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Guy's Guide to Feminism serves as a great introduction for anyone currently questioning feminism's relevancy in a society which may seem equal. It takes a comprehensive overview of a large variety of topics relevant to gender and sex studies, all framed within easy-to-read two-page articles. It is a shame, however, that many of the framing devices the authors used largely removes the possibility of in-depth discussions of relevant and interesting topics of intersectionality, Title IX, and Patriarchy. All in all, a great introduction to feminist ideas, but TGGtF is little more than that.

[Bastida · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ce livre part d'une très bonne intention puisqu'il essaie d'expliquer la cause féministe aux hommes. Au début, j'étais un peu sceptique "un homme qui parle de féminisme et qui explique ce que les femmes vivent ?", mais je me suis lancée quand même. Et finalement, je dois dire que les explications restent TRÈS légères... Et puis parfois elle sont même un peu sexistes (exemple : parler aux hommes de sexe pour leur dire pourquoi ils doivent passer l'aspirateur chez eux...)
Bref, je mets 1/5 car le sujet me plaît et parce qu'il a un bon fond mais le livre en soi n'est pas terrible du tout.

[Betanicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

A feminism primer.
It makes some good points and draws attention to what should be obvious, but it felt like it was written on a low reading level to accommodate men, which really bothered me.
The points they made were great, but, personally, I was sometimes distracted by how they made them. It is an easy read, though, and helpful if you want to learn more about feminism.

[L. Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book from my wife. Not a lot I haven't already heard, but the information was delivered in an engaging style that all guys can get into. Recommended for men who want to understand more about what it's like to be a woman in our society--and want to add more feminist thought into their life.

[Jeffrey Bedford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very quick and easy read. This is very insightful, and every guy should take the time to read it!

[Ali (alireadsbooks) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just wrote an 8-page paper on all the problems I had with this "guide".

[Raphaël BOITEUX · Rating 1 out of 5]

Deux mecs qui trouvent de mauvaises raisons pour expliquer leurs mauvais comportements…

[Jules Wolfers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book for guys to read about feminism.

[Daniel Cluskey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was a little worried when I read the reviews of this book because the general consensus seemed to be that it was a simplistic and surface-skimming summary of feminism. I figured it couldn't be too bad since I am sadly under-informed about the subject, but after reading it I have to agree with the reviews. Most of the definitions in the book are things that anyone who has a friend who is even remotely feminist would already be aware of, and I'm not sure that anyone would pick up this book who isn't at least at that level already. I also was not a fan of the method they used in several chapters of using fictional characters to make it feel more like a conversation than a text book. The conversations did not flow at all and would have fit much better had they just been presented as text and not dialogue.

On the plus side this was an incredibly quick read and I'm not at all disappointed that I devoted the time I did to it. It had valuable information, and probably most importantly it made me realize that I don't need books to be specifically written for me to read them. I guess I need to read actual books on feminism now.

[Kopesh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Feminists are still delusional about the inexistent wage gap. They want the same wages for women, while women works jobs that are way easier than what men work. Also, I've never read once in this book about women taking responsibility for their actions. Standard libtard speech about being oppressed and how tough you have it just because you are a woman.

Grow a pair and accept responsibility for your actions. Stop demanding equal pay just because you have a pussy, while working way easier jobs that don't produce as much economic growth as men's jobs do.

[Анастасія Рудюк · Rating 4 out of 5]

Побутує стереотип, що феміністки і фемінізм загалом проти чоловіків.

Насправді це не так. Це поверхневе уявлення та стереотип щодо нашого руху. Насправді фемінізм засуджує тих, хто перешкоджає рівності прав жінок і чоловіків у суспільстві.

І це лише вершина айсбергу. Чоловіки мають бути зацікавленими в підтримці феміністичного руху, бо йде мова про їхніх матерів, жінок, сестер та доньок.

Це чудова книга про і для чоловіків. Їй було би корисно прочитати кожному, бо Кауфман та Кіммел просто пояснюють засади фемінізму.

І так, чоловікам є місце у фемінізмі.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book turned me off a subject that I was legitimately interested in learning about. I hate-read the whole way through. It took me more than a year after reading it to eventually find my way to Germaine Greer, Simone de Beauvoir, Angela Davis etc...

The two Michaels might actually provide some good background/history in this book, but it is presented in such a condescending bro-y manner as to make the content seem null. Michaels, I think I see the demo you were going for here, but this book runs the risk of turning interested parties away from Feminism. Respect your readers, ffs.

[علي · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book – just like other books of intersectional feminism – wants men to accept their fault in society l. This book is proof why feminism isn't for men but anti-men. If you want to write a book for men, don't insult men in it. No wonder why we only have two kinds of men: performative feminists and anti-feminists. If you tell a man: "You should acknowledge that men are bad and broken so you need to try to fix yourself.", no man with dignity would agree. The performative feminist says he's different and he's among the few non-broken men and other men would stay out of it.