Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I read this book after seeing it enthusiastically recommended by various sources online, with some ringing endorsements from a few people, like Ken Wilbur, who I respect. I bought it in spite of knowing that it's big with the PUA community. I was very excited to get the chance to read it, but I must admit that I was extremely disappointed. I never sell my books to the used bookstore when I'm finished, but with this one I just might. As others have pointed out, Deida has no real professional credentials to fall back on, and his official bio is vague. He considers himself "an entertainer," much like the scam artists who masquerade as "gurus" in other fields. His book comes across as little more than the egotistical blovating of a narcissist who's out to bilk his followers for all the love and attention he can get by regurgitating quasi-spiritual pablum. Deida's prose is sometimes called "poetic," which is a nice way of saying that he's cheesy, vague, and likes to spout trite New Age cliches as if they were ancient wisdom. This was an immediate turnoff as I began reading. What do phrases like "give your gift" mean, exactly? I still don't know, even after seeing this phrase repeated several hundred times. There are also a ton of problems with Deida's "masculine/feminine polarity" thesis. Yes, there is something like that going on in relationships between men and women, but Deida's concept is far over reaching and very msyogonistic. For exmple, his "feminine essence" is embodied in a woman who's young and physically attractive... and a mindless basketcase of flighty emotions totally incapable of consistency or controlling herself. When she does develop her "masculine side" to develop some self control and capacity for respect and rational thought, then Deida describes her as becoming an asexual shrew. Either way, a woman is certain to be hell to deal with, in Deida's view. "The Superior Man" just accepts this as true and rolls with the punches she gives him. However, this conception of women is actually *better* than Deida's conception of the "Superior Man." A man who epitomizes the "masculine polarity" and is supposed to be drawn to the psycho "feminine polarity" is described another badly damaged human being who is solely focused on his own goals (which, oddly, is contradicted by his need to control his own emotions, desires, and ego so that he never upsets a woman in any way), never shows emotion, and will happily put up with all sorts of insane crap from a crazy woman because she's so "feminine." Basically, "The Superior Man" is described as a sociopath. This is seen as the key to having a passionate relationship and the ideal that all couples should aspire to. If a guy doesn't meet that criteria, then he is a wimp. If he ever falls short of perfection in his "masculine polarity" by losing his cool, setting a boundary with women, or doing anything besides what he wants to do at any given moment, then a woman loses all respect and love for him. This is a recipe for a major complex! A healthy relationship requires communication, boundaries, mutual respect for each other as human beings as well as sex objects. The only "relationship" that Deida's rules might actually apply to would be a quick fling here or there, which is probably why the PUA community and its crazed thinking on gender matters treats this as gospel. All this criticism aside, there are a few moments of insight throughout the book, such as how it's important for a man to pay attention to a woman's emotions and not try to fix her problems, how women want a man who's steadfast and has a direction and goal in life, and how many women prefer a guy who takes the lead in a relationship and handles the traditional male gender roles. However, these are not worth sifting through the author's bloated, shallow, cliche ridden New Age onanism to find.