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: A must-read
Review: This book is a solid work, very well written and relevant. It reads almost like a thriller. A must-read for parents (of boys or girls) who care about their children's academic and moral development at school, who don't wish them to be subjected to gender engineering experiments in the hands of activist-educators, or for anyone who is interested in a fresh look at what might be causing such societal ills as the Columbine tragedy. It shows quite effectively how unfounded the pedagogical theories and practices of the last three decades are, and how damaging they have been. It is an eye-opener to the male-underachievement problem and its social and economic implications. One reader commented that Sommers didn't offer much in the way of possible solutions. On the contrary, a good part of the second half of the book is on that. Simply put, she suggests a back-to-basics approach involving teacher-centered classroom and strong guidence, and possibly one-sex classes, and doing away with some progressive inventions. Her argument is indeed very compelling, and it is not just a philosophical one: she backs it up with quite a few success stories, most notably from Britain, where they saw male underachievement as a threat to the nation's future and were able to demonstrate significant improvements through back-to-basics programs. She also points to several similar but isolated attempts made in the United States which have been successful.
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: 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.
| 
