Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful endeavor...
Review: Angier presents the sort of passionate, imaginative thinking that germinates and nourishes good theories, in an unmistakable, extremely likable style. At sometimes she is a bit long-winded, but this book is definitely WORTH IT!
Rating: 
Summary: Great science on a topic (women's bodies) that deserves it
Review: This book offers up some of the most exciting and rewarding science reading I've come across. I loved the bold, aggressive, and personal perspective that Natalie Angier writes with. It is extremely well researched and written. I carried this book with me for a good part of the summer, sharing it with friends. They all liked it so much: I think every one who saw it has now bought a copy!
Rating: 
Summary: Gives New Meaning to the Term "Purple Prose"
Review: This book is very weak on science and very strong on polemics--a feminist rant based on the work of a handful of interviews with a handful of scholars and, as the reader says below, a mighty slow slog. The author seems in sad need of editing (she seems overly fond of her own screaming voice) and of someone to remind her that in science, at least, evidence is all. This book has all the literary charm of a greeting card, and all the power of a burned out light bulb. Rather than sell it at the end of the semeter, as a reader suggests below, I'd advise that you give it a pass altogether.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent for the Layman As Well As the Professional
Review: This book is incredible. For those who thought it "weak on science" - did they skip three quarters of the book? This book was recommended to me by a highly-held professional in the field of biology. I read it as soon as I got it, and was enthralled.
Rating: 
Summary: Been there, done that. A socio-physiological romp.
Review: This book is like a Salvation Army soup kitchen: they'll feed you but first you have to hear the sermon. Despite the incredibly skilled and funny phrasings and some fairly decent physiology this is a feminist tract. I think that the author wishes women were parthenogenic at will. This book falls in the cracks: it is not a useful reference because the 245 citings are not traditionally bibliographed and it is too wordy to be a good read for the beach. It is impossible to reverse engineer a reference to find where it is cited. Despite the number of references Ms. Angier relies almost exclusively on the published (and unpublished) work of a few female researchers. Read it for fun and knowledge but sell it at the end of the semester.
Rating: 
Summary: blah
Review: I picked this up in the library, which is good, because this is not a book I'd want to keep on my shelves. Like the reviewer below, I really don't understand the hoopla. I mean the author got it into her head to voice her opinions on all things female, and being a New York Times reporter she found someone to publish it. She doesn't have anything new or particularly interesting to say, and yet she seems intent on screaming at the reader as though she did. Her writing style swings from Hallmark card to rant--it's just plain annoying. And her arguments are often just as poorly grounded as the arguments of those she critiques. So why the big deal?
Rating:
Summary: Informative, entertaining and extremely well-written.
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed WOMAN and found it particularly interesting and helpful since I recently gave birth to my first child. The book both educated me about the whole process (in ways the pregnancy books don't) and helped me to remember I also have a brain by giving me much to think about.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth the fuss
Review: I had heard about the book from a discussion on the radio, and when I came here to look at the reviews I thought I had a winne on my hands. I thought wrong. Not to say that the book didn't have some funny or interesting parts, it just didn't do much for me. Perhaps the hype and horror surrounding the reviews here and other places helped it not live up to my wishes, but I seriously don't think I understand all the fuss. Yes the author has some weak science, but as others have pointed out, she isn't writing a science book. Yes she sometimes can seem trite, but most books written by authors who think themselves humorists have some degree of this. (didn't I see Mr. O'Rourke mentioned here?) But for the most part, please, this book is not and should not be the foundation of Women's Studies programs for years to come, nor should it be banned as heretical science. It's just a book written by a woman for women, and provide some humor and perhaps a little insight. As for the previous review and why isn't there any bashing of those like Wright and Pinker.....this isn't a spot to review their books, that's why.....
Rating:
Summary: An important contribution
Review: I am baffled by reviews like the one below that complain about this book being weak on science. My reading of it is that it never intended to be a scientifically airtight treatise on female-ness. In fact, the introduction says as much-- that it is a "fantasia," an extrapolation based on science but then mixed with some personal interpretation, which is fine with me as long as that personal interpretation is smart, which it totally is. In my view, WOMAN offers an important counterbalance to some truly bad work which purports even more so to be "scientific"-- names like Wright and Pinker and Buss come to mind. Why is no one bashing these andro-centric tracts? Might there be a little bit of misogyny at work here? People should lighten up, appreciate the science that Angier describes so well and enjoy her provocative flights of fancy. Smart conjecture can be fun. Even (gasp) liberating!
Rating:
Summary: One of THE best books I've ever read
Review: I had it on my coffee table for a while because there were paragraphs that I would share with various friends when they'd stop by. There is a large group of women out here that loved WOMAN.
| 
