Title: Confused Academic Drivel
Product review: The author engages in loose, impressionistic musing about problems in the highly politicized field of social science. On page 56, for instance, during a discussion of the use of the term "gendered," Sayer writes, "On the whole, I find it hard to think of much that is good about masculinity." Sayer is arguing, however, that we shouldn't assume that everything masculine is bad, as some in the field tend to do. And why not? Well, it's difficult to say what is masculine and what is not (56-58); these are rather general rubrics. Why, then, does Sayer express disdain for most things that are masculine? Probably to avoid getting into trouble by appearing to be pro-masculine in spite of his attempt to argue that masculinity is not always bad. Books like this will occupy the landfills of the near future, and rightly so.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
