Stronger Sex: Understanding and Resolving the Eternal Power Struggles Between Men and Women

Rating:
Summary: comments from 3 authors
Review: "Balanced and insightful... A triumph over illusion and misunderstanding." Warren Farrell, Ph.D., author of Why Men Are The Way They Are

"Compelling portraits, page after page. Come venture into the strange realities of sex, power, anger, confrontation, obligation, infidelities, and the real meaning of love." Ann Crytser, author of The Wife-in-Law Trap

"Unconventional but thoroughly fascinating... Astute, helpful, politically incorrect, and softly outrageous." Joel Block Ph.D., author of Secrets of Better Sex

Rating:
Summary: Oh, do tell!
Review: The funny thing is that this might have been a passable men's rights book, if it were not for the insulting title and the author's Orwellian games with language.

That women use manipulative abilities and emotional ploys to counteract a physical strength advantage possessed by men in order to garner concessions from them is no secret, and this book adds to the understanding of the evolutionary perspective. That women, as a result, are less likely to withdraw from emotional confrontations with men than the other way around is also probably no real secret. It ties in with the first point, and again the author's academic studies of the phenomenon add some understanding to it.

This is all very well and good, but instead of merely arguing that the male view of the balance of power between the sexes should be taken into consideration, the author phrases this female ability in terms of genetic superiority.

Feminazi junk science has been dehumanizing men for years by suggesting that longevity of females and vulnerability of males to certain birth defects is proof of female superiority or female 'strength' (if longevity is an indicator of strength or superiority, is a tortoise who may live several hundreds of years therefore the highest form of life on earth?)

Driscoll runs on a slightly different track which leads to the same destination, and one anecdote that he uses is that of observing a group of rhesus monkeys amidst limited food rations. The male monkeys are larger than the female monkeys and often more violent. Well then, aren't the males stronger?

Apparently, it depends on whether you are using the conventional definition of the word or a nouveau definition chosen for the purpose of flattering female readers.

Because rather than the males as a group hogging the food for themselves, what happens is that the high status male rhesus monkeys elbow out the lower status males and share the food rations with the females in exchange for conjugal bliss. Yeah, it's a pattern that is often repeated in human society, but what a strange example to support the proposition that females are 'stronger'.

Driscoll certainly doesn't discuss the phenomenon from the standpoint of male altruism (or even the more values-neutral standpoint of male status-seeking) or female avarice, presumably because this would insult his female readers or his politically-correct peers at the academy. So he argues that women are 'stronger' because one may insult men without fear of reprisal.

Yet there are certainly male professionals who are adept at using emotional ploys, and one might as well argue that the con man who coaxes money from the one who earned it is 'stronger' than his mark. On the other hand, perhaps Driscoll would like to strengthen his case, to his own satisfaction, by arguing that the thief who steals money is stronger than his victim and that the woman who uses the court system to extract resources from men (either as tribute for a failed marriage or as compensation for some supposed employment wrong) is actually displaying superhuman strength.

Is it not more accurate to maintain, as Socrates might, judging from his Platonic dialogue with Ion, that the ability to coax or appropriate resources or concessions from others is a sort of 'knack'?

Driscoll ignores the fact that there are areas of the world where women aren't able to use their emotional means to inveigle favors from men with quite the same aplomb that they do in the chivalric West. In such places, men are presumably immune to the power of female histrionics or they use their will to prevent those histrionics from coming into play. And it's hard to imagine any academic alluding to those examples from other parts of the world as proof of male strength. When we hear of places like that, we always hear them described not in terms of male 'strength' but in terms of male malfeasance.

Specifically, what we hear is that 'men oppress women'. But if the focus shifts from justice to ability, why isn't the ability of men to impose their will on women, either by asserting their authority or their physical stature, proof that men are the stronger sex?

It is a rule of thumb that male advantages over females are almost always expressed in terms of injustice or oppression and that female advantages over males are virtually always expressed in terms of inherent ability. And Driscoll, who is purported to have written a male-friendly book, compounds these rhetorical crimes. And Warren Farrell is well aware of such double-standards, having written critically about them in his own books. Shame on him for blessing this one!

Women should open jars, move sofas, hit home runs into the San Francisco Bay and throw dead weight over their shoulders and climb down fire ladders with it with at least the same frequency that men do before being flattered with the appellation "stronger sex".

Rating:
Summary: Oh, do tell!
Review: The funny thing is that this might have been a passable men�s rights book, if it were not for the insulting title and the author�s Orwellian games with language.

That women use manipulative abilities and emotional ploys to counteract a physical strength advantage possessed by men in order to garner concessions from them is no secret, and this book adds to the understanding of the evolutionary perspective. That women, as a result, are less likely to withdraw from emotional confrontations with men than the other way around is also probably no real secret. It ties in with the first point, and again the author�s academic studies of the phenomenon add some understanding to it.

This is all very well and good, but instead of merely arguing that the male view of the balance of power between the sexes should be taken into consideration, the author phrases this female ability in terms of genetic superiority.

Feminazi junk science has been dehumanizing men for years by suggesting that longevity of females and vulnerability of males to certain birth defects is proof of female superiority or female �strength� (if longevity is an indicator of strength or superiority, is a tortoise who may live several hundreds of years therefore the highest form of life on earth?)

Driscoll runs on a slightly different track which leads to the same destination, and one anecdote that he uses is that of observing a group of rhesus monkeys amidst limited food rations. The male monkeys are larger than the female monkeys and often more violent. Well then, aren�t the males stronger?

Apparently, it depends on whether you are using the conventional definition of the word or a nouveau definition chosen for the purpose of flattering female readers.

Because rather than the males as a group hogging the food for themselves, what happens is that the high status male rhesus monkeys elbow out the lower status males and share the food rations with the females in exchange for conjugal bliss. Yeah, it�s a pattern that is often repeated in human society, but what a strange example to support the proposition that females are �stronger�.

Driscoll certainly doesn�t discuss the phenomenon from the standpoint of male altruism (or even the more values-neutral standpoint of male status-seeking) or female avarice, presumably because this would insult his female readers or his politically-correct peers at the academy. So he argues that women are �stronger� because one may insult men without fear of reprisal.

Yet there are certainly male professionals who are adept at using emotional ploys, and one might as well argue that the con man who coaxes money from the one who earned it is �stronger� than his mark. On the other hand, perhaps Driscoll would like to strengthen his case, to his own satisfaction, by arguing that the thief who steals money is stronger than his victim and that the woman who uses the court system to extract resources from men (either as tribute for a failed marriage or as compensation for some supposed employment wrong) is actually displaying superhuman strength.

Is it not more accurate to maintain, as Socrates might, judging from his Platonic dialogue with Ion, that the ability to coax or appropriate resources or concessions from others is a sort of �knack�?

Driscoll ignores the fact that there are areas of the world where women aren�t able to use their emotional means to inveigle favors from men with quite the same aplomb that they do in the chivalric West. In such places, men are presumably immune to the power of female histrionics or they use their will to prevent those histrionics from coming into play. And it�s hard to imagine any academic alluding to those examples from other parts of the world as proof of male strength. When we hear of places like that, we always hear them described not in terms of male �strength� but in terms of male malfeasance.

Specifically, what we hear is that �men oppress women�. But if the focus shifts from justice to ability, why isn�t the ability of men to impose their will on women, either by asserting their authority or their physical stature, proof that men are the stronger sex?

It is a rule of thumb that male advantages over females are almost always expressed in terms of injustice or oppression and that female advantages over males are virtually always expressed in terms of inherent ability. And Driscoll, who is purported to have written a male-friendly book, compounds these rhetorical crimes. And Warren Farrell is well aware of such double-standards, having written critically about them in his own books. Shame on him for blessing this one!

Women should open jars, move sofas, hit home runs into the San Francisco Bay and throw dead weight over their shoulders and climb down fire ladders with it with at least the same frequency that men do before being flattered with the appellation "stronger sex".

Rating:
Summary: Read this book.
Review: The Stronger Sex by Richard Driscoll is going to make some people mad. Driscoll argues that it is women, not men, who dominate intimate relationships. Women might be flattered to be told they are the stronger sex, but they are less likely to accept that they hold the upper hand in relationships with men. At the heart of Driscoll's argument is the observation that women are much more comfortable with conflict than men. Driscoll says women are biologically better equipped to express anger, sustain anger comfortably, and recover their composure after an angry exchange. Men, Driscoll says, are far less at ease with the whole process of anger and conflict between the sexes. In the face of female anger, he says, men often collapse into themselves, making any mutually negotiated settlement of the conflict at hand almost impossible. Driscoll backs his argument with a host of fascinating biological and psychological evidence. Whatever a reader's initial political reaction might be to Driscoll's larger conclusions, he or she would be wise to set aside preconceived notions and consider the writer's subtle, detailed, and, I think, enormously helpful insights into the ways men and women interact in daily life. Whether or not you think women are winning the war between the sexes, this book is chock full of perceptions and advice that make the possibility of a lasting peace-for individual couples if not for society at large-much more likely.