Rating: 
Summary: The sexes are different
Review: As a biologist who regularly teaches a course on human sexuality from an evolutionary perspective, I highly commend Rhoads for writing this excellent book on sex differences. He has distilled a large body of information into an easily usable format. I have already used sections of it during my course this summer. I plan to use more of the book in the future.
I have another good anecdote that relates directly to observations that women find men who act in "manly" ways sexy (described on pp. 67-68). A couple of years ago, my then 17 year-old daughter and her friends watched the movie "Black Hawk Down" on video. After the movie was over, my daughter's best friend remarked, "Is it just me, or were all of those guys "hot?" As Shavaun's comment attests: women find warriors "hot." Indeed, one of the few times I have been really intimidated by other men in a purely social setting was when my family and I visited by sister-in-law and her husband, who at the time was a Lt. Commander in the USN and was attending the Naval War College in Newport, RI. One night we went to the Officers' Club for dinner and were surrounded by a large group of men who had experienced combat and were fresh from victory in the first Gulf War. Surrounded by these warriors, I suddenly felt very inadequate, and to this day, like many men who have not faced combat, wonder how I would respond. Men probably also find warriors "hot," but in a very different way than do women.
I think that this book should be read, debated, and utilized by policy makers.
Rating: 
Summary: Right wing ideology couched as science
Review: Don't buy this book if, like me, you are looking for an informed scientific analysis of how male and female biology contribute to differences in our behavior. I guess that my first clue to the book's wrongheadedness should have been that even though Rhoads isn't a biologist, he considers himself qualified to write a book on this topic. He is an economist who teaches "policy". In his "research" for this book, Rhoads takes the same approach as many right wing idealouges and first makes up his mind as to what he thinks is right then selectively looks for "facts" to support his already foregone conclusion. He waxes nostalgic for the world of his 1950's youth and wishes that everything could be as he once imagined it was: women marrying early and raising lots of kids, no nasty subsidized daycare or evil Title IX to take women and girls away from their "natural" state. I have done serious research in this area and I can tell you that the extent of Rhoads' bias is monumental. It is one thing to espouse policy, it is another to misinform under the guise of science.
Rating:
Summary: An evangelical in "research" clothing.
Review: He manages to do nothing but try to reinforce the same sterotypes about the sexes of Gray and Gurian.The same tired
myths "men look for beauty" and women "power,money and strength" are a theme of the book.I have read many books about
gender and they smack of agenda and recycling of sterotypes.
Don't waste your money.Better yet don't waste your mind on this
nonsense.The right wing has an agenda to keep the status quo,
to undermine women and keep all men in the shackles of power even if they don't want it in many individual cases.He doesn't want women to have any aggression,power or status and uses
myths to help his sorry cause.
Rating:
Summary: It's a sex thing.
Review: I listened to the First Voice interview on this and was impressed by Rhoads. The book lived up to my expectations, very detailed and organized. Last time I looked the interview was still available on www.7to7.net
It's funny that the book is so organized, cause in the interview, Rhoads sounded a bit disorganized. Interesting things to say, though.
Rating: 
Summary: sexism couched in science
Review: I love it that he "cites a variety of social attitude surveys" and then dismisses "the idea that gender is socially constructed." Science can easily be twisted to support a variety of biased opinions--read this book with a critical eye and the author's bias quickly becomes apparent, especially in the conclusions he draws about social policy. If you're looking to justify your behaviors and goals through bogus science why not go all the way and buy a book about astrology?
Rating:
Summary: This book gave me inner peace--FINALLY!
Review: I stumbled upon this book online, after someone sent me a review of it. I
bought a copy, and I have to tell you this book has revolutionized my
life! It has made me understand WHY I am the way I am, and WHY I never
fit in with other women. You see, I am a high testosterone woman. I was actually tested for it
after a string of miscarriages a few years ago (they felt it might be a
possible cause, but it wasn't.) All my life, all my 44 years, I have felt
confused as to why I never fit in with other women. I tend to think like
a man, I tend to offer advice instead of a shoulder to vent on, I have
always been obsessed with sex/porn, I tend to be aggressive, I was a
tomboy as a child, and still am, I like "guy" things, but strangely I am
not a feminist, quite the contrary. I am fortunate in that I was raised
by a father who allowed me to be myself and didn't try to box me into
feminine roles. The jobs I have held in my life were always male dominated ones: law
enforcement and the like. I was always happy being the way I am, but
people often made me feel there was something wrong with me. Now I know
there isn't, I'm just a high T woman! I also wonder if my bisexuality is caused by the high T levels. Although
I am bisexual in orientation, I have been happily married to a man for 22
years and have three children. Curiosuly I think my husband may be low
Testosterone...he is the opposite of me in so many ways! Maybe thats why
we are a perfect match. I feel like I have been "born again" in a sense, I feel complete. And I
feel I'm OKAY! :-)
Rating:
Summary: rings true to me-young urban NOT conservative mom
Review: I was born and raised in a liberal area where girls are always encouraged to reject the "dated" and limiting role of homemaker but I found that after I got married, even though I loved my job, my real joy was honestly in raising my son and caring for my new family. I ended up working part time, which I love because my mother watches our son (no need for daycare), but I have encountered so much disappointment from the old guard of feminists who feel I'm going backward in time. It's too bad. I think if more of these women just accepted that many of us are truly and entirely fulfilled by these more traditional roles we wouldn't have all this friction. We still have a self and our interests but our passion and heart are for our family. I absolutely respect every woman's decision on whether to work or not-or how much, but not everyone has respected mine. This book is a good reminder to people that the majority of woman may very well feel the most pride in their family rather than their career. Now adays that is actually not PC to admit-what a shame.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth
Review: I've not read the book, but I saw Rhoads give it what appeared to be a very thorough going over on BookTV. From what I saw I'd say this must be a most excellent book.
Rhoads cuts through all the PC/feminist B.S. of our current era. From what I saw, this is NOT a political book, its exactly the opposite. Its political only in so much as it blows away the lefts fantasies about the sexes being equally endowed with the same human qualities. When you've got individuals who don't readily acknowledge that boys and girls are inherently different, its impossilbe for some people to NOT view certain topics as political. Why do boys 0-2 years old, who've never met "society" play with balls and trucks, while girls are more likely to play with dolls. Believe me, this does not happen because parents are coercing 0-2 year olds. Ha! But that is what the left believes.
Anyway, since, as the book shows, we don't have the same amounts of estrogen, testosterone, etc., we're not equally as good at the same things, nor are we equally interested in being good at the same things, nor are we personally satisfied doing the same things, nor are our children equally satisfied when dealing with us (mothers/fathers) in the same way in a given situation, (for example, after they've been hurt).
Rating:
Summary: Vive la difference
Review: It might seem odd to have to pen a book like this, but we live in odd times. Throughout history people have known that men and women are different. But recently we have been told that men and women are not different after all. Perceived differences are due to society, not biology, and sex and gender differences are both interchangeable and malleable. In this view, gender is a social construction. Moreover, one can change one's gender like one changes one's clothes. Male today, female tomorrow, bisexual one day, homosexual the next. This is the brave new world of the gender benders. The thesis Rhoads offers is simple: men and women are different, and these differences are basic, profound and rooted in our very nature. With a wealth of documentation and research, Rhoads sets the record straight, informing us of the clear scientific and biological case for male-female differences. Hormones and other chemical/biological determinants cannot be dismissed when assessing gender. Their very presence means that nature has hotwired the human species into two clearly different sexes, and these differences cannot be wished away by social engineers. And these changes can be found from our earliest moments, refuting the notion that social or environmental factors are the sole explanations for such differences. For example, day-old infants will cry when they hear a recording of another infant crying, but girls will cry longer than boys. Women tend to be more communitarian, more nurturing and less aggressive than men. Researchers have found that there are universal constants running throughout every known human society, including division of labour by sex, women being the primary child carers, and the dominance of men in the public sphere. Now if sex differences were due to socialization, and not biology (nurture, nor nature) then we would expect to see these differences quickly fading, at least in western cultures, where sex role changes have been most dramatic. But this has not been the case. These differences, in other words are enduring and they are significant. No amount of social reconstruction will make them disappear. If so, argues Rhoads, we are doing great damage to men, women and society when we act as if they do not exist. Forcing little Johnny to play with dolls and compelling little Jennie to play with toy soldiers, in other words, is counterproductive, and may simply make things worse. Those who seek 50/50 marriages, for example, and attempt a complete equality of roles and jobs usually come to frustration. Conflicts tend to be higher in such households, and child rearing also suffers as a result. And role-reversal families tend to be short-lived, with most reverting to more traditional patterns. Those who seek to turn their children into androgynous role models find they only come to grief in their attempts. Children cannot be taught to change what they are by nature. Rhoads also notes that those researchers who seek to demonstrate the biological and physiological fixity of the sexes have real trouble getting funding and publicity, because of the stranglehold of political correctness and feminist orthodoxy. And the majority of these sex difference researchers happen to be women. And he shows that if sex differences are indeed true, then there are implications for what sort of family structures we promote. He details the now familiar evidence of how children, and especially boys, suffer in fatherless households. A mother just cannot replicate what a father provides in a home, just as a dad cannot take the place of a mother. And children need a biological father living in the home, says Rhoads. Step-dads, boyfriends, male role-models, just do not cut it. Children need both sexes: they need a biological mother and a father, not a committee, not an alternative lifestyle arrangement. Career options too need to be reassessed. We need to rethink the wisdom of putting career first and children last. Mums can do certain things dads cannot, and it is not just breastfeeding. Women are the nurturers and child carers throughout the world, not because of male chauvinism, but because of their very natures. And whole nations need a rethink. Social engineers, like the Swedes and the Israeli kibbutzim, have tried long and hard to eradicate stereotypical sex roles and to enforce androgyny. But both experiments have failed miserably. And feminism must be rethought. Women are losing their choices, not expanding them, when they follow the feminist script. Women in fact tend to like having babies and raising children - it is part of who they are. So it does no good for feminists to say to women that they should deny these instincts and seek instead careers. Pregnancy and childbirth can be adversely affected by high-powered careers. The harm of stress impacts not just the mum, but is transferred to the baby in the womb as well. The vital importance of breastfeeding is also jeopardised by careers. Thus we are selling women short, as well as the next generation, when we insist that women can have it all. They can, but not necessarily at the same time. The debate over day care also arises here. If mothers are best equipped by nature to care for and nurture the young, then we should stop the rush to let strangers raise our children. The benefits to children of being looked after by mom for the first few years are clearly documented. So whose interests do we put first in this regard? In sum, this is a great book. Feminists will hate it. Social engineers will detest it. And slaves to political correctness will wretch over it. But ordinary men and women will find it a breath of fresh air. And in the stagnant stench of modern ideologies, fresh air is just what we need.
Rating:
Summary: Controversial Common Sense
Review: Rhoads thesis is that men and women are different! How this came to be controversial was a mystery to me until I read this book. He explains that women with high levels of testosterone are more like men. These women tend to be more aggressive and exhibit other masculine traits. Of course these are most often the women who do the studies, write the books, and set the femminist agenda that say there are no differences between the sexes--perhaps never quite realizing that most other women are just naturally feminine. For the other side read "Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs" by Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers. I could be fooling myself, but the other side seems to be based more on what the authors want the world to be, rather than what it is. On the other hand, Rhoad's book confirms common sense and experience rather than attacking it!
|
