Rating: 
Summary: Sommers perpetuates inequalities in her trumped-up "war"
Review: Sommers might feel a tad differently if by chance she was 'socially constructed' as a non-caucasian non-well-to-do little lady. She has every reason to attempt to reconstitute past inequalities, as her well-being depends upon perpetuating inequalities. Her research has been easily disproven (and thus dismissed) by leading feminists and sociologists--those who do good work of attempting to redress inequalities, rather than attempting through numbers-jockeying to perpetuate them. Sommers is a backlash babe; she's paranoid that contemporary feminists' work might take away the priviledge she and her kind (waspy fems and the men and boys they love) enjoy daily. Let's worry about our young men going to war--at least the young men of color as well as hired (at discounted cost) mercenaries from poor countries...while little white boys are protected and coddled and princed-up, are prepared to inherit the throne of capital. Given current data which shows the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever, even accelerated, due to the out-of-control spending habits of the carte-blanche granted to--you guessed it (!) white men in control (who once were white boys), high capitalism is speeding into its demise. Meanwhile, earning disparities between men and women are quite unchanged. And we think worrying about lil' boys is worth our while? Little miss conservative boy-o-phile Sommers works not for equality, but actively conspires against it so as to protect her lilly-ness, as well as high-capitalism which overfeeds her already bloated bank account, and ensure the have-nots will not only continue to have-not, but have-not while feeling guilty for taking so very much from whitey. In my alternate universe, Sommers spends a year as a humanitarian worker in the South Bronx to actually begin to understand disparity. Her work is cruel, as it perpetuates grotesque myths of disparity. Poor white boys! Time well spent? Read Barbara Ehrenreich, read bell hooks, read Jonathan Kozol.
Rating: 
Summary: Very informative
Review: As a mother of 2 girls and 1 boy I was looking for answers. This book provided insight and analysis I found very enlightening.
Easy to follow dispite the deeper analysis and the statistics are explained in detail.
This has to be one of the better "sociology" type books i've read this year.
Rating: 
Summary: An Outstanding Book
Review: Sommer's book is a powerful antidote to the crap emanating from Carol Gilligan and other academics. These pundits insist that gender differences are not innate, but are imposed on children by a patriarchial society. The natural masculinity of normal boys, they say, is pathological and must be corrected by feminizing boys, by putting them through anger management, esteem-building and other programs. But where such programs exist, they have caused great misery among boys and impaired their performance. Clearly this is not the kind of help that boys need.
What boys need, Sommers argues, are stable families with a father present. They also need love, respect, discipline and moral guidance. Wherever these needs are met, boys are happier and their performance improves dramatically.
In this well-documented book, Sommers debunks the theories of Carol Gilligan, William Pollack, Mary Pipher and others, proving that they go far beyond the bounds of all common sense. Her book is never boring. It is engrossing, eye-opening and maintains the reader's interest throughout. It is a must read for all parents and educators.
Rating:
Summary: Solid research that should be required reading
Review: Christina Hoff Sommers is largely denounced by mainstream academia. Her views are seen as radical. Her conclusions are often seen as wrong-headed. Scholars often cite her studies with derision and scorn. Those are the things that give me hope that she's on the right track. As a Ph.D. student, I can say that those are often the signs of someone who has made a true contribution to a field.
Sommers does something that many people will never do. She looks into the "facts" and statistics that so many feminists and education scholars pull out to justify female-centered education policies and sees how they were collected, what they asked, and what conclusions we can draw from the results. Not surprisingly the "facts" are often gross exaggerations, not very credible, draw conclusions that are not supported by the data, or simply false. What she unearths is an ancient debate that many people would love to have settled. Specifically, Sommers allows the "nature versus nurture" debate the opportunity to be played out. Gloria Steinem et al have made an important stand against the nature argument. If there are, indeed, physiological reasons we are different, then we may be physiologically best suited for different roles in society. This inevitably leads to subjugation, hierarchies, inequities, and (in their opinion) paternalism. Thus many feminists have settled the arguments and based a daunting amount of research on the assumption that nature is completely bogus. Thankfully, they aren't the only ones who conduct research. Sommers points out conflicting research that shows some reason we might consider the nature side of the argument once again. She does not subject this research (in writing) to the same rigorous examination...and I completely understand why. Tell me, which sentence sounds more interesting to you..."this study failed to examine men as well as women, failed to take precautions to control for variables, and its conclusions cannot be believed" versus "they found a representative sample of the population, took necessary precautions to control for extraneous variables and drew logical conclusions." Telling someone that research was conducted well is about as exciting as telling someone that the atmosphere has enough oxygen for their next breath. However, telling someone that research wasn't conducted well is every bit as interesting as telling someone that their next breath will be hindered because of lack of oxygen.
Sommers also notes that the plight of the American woman is highly exaggerated and that it's not politically correct to be "pro-masculine." Being "pro" men (particulary white men) doesn't generate the revenue. The overriding assumption is that because many legislators are white men, then surely they will watch after the interests of men. Obviously not. Sommers points out that it is men who are suffering academically. Men are the ones who drop out of school. Boys are losing their fathers, and thus their male role models. The feminist response to this is that masculinity, by its very nature, is bad. Aberrations of male behavior (such as the shooting at Columbine) are seen as men in their natural condition, while aberrant female behavior is seen as unusual and/or psychopathic (e.g. Susan Smith drowning her children). Do men commit more crimes? Undoubtedly. But what percentage of men are committing the crimes? And even more specifically, what are the common traits among these felons? Further, is it logical that this minority of male felons is representative of "most men?" The feminist answer to the male problem is to have men become women. Sommers, however, says it's time to reintroduce morality into the classroom. Encourage boys to be boys. Allow them to use the inherent strength of masculinity and channel it in productive ways. In other words, we really are different and pointing the finger at socialization is akin to trying to fix a broken fuel injector by painting the car blue.
Many of Sommer's arguments sound like a common sense that was abandoned in the late '60s. She definitely has conservative leanings. This will undoubtedly blind many to any of her findings and skew their interpretations of her conclusions. She is taking a reactionary position against left wing feminism (particularly against Carol Gilligan). Granted, I am extremely convinced by her conclusions and agree heartily with almost everything she says. What she doesn't address, however, is the decline of the American family, which is a true shame. Family is a word that has begun to mean everything, which in turn makes it meaningless. Likewise, she doesn't address how fathers should instill masculinity in their sons. Instead we are left focusing on mothers and how feminists aggrandize them to the point that children (especially sons) should essentially never leave their maternal roots.
In the end, Sommers gives us a disturbing picture of men that are simply not allowed to (politically) fight for themselves and then offers a re-installation of morality into the classroom as a solution. Again, I agree. As a male, I am sick to death of having to apologize for being born with testosterone. Sommers shows what the "oppression of a patriarchal hegemony" has succeeded in doing...including developing a democratic society, increasing efficiency and industry, and giving voice to women. She shows us that (perhaps) despite ourselves, we continue to advance, and that many of our largest achievements have come because of gender differences. However, in my opinion, Sommers needed to go further and examine the plight of the family and the loss of fathers. I'm sure others will pick up where this book leaves off, though. In the end, this is a book well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Save your money
Review: Sommers has put forward a book based on flawed arguments.
For example, Sommers argues A: Boys are failing in school and society and she says B: in part because of feminism, women are becoming more successful in both areas
She claims that B causes A. In the words Of Robin Tolmach Lakoff(2004) in response to this book, "No reputable philosopher would support an argument based on logical errors. I'm not a philosopher. (I don't even play one on TV.) But I can detect a logical flaw when it is big enough to drive an SUV through."
The fact is there are SO many other possible explanations for A and B, but she explores none of them! That's highly suspect scholarship at best!
Using Columbine as a defining moment for American men in the face of thousands of male achievements all around us is just simplistic, especially when she compares this low point for men with the high point of the women's soccer team! Let's turn it around and look at men's high points (THOUSANDS!) and women's low points (need I say more????)
I'm a man, but I say don't waste your money on this book.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Pseudoscience
Review: Well, it seemed like an interesting topic, so I picked it up. I was a little confused to find her constantly making assertions that directly contradicted everything I've read in my textbooks and in scientific journals, so I did a little research to find what scientific journals say about her. Wow. She is not well-liked by scientists. It appears that Sommers is trying to twist the reality around in an effort to bash women. Why she does that, I don't know.
For instance, in an effort to refute a claim that wife-beating was once tolerated, she quotes a line about British law: "The husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife," while conveniently leaving out the second half of the sentence: "...other than that which lawfully and reasonably belongs to the husband for the due government and correction of his wife."
What's very irritating about this is that I'm sure there are some problems regarding boys in school that should be addressed. She's undermining those problems and exploiting them for some desire to bash research with conclusions that she doesn't like. She's only going to give a reputation of dishonesty to those who are genuinely interested in helping all the nation's children to get the best education they can.
I would recommend the far more credible "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man," instead.
Rating:
Summary: Good job as far as it goes
Review: As a black man, I find that the trepidations from a white female dominated education system are hardest felt by our young black males. The truth of the matter is that the educational system has little input from any males let alone a black male. The female perspective is important but should not be a monopoly today any more than the male viewpoint once dominated.
Rating:
Summary: This book is not making these things up
Review: This book is not making these things up. Major educator textbooks are teaching teachers that they should make boys more feminine and that too much masculinity is not only a bad thing but dangerous! "Of special concern are adolescent boys who adopt a strong masculine role," Educational Psychology, Santrock (isbn 0072855878) They literally advocate androgyny as the most desireable state of being. This is just one book, and should not be singled out, it is simply representative of the problem. I refer to that book to show that the professional reviewers who say this work is just alarmist are sticking their head in the sand. Sommers is reporting the actual state of the art in education. If you have school age children, are a teacher rebelling against the system, or are just concerned about the future, you should carry this book as a source of information to fight the ivory towers. Because they will cite a tautological litany of researchers with straw men criticism. The Sommers book can be an intellectual shield against this form of what I find to be child abuse.
Rating:
Summary: Informative
Review: After just graduating with a degree in elementary education, I was surprised how much of how I was told to teach is actually the result of this "misguided feminism." (To be honest, the book made me feel a little validated--I thought the teaching techniques all sounded a bit hokey!) Sommers makes legitimate points with good supports. I found it well paced and very involving. The only thing I wish she would have done differently is to give us perhaps an ending chapter with specific things that we can do to actively make things more equal for boys. Books like these certainly encourage me to be more aware of the spin the media and special interest groups put on the truth.
|
