Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Kohut, Andrew, John C. Green, and Scott Toth Robert C. Keeter. 2000. The Diminishing Divide: Religion’s Changing Role in American Politics. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute.

Rating:
8

Review:
Not perfect, but insightful

The Dimishing Divide, by Kohut, Green, Keeter, and Toth (2000), builds a convincing argument for why religion is playing a more salient role in politics at the end of the twentieth century. Though the title of the book seems to indicate a discussion of changes in the ‘wall of separation’ between church and state, the ‘divide’ to which they are referring is the connection between religion and politics, a subtle distinction, but an important one nonetheless.

The authors develop their arguments using primarily survey data (mostly from the Pew Research Center, but also from Gallup and other surveys). Two of the authors’ arguments stood out as significant. The first builds on the distinction outlined in the paragraph above, namely the difference between ‘church and state’ and ‘religion and politics.’ This distinction is addressed in the introduction, “The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution erected a high wall between church and state, but no such barrier exists between religion and politics. Religion is, and always has been, woven into the fabric of American political life” (p. 1). This distinction is further explored later in the text,

For most Americans, religion not only addresses spiritual concerns but also offers guidance on more practical matters, such as how to treat others. Because politics concerns how people arrange their lives together, it is inevitable that religion and politics will intersect and that religious beliefs will inform and influence political views. (p. 34)

The point the authors are making here is that, while the state cannot sponsor a specific church or denomination, from its founding, America was settled and has been dominated by religion. Religion has influenced nearly every aspect of American’s lives for hundreds of years. Because the influence of religion is so pervasive, it cannot be separated from political views, especially since some political issues engage each other within what has traditionally been considered the realm of religion (e.g., abortion, homosexual rights, etc.).

The second prominent point the book makes concerning the relationship between religion and politics is the authors’ conclusion as to why religion has seemed to become more salient in the last 30 years or so. The authors illustrate that the prominence of social/moral issues on the public agenda has increased (pp. 10 & 65). This is in contrast to the prominence of these issues during the 1960s and before. Social/moral issues were dwarfed by more salient issues during the 1960s and before, including: the war in Vietnam and the civil rights movement. As the authors put it,

The overall effect of religious beliefs on political attitudes has probably not changed substantially during the past three or four decades, but changes in the nation’s political agenda have focused public attention on new issues and revealed significant differences among the various religious traditions. As issues on which religious traditions differ become more important, religion has indeed become more salient to contemporary U.S. politics. (p. 72)

But instead of simply presenting this explanation for why it seems the involvement of religion with politics is increasing, the authors also analyze an alternative explanation, namely, that a religious ‘reawakening’ or ‘great awakening’ has taken (or is taking) place and, as a result, there are both more religious people and religion is more prominent on people’s minds. But the authors proceed to illustrate that, though there has been some variation in affiliation and religiosity over time, there has not been an increase in either affiliation or religiosity substantial enough to explain the increased involvement of religion in politics.

While making several good points, the book is not without its problems (though the problems with the book are minor in comparison to the value of the book’s explanation for the increasing involvement of religion in politics). The first problem is the choppy historical presentation in chapter two. There did not seem to be any clear sense of organization to the chapter. Each subsection seemed to begin well enough and develop an interesting point, but when the subsection ended, their was no logical connection to the next subsection. As a result, when I finished reading the chapter I did not have any better sense of the historical involvement of religion in politics in the U.S. Perhaps a chronological presentation of the history of religion and politics interspersed with the points the authors want to make would have been clearer.

The second significant problem with the book is the authors’ use of tables and their discussion of data. Chapter three, for instance, is a monotonous explanation of the information included in the tables in the chapter. If the authors expect a number of lay persons with very little familiarity with tables to read the book, then perhaps their rote explanation of the data in the tables is justified. Otherwise, they could have saved ten to twenty pages by simply highlighting the interesting elements of the tables rather than explaining every number and detail.

Ironically, in the next chapter the problem reverses the data presentation issue, catering to quantitatively trained social scientists rather than laypersons. The authors present vague regression tables with virtually no explanation of what the numbers in the tables mean. They move from overly simplistic and self-explanatory tables to complex statistical analyses, but instead of explaining the significance of the analyses, like they did with the simpler tables in chapter three, they gloss over them as though they are of peripheral importance to their argument. The presentation should have been reversed, glossing over the simple tables and spending many more pages explaining the regression tables.

Finally, though it improves somewhat toward the end of the book, initially the authors’ understanding of religiosity is ill-defined and poorly employed theoretically. For instance, the authors claim that “Belief is the prime motivation for religious belonging and behavior” (p. 13), however, numerous studies have illustrated that socialization is the biggest predictor of belief, belonging, and behavior (Cornwall 1988 among many others). And since all three co-occur, the authors’ interpretation implies a causal relationship when in fact they are better understood as being correlational. Additionally, Glock and Stark (1967), as well as numerous other researchers, have illustrated that there are a number of dimensions of religiosity (e.g., ritualistic, consequential, experiential, etc.), all of which are overlooked. Admittedly, an in-depth analysis of religiosity is not the focus of the authors, but considering they claim that the three components they include in their discussion, “have had important consequences in American political life” (p. 12), a clear understanding of religiosity is important to their argument and is not illustrated by the authors.

The primary conclusion of the book, I believe, is an important one and, despite a less-than-perfect presentation, it is not difficult to understand. The ‘diminishing divide,’ which refers to religion and politics and not church and state, is the result of a changing public interest in moral issues and not a religious awakening or increase in religious affiliation and religiosity in the U.S.

Kiyosaki, Robert T., and Sharon L. Lechter. 2000. Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money–That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not! 1st ed. Business Plus.

Rating:
3

Summary:
The basic idea of this book is to reveal to the “Average Joe” the secrets wealthy people know that help them grow their wealth or become wealthy to begin with. The book is framed around the struggle the author had in deciding which father’s advice he should take, his “rich dad’s” or his “poor dad’s”. His biological father was a professional educator who, while making a substantial income, was not personally wealthy. His primary advice to his son, Robert Kiyosaki, was to get a good education and a secure job. His best friend’s father, however, was an entrepreneur who owned and ran a variety of businesses. His advice to Robert was to find ways to make your money grow that do not require working long, hard hours at a secure job. Robert decided early on, with his best friend, to follow the advice of his rich dad. The remainder of the book is an explanation of the lessons the author says he learned from his rich dad.

The author begins by pointing out that many people in the middle and lower classes are trapped in a Rat Race, “They work for the owners of their company, for the government paying taxes, and for the bank paying off a mortgage and credit cards” (p. 4). The Rat Race is a trap because people locked in this cycle do not find ways to get out, and even when they receive raises at work, rather than save that money, they increase their spending to accompany the pay raise, preventing them from putting their money to work for them and instead working for money.

The main lesson the author emphasizes is what he argues to be the key to getting out of the rat race – learning the difference between an asset and a liability, “An asset is something that puts money in my pocket. A liability is something that takes money out of my pocket” (p. 61). By asset, the author is referring to investments that return money in the long run. Liabilities are things that only require money but do not return it in the long run. He also points out that, “The rich buy assets. The poor only have expenses. The middle class buys liabilities they think are assets” (p. 81). Perhaps the clearest example of this is the purchase of a home. Most people in the middle class look at their home as an investment or even an asset, when in fact it is really a liability – because it does not produce money (most of the time), even though it may appreciate in value. If you think about it, most people spend two to four times the amount of the house in purchasing it because they finance it for 30 years. So, even if the house appreciates in value during that time, in all likelihood it will not increase in value enough to compensate for the actual cost paid. In short, the author argues that if you focus on acquiring assets – stocks, bonds, rental properties, etc. – instead of purchasing liabilities – boats, large homes, fancy cars, etc. – then you will be setting yourself up to become wealthy. You may eventually be able to afford luxuries, but you shouldn’t purchase them until you are in a position to afford them.

Finally, while not going into a lot of detail about corporations, the author notes how the wealthy use the unique tax status of corporations to increase their wealth, “Employees earn and get taxed and they try to live on what is left. A corporation earns, spends everything it can, and is taxed on anything that is left. It’s one of the biggest legal tax loopholes that the rich use. They’re easy to set up and are not expensive if you own investments that are producing good cash flow” (p. 104). The author ultimately recommends that anyone who is interested in acquiring and aggregating assets set up a corporation that will allow them to save money in the long run by lowering their taxable income.

Review:
This may not seem like the kind of book I would regularly read and review, especially since I consider myself something of a weird mix between a socialist and a libertarian. So, finding ways to become wealthy may not seem like my cup of tea. Well, because my wife and I are pretty frugal with our finances, we had saved up some money and were looking for ways to increase the return on our savings. I asked an older brother who is doing well financially what he would recommend and he suggested I read this book. I certainly don’t agree with everything the author says, but it’s hard to argue with some of his simpler points, like how to have your money work for you.

Let me begin by pointing out some of the positives of the book. First, I think his point about acquiring assets rather than liabilities is a good one. The author also talks about the futility in trying to “keep up with the Joneses,” a point I have long agreed with. The author also notes that increasing your personal wealth has to be a top priority, or you won’t actually do it. I agree whole-heartedly with his point – unless you are anxiously engaged in growing your personal wealth, it won’t happen for you. And doing so requires some sacrifice so you can put money away, turning it into an asset instead of buying liabilities.

That said, there are some very serious problems with this book. The biggest draws upon my Marxist understanding of capitalism. While Kiyosaki points out several ways people can grow their wealth that do not require the exploitation of workers, one of his primary recommendations for growing one’s wealth is to start companies and intentionally and willfully underpay employees, “Some people say I exploit people because I don’t pay as much as the sugar plantation or the government. I say the people exploit themselves. It’s their fear, not mine” (p. 36). The argument the author is making is that anyone can learn to make their money work for them, so if you happen to be the capitalist who owns the business (a.k.a. “means of production”) and are the one doing the exploiting, that, according to Kiyosaki, is perfectly fine. Kiyosaki continues this line of thinking by hitting on the other two standard ideas of capitalists, “Taxes punish those who produce and reward those who don’t produce” (p. 15) and “He spoke out against the “entitlement” mentality and how it was creating weak and financially needy people” (p. 16). Not surprisingly, people with wealth often do not like paying taxes – because they often pay more if they make more – and they don’t like welfare, because it redistributes their wealth.

All of these ideas could have been lifted straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. The problem with these ideas, of course, is that they are completely without basis in reality. Let me begin with the first point – exploiting workers. Kiyosaki is fine with exploiting people because he believe they are actually doing it to themselves – this is nothing more than a weak-minded justification for what is being done. In truth, not everyone can own a business and employ people. Think about it, if the key to making money is to get other people to work for you so you can make money off of them, then can everyone employ someone else? Of course not! That’s simply impossible and absurd. If you think about capitalism and economics like a pyramid, it will clarify why this is impossible. In order to make a lot of money, you need to be the person at the top of the pyramid, with a whole bunch of people below you who are being paid less than they are actually worth, with the surplus of the value they generate going to you, the person at the top of the pyramid. But in order for this economic system to work, there have to be employees and employers. The broader the base at the bottom, the greater the wealth streaming into the top. The narrower the base, the smaller the stream. Now, with this illustration in mind, is it actually possible for everyone to be at the top? No! But Kiyosaki doesn’t want to mention that because it would undermine the whole idea that anyone and everyone can be successful. Truth be told, that’s impossible in a capitalist system.

This idea leads to the second two points – the wealthy paying taxes and the poor receiving welfare. Well, if the wealthy are making money off the poor, and not everyone can be wealthy because of the way wealth is created and accumulated, then it only makes sense to return some of the wealth to the poor. Again, Kiyosaki fails to recognize that this is the only way to make the system stable. If you do away with welfare and social security, you are going to create such significant poverty due to a lack of wealth distribution that eventually you will get a population so poor they will revolt. And, in fact, I think this is exactly the direction the U.S. is headed because corporations are slowly whittling away at the wealth redistribution systems that are in place – giving bigger tax breaks to corporations and cutting social welfare programs. So, while Kiyosaki’s ideas sound great, they fail to take into consideration one significant detail – reality! Ooops!

There are a number of additional problems with the book, though they are far more minor compared to the problems outlined above. First, there are no references anywhere in the book. So even when Kiyosaki gives statistics, there is no way of knowing if he is just making them up or if they are accurate. He also doesn’t give actual dates or references for the stories he tells, which led me to wonder if he wasn’t just making those up as well. I’d like to know if anyone has checked his claims. I’d even go so far as to wonder if he really did have the two dads he claims, or if he made that up too.

This leads me to one of my biggest queries about the whole “get rich self help literature”: If Kiyosaki really was making gazillions of dollars using his own methods, why the hell did he turn to writing books and teaching seminars? I mean, if he can make millions of dollars every year selling real estate and making good investments, why tell other people about it and increase the competition, which will just reduce his profits? Have you ever considered this? Every time I see a Zig Ziglar or Anthony Robbins type person, that is the first thought that pops into my head – if they are so successful, why tell others or turn to writing books? The answer – because they are actually making their money by writing the books and selling people seminars. I found this little tidbit in Kiyosaki’s book a fascinating bit of subtle salesmanship, “So what do I do? I go to seminars. I like it when they are at least two days long because I like to immerse myself in a subject” (p. 168). Kiyosaki is claiming he regularly goes to these seminars, dropping several thousand dollars a pop on them. Yeah right! He’s basically trying to convince you to go to his seminars. While I think some of the points Kiyosaki makes are decent, there is a reason he’s writing books and not making gazillions of dollars doing what he says you can do – because it doesn’t work as well as he claims.

Two more points and then I’ll wrap things up. First, Kiyosaki blames the education system for why people get stuck in the rat race, “We started to understand why our rich dad told us that schools were designed to produce good employees instead of employers” (p. 71). Of course, since the majority of people are going to be employees and not employers – a fact of capitalism – I fail to see the problem with this. But Kiyosaki has to blame someone – may as well blame that publicly funded educational system and do away with it, right? Fucking capitalists! Public education gives them well-educated employees and all they can think of is – if I didn’t have to pay for their education, I could make even more money!!! Assholes!

In a surprising twist to the hard core capitalist position, Kiyosaki actually encourages the creation of unions – but not by capitalists, “If you are unwilling to work to learn something new and insist on, instead, becoming highly specialized within your field, make sure the company you work for is unionized. Labor unions are designed to protect specialists” (p. 138). He then turns around and says that if you are a business owner and you don’t think your employees are specialists, do everything within your power to prevent them from unionizing. So, basically, he has inched his capitalist head out of the dark cave of capitalism just enough to say – okay, there are some bright people out there who do specialty labor, but for all of you uneducated people without special skills (who come from the poor, working class to begin with), you don’t deserve labor unions because, well, they cost capitalists more money! Kiyosaki kind of turns into a dick when you read him from the perspective of an informed social scientist.

Overall, there are some good points in this book about ways you can increase your personal wealth. Unfortunately, much of the book is laced with capitalist rhetoric that has the unfortunate problem of over-looking reality in advocating change and developing its ideas. I’m glad to say I bought this book used for about $2.00; that way I didn’t contribute to Kiyosaki, who is actually in the self-help book business and not the entrepreneur business. Go ahead and read it for some ideas on growing your wealth, but if you’re looking for a truly informative book, your best bet is still Karl Marx’s analysis of capitalism.

Rice, Anne. 2000. The Vampire Armand (The Vampire Chronicles) Book 6. 1st ed. Ballantine Books.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Short, more like a character back story then a novel

The book is essentially the story of how Armand, first introduced as the leader of a group of vampires in France in ‘Interview With A Vampire’, became a vampire. Armand was a gifted young man living in or near Russia who had a special ability to paint idols of the Virgin Mary and Christ. One day he is captured by the invading Turks, despite his father’s best attempts to stop them. He is sold into sexual slavery and raped by a number of men. Apparently he was very attractive and his owners were able to sell him at a great going rate.

Ultimately Armand ends being bought by Marius, the famed vampire father and keeper of ‘Those Who Must Be Kept’ (Marius also created Lestat, though a couple hundred years later). Marius takes Armand under his wing, educates him, and loves him – rather erotically at times. He also ensures that Armand is educated in the arts of sensuality, turning the novel into pure erotica at times.

But because of who Armand was, he couldn’t help but recognize the differences between Marius and the rest of his lovers. Armand finally confronts Marius, who relents and makes Armand a vampire. But their association together afterwards is short-lived as the Children of Satan, led by Santino, come after Marius. Armand thinks his creator/master dead and ends up joining Santino in his wicked ways. It is in this role that he eventually meets Lestat.

Eventually Armand moves to the U.S. When Lestat returns from heaven and hell (this happens in Memnoch the Devil), he is carrying a veil that has Christ’s visage on it. Armand sees the veil. Recognizing Christ as the person who used to inspire his painting, he decides to give up his life as a tribute to him by flying up into the sun. But Armand is too strong at this point and the sun only injures him but does not kill him. He ends up being taken in by a young boy, Benji, and his mistress, a pianist that is fixated on the Appasionata because her parents died when she was getting ready to perform it. Eventually they become vampires as well, and this catches the reader up to the point when the story begins – Armand begins telling his story to David Talbot, another vampire and the new chronicler of the vampire immortals in the vampire world.

Review:
This was actually the second time I had listened to this book on CD (I didn’t remember it very well, so it was kind of fun to listen to it again). I’m not particularly impressed with this novel in the Vampire Chronicles because it isn’t really in the format of a novel. There is no real introduction, no major reversals or revelations, and no real climax. At the end of the book you feel like you have just been made privy to Anne Rice’s notes on the background story of Armand that accompanies his appearances in the other stories. There is not real attempt to make this into a story of its own. It is really just as though Anne Rice wrote this book for three reasons: (1) She already had all of the material for it because it just fills in the gaps in the other books where Armand tells most of his story, so it was just a quick narrative that probably took her a month to write. (2) Money. (3) Because there are so many fans that love her books, they probably want a novel about each character in the chronicles now and Rice is happy to comply (see reason number 2).

Of course the characterizations are good, but that’s because that’s all there is to this novel. There is no story and there isn’t even really an attempt to make one up. It’s pretty much just a very brief account of where Armand comes from and how he became a vampire. No adventures. No interesting new information about his life or vampires. It’s pretty boring in a lot of regards.

Which is probably why the book turns to erotica. Because there is no real story, I’m guessing Ms. Rice turned to the erotica to fill in the gaps. There is a lot of sex in this book. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind reading about sex in books. I’m not offended by erotica. I just thought it was kind of gratuitous. What does the erotica have to do with Armand? Is it really necessary? Would Armand the Vampire not be ‘Armand the Vampire’ without the sexual history? I really didn’t see the point of it, other than to make the book more interesting to the reader. If that was Rice’s intent, well, then, she probably succeeded.

Overall, this is definitely not the best book in the Vampire Chronicles. It is very short, there is no story, and there is an attempt to compensate for the lack of story by including a bunch of homosexual, heterosexual, and pedophilic sexual erotica. The book reads as a quick compilation of all of the other information that was previously known about Armand with a few sensual details added in. However, despite not really thinking this was a great book, I’m still going to recommend it to fans of the Vampire Chronicles because they are the only ones that would really appreciate it. If you have not read the other books in the series, do not, I repeat, do not begin with this one. Start from the beginning and read from there (Interview With A Vampire), because this is not a great example of what Anne Rice can do.

Ivins, Molly, and Lou Dubose. 2000. Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Largeprint.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Witty, well-written, and disturbing

The authors, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, are journalists and authors who, apparently, have followed George W. Bush’s political career in Texas closely. The book covers everything from G.W. Bush’s childhood to his involvement with his father’s political campaign and finally his political career as governor of Texas.

The bulk of the book examines different components of Bush’s politics and the book is actually divided up by these areas after the chronological history leading up to Bush’s election as governor. For instance, it covers Bush’s record on the environment, on Hispanics in Texas, on Big Business (all of which are deplorable), and on education, the only area where Bush may have done something right.

The book was written during the 2000 campaign, so it was written before Bush was elected president.

Review:
The writing in the book is engaging and humorous and is laced with Texan phrases (e.g., ‘madder than a skillet full of rattlesnakes’) that add an air of Cowboyish authenticity.

The book is also remarkably insightful as regards Texas politics in general. For instance, they point out that being governor of Texas is only the fifth most powerful position in Texas (the lieutenant governor and person in charge of agriculture are more powerful). After finding this out, I’m amazed the political pundits haven’t made a bigger deal out of it. Not only is Bush a political novice (in terms of actually serving in political office), but the one position he did hold before becoming president wasn’t even a powerful position. Considering I’m writing this during the 2004 election in which John Edwards is being criticized for his lack of political experience this fact is even more astonishing. Based on the description of Bush’s responsibilities in this book, he’s a novice compared with Edwards, and a toddler compared to John Kerry.

The authors also make clear that G.W. Bush’s interest in politics makes very little sense considering he abhors reading and discussing policy and doesn’t like to spend his time governing. He has said that one of the things he likes least is reading books on policy. As a result, the authors argue that the bulk of G.W. Bush’s policy and political positions come from Karl Rove, who is referred to as ‘Bush’s Brain’ (an epithet that is, I believe, both accurate and well-deserved). How an individual that is completely uninterested in governing can become the President of the U.S. is nothing short of a slap in the face of logic and intelligence. It’s so astonishing one might believe Karl Rove and the Republican Party pulled off a bloodless coup of reason in the U.S., facilitated, of course, by the Republican spin machines known as ‘talk radio’. The more I learn about Bush, the more amazed I am that he is the current president of the U.S. The guy has no record, just spin.

Another quote from the book seemed to summarize Bush’s basic political philosophy, “Bush is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business.” All of Bush’s policy, with the exception of what he has done to cater to the Christian Right (more on this below), has been beneficial to big business. Bush could care less about the working man; he’s never been one and the longer he remains in power, the more likely he’ll never have to even see one again.

The author does point out two things that Bush did well (thanks again to Karl Rove) in developing his campaign for governor and his presidential campaign in 2000: 1) He catered to the Spanish vote (even though he knows all of two phrases in Spanish; he’s not fluent like he claims). 2) He breached the divide between Country Club Republicans and the Christian Right. Both of these maneuvers have helped him increase his base, regardless of the fact that he cares nothing for them.

Interestingly, the authors of ‘Shrub’ make a prediction at the end of the book, saying that if history is a good instructor, George W. Bush is likely to do exactly what he did for Texas to the U.S. Unfortunately, the authors were right: the poor are poorer, the rich are richer, big business is making away like a bandit, and the environment has gone to pot.

Overall, I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately, those that need to read it the most are probably the least likely to get their hands on it. After reading it, it would be amazing if someone could even consider voting for Bush in 2004.

(Note: I listened to this book on CD).

Rosen, Ruth. 2000. The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America. New York: Viking.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Good historical overview of the ‘women’s movement’ in the U.S. from the 1960s through the 1980s

The book seems to follow a loosely chronological order, beginning with the roots of the movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s and slowly moving through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Even though the book follows a chronological order, the author certainly doesn’t feel bound by it as she jumps around in time quite a bit. The last couple of chapters transition from the chronological discussion to examining issues or subsections of the movement (e.g., black feminists, human potential, etc.).The author touches on many of the ‘leaders’ of the movement as well as most of the important events, including conferences, magazines (Ms., in particular), and books. Also included are several personal anecdotes of the author who has been an active participant in the movement for at least two decades. There is also lengthy discussion surrounding the organizations that helped spawn the women’s movement, most prominently it seems, the New Left movement.

The author does not overlook some of the most significant problems that influenced (and perhaps continue to influence) the movement. The biggest problems revolved around issues of leadership and backstabbing. Because the movement was essentially fighting the existing power hierarchy, feminists were hesitant to organize power structures within the movement. As a result, the movement was particularly prone to fractures and in-fighting. The author’s case study of Sagaris, a feminist retreat in New England that fell apart in large part because of these types of problems, is insightful in this regard. Interestingly, many of the problems are included with the discussion of the infiltration of the FBI (pp. 239-260), as at least some of the problems have been directly attributed by movement members (who exhibited a bit too much paranoia for me) to FBI attempts to destroy the movement.

Review:
While the book is insightful and informative on a number of fronts, it is not without its problems. The problems first… The most prevalent problem is that the book lacks a clear structure. While it does seem to follow a loose, chronological order, it jumps around far more than it needs to. The author will begin discussing someone that had an early influence on the movement, then jump back in time to explore that person’s past and the influences on it, then jump back to the influence of the individual. While this is occasionally helpful in presenting a larger picture, it is generally just distracting.

The book is also missing several things I felt would have helped the reader better understand the movement. Other than the occasional reference to what the author refers to as the ‘First Wave’ of feminist activity (the activity of women in the late 19th and early 20th century resulting in the suffrage amendment), there is no discussion of these activists. The book also leaves off without a clear understanding of where the ‘movement’ stands today. I put ‘movement’ in quotes here largely because it doesn’t seem to be a clearly organized social group but rather a number of small groups working toward specific issues. At the end of the book I didn’t have a clear answer to the question: Is the women’s movement dead?

In a book about the women’s movement and feminism, a clear delineation of the different types of feminism (e.g., liberal, radical, etc.) would have been useful, but it wasn’t included. Finally, there is virtually no discussion of feminist theory. The author briefly mentions feminist critiques of science, but this takes up one to two paragraphs and is glossed over as though irrelevant. While the author does summarize several important books (e.g., The Second Sex, de Beauvoir), there is no real treatment of feminist theory. As this seems to be one of the biggest contributions of the movement, I found this oversight unfortunate.

Turning to some of the positives of the book… One thing the book does do well is illustrate – though it is likely just a glimpse – of how bigoted and chauvinistic U.S. society was prior to the 1970s. For instance, the Canada Dry ad (p. 205) claiming a good woman ‘won’t quit on you’ is despicable. If life for women was even half as deplorable as depicted in this book, it would behoove men to beg for forgiveness for, well, pretty much the rest of the existence of humanity (or at least until we reach a universally accepted parity…).

The book also does a good job of laying out some of the successes of the women’s movement. For instance, sexual harassment in the work place and spousal abuse in the home are now recognized as crimes as a direct result of women’s movement activities. Though Title VII somewhat predated a formal organization of the movement, the women’s movement made it apply and brought litigation that would enforce it. Additionally, the cultural changes that have made it possible for women to speak openly about just about everything resulted from the women’s movement. Of course, there are those that dislike what has happened (conservative Christians, among others), but I believe/hope they are a declining minority.

The book also dispels what the author describes as the most tenacious myth of the movement – that feminists were bra-burners. As the author notes (p. 160), when the idea was first mentioned, it was said as a joke at a protest. The media later claimed that burning bras is what took place at the event. Whether bras have ever been burned isn’t discussed, but what the author does make clear is that bra-burning was a creation of the media and not a symbol of the movement. The most common symbol of men’s oppression used by the women’s movement was an apron, not a bra.

The author also discusses two prominent movements that coincided with the women’s movement and, at least in part, affected it: ‘the religious right’ and what she terms, ‘the human potential’ movement. She notes that the religious right was primarily a counter-movement developed to counteract the progressive influence of the women’s movement. The primary focus has been, and continues to be for the most part, to turn society back to the 1950s when abortions were illegal, women were stuck – depressed and angry – in the home, and society was segregated by sex (and race, but that’s another discussion). Given the author’s views, I was impressed by how objectively she treated the religious right; for my part, I can’t wait to see them disappear.

The ‘human potential’ movement is also an interesting phenomenon. Basically, this is the author’s term for the ‘self-help’ phenomenon coupled with New Age thought and some of the other spiritual practices that started in the early 1970s (or perhaps even the late 1960s). The author examines how this has been both helpful for some women involved with the women’s movement, but also detrimental at times. One intriguing point that is implied by the author, but not clearly examined is the idea that the increasing consumerism of the 1970s and 1980s was partially responsible for the rise of the self-help ‘age’ of the 1980s and 1990s. Basically, it seems as though self-help literature was aimed at curing the alienation Karl Marx predicted would accompany capitalism nearly a century and a half earlier. As people grow increasingly dehumanized in their work, they have to look for ways to find self-fulfillment outside of work, and self-help literature tries to fill that gap. I, personally, think the bulk of it is bunk (the author doesn’t really come down with an opinion on this topic), but it is interesting when you look at it from this perspective.

Finally, the book does read more like an insider ethnography than a purely historical treatment written years after the fact, but that isn’t surprising considering the movement hasn’t really ended (?!?) and the author was/is involved with it. While the ‘insider’ aspect of this book makes it more engaging, it also precludes it from being a truly objective examination of the movement. After reading the book, I felt like it focused too intently on the movement and did not step back to offer a glimpse of the bigger picture. The author draws some of these connections – like the movement’s involvement with the anti-war movement and a quick glossing over of the apparent lack of involvement with the gay rights movement – but the whole picture of what was taking place through the late 1960s up to the 1980s is never really laid out for the reader.

Overall, this is a good, historical treatment of the women’s movement. Given the size of the book as it currently stands, the fact that it is missing discussions of feminist theories, the connections of the women’s movement to other movements, and a discussion of ‘First Wave’ feminists can be forgiven, though suggested additional reading on each of these topics following small discussions of them would have been helpful. (The book does have an extensive bibliography, but it isn’t organized by topic.) It could also have used a clearer format, but is overall a good book that I would recommend for those interested in a slightly myopic treatment of the women’s movement.