From the beginning of this book, which proposes a patchwork psychological model accounting for all misogynies, David Gilmore seems unclear even to himself whether he wishes to address the fear and hatred of women by individual men or by whole cultures. Gilmore explains that “this book is an inquiry into misogyny as it occurs and has occurred in cultures around the world” (p. 8). But, in the very next sentence, Gilmore presupposes that misogynistic cultures are composed of men only, and in two definitions of the term, he shifts from societies or cultures to men only: “by ‘misogyny’ I will mean an unreasonable fear or hatred of women that takes on some palpable form in any given society. ... Misogyny, then, is a sexual prejudice that is symbolically exchanged (shared) among men” (p. 9, emphasis added). These statements suggests that societies and cultures are primarily made up of men; the place of women is not clear. It is this absence of real women (as opposed to mythological ones) and the confusion between individual men and their cultures that ultimately undo Gilmore’s arguments.

That misogyny is widespread across the globe (and history) is not in dispute, and Gilmore’s chapters documenting women hating in what seems like every culture, time, and religion are ultimately fascinating and revealing. Gilmore shows readers not only the widespread nature of misogyny but also its variety. Women are hated in many ways and for many overt reasons around the world: for their bodies, for their tempting of men, and for their “evil natures,” among others. This “tour of misogyny” occupies the first half of the book, after which Gilmore organizes this variety into what he claims to be “commonalities.” But after pointing out some commonly appearing (but by no means universal) themes in misogyny, Gilmore’s classification of “many misogynies,” (p. 147) ends up emphasizing variety rather than commonality. Rather than exploring this variety, Gilmore moves on to consider psychological, and then structural and materialist, causes of universal misogyny.

The chapter on the psychological theories is perhaps persuasive if one subscribes to the notion that (neo-)Freudian psychology (developed to analyze individuals and based on a self-selected sample of patients) is a valid way to explain cultural patterns, practices, and beliefs. I found that the number and mutation of these “theories” only showed the weakness of the whole enterprise: chiefly, that there is no way of knowing whether they are right. The structuralist and materialist theories have the advantage that they explain cultural phenomena through culture, rather than through individual male psychology. Gilmore, however, dismisses these theories as not being sufficiently powerful to explain universal misogyny.

In a fascinating twist, Gilmore then illustrates that most misogynistic cultures (or men) also have gynophilic aspects, that they often have an equal and opposite reverence for some women—the coexisting Madonna and whore being a prime example. Gilmore argues that it is this two-sided ambivalence toward women in men’s psyches that drives misogyny. Men are misogynists, argues Gilmore, because of castration anxiety, sexual frustration, and anger at being so dependent on women (especially mothers), while at the same time they harbor a regressive impulse to return to the womb or infancy. Each aspect of this explanation is meant to address a different aspect of universal misogyny. But Gilmore has shown that not all misogynies are present in every culture, so one wonders whether it is even appropriate to ask the prime mover question.

Still, even if one is skeptical of a grand psychological explanation, one does wonder why misogyny is so widespread. Perhaps it is visible and named in the first place because it is men who do the naming (and sacred-text writing) in most cultures. And what about the women? Do they believe themselves, for example, to be “dirty” or “polluting” when they are isolated during menses? At least some women must be complicit in this misogyny and believe in the religious and mythological evil in themselves. This is an important point, especially because the psychological explanations should not apply to women, but it is not raised at all by Gilmore. This oversight leaves the entire project incomplete.