Review by ab2020 -- The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Rom...

[ab2020]

[Following is a volunteer review of "The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance" by Morris Rollins.]

---

1 out of 4 stars

---

Share This Review

---

Have you ever finished a book and immediately thought, “What the hell did I just read?” If you have, you might understand how I felt when I finished The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance by Morris Rollins (pen name). The book is essentially a (possibly satirical) guide on how to become a “chauvinist stud”. Needless to say, it is an extremely weird book, and I actually found some of the content so offensive that the book didn’t even seem like a satire.

So, what exactly is this book about? Well, it begins with a brief history of Man and Woman (both words are capitalized in the text). Its intended audience is men who aspire to become chauvinist studs, so naturally, this history is anti-feminist. According to the author (or, rather, the narrator), since the days of Adam and Eve, the world has become increasingly female-dominated, and feminism is quickly erasing the significance of the male sex.

The book proceeds to provide a list of strategies that men should follow if they want to get a girl, so to speak. The author/narrator breaks down each sex into several categories (according to Rollins, there are only two sexes and two genders). For men, these categories include “Nice Guys”, “Tough Guys”, and “Smooth Guys”. For women, these categories include “Nice Girls”, “Bad Girls”, “Catholic Girls”, and “Blondes”. The author provides strategies on how to deal with each type of person when it comes to pursuing a relationship. The book also includes a section on “How Chauvinism Works” that directs men on their dress, conversational style, occupation, etc.

The first question I had when I read the synopsis for this book was, “Is this a satire?” By the time I finished reading, I still had not figured out the answer. I have read plenty of satire in the past, so my failure to discern Morris Rollins’ true beliefs was somewhat concerning. Perhaps this says something about the author's lack of skill as a writer. For a book that contains such offensive content as sexism, homophobia, body-shaming, and jokes about the Holocaust, the difference between seriousness and satire is quite important.

If this book is not a satire, it is quite easy to see why it is so problematic. In one instance, Rollins explains that “[f]at women have a lot of oral experience, from chewing.” I wonder why such an opinion would ever be productive for society. If this book’s sole purpose were to degrade women and feed the chauvinist male ego, then surely I would recommend against reading it. But what if the book is a satire?

To be honest, I don’t think this makes much of a difference. In a society that is still plagued by sexism, homophobia, body-shaming, and jokes about the Holocaust, such a book does not serve any productive purpose. If readers have such a hard time figuring out whether or not the book is a satire, then does the author's true intent even matter? As I read, I got the impression that a sexist who reads this book will probably remain a sexist, and a feminist who reads it will remain a feminist. If this is the case—if the book does not challenge or enlighten the reader in some way—then there is hardly a point in anyone reading it.

For these reasons, I find The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance to be a complete waste of time. It might be satirical, but offensive content is still offensive. The book is also poorly edited and contains a myriad of explicit-yet-boring stock illustrations. The title page states that the book is in its first edition, but I certainly hope there will never be a second edition. As it is quite easily the worst book I have read in a long while, I rate The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance 1 out of 4 stars.

******
The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon | on iTunes | on Smashwords

[Erin Painter Baker]

I really like this line "If this is the case—if the book does not challenge or enlighten the reader in some way—then there is hardly a point in anyone reading it." I think that sums up how I feel about this book without having read it.