>But when Faludi stops reporting things and starts analyzing them, her
>ideas get fuzzy and her interpretations bizarre.
The same could be said of Backlash. The reporting and myth-shattering Faludi did in that book was insightful, but her interpretations were usually predictable and based on conventional feminism.
>How hard do men have it, really?
It's great to hear someone ask this question. The recent consensus seems to be that men have it tough, that there is some crisis of manhood, etc. But what is this based on? Littleton? The handful of men that Faludi talks with for her book? It seems like rather flimsy evidence to base some crisis theory on. But I guess at this point it hardly matters since Faludi, the authors of all the recent boys-in-turmoil books, American Beauty, and Fight Club have all convinced the dominant culture-makers that men *are*, we swear, in a time of heightened confusion and rapid decline. This claim to uniqueness--with it's subtext of, We are living in tumult; isn't it great fun?--is quite vain. Sure, things are changing. But things are always changing--it's called history and it's a constant. Besides, Barbara Ehrenreich's Hearts of Men has already trodden over this territory--without apologizing for its feminism.
Eric