Official Review: The Basic Instructions Before Lovin Eve

[zeldas_lullaby]

The author doesn't sound sexist so much as he believes in gender roles and in avoiding women who marry for the wrong reasons. I think he also wants people to realize that women can be just as horrible as men in relationships. I completely agree with that sentiment. I know a man personally who married a horrible woman who treated him terribly as soon as the wedding was over. It happens. Some men are bad; some women are bad. While we may not agree with the author's views completely, he is entitled to them, and I don't even find them that offensive. I agree that no woman should marry just to be a bride rather than a wife. Unfortunately, I do think there are women out there who do that.

[kkrobertson1]

Thanks zeldas_lullaby. That's exactly what I got out of this book.

[zeldas_lullaby]

You're welcome.

[debo9967]

@Zeldas_lullaby: I agree with what you have to say, but tell me, do you seriously agree with the author's views about "women being child-bearers and nurturers, and men being the protectors and defenders of the society" nonsense?
If you do, and there are more people who agree with the author, then I just have one request to make of the author (since he says that my comments are helping him

PLEASE, I repeat, please DO NOT, get your book published in India, or make it unavailable for Indians. Despite having a good Constitution promoting gender equality, India still has a long way to go before it destabilises patriarchy and achieves true gender equality. Views like that of the author will only poison the minds of the male youth and take us two steps back in achieving our aims in India. Americans may be mature enough to deal with "views" of certain authors, most of the Indians certainly aren't.

[ananya92]

@debo9967: I so agree with you!
@zeldas_lullaby: Your comment is exactly what I thought when I read the first few pages of this book. I thought this was one of those 'men are from mars, women are from venus' type of book. My interest changed to disgust as I progressed further.
Lets take a hypothetical situation, based on your Advice Avengers series (which I love a lot). Corey is brought up by a single mother (Patricia). If we proceed according to the author's views, there is a 70% chance that Corey's marriage will not succeed, or she'll get divorced, or she'll be nasty to Bruce (I hope they get married later in life ), because she has been brought up by a single mother and she doesn't know the position of the 'man of the house' or how to be a good and supportive wife. Now, dear zeldas, do you still find the author's book not offensive? If you still don't find it offensive, then I can send you my copy of the book (that is if the rules of this forum allow me to) and you can read for yourself what the author has to say.
If even after all that, you decide that the book or the author's views are not offensive, then I'm sure that there'll be many who think like you (I hold you in great esteem, so probably you represent a good section of the populace). Then I think I will make the same request, as debo, that please make this book unavailable for Indians. Those men who may accidentally read the book, will only slow down the demise of patriarchy in India, and women who may accidentally read the book, will do much worse than writing a similar review of this book (and I am not kidding).

[gali]

@debo9967: I so agree with you!
@zeldas_lullaby: Your comment is exactly what I thought when I read the first few pages of this book. I thought this was one of those 'men are from mars, women are from venus' type of book. My interest changed to disgust as I progressed further.
Lets take a hypothetical situation, based on your Advice Avengers series (which I love a lot). Corey is brought up by a single mother (Patricia). If we proceed according to the author's views, there is a 70% chance that Corey's marriage will not succeed, or she'll get divorced, or she'll be nasty to Bruce (I hope they get married later in life ), because she has been brought up by a single mother and she doesn't know the position of the 'man of the house' or how to be a good and supportive wife. Now, dear zeldas, do you still find the author's book not offensive? If you still don't find it offensive, then I can send you my copy of the book (that is if the rules of this forum allow me to) and you can read for yourself what the author has to say.
If even after all that, you decide that the book or the author's views are not offensive, then I'm sure that there'll be many who think like you (I hold you in great esteem, so probably you represent a good section of the populace). Then I think I will make the same request, as debo, that please make this book unavailable for Indians. Those men who may accidentally read the book, will only slow down the demise of patriarchy in India, and women who may accidentally read the book, will do much worse than writing a similar review of this book (and I am not kidding).

The rules prohibit sharing ebooks you got for review.

-- July 21st, 2015, 9:08 am --

Reading the review & the comments it strikes me that this book has a very misleading title - I see very little evidence of "loving" or even "lovin" in it. IMO a prerequsite for loving anybody is respect and a prerequisite for respect is, not just treating someone as an equal, but instinctively believing them to be equal.
I have been fortunate in both my personal and work life to have encountered some very admirable men & the common denominator they share is they don't just treat women as equals, the thought would never cross their minds that the women in their lives, be they mother, wife, partner, sister, daughter, friend or colleague, were anything but equal human beings. Confident in themselves and aware of their own abilites these men are not in anyway threathened by the abilites, skills and expeience of the women they share part or all of their lives with. They do not need to pound their chests Tarzanlike & strut about in sergent major mode to be respected and loved.
It appears to me the author is confusing "lovin" with controlling - regretably an not uncommon error.

Well said Fran and I agree!

Respect should be two-sided and not just one-sided. Maybe those young men ought to be taught to respect their girlfriends and treat them right.

[ananya92]

Thanks Gali for setting me right. I was unsure about what the rules exactly say, sorry. I guess now zeldas will have to buy her own copy, that is, if she wants to.

Respect should be two-sided and not just one-sided. Maybe those young men ought to be taught to respect their girlfriends and treat them right.

Well said.

[zeldas_lullaby]

I'm a bit tired and haven't made it to bed yet. The best I can do at this hour is: I don't agree with saying that only one gender can do something (like fight in a war or be a nurse, etc), unless it's an obviously biological thing, such as birthing babies. Tough break--men can't do it.

However, I do agree with the author's attempts at being helpful. He does not strike me as a vicious misogynist. I suspect he's a tad confused about gender issues, but I think he means well. Also, his views deserve respect.

I am not well-versed in cultural awareness. All I can say on the India issue is this: in our country, we have freedom of speech. I would not be comfortable saying, "Don't publish that book in India." In fact, wasn't Socrates poisoned to death for corrupting the youths? (I'ts really late and I'm absolutely not suggesting that we poison the author of this book. I'm just making a point.)

In theory, if the author could find a woman who shares his values regarding gender roles, then the two of them could live happily ever after. I think he'd be a good husband, and she'd be a good wife. We all have to find someone with compatible viewpoints. I just don't think that this guy is a domestic abuser, misogynist, or meanie. He's just sharing his beliefs in a way that doesn't strike me as being majorly disrespectful.

[kkrobertson1]

Thank you again zeldas_lullaby(smile). I have no Idea what is going on in India for these two women to think a man has no rights as a husband that a woman should respect. However, these same two women feel women need to be respected regardless of their actions and should not be held accountable for anything women do! That is such hypocrisy it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad! These two ladies feel that a child going up in a single parent home. Well suffer no social long term effects that will hinder their relationships when they get older. How can someone learn how to deal with a marriage when they never seen one work? Or how does a woman learn how to deal with a man if he's not around? Or how can a son learn how to be a father if his father is not home? These ladies have a one eyed view of the world and some how they feel they can convince the world their one eye can see better than our two! It's this type of thinking by women like this who by all accounts made this author book possible. I live in the U.S. and in this country one is innocence until proven guilty! The current women movement make all men guilty of factitious crimes that when challenge all evidence exonerate us men. That what this author book does! It remove this guilt place on men by some of these women groups and allow them to be free thinking men! These women feel they need to repress that by making men feel guilty of factitious crimes! One have to ask why do some women do not want to be women? Why are these women trying to change men into women and women into men? This goes against nature and any attempt to disrupt nature will surly fail as it always do....

[zeldas_lullaby]

I agree, KK, but I also think that in a broader sense, everyone experiences something different: some kids have two parents. Some kids are raised by an aunt. Some kids are in foster care. Some kids have two parents but the parents are abusive. Some kids have one parent, but the one parent is wonderful. I think that everyone tries to overcome whatever example of a happy marriage was (or was not) presented to them. Relationships today, though, within the family are so complex that it almost seems impossible to generalize. I definitely see what you're saying, though, that it can be hard to imitate appropriate relationships when you don't grow up with a model. I also agree that fathers are often <bleep>ed over when they try to get equal or greater child custody. Men do need a guide for how to protect themselves from that kind of BS.

[kkrobertson1]

Zeldas_lullaby thanks for having the foresight to look at both sides of this coin. I don't have a clue of whats happening in India. What I do know is discussion like this with people like our-selves, will help fix this problem. This author book has confirmed for me what I have witness over the last 20yrs in the U.S. Thanks to your comments I feel there's hope for our children's future yet. As the author says: "Trying to decide which role is more important is like trying to choose food over water or water over food. Take either one away and death is certain! That is what true gender equality is; understanding that the roles of both men and women are critical to the strength of any home, community, or nation! Removing either one will cause your home, community and nation to slowly crumble. For it will have no foundation to stand on." How someone can say that statement is an insult to women is beyond me.

[ananya92]

@zeldas: You are right. Right to freedom of expression is a constitutional right in India. So let this book be available in India. There’s a thin chance someone will read it anyways. And if people do, then I'm sure there'll be some who will see this book for what it truly is and hasten its exit to the dustbin.

@kkrobertson: Yes, woman and men have equal potential to be evil. Also, men and women have equal rights in a marriage. These facts are not offensive to me. However, some of these opinions might qualify (quoted from the book):

“Men should never give up or completely abandon his leadership role in a relationship!
Despite what you've heard, women love and admire men who take charge of a situation. A man who has confidence in his ability to lead is demonstrating that alpha male personality that is attractive to women.”

Maybe some women like men who take charge of a situation, but that can’t be attributed to their ‘alpha male’ tendencies.

“Today's society (in my opinion) seems to be on a mission to try and change the natural character (the emasculation) of men as it encourages women to be stronger and men to be weaker (hint, show your emotions). Exactly what does crying mean or represent in an adult man and woman? Well, for women, I believe crying allows them to relieve themselves emotionally of stress. As for men; I believe crying is a sign that a man feels either completely hopeless in a particular situation, or victorious in another. Truth be told, women are attracted to a man’s masculine side (strength) not his feminine! When there is a major problem in the home many families turn to the man of the house to fix that problem. It’s at these moments where most men are at their very best! Becoming that rock (strength) that helps put the family at ease; ensuring that all will be okay as he thinks of some way to fix the problem. It is this male strength that gives a woman confidence in her man’s ability to provide security for her and the family. If her man is crying about every little problem that pops up, she will begin to lose respect for him and his ability to “man up” in their time of need.”

I think this statement is more offensive to men than women. I’m sure there are men who are sufficiently assured of their sexuality, to not feel 'threatened' if they ‘show their emotions’.

[kkrobertson1]

Ananya92 I can always depend on women liberators like yourself to never practice what you guys preach. You ladies always talk about how you should be treated equally and allowed to express yourselves without the fear of men telling women how they should think. Now here is a book written by a man for younger men to help them understand who they are in this post women era. But yet because your are a woman(angel) you feel you have a right to tell us men how we should act and how we should think, Really! Well ananya92 I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, YOU'RE NOT A MAN! No matter how you try to belittle the natural attraction women have of strong-men. Women will always chose that alpha-male guy to be with. Why? because women are hypergamous by nature as this author explains. So women look for the best men to be with, not the weakest! There's over 7billion people on the planet. So this biological system seems to be working for men and women or it would have change millenniums ago. You can not defeat NATURE! The only way to avoid the natural biological attraction men and women have of each other is to not exist.

[debo9967]

@kkrobertson: I don't understand. Why are you so suspicious of women? No one here has really made any misandrist post, you know.
If men, according to you don't want to be expressive, then fine; but if some men want to show their emotions, then they should not be estopped because other men think that it's unnatural for a man to be expressive.
Also, it's not milleniums but millenia.
Coming to that point, it's only since the last century that women have got some control over their lives and equal opportunities to compete with men on the employment front. Till the 19th century, I believe, that women were not financially stable enough which is why they needed to depend on men to provide for them, and also patriarchy was much stronger, hence in many situations they didn't get to decide their partners.
Now in the last few centuries, women are slowly getting an equal shot at economic stability and a greater freedom in choosing their partners. Therefore, this hypergamous theory of yours has a flaw. All things being equal, a woman will go for a man who understands her, not the guy (your alpha male) who will lead in the belief that he has better decision making power or sense. The best man to be with is not a strong man or a leader; the best man to be with is a man who is understanding and is emotionally available.I can tell you that because I am a woman.

[kkrobertson1]

Well debo9967 society disagree with your theory. And I do mean millenniums not millennia! In the U.S. men are doing exactly what women are asking them to do and yet women in this country are cheating/divorcing their husband to be with that alpha-male guy. As to the 19th century the only reason why women have now become financially stable as you put it; because MEN have created a society that makes it possible for everyone to make a living. Like I said earlier women are not fighting for equal rights to be a brick layer, construction worker, farm hands or landscapers although these companies make huge profits . You want what you consider to be the more prestigious positions of a man "hypergamy". Like I said before you can't stop nature. Even with your equality beliefs you still as a woman want to be equal only too men in positions of POWER! In other words you want to be equal to the man who runs the corporate office not the one who built the building.