** spoiler alert **
Ripple Effect of Misandry.

This whole book revolves around the author's single-minded thought on how men objectified women in the past. She tried to imply that it is always women who never get what they want and men never gets that. So unfortunate for her to be that dumb to understand reality as if this is the only base for the survival of any female out there. If she would have noted down or counted the no. of books written by women on misandry along with the ones where female writers themselves written females as muse (E.g. Lucia Jordon, Katherine Young, Lillian Fisherman to name few). She must read books on counter subject too before summarizing her hatred towards men in society, in general, in this book. 'Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man' is one such book. She can call her work as finesse but it is argumentatively unconvincing mostly.

Driveling of mean thoughts she keeps against the other half of the society tells a lot about her frustration in personal. She rambled-on with so much vague of information overflowing here and there, but there wasn't much substantially notable data to back it up, and that is where this book failed for me. She wanted her readers to believe her plausible ill-mindset. Her taunt-like tone is very dismissive of all the males out there in the very society we all live in and too much cavalier concerning their important roles as brothers, husbands and fathers, left aside a friends, colleagues or Neighbors, that is looks that she was all through trying to affect an attitude that she believes is now the right in mind of the successful women - condescending and equally bitchy. This is book is only for the working women, that too those who lying between UG in college to upper management in any firm, and not for any other female who is not.

Her complete perception behind writing this novel circulating around one tweet, just one tweet;
We do not get real pockets in pants because we have tiny purses in our vaginas!!! #thanksforthat #menwritingwomen
(Men Write Women, July 29, 2019, 1.4K comments, 7.2K retweets, 17.1K likes)


I tried to like this book when I started it and thought it would a humorous work. Author must learn that we have a society which favors females more than men, check the laws in each country's constitution which have always been made to ensure no women remain unsafe. Anything otherwise in action is not society but individuals who will till infinity remains same everywhere. She must look into the list of females in each field. If for real, men objectify women then how come this society is looking into the situation where females are bringing massive changes inside-out?
I was not in much impression for all these points until I reached where she justified Rose for her actions. Even in fiction, Jack gave his life saving her but still he was the villian.
"In Titanic, Rose is finally able to take ownership over her life— it’s just a shame every decision she makes is dictated by Jack. By the time she gets on the research vessel, her whole life since the sinking of the ship has been lived in the shadow of a dead man. Even her decision to damn the Heart of the Ocean to the depths of the ocean are driven by Jack in his watery grave— because God forbid she let her daughter have a legacy or a small fortune to live off of."


Camille Paglia's wrote in Delta of Venus :
"Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges. I called it an intersection."

Instead of giving praise to the women who brought positive changes in the world, Author here made them nothing more than a pitiful victim card. According to her, even bearing child is an act of imposition on them by men. I believe, she got distorted in her mind about basic anatomy of Humans, how at the very basic level this copulation theory works.
"I find it fascinating that many have taken it upon themselves to dictate whether or not women should be able to decide if they want to bear children. If we’re just dictating shit as we see fit, I’d like to announce that I think that no man should be allowed to make a decision about any woman’s body unless he’s been able to make one cum once, and evidence must be provided."


If one go for surveying multiple men and women about what is priority of each gender while looking for their partner, former always looks for physical appearance and latter choses character. If behavioral trait says it all about both men and women then I really doubt from where she got ideas on objectifying of only one gender. I laughed, literally, when I got to the point where she even gave an activity to make her readers learn on how and what to write about women. AMAZING!! 😆😆

Go lady read Anais Nin atleast once. And how would you define Catherine Earnshaw written by Emily Bronte, who was for civilized society, a total moral failure. Emily's FMC should have been a failure instead of getting praise all around the world, mainly by female readers, who by marrying one man while admitting her soul belongs to another, she causes deep pain and acts manipulatively, which makes her behavior morally "bad" and destructive to all people, specifically those around her.
It was so intriguing in the bad light that I read it in one single sitting. I started doubting myself on why I am not doing anything to uplift the women Meg was talking about but then I realised with coming pages that this whole bunch of idiotism was her lookout against the frustration she must be carrying in her life where she was never told or given a proper place where she would have learn that world is so different outside of her mind and her upbringing and in addition, her theory of Objectification of women is not in general manner even through out the society. I wonder how she reacts when she will read or would have reacted when she had read Emily Bronte and Charlotte Bronte.