Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. by Steve Harvey

I'm not going to give this book my attention except to explain why the first page has turned me off to the whole book.

The first page reads as such: "There is no truer statement: men are simple. Get this into your head first, and everything you learn about us in this book will begin to fall into place. Once you get that down, you'll have to understand a few essential truths: men are driven by who they are, what they do, and how much they make. No matter if a man is a CEO, a CON, or both, and everything he doe is filtered through his title (who he is), how he gets that title (what he does), and the reward he gets for the effort (how much he makes). These three things make up the basic DNA of manhood--the three accomplishments every man must achieve before he feels he's truly fulfilled his destiny as a man. And until he's acheived his goal in those three areas, the man you're dating, committed to, or married to will be too busy to focus on you."

Oh my God...where do I start?

I don't like the condescending tone of the passage. I'm smart and I can probably understand a guy as well as he could. I would have to if I'm a heterosexual woman b/c....I'd have to be able to have a successful relationship with a man if that's what I desire! Harvey speaks to me as though I didn't know that people are often driven by those three things. So if men are driven by those three things, what does Harvey think women are driven by? The fact that he's speaking to women as though this were a new concept to them tells me that he undoubtedly believes women need different things in order to "focus" on their spouses. By the way, what kind of lame-ass turd would marry and woman and then not "focus" on the relationship? If that's how all men are, then why would any woman be interested in them at all? Answer that Mr. Harvey.

Here's some advice from Cat Pirrello. If he's "too busy" to focus on the relationship, get the hell out of it.

I also think it's ridiculous to say that men are genetically designed to want those things. Those things are cultural things. They're programmed to want those things after birth.

I think what bothers me the most about Harvey's book is that it assumes that men are fundamentally different. I bet you Harvey has never had a woman's perspective on that subject since he's not a woman. How the hell would he know how I think of men to begin with? He's "answering" questions which I never asked. That tells me he's not in the minds of women either.

If "men are simple", does that mean I'm complicated? And what does "complicated" mean to Harvey?

On page 79, he writes about "Sports fish vs. keepers". What is the implication here? Why am I being compared to a fish? Not very tactful Mr. Harvey. I'm a human remember?

"1. A woman who commands respect is a keeper; a woman who lets men get away with disrespecting her is a throwback". It's not fair to men for him to make the generalization that men are this shallow. I do not believe all men are hateful. I know of at least a few anomalies for his blanket statement. It is a crude statement because it implies that men will take advantage of women who don't "command respect" every chance they get. It forgets that there are decent men in the world also who will know to be respectful regardless of how much the woman respects herself.

"7. A woman who knows she wants to be married and raise a family and lets a man know this up front is a keeper; a woman who doesn't have a plan for her relationship life beyond next weekend is a throwback". I guess his definition of a "keeper" is a woman who deserves a man's love. A "throwback" must be a woman who men feels is not deserving of their love and attention. According to this definition though, I'm a "throwback". So, in other words, if a woman is not sure if she wants to be forever tied to a man and children, she is not deserving of any man's love and attention. This assertion of his would probably not sit right with couples who have no kids.

And, referring to a women who don't necessarily want to be tied to a men and children as a "throwbacks" is disrespectful to all women. Women are women regardless of whether they want nuclear families.

I cannot keep reading this. I'm going to vomit.

He didn't do his homework and people are going to read this stuff trusting that he knows what he's talking about. I'm going to contact "Bitch" magazine. Someone needs to publish something to refute him. Mybe it should be me. I just don't know if I can stomach the rest of the book! Otherwise, people are going to interpret this as the only truth.