Submitter: [This book] has not moved off our shelves for years. The language is dated and the topic eyebrow-raising. Despite the author having received two National Endowment for the Arts grants, this book has not aged well.
Holly: There was certainly a place for this in feminist collections back in the day. It got mostly good reviews on Amazon, so it wasn’t the worst choice in 1984. If it is languishing on the shelves untouched for years, though, I can’t see keeping it. I do love the cover!
Submitter: Well Boohoo! Men being oppressed. Let me get a tissue. 1966? I can understand this book being in an academic library. A public library? Patrons need updated info on topics like this.
Holly: Here is a link to the Kirkus Review of this book, back in 1966 and here’s another one from Wiley Online. I agree that for most public libraries, it could be weeded for currency. I don’t have any huge problem with the book itself or its message, since public libraries usually strive for balanced collections. We don’t remove books from our collections because we don’t agree with them or like their message, just as we don’t add books to our collections because we agree with them. It’s not about us.
The second review says the book has “reasonableness,” and makes the book sound pretty well-researched and authoritative. So, it was not necessarily a bad choice in 1966 by the sound of things. If it is still an important work in the field, universities should keep it. If it still circulates in public libraries AND you have space for it AND it’s in good condition, that’s great too. Everyone else can update their 301.4’s to something newer.