The Reel Sisters and Their Men

[Ria710]

I think it is a good strategy to give the men just supporting roles, as the book was based mainly on the 5 females. I mean even without the men, the book would be amazing.

[NovaFly]

I think it was a good choice to have the men as supporting roles, eliminating them completely might have been unrealistic as many women have men that are an important part of their lives but foremost this book is about female friendship and empowerment.

[Ariely 20]

The book is explicitly gynocentric celebrating the female bonds and women as a natural nurturer. The male characters are all relegated to the periphery merely functioning as appendages to the central characters. In fact, in a very subtle way the author champions gender fluidity in the characters of Thatcher who dons the role of a chef and a homemaker to a globetrotting entrepreneur spouse and Mike who is now forced to don the role of a single parent. This is a conscious reversal of the traditional male gender roles. The negation of gender stereotyping in reiterated in a casual conversation between the characters to remove the suffix man from the word ‘fisherman’ and thereby neutralize the gender associations. The reference to Dame Julianna Berners who wrote a book on fish flying in the 1400 in the mans world and claiming that women have better listening, patience and observation to fly fish better than men all seem to allude or call for a change in the world around us from being too androcentric.

Really great insights. The gender role reversals was not obvious to me.

[Jeyasivananth]

Thank you!

[Alice Festo]

Good observation. The women came out strong and they gave strength to each other. It wouldn't make a difference if the men were excluded completely. Thatcher though had the most impact of the men in the story. He took time to have dinner with the ladies, hired Melody as a photographer and went a step further to find a date for Veronica even though it didn't work.

[Manang Muyang]

Good observation. The women came out strong and they gave strength to each other. It wouldn't make a difference if the men were excluded completely. Thatcher though had the most impact of the men in the story. He took time to have dinner with the ladies, hired Melody as a photographer and went a step further to find a date for Veronica even though it didn't work.

Oops, Thatcher surely didn't want Veronica, his wife, dating someone else!

[Alice Festo]

Sorry I meant a date for Sophie. Thanks for noting.

[Damis Seres Rodriguez]

Jeyasivananth, you made some very good points! In this book, the men are basically in the background and aren't fleshed out too much. Thatcher is the always cheerful, always helpful husband, but we don't get to know him too well. He seemed like the gender flip of a helpful, supportive wife. In the latter sections of the story, Sophie's boyfriend isn't fleshed out well and just seemed to be a plot device for her to finally have a romantic partner. Amanda's husband's storyline is a little more detailed, but I felt the focus was still on her reactions to him being away and then having PTSD when he came home.

Yes , your observation are spot on. There so many characters left with so much wanting. It is one of the reasons i gave book only three stars.Many characters are flat and undeveloped.

To be honest, I would have liked to see more of the men, and yes, I know the point of the book is to praise the friendship between women; but they were a great contrast in the quality of the characters in the book. I agree here. Men seem underdeveloped and little more than plot devices.

[Jeyasivananth]

Jeyasivananth, you made some very good points! In this book, the men are basically in the background and aren't fleshed out too much. Thatcher is the always cheerful, always helpful husband, but we don't get to know him too well. He seemed like the gender flip of a helpful, supportive wife. In the latter sections of the story, Sophie's boyfriend isn't fleshed out well and just seemed to be a plot device for her to finally have a romantic partner. Amanda's husband's storyline is a little more detailed, but I felt the focus was still on her reactions to him being away and then having PTSD when he came home.

Yes , your observation are spot on. There so many characters left with so much wanting. It is one of the reasons i gave book only three stars.Many characters are flat and undeveloped.

To be honest, I would have liked to see more of the men, and yes, I know the point of the book is to praise the friendship between women; but they were a great contrast in the quality of the characters in the book. I agree here. Men seem underdeveloped and little more than plot devices.
[/

Definitely, my thoughts as well.

[Bookreviwer2020]

I thought the writer had some feminist ideas. Yet the men in the book did seem to have purposes- if only to strengthen and support the women's roles

[Sumansona1344]

The book is explicitly gynocentric celebrating the female bonds and women as a natural nurturer. The male characters are all relegated to the periphery merely functioning as appendages to the central characters. In fact, in a very subtle way the author champions gender fluidity in the characters of Thatcher who dons the role of a chef and a homemaker to a globetrotting entrepreneur spouse and Mike who is now forced to don the role of a single parent. This is a conscious reversal of the traditional male gender roles. The negation of gender stereotyping in reiterated in a casual conversation between the characters to remove the suffix man from the word ‘fisherman’ and thereby neutralize the gender associations. The reference to Dame Julianna Berners who wrote a book on fish flying in the 1400 in the mans world and claiming that women have better listening, patience and observation to fly fish better than men all seem to allude or call for a change in the world around us from being too androcentric.

I completely agree with you. I thought the same when I was wondering about the characters of the book. I really liked the reversal of traditional roles.

[baldgi84]

Although men had supporting roles in this book, I think they were essential for the book.

[Nama Winnie]

I think it would've been a better book if the men were left out of it completely! Sophie's entire character arc revolves around her finding a man. Thatcher is just kind of there... he does nothing. As for Amanda's husband, well he really felt like he was being used as a plot device so that Amanda would have a reason to storm out of the house at the end...

Your first sentence made me laugh.

I echo your sentiments though. I didn't see the point of having the men in the book.
Half the time I forgot they were even there.

[Honest-reviewer]

I think more or less the story would have been the same. Only Amanda’s husband had a major role according to me.

[Samgum50]

I think it was a good strategy because it allowed for a different perspective on how men should be supportive of women. I don't think the story would have been the same though without the men because they ended up impacting the women characters in the story be it in small or big ways.