Khari’s Reviews > Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion > Status Update

...relationships. There are economic difficulties, there are class difficulties, there are differences in education that have to be negotiated. Philosophies clash. How else am I supposed to describe that, except as existential?

....I think I need to take another break from this book.

There are plenty of books out there that are about social relationships that feature male protagonists. Just as there are plenty of books that are about existential issues that feature female protagonists. I mean, just look at Katniss Everdeen, a character she's already mentioned. Her story is hardly a merely romantic one. Even the Bronte sisters and Jane Eyre can hardly be brushed aside as being solely about social

"Male protagonists are unhappy because of existential reasons, female protagonists are unhappy because of social reasons."

What does that even mean? First of all, is loneliness, and lack of social acceptance not existential? Second of all, have you read a book? Of course she's read a book, she's read lots of books, she just hasn't read any without putting an interpretation on them already in line with her worldview.

Women also use rape as a plot device.

This is not just a man problem, it's a bad writer's problem.

I...don't know what books she is talking about.

Have you read a book where the main character is a woman who does nothing but cook and clean and take care of her husband all the time?

I can't even think of a classic book like that, let alone a modern one.

I can actually think of a male book like that, practicing the presence of God, because it's literally him just cooking and cleaning and praying.

...and second maybe because you didn't draw the right boundaries?

Also, why is there this complete defense of women as such, as incapable of making mistakes, as utterly stainless, and blameless?

Have you met a human?

Male or female we are pretty talented at pissing off each other and hurting each other, and it pretty much always requires at least two people to result in problems.

I remembered why I stopped listening to this book. I can't get more than 3 minutes without getting irritated at how stupid assertions are just stated so baldly.

The current one is her children and husband 'were a part of her life, but they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul.'

Maybe the problem isn't with them, maybe it's with you, first of all assuming you know what they're thinking,

Marriage is not an unmitigated positive, nor is it an unmitigated negative for anyone involved in it.

It is an institution that requires sacrifice on both parties. If you view it as a method of one-upping or putting down your partner, instead of on building them up, then of course it's going to fail.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp, it's the same in any contractual relationship.

"Marriage is a boon for men and a regulatory mechanism for women."

At the same time as she is screaming about how the plotline for women in society is too limiting and ignores the reality of some, she cavalierly does the same thing to men.

Marriage is a boon for men, and it is a boon for women. It is a regulatory mechanism for women, and it is a regulatory mechanism for men.

Just like 'dad' and 'girl dad' don't mean the same thing, it's a descriptor. It's a multiplier, it's an adjective that packs more meaning on. It means more than the sum of its parts! But no. We have to be mad about it for some unknown, never explained reason, simply because there is no male equivalent. No 'boy dad's' or 'boy boss' es.

There is also no male equivalent for cat lady and yet no complaints there.