Rebecca Solnit started out to write a humorous essay about those men (and she's clear that it's not all - or even most - men) who automatically dismiss the knowledge, opinions or expertise of a woman even about topics they themselves have no knowledge of, but as she thought it through she came to realise that such behaviour is only one point along a societal spectrum that historically has meant women had no legal rights, even to life itself. One of the points she makes is that the gender-aspect of any violent crime is usually overlooked - for example, we stress the fact that mass shooters are often loners and often have mental health issues (which, incidentally, is not as 'often' as people assume), but we tend to skate over the fact that they are almost always men as if that has no significance. Even when the motive is clearly misogynistic (like the guy who wanted to shoot up a sorority because women would not give him the sex he felt he had some kind of right to), that part of it tends to be handled with kid-gloves. When it comes to rape, which is almost always a gender-power crime (though Solnit is careful to stress that not all men are perpetrators and not all victims are women), society treats each incident as an aberration, an isolated event, at best a horrible tragedy or a misunderstanding - but probably the victim's fault, or else the fault of a seriously defective perpetrator. It's too threatening to the status quo to recognise that sexual violence is the primary method society has used to keep women in their place, and that it continues to be used that way even as remarkable progress has certainly been made. She concludes that although most men are not violent or even necessarily misogynistic, most women live their lives to some degree in fear of the few who are, and the result of that is that all women are thus subordinated to all men. She also points out the double standard that most of us simply take for granted (for instance, why did the suggestion made once that a college's men should be told to stay inside after dark as a way to prevent rape bring such an angry reaction? Why is it more reasonable for women, who are not the perpetrators of campus rape, to be restricted? Why is someone who reports a stolen bicycle immediately believed, but someone who reports a rape immediately doubted?) It's understandable that men who would never dream of harming - or even disrespecting - a woman can feel defensive when these conversations start, but this is an indictment of a social reality, not of men as individuals, and by becoming angry that the subject is raised, rather than angry about the crimes being discussed, innocent men themselves become part of the problem. This is a powerful and important book, in a format that makes it a fairly quick read.