Hot Best Seller

Are Men Obsolete?: The Munk Debate on Gender

Availability: Ready to download

For the first time in history, will it be better to be a woman than a man in the upcoming century? The twelfth semi-annual Munk Debate pits Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd against Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia to debate one of the biggest socio-economic phenomena of our time — the relative decline of the power and status of men in the workplace, in the family, and society For the first time in history, will it be better to be a woman than a man in the upcoming century? The twelfth semi-annual Munk Debate pits Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd against Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia to debate one of the biggest socio-economic phenomena of our time — the relative decline of the power and status of men in the workplace, in the family, and society at large. Men have traditionally been the dominant sex. But now, for the first time, a host of indicators suggests that women not only are achieving equality with men, but are fast emerging as the more successful sex of the species. Whether in education, employment, personal health, or child rearing, statistics point to a rise in the status and power of women at home, in the workplace, and in traditional male bastions such as politics. But are men, and the age-old power structures associated with “maleness,” permanently in decline? In this edition of the Munk Debates — Canada’s premier debate series — renowned author and editor Hanna Rosin and Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Maureen Dowd square off against New York Times–bestselling author Caitlin Moran and academic trailblazer Camille Paglia to debate the future of men. With women increasingly demonstrating their ability to “have it all” while men lag behind, the Munk Debate on gender tackles the essential socio-economic question: Are men obsolete?


Compare

For the first time in history, will it be better to be a woman than a man in the upcoming century? The twelfth semi-annual Munk Debate pits Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd against Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia to debate one of the biggest socio-economic phenomena of our time — the relative decline of the power and status of men in the workplace, in the family, and society For the first time in history, will it be better to be a woman than a man in the upcoming century? The twelfth semi-annual Munk Debate pits Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd against Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia to debate one of the biggest socio-economic phenomena of our time — the relative decline of the power and status of men in the workplace, in the family, and society at large. Men have traditionally been the dominant sex. But now, for the first time, a host of indicators suggests that women not only are achieving equality with men, but are fast emerging as the more successful sex of the species. Whether in education, employment, personal health, or child rearing, statistics point to a rise in the status and power of women at home, in the workplace, and in traditional male bastions such as politics. But are men, and the age-old power structures associated with “maleness,” permanently in decline? In this edition of the Munk Debates — Canada’s premier debate series — renowned author and editor Hanna Rosin and Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Maureen Dowd square off against New York Times–bestselling author Caitlin Moran and academic trailblazer Camille Paglia to debate the future of men. With women increasingly demonstrating their ability to “have it all” while men lag behind, the Munk Debate on gender tackles the essential socio-economic question: Are men obsolete?

30 review for Are Men Obsolete?: The Munk Debate on Gender

  1. 5 out of 5

    Nessie McInness

    This book was recommended to me by my boyfriend (I know, right?) (He knows I'm a big Caitlin Moran fan and he works in a bookshop) I both liked and hated this book. I've always been a feminist. I come from a family with 2 very strong empowered women, who always stood for what they believe despite what patriarchy told them they had to do. I also have a very sexist dad, who thinks women are inferior and they should be grateful for what men allow them to do (except me. I'm the best female driver he's s This book was recommended to me by my boyfriend (I know, right?) (He knows I'm a big Caitlin Moran fan and he works in a bookshop) I both liked and hated this book. I've always been a feminist. I come from a family with 2 very strong empowered women, who always stood for what they believe despite what patriarchy told them they had to do. I also have a very sexist dad, who thinks women are inferior and they should be grateful for what men allow them to do (except me. I'm the best female driver he's seen ("You drive like a man!"), I was damn right to go to uni, and my boyfriend should do his own damn clothes, because "you're no one's maid!"). Both these things made me a feminist from a very young age, and I've always believed men and women ARE EQUALS. None of that "women are better" crap. That's sexism as well. Like Caitlin Moran says I'm a Humanist. I bought this book waiting to hear more form both sides of feminism. But instead, I found myself even more in love with Caitlin and HATING everyone else. Things like: when men disappear (which is already a WTF thing to say), they will take "video games, Game of Thrones on continuous loop and cold pizza in the morning with them" made me hate this book. Now I'm a BIG fan of video games, Game of Thrones AND cold pizza. And I'M A WOMAN. Sentences like this are just stereotyping men. And guess what? When men stereotype women IT'S CALLED SEXISM. Way to go! So anyway, this book was full of contradictions, dubious science (the Y chromosome is about to be extinct in 10.000 years? I would like to see a scientific article about it. On a proper scientific magazine, please, not on Vagina Today), and very little humour (despite being considered a "humour" book). It just made me really want to read more of Caitlin Moran. She's the only one worth listening to.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Tim Pendry

    A classic example of the posturing of the Anglo-Saxon middle class ogling at 'public intellectuals' performing like seals in pseudo-debates relying on predictable position-taking. There is merit in some of Hanna Rosin's analysis of the economics underpinning power shifts between genders but even she is speaking of a game played by the middle classes that scarcely affects the lack of power wielded by most working people of both sexes. The only one who has something of value to say is the redoubtabl A classic example of the posturing of the Anglo-Saxon middle class ogling at 'public intellectuals' performing like seals in pseudo-debates relying on predictable position-taking. There is merit in some of Hanna Rosin's analysis of the economics underpinning power shifts between genders but even she is speaking of a game played by the middle classes that scarcely affects the lack of power wielded by most working people of both sexes. The only one who has something of value to say is the redoubtable and ultimately humane Camille Paglia and even she is not at her best in the cheapening format of the public performance debate. Good basic truths like the need to see men and women as persons who are equally under pressure (Moran) are lost in over-clever grandstanding. I am not sure what the point of Maureen Dowd actually is. Certainly it is not the elucidation of anything meaningful here These debates purport to be political education but real political education is participative and consultative whereas these events are simply people who often confuse cleverness with genius speaking at or down to an open-mouthed audience of worshippers. All the jocularity and in-jokes about American politics, cheap debating points and posturing in the end amount to less than a hill of beans. Go direct to Paglia and Rosin and make a judgment on their more considered writings. Perhaps intended as 'edutainment', these debates are for intellectual lightweights. Here we have very little useful information and if you are entertained by this sort of thing you would probably be a bore at a decent dinner party. Otherwise, don't bother ...

  3. 5 out of 5

    Charleigh

    This reminds me of my friend Gloria's Facebook polls, in that it's a disingenuous yes/ no question where the reality is complex and nuanced. Toxic masculinity is obsolete. Men themselves aren't in any danger of going extinct, and the sociopolitical structures that were built for their benefit continue to run in much the same biased way. On the "pro" side, the "No, men are not obsolete" argument, I found Caitlin Moran charming and persuasive (I've read her How to Be a Woman book previously) and C This reminds me of my friend Gloria's Facebook polls, in that it's a disingenuous yes/ no question where the reality is complex and nuanced. Toxic masculinity is obsolete. Men themselves aren't in any danger of going extinct, and the sociopolitical structures that were built for their benefit continue to run in much the same biased way. On the "pro" side, the "No, men are not obsolete" argument, I found Caitlin Moran charming and persuasive (I've read her How to Be a Woman book previously) and Camille Paglia utterly repulsive. I'm tempted to read some of Paglia's other work just for the fun of getting all riled up. All in all, reading the debate was a good way to spend International Woman's Day.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Martha

    Don't be misled by the clickbait title - this is not the work of the stereotypical "Angry Feminist" suggesting that we do away with half the human race. Nor is it jut the work of Caitlin Moran (but that's a Goodreads admin point!) This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sect Don't be misled by the clickbait title - this is not the work of the stereotypical "Angry Feminist" suggesting that we do away with half the human race. Nor is it jut the work of Caitlin Moran (but that's a Goodreads admin point!) This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sectors. I picked this up in the library for the exact reason I'm telling you not to judge it - the title made me laugh because it's totally absurd. In the opening words of the 'For' argument, Rosin admits: "For one thing, we haven't figured out how to harvest their sperm without, you know, keeping them alive" So you can see there is a lot more to this debate than an outlandish proposition. It's not a clear cut topic by any means, and the four speakers agreed on a number of areas. There was far too much ground to cover in a relatively short debate, but the speakers touched on areas such as the crisis of masculinity, the intersection with class in the case of the 'working class man' and the many faces of feminism. There will no doubt be critics who will scream "but how can four women be debating whether or not men are obsolete?! How dare they!" To them I say - men have been debating the value of women for many centuries, so frankly it was refreshing to have the tables turned and have an all-female panel offering up eloquent, balanced arguments. Certainly the male chair, Rudyard Griffiths felt safe with Moran and Paglia arguing against the motion: Caitlin Moran: Aren't you enormously grateful that I'm not saying that men should be exterminated? Rudyard Griffiths: Thank you. Caitlin Moran: We're not going to come around and just put you all in big dumpsters - Rudyard Griffiths: My Y chromosome will live to see another day. The debate started with the audience voting against the motion 82-18...but how did they vote after closing arguments? I'll mark the rest of my review in spoilers for when you've had a chance to read the arguments... (view spoiler)[The crux of this debate is really around the definition of obsolescence (a word which I am now in love with). As Rosin argued in her opening statement, the fundamental biological need for the male half of the population remains. However, it was her eloquent closing argument that really sealed the deal in the minds of the voting audience: "I think there is some confusion out there about what you are voting for if you vote for us. When we say men are obsolete, that doesn't mean they are worthless, or that we want to stomp on them, or that we hate them....the twin combustion engine technically makes the bicycle obsolete. That doesn't mean that we hate the bicycle or want to throw it away...You are allowed to preserve the parts of manhood that you love and value...while at the same time recognising that there needs to be some adjustments if men, and particularly certain men, are going to survive the modern world. Arguably it was this closer that swung the audience from 82-18 opposed, to 56-44 opposed - a huge swing that was deemed a victory for Rosin and Dowd arguing for the motion. (hide spoiler)] Aside from my obvious interest in the content, this book really piqued by interest in the art of debate, and I would encourage all to read this with that in mind; in this new, uncertain age of Brexit and Trump, we must never lose our ability to speak and debate.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Vinaysheel Rao

    This is a book about a bunch of rabid feminists rambling non-stop about how men are evil and are somehow going extinct and that in the coming future, the proper role of a man would be that of a sperm-slave. The only thing good about this book is that it has Camille Paglia refuting those rabid feminists.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Muhamed

    I think it was a short interesting debate and apart from Maureen Dowd, the rest of the debtors had interesting insights to share. I, of course, was on the side of Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia, especially the latter.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Rachel Anne

    This book had a very catchy title; but wasn't really the heart of the debate as it sounds more towards obsolete as useless; whereas the debate was really centered on the change of gender roles and the rose of women in the workplace and in high ranking positions globally. I very much respected the points made that as North America has exported middle class trade/labour jobs; there has been a trend to assume that men are less capable or valued when they aren't. A fascinating read. This book had a very catchy title; but wasn't really the heart of the debate as it sounds more towards obsolete as useless; whereas the debate was really centered on the change of gender roles and the rose of women in the workplace and in high ranking positions globally. I very much respected the points made that as North America has exported middle class trade/labour jobs; there has been a trend to assume that men are less capable or valued when they aren't. A fascinating read.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Jamie Logan

    I hate Caitlin Moran. I'm going to read her oh-so-popular book solely to turn my irrational hatred into a rational fire of loathing inside of my soul. I hate Caitlin Moran. I'm going to read her oh-so-popular book solely to turn my irrational hatred into a rational fire of loathing inside of my soul.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Nuri

    This is a transcript of a Munk debate that took place in 2013. The question was “Are men obsolete?”, and it was understood slightly different by the different debaters. Hanna Rosin, author of “The End of Men”, and Maureen Dowd, author of “Are Men Necessary?”, pleaded for a for the motion. Caitlin Moran, author of “How To Be A Woman”, and Camille Paglia, author of “Sex, Art and American Culture, pleaded against it. Rosin and Dowd argued that women are largely outperforming men in school, educatio This is a transcript of a Munk debate that took place in 2013. The question was “Are men obsolete?”, and it was understood slightly different by the different debaters. Hanna Rosin, author of “The End of Men”, and Maureen Dowd, author of “Are Men Necessary?”, pleaded for a for the motion. Caitlin Moran, author of “How To Be A Woman”, and Camille Paglia, author of “Sex, Art and American Culture, pleaded against it. Rosin and Dowd argued that women are largely outperforming men in school, education, and soon the labour market, and that the concept of masculinity as it was understood for centuries is becoming outdated. Even in working class environments women are now raising kids by themselves and fathers are mostly absent. They insisted they didn’t want to be misunderstood as men-hating feminists but urged the audience to acknowledge the existence of a “crisis of manhood”. Paglia and Moran admit that masculinity may be going through a crisis but argue that the world doesn’t gain anything from letting the concept of man die; instead they argue that the diversity of genders and the sexual tension that arises from it, is a beautiful thing to maintain and to foster. They also point out that only looking at changes happening in higher social classes ignores the large portions of society, both in America and globally, where traditional gender roles haven’t changed an ounce. Also, Paglia points out the importance to acknowledge all the vital, tough work that men have done and are still doing without which society wouldn’t be running (think of builders, sewage cleaners, etc.). Sometimes it felt as if the participants were arguing on a different motion and talking at cross purposes, and that in reality they didn’t disagree very much. After the transcript of the debate, the book also contains a couple of analyses of the debate by other authors. One criticism pointed out was the lack of facts that were given to support the argument. As this was an originally oral debate, the debaters tried to keep it fresh by making lots of supposedly funny references to American pop culture from the year 2013, which I frankly didn’t relate to much. I was hoping that this little book might be an easy introduction into the debate about broken masculinity, but my expectations weren’t really met. Good thing it’s a very tiny book that is read quickly though, so I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a waste of time. Still picked up a few thoughts and ideas here and there.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Dorrit

    This was a big fat disappointment!! The debaters were not really debating the point in question- Camille Paglia was stubbornly fixated on how we don't value manual labor anymore (which acc to her is intrinsically male) (whose side you on Camille??), Maureen Dowd mentioned Ted Cruz one time too many and Caitlin Moran didn't like the question. Hanna Rosin seemed to be the only one who actually debating the thing but even her argument didn't reach into the depths and answer whether the structures o This was a big fat disappointment!! The debaters were not really debating the point in question- Camille Paglia was stubbornly fixated on how we don't value manual labor anymore (which acc to her is intrinsically male) (whose side you on Camille??), Maureen Dowd mentioned Ted Cruz one time too many and Caitlin Moran didn't like the question. Hanna Rosin seemed to be the only one who actually debating the thing but even her argument didn't reach into the depths and answer whether the structures our world functions on (build by men, for men) are being eroded or molded or what! That left out families, politics, sex, gender, masculinity and femininity and oh, about everything else too.  Some fault, it seems to me, lies in the phrasing of the debate question. Maybe if the debate was titled, 'Are women winning?', they would have concentrated on how well women are doing, and not whether men going obsolete is a good thing or not. It's too bad de Beauvoir is dead, because she would have been so so good in this debate. There's this 1967 video (on yt) in which she says that things are worse for women more than they had been when she wrote The Second Sex (49). What would she have to say for today?? Have (some) women achieved subject status or have men just been bought into object status along with women? So much to be said!! And this 1 and a half hour debate didn't even tap on it.  Lastly: a big boo to the men in the YouTube chat (there were ONLY men) who truly deserve to be obsolete, why did the sponsors of the debate look so sleepy and washed out?, the panelist was also kinda off, the after debate interviews were better and should have been longer (as should have the debate).

  11. 5 out of 5

    Jo

    I thought this was going to be satire, co-authored by Caitlin Moran and some people I'd never heard of; the blurb makes it sound that way. In fact, it is the transcript of a (mostly) serious live debate, with pre- and post-debate interviews and some (very short) commentary by journalists. It was still an okay read, just not what I was expecting. I thought this was going to be satire, co-authored by Caitlin Moran and some people I'd never heard of; the blurb makes it sound that way. In fact, it is the transcript of a (mostly) serious live debate, with pre- and post-debate interviews and some (very short) commentary by journalists. It was still an okay read, just not what I was expecting.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Wendelle

    in the more serious parts, basically a forum on the fate and valuation of working-class men in the current economic juncture... in the less serious parts, all participants winkingly engage in a tongue-in-cheek, exaggerated, humorous exchange that recognizes and embraces the absurdity of the topic, that nevertheless gives them a chance to exhibit their debate and oratorical chops

  13. 5 out of 5

    Charlie

    I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. First of all, I think the format in which the arguments are presented isn't the best to get the speaker's ideas across. I found that sometimes I couldn't get a clear idea of what the speakers were trying to say. This could be in part because of the format and also because the arguments were contradicting in themselves, so it was hard to understand everyone's postures. I thought there wasn't clearness, even in the speakers themselves, of what they w I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. First of all, I think the format in which the arguments are presented isn't the best to get the speaker's ideas across. I found that sometimes I couldn't get a clear idea of what the speakers were trying to say. This could be in part because of the format and also because the arguments were contradicting in themselves, so it was hard to understand everyone's postures. I thought there wasn't clearness, even in the speakers themselves, of what they were arguing for and against. It came across as people just throwing ideas around about a topic in general and not a real debate. Finally, from a more subjective angle, I didn't agree with a lot of what was said about genre dynamics and the differences between men and women. I tended to agree more with Moran but I thought her comedic delivery style kept her arguments from being as convincing as they could have been.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Shane Senécal-Tremblay

    A panel of four women (mostly academics and journalists) debate whether it is resolved, that "men are obsolete." Ultimately, the debaters didn't sufficiently rebut each others positions for it to give any sense of resolution. Despite this, there were some interesting positions taken, and some good stats that gave food for thought. In particular, I was pleased to discover Camille Paglia (from the Con side); a witty orator, academic and sometimes writer for Hollywood magazines, with a charismatic A panel of four women (mostly academics and journalists) debate whether it is resolved, that "men are obsolete." Ultimately, the debaters didn't sufficiently rebut each others positions for it to give any sense of resolution. Despite this, there were some interesting positions taken, and some good stats that gave food for thought. In particular, I was pleased to discover Camille Paglia (from the Con side); a witty orator, academic and sometimes writer for Hollywood magazines, with a charismatic faculty for highlighting contradictions. I enjoyed her response to the overshooting narratives of some third wave feminists... i.e., she finds the vitriolic claims that men have rigged the economic system against women absurd. She recalls that it was in fact male creations (like the washing machine) that were the largest contributors to women's emancipation in the West, thus making men unlikely conspirators in this so called plot to oppress women.

  15. 4 out of 5

    PolicemanPrawn

    This book is typical idiocy on the subject. The only person who made sensible remarks was Camille Paglia. The rest are not able to think critically; people with STEM education would have been beneficial here. Maureen Dowd was there to play the clown, and did it badly. Mainstream thinking on this subject is so driven by ideology that anyone who thinks differently gets ruthlessly attacked. I’ve now read most of the Munk Debates, and I can say that they are generally rather poor, representing the in This book is typical idiocy on the subject. The only person who made sensible remarks was Camille Paglia. The rest are not able to think critically; people with STEM education would have been beneficial here. Maureen Dowd was there to play the clown, and did it badly. Mainstream thinking on this subject is so driven by ideology that anyone who thinks differently gets ruthlessly attacked. I’ve now read most of the Munk Debates, and I can say that they are generally rather poor, representing the intellectual-yet-idiot position on the subject, which is usually wrong. But they are quick and easy to read, and add to my tally.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Doug

    A fairly superficial treatment of the "why are boys falling behind" premise with good snarky remarks on all sides. The Munk debates seem interesting, but if this is a 100% transcript, they seem too short to accomplish much. A fairly superficial treatment of the "why are boys falling behind" premise with good snarky remarks on all sides. The Munk debates seem interesting, but if this is a 100% transcript, they seem too short to accomplish much.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Anubha

    Cogent and entertaining arguments from four brilliant women. While I don't necessarily agree with all the arguments put for the motion, there was something to take away from each woman's speech. Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part. Cogent and entertaining arguments from four brilliant women. While I don't necessarily agree with all the arguments put for the motion, there was something to take away from each woman's speech. Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part.

  18. 4 out of 5

    AnandaTashie

    The debate premise is misleading because it's more about the shifting roles of men, and certainly no one thinks men are obsolete. Interesting read. Loved Caitlin Moran's part especially! The debate premise is misleading because it's more about the shifting roles of men, and certainly no one thinks men are obsolete. Interesting read. Loved Caitlin Moran's part especially!

  19. 5 out of 5

    Billie Pritchett

    Nice Valentine's Day read but unfortunately ultimately only thought this little book was just okay. My biggest complaint about Are Men Obsolete?, a transcript of a debate with supplementary interviews and commentaries, is that it was seldom clear what it would mean for men to be "obsolete." Historian Stephanie Coontz pointed out the obscurity of the debate in her post-debate commentary, where she challenged debater Hanna Rosin, who led the charge in the argument that men are obsolescing. Coontz p Nice Valentine's Day read but unfortunately ultimately only thought this little book was just okay. My biggest complaint about Are Men Obsolete?, a transcript of a debate with supplementary interviews and commentaries, is that it was seldom clear what it would mean for men to be "obsolete." Historian Stephanie Coontz pointed out the obscurity of the debate in her post-debate commentary, where she challenged debater Hanna Rosin, who led the charge in the argument that men are obsolescing. Coontz pointed out that one major negative aspect of changing gender relations "is that in many countries women's relative improvement in employment stems less from their absolute progress than from men's losses." Coontz notes, "In the United States, more than a quarter of women's gains relative to men result from men's declining wages." Coontz's observation, however, does not discredit Rosin's thesis but underscores it: men aren't dealing well with the changing social and economic conditions, hence why Rosin hyperbolically calls mean "obsolete." Unfortunately, Rosin does not lead with the conclusion she is arguing for. Her conclusion does not appear in the actual debate but in the debate's post-interview where she tells the moderate, "My central thesis is that the global economy is changing really rapidly and for whatever reason a lot of women are having an easier time adjusting to that than men." I understand why Coontz and pretty much everyone else, including those who appeared on the debate stage, had difficulty understanding what was at stake in the argument. A lot of the confusion stemmed from the fact that Rosin failed to articulate the thesis and the moderate failed to clarify what it would mean for it to be "the end of men." How can you debate something when you don't know what you're debating? To get a sense for how frustrating all this is to decipher, you can check out the debate on YouTube. Godspeed.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Rab Ighoos

    I agree with Hanna Roisin that men are becoming obsolete but only in relation to women, not to society, the society that men built would collapse without men maintaining it, the vast majority of the work goes unnoticed and unheralded which makes it easy for us all to be ignorant of the scale of the daily effort required to keep the game running smoothly. Her claims that women are outperforming men in all the metrics related to "success" in western society are correct, but I don't believe for a s I agree with Hanna Roisin that men are becoming obsolete but only in relation to women, not to society, the society that men built would collapse without men maintaining it, the vast majority of the work goes unnoticed and unheralded which makes it easy for us all to be ignorant of the scale of the daily effort required to keep the game running smoothly. Her claims that women are outperforming men in all the metrics related to "success" in western society are correct, but I don't believe for a second she is unaware of the reasons for this or that she believes it to be an organic development. Decades of agendas to elevate women and downgrade men are bearing fruit for those behind them. I believe women have been used a trojan horse and their short term benefits, if you can call more opportunity to be a 50 year wage slave a benefit, will not be good for them in the long run. We are already seeing the very early stages of the single 30+ woman epidemic, and its only going to get worse as more and more men are economically priced out of the game by minimum requirements. There was a relatively natural balance that made marriage and family a mutually beneficial arrangement for men and women in the West, but that has been destroyed and the ruins will be interesting to see over the next 20 years. Horrifying, but interesting.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Eva

    This was my first time reading a book like this and I was surprised that I did enjoy reading it. The participants had some interesting points but it felt a little off. For some reason it felt like it was written in favor of Camille Paglia, doesn’t seem fair to me. I can barely remember the points the pro team brought up, and half of the arguments on the con side annoyed the shit out of me. I think I enjoyed the post debate commentary the most. Worth a read, its food for thought regardless and cou This was my first time reading a book like this and I was surprised that I did enjoy reading it. The participants had some interesting points but it felt a little off. For some reason it felt like it was written in favor of Camille Paglia, doesn’t seem fair to me. I can barely remember the points the pro team brought up, and half of the arguments on the con side annoyed the shit out of me. I think I enjoyed the post debate commentary the most. Worth a read, its food for thought regardless and could be the start of interesting conversations with friends

  22. 4 out of 5

    Sharon Smith

    A fun read, if that's really the right word. Well, except that Camille Paglia still annoys the h3ll out of me & Maureen Dowd is Maureen Dowd. Caitlin Moran, on the other hand, is as awesome & hilarious as ever. It's worth reading solely for her comments. (Why I guess it's why I thought it was fun.) A fun read, if that's really the right word. Well, except that Camille Paglia still annoys the h3ll out of me & Maureen Dowd is Maureen Dowd. Caitlin Moran, on the other hand, is as awesome & hilarious as ever. It's worth reading solely for her comments. (Why I guess it's why I thought it was fun.)

  23. 5 out of 5

    Evin Grody

    As is clear with oh so many of the reviews, you like the bits from the writers/thinkers you like (for me: Moran, Rosin) and dislike the other (I would be absolutely fine with no Paglia evermore) - but it's a quick thing to read, some genuine laughs from the usual suspects. As is clear with oh so many of the reviews, you like the bits from the writers/thinkers you like (for me: Moran, Rosin) and dislike the other (I would be absolutely fine with no Paglia evermore) - but it's a quick thing to read, some genuine laughs from the usual suspects.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Bokyoung

    It should have been a bit better if I had read this book decades ago. Meaning that their views and perspectives share on this debates obviously are not timeless.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Cara L.

    This book is a quick read and it's fine, it's just that all the arguments are better fleshed out elsewhere. This book is a quick read and it's fine, it's just that all the arguments are better fleshed out elsewhere.

  26. 4 out of 5

    serenity

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Interesting debate where they all agree with each other and misunderstand each other’s point.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Claire O'Brien

    Caitlin Moran is the best! In every sense. She's the funniest but also makes the most sense. You can tell Hanna Rosin was a champion debater though - she totally got her points home at the end, and thus, did win the debate. An interesting read if you are interested in the subject or the authors (as I am), and weren't lucky enough to see the original debate. Caitlin Moran is the best! In every sense. She's the funniest but also makes the most sense. You can tell Hanna Rosin was a champion debater though - she totally got her points home at the end, and thus, did win the debate. An interesting read if you are interested in the subject or the authors (as I am), and weren't lucky enough to see the original debate.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Jo

    Basically a transcript of a debate that took place in Canada. I came across this quite by accident in the library but who could resist such a title. Two women argued for, two against. I don't think they resolved the matter. Some of the arguments weren't that convincing but it was a thought provoking read. Basically a transcript of a debate that took place in Canada. I came across this quite by accident in the library but who could resist such a title. Two women argued for, two against. I don't think they resolved the matter. Some of the arguments weren't that convincing but it was a thought provoking read.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Joanna Darrell

    Was disappointed by this one - I bought it because it popped up in my recommended books list from Amazon, due to me buying a couple of Caitlin Morans books which I've really enjoyed. For me, it was a little short for the debate it was trying to have and didn't really answer any of the points it was raising - bit of a frustrating read. Was disappointed by this one - I bought it because it popped up in my recommended books list from Amazon, due to me buying a couple of Caitlin Morans books which I've really enjoyed. For me, it was a little short for the debate it was trying to have and didn't really answer any of the points it was raising - bit of a frustrating read.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Charlie Hay

    To summarise this book perfectly, I shall quote my Oedipus complex inducing crush Caitlin Moran: “Are men obsolete? My answer is no! I won’t let you be, you fuckers! We are going 50/50 in this world, goddammit”. A fantastic and thought provoking little read. Don’t burn your bras.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.