<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Female Supremacists Will Love This Book
Review: ...this book is rather horrendous in its relentlessly cheery women-are-so-much-better-than-men-at-what-really-matters attitude. I could barely make it through the first couple of dozen pages; it was that unbelievable. I'd even say it was so bad that she lost me in the first three pages with her statements about "The Second Sex". (If you don't buy what she says about that you may as well save your time and stop there.) And what's worse is that it's like this from wall to wall, as I discovered when I started jumping around, chapter to chapter, trying out the topics that most interested me, until I'd pretty much read the whole thing -- in utter amazement that anyone could think this way.As a scientist I'm prepared to listen to reasoned and complex arguments, but Fisher usually just states her conclusions about things as if she'd recently come down from the mountain with The Tablets of Truth and expects us to believe it all even though common sense and experience tells us that a lot of what she says is just plain nonsense. What "evidence" she presents is all one-sided (things are rarely that simple) and meant only to lead to a predictable point. There's no place in this book for any caveats, much less the reader who may ask "but wait, what about _____?" It's not on Fisher's radar screen. She doesn't seem to get it. (Just like a woman...) If you're looking for subtle, unexpected, and profound truths, you won't find any in this book. ... "The First Sex" is nothing but a huge embarassment. It should be a scandal that such a book came out of a mainstream publisher from someone with a position (and a PhD) at what one would have thought was a reputable institution. I suppose it's a sign that academia isn't what it once was. I'll give it 1/2 - 1 star above the minimum because the chapters on dating/mating actually weren't terrible, not that they were all that great either.
Rating: 
Summary: Earth to Ms. Fisher
Review: Being open-minded, I tried to read my girlfriend's copy of this. When a man reads how women's "superior creativity is going to change society", you can't help but laugh and anticipate the upcoming comedy. Unfortunately, the writing is so condenscending, elitist, and insecure I couldn't even manage a grin. Ms. Fisher tell us women "are contextual thinkers to a far greater degree than men...Women are far more talented than men." Next, let's examine the Title one more time. "The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing the World". Now let's look at reality. Every Fortune 500 company was started by a man. Every major invention furthering civilization in the last 200 years was thought of and created by a man. Been blind to facts and jealous with rage may be the catalyst for writing a good fictional read for fellow man-haters, but to any rational reader, this book is impossible to get past the first chapter. Now go shut up, and go make me a sammich. : )
Rating:
Summary: arrogant preachy major agenda
Review: Can't figure out how I pulled myself through this book
without becoming ill.
Fisher is preachy,arrogant,sounds like a "know it all" in
her rant about how her "findings" prove women have a more
well rounded,intuitive and emotional intellegence.
What findings? She lives and breathes pop psychology and
pop science and lives for the all mighty dollar which she
knows will come her way,since America is at this time
obsessed with "gender difference.
In her small world,all behavior is hard wired in your
brain.You brain dictates all behavior and your hormones
are the master of your destiny.She overlooks the fact that
we develope our brains.A girl who plays with dolls will
have a very different brain structure from a girl who
played with spatial enhancing toys.Let's face it,most girls
are raised in an overly protective environment in which
exploration is limited.Mix it with other cultural
limitations on women and girls,and you will get women who
are significantly different in their behavior and
aspirations from men.If a woman or girl has not had these
restraints placed upon her,she will have traits which most
people preceive as only a male domain.
Her preachy writing is very annoying.She comes across as
someone who becomes insecure if she doesn't feel correct
at every turn.
No,this is not women's lib.There is nothing freeing about
the book.It's agenda seems to be to dictate to women.
To make them feel "superior" by "proving" their traits
outweigh men's "gender specific traits" in every way.
Women are individuals,some are spatial,some verbal.Same
with men.To imply that every woman has fixed traits not
only hurts women's chances in math,science and engineering,
but also leaves a woman feeling she is limited by being a
woman.
Rating:
Summary: wrong approach causes Ms Fisher to fall flat on her face.
Review: I have to admire what Ms. Fisher was trying to do. Just before this book was released a lot of women magazines ran short articles about the superiority of women that had some men sort of worried. However, when the book was published the guys took a great sigh of relief. Bascially, Ms. Fisher went about it all the wrong way and ended up writing a book that's really nothing more than a bunch of wishful thinking on her part. Fisher states a lot of things that had me saying "okay, that may be true, now back it up with the facts." If you're interesting in this sort of topic (and you should be!) check out Ashley Montagu's "The Natural Superiority of Women" it's out of print for some unknown reason, but you'll be able to find a copy somewhere. This guy really says it the way it is and and backs it up with proven facts. Amazing stuff when you realize that it was written by a guy.
Rating:
Summary: Yep, women's natural talents hard at work making headlines..
Review: Taken direclty from the AP news:
"Reign Ends for Hewlett-Packard CEO
By RACHEL KONRAD, AP
SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 9) - Carly Fiorina's nearly six-year reign at Hewlett-Packard Co. ended abruptly Wednesday as board members forced her out, disappointed by her inability to transform a plodding technology giant dominated by printer sales into a more nimble innovator.
HP's stock, which has gone nowhere for two years and is down two-thirds from its peak in 2000, rose more than 6 percent after earlier soaring almost 11 percent on the news of her ouster.
Board members said they fired the chief executive - perhaps corporate America's most influential woman - because Fiorina failed to slash costs and boost revenue as quickly as directors had hoped."
So much for women's "broad ratiocination" ability and "web-thinking" to envision multiple contingencies and a global, "contexual" perspective. Fisher says that "tomorrow belongs to women," but it is men who made this world and who continue to lay down and pave the future roads that shape and defire what tomorrow will really bring. In light of the asinine hubristic, sexist, and baseless declarations of female supremacy that women like Fisher make, men should stop shying away from their true innate superiority over women and stop making excuses for women and allowing them to undeservingly gain positions simply because they are born female. I am a young man and of a generation far removed from those who have given rise to the long decades traditions of telling women from girlhood that they are not only just as good as men but also now better. Click your heels all you want peaches, but truth be told, you never really left Kansas and haven't come a long way despite what lies you've been told and foolishly believe. More men should read this book to educate themselves about the delusion of "equality" and what women really think of themselves compared to men. I doubt men will have the same sympathy that many still have for them if they knew how they really think and feel. Plato was right in thanking the gods for not being a woman, for she is a creature completely devoid of logic and reason and drunk on the myth of her own lies and endless needs and greater undeserving wants.
Rating:
Summary: Anti-male and hurts gender relations including feminism
Review: The title basically says what this book is all about. That men are biologically inferior to women at least in the world to come. Now believe it or not, being an "inferior male" like I am, I actually approached this book with an open mind and thougt that if worse comes to worse, it would just humble me a bit more. However as I began to read the book all I saw was a chauvinistic attitude in regard to the research that was really out there. She talks about how the female mind is more creative then the male mind by saying things like how she first noticed this by examining her boyfriends behavior and then goes ahead and presents very biased evidence (of female superiority) without mentioning the loads of evidence that go against her conclusions. There are many books out there such as "Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link Between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability" which give lots of proof that the extreme male brain often found in autism that many creative geniuses such as the physicist Newton and the poet Yeat's had may surprisingly actually be of great "great creative worth," and not just of secondary status as this author seems to imply. She goes onto say almost undoubtedly that women's "superior creativity" is going to change society. Then why haven't things like this happened yet. For instance Jews have been denied rights almost since the beginning. It was only in the late 1800's to early 1900's that they started to get equal rights under the law in america. Since then almost immediately they began making a huge impact on societal culture. They have been found in the top ranks in the arts and science at a ratio to their actual population size of about 8:1. Also while they make up about 2% of the american population they have won about 27% of nobel prizes awarded to american scientists. Why haven't the same number of these great achievements come even close to these with women (if the author claims they are so superior to men) since they have gotten equal rights and opportunities at about the same time in america as groups such as the jews? Of course, the author doesn't mention things like this and just blames things that may not be to flattering with women on "male oppression" and anything that may make them sound good as part of their "inherent advantage". This subject is, of course very complex and I don't have time to go into it more here. However, neither does the author of "The First Sex" come even close to doing the subject justice in her entire book either, especially for men.
Rating:
Summary: Earth to Ms. Fisher
Review: Well, this was another one of those books I picked up to try to understand my mother-in-law better. Thank the gods that I found it used! This book is yet another one of those "women are the nurturers" sorts of books: just the sort of thing to give my MIL a present, after all, remember, "women are tied to mother earth by virtue of their menstrual cycle!" Remember that, and remember it well, for it will guide you in making sense (well maybe not SENSE, per se) of this unfortunate mishmash of sociobiology/genetics/post-feminist ramblings. You're probably wondering, in light of that last sentence, why I am giving this book three stars instead of the one that you would expect. One of the primary reasons is that, despite the sketchy facts, and the overall silliness, and the evidence that leads one to form the OPPOSITE conclusion to that the author seems to be promoting, this really is an amusing book, especially if you think that women and men are the way they are due to socialization. Opposite, eh? Well, by page 10, the author has asserted that only 50% of women express the genes that lead to the internetworked functions of both hemispheres in the cortex which results in the traits of "web thinking," "contextual thought," and nurturing that she associates with all women. Women, and only women, are capable of thinking in web-like and interconnected terms, according to the author, and her entire theory of women's pending ascendency in the world economoy is completely based upon these traits. However, there is one HUGE problem: the half of the female population that does NOT express these traits. So, will these spatially inclined, non-verbally fluent women who make up 50% of the female population be left behind in the coming business revolution? It is unclear, since the author never addresses any of these issues. I am one of those women who doesn't conform to the author's stereotype of women as the networkers; the emotionally literate person who can guess what a person is feeling and what he or she needs; who cares about family and group harmony above all else. In fact, frankly, I loathe emotional confrontation, family gatherings, and I could give a rat's patootie about harmony. I may be verbal and a "web thinker" but I am also rational, unemotional, unexpressive, and non-nurturing (that's not to say that I'm uncaring-- I'm very supportive-- but the other person has to tell me what he or she needs, despite Fisher's assertion that I should just be able to "tell" somehow, psychically). This founding fact upon which Fisher bases her entire analysis appears to indicate little that would contradict the theory that most gender differences are due to socialization rather than biology. Fisher's subsequent factoids and blurbs throughout the book do little to support her contention that men and women are designed differently in their capacities, or that they have evolved differently enough to justify them taking different roles in society. I thought that dreck had gone out with the feminine mystique, but it looks to be alive and well today, despite all fervent efforts to expunge it. At least Fisher managed to convey this all in an amusing way (well, to me, anyway. Maybe it was just the absurdity of it all...), which was something that the authors of "The Female Power Within," a book about this same sort of dreck, didn't manage. So, if nothing else, that, at least, made this book somewhat worth reading. I never did mention what the third star was for. It's for Fisher providing me with a Christmas present for my mother-in-law, which she will love to death. Thank you, Ms. Fisher, for this small boon!
Rating: 
Summary: Sketchy evidence, incorrect conclusion, but fun anyway...
Review: Well, this was another one of those books I picked up to try to understand my mother-in-law better. Thank the gods that I found it used! This book is yet another one of those "women are the nurturers" sorts of books: just the sort of thing to give my MIL a present, after all, remember, "women are tied to mother earth by virtue of their menstrual cycle!" Remember that, and remember it well, for it will guide you in making sense (well maybe not SENSE, per se) of this unfortunate mishmash of sociobiology/genetics/post-feminist ramblings. You're probably wondering, in light of that last sentence, why I am giving this book three stars instead of the one that you would expect. One of the primary reasons is that, despite the sketchy facts, and the overall silliness, and the evidence that leads one to form the OPPOSITE conclusion to that the author seems to be promoting, this really is an amusing book, especially if you think that women and men are the way they are due to socialization. Opposite, eh? Well, by page 10, the author has asserted that only 50% of women express the genes that lead to the internetworked functions of both hemispheres in the cortex which results in the traits of "web thinking," "contextual thought," and nurturing that she associates with all women. Women, and only women, are capable of thinking in web-like and interconnected terms, according to the author, and her entire theory of women's pending ascendency in the world economoy is completely based upon these traits. However, there is one HUGE problem: the half of the female population that does NOT express these traits. So, will these spatially inclined, non-verbally fluent women who make up 50% of the female population be left behind in the coming business revolution? It is unclear, since the author never addresses any of these issues. I am one of those women who doesn't conform to the author's stereotype of women as the networkers; the emotionally literate person who can guess what a person is feeling and what he or she needs; who cares about family and group harmony above all else. In fact, frankly, I loathe emotional confrontation, family gatherings, and I could give a rat's patootie about harmony. I may be verbal and a "web thinker" but I am also rational, unemotional, unexpressive, and non-nurturing (that's not to say that I'm uncaring-- I'm very supportive-- but the other person has to tell me what he or she needs, despite Fisher's assertion that I should just be able to "tell" somehow, psychically). This founding fact upon which Fisher bases her entire analysis appears to indicate little that would contradict the theory that most gender differences are due to socialization rather than biology. Fisher's subsequent factoids and blurbs throughout the book do little to support her contention that men and women are designed differently in their capacities, or that they have evolved differently enough to justify them taking different roles in society. I thought that dreck had gone out with the feminine mystique, but it looks to be alive and well today, despite all fervent efforts to expunge it. At least Fisher managed to convey this all in an amusing way (well, to me, anyway. Maybe it was just the absurdity of it all...), which was something that the authors of "The Female Power Within," a book about this same sort of dreck, didn't manage. So, if nothing else, that, at least, made this book somewhat worth reading. I never did mention what the third star was for. It's for Fisher providing me with a Christmas present for my mother-in-law, which she will love to death. Thank you, Ms. Fisher, for this small boon!
Rating:
Summary: I read this book twice......left me shocked..
Review: What a pleasure to have explained all the questions one has accumulated over the years. Her book continues in greater detail an article that appeared in the Ladies' Home Journal several years ago. In fact, most of the studies in that article were also cited in her book. It was a pleasant reassurance to know that women ARE more capable in using their brains, and in a much more complex fashion. But we knew that. In fact, everyone has known that for centuries! It's nice to see it so clearly now.
Rating:
Summary: give it a rest fisher!
Review: What's the point? To seperate men from women to the point we are no longer in contact with one another except to reproduce?
Men are a useless species,it's the message she is sending out to the masses and it is very evil.Men are the enemy,and so very thick according to her 'studies' so to render them to the sidelines of sperm doner and bridge builder.And women can't build a bridge,let alone draw one.Women are religated to the verbal and emotional side."Natural commicators" ?
She has given women quite a load,especially since many women do not fit her pattern of what she believes a woman IS.
<< 1 >>
|
