| View Larger Image | Taking Sex Differences Seriously | Hardcoverby Steven E. Rhoads (Author)
| List Price: | $27.95 | | Price: | $21.80 | | You Save: | $6.15 (22%) | | | Available: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
| | Binding: | Hardcover | | Publisher: | Encounter Books | | Page Count: | 362 Pages | | Publication Date: | May 25, 2004 | | Sales Rank: | 535,490th |
|
EDITORIAL REVIEWS |
Product Description
Most contemporary discussions of sex differences assume that they are determined by society rather than biology. It is society that teaches little girls to be feminine and little boys to be masculine--society that tells women to respond to babies and men to respond to sports. Reflecting the fashionable idea that male and female roles have been "socially constructed," most commentators speak of gender instead of sex. Because men and women are virtually interchangeable, so the argument goes, men should do an equal share of domestic and childrearing work so that women can compete equally outside the home There's only one problem with this beguiling vision of androgyny. Whatever we might like to believe, as Dr. Steven Rhoads shows, sex distinctions remain a deeply rooted part of human nature. In "Taking Sex Differences Seriously," Rhoads assembles a wealth of scientific evidence showing that these differences are "hardwired" into our biology. They range from the subtle (men get a chemical high from winning while women get one from nursing) to the profound (women with high testosterone levels are more promiscuous, more competitive, and more conflicted about having children than those with average levels.) Rhoads explores disparities in aggression and dominance, in sexuality and nurturing. He shows how denial of these differences has helped to create the sexual revolution, fatherless families, and policies such as Title IX, and the call for universal day care. But while insisting that we must take sex differences seriously, Rhoads also advocates discouraging some natural tendencies, like men's desire for irresponsible sex, and encouraging others, like women's greater interest and talent in caring for babies. In this provocative exploration of the masculine and feminine, Steven Rhoads dispels contemporary clichés and spotlights biological realities. Meticulously researched and elegantly written, "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" is a groundbreaking look at the way we are. |
CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 3.5 based on 24 reviews)
|
Well researched pleasure to read by David C. Geary (Missouri)  5 Stars
September 04, 2008
Taking Sex Differences Seriously is a pleasure to read. The book is well written, very well researched, and makes a strong contribution to disseminating knowledge of our understanding of human sex differences. The combination of an accessible and engaging writing style and a solid footing in the scientific literature makes the work a good undergraduate text or adjunct text, in addition to a fun read for anyone interested in learning more about how and why men and women differ.
| |
pathetic scholarship by Ross Feldberg (Medford, MA)  1 Stars
July 27, 2008
As a working scientist (biochemist by training), I am definitely not as impressed with this piece of quasi-scholarship. Rhoads starts with a conclusion: "Men and women have different natures and, generally speaking, different preferences, talents and interests" and "these differences can be explained in part by hormones and other physiological and chemical distinctions between men and women" and then very selectively invokes the evidence that supports his point of view while avoiding any evidence that might disagree with it. Typical politics maybe, but not good science.
That there are fundamental biological and behavioral differences between men and women is generally accepted, but what isn't obvious is whether the specific social roles attributed to men and women in this society at this time are a necessary reflection of those biological and behavioral differences or are social constructs. As Rhoads himself points out, in 1960 only 3% of law degrees and 6% of MDs were earned by women. Conservative commentators writing in the 1960s used those numbers as evidence that women were uninterested and unsuited to generally aggressive and high stress professions. But by 2000, women made up 46% of graduating law classes and earned 43% of the MD degrees. Have our hormone levels or our genes changed in the past 40 years or is it that our expectations and opportunities have changed? How can we be sure that various male/female differences in behavior or preferences cited by authors like Rhoads are really intrinsic to our biology and unchangeable over time?
Rather than present a general critique of this whole book, let me limit myself to a close reading of two pages in which Rhoads presents evidence that elevated levels of male aggression, dominance, etc are due to elevated testosterone levels. As a biochemist, this is an area that I have followed over time and my reading of the literature is that the link between testosterone levels and aggression in humans is pretty weak. Between pages 141 and 143 Rhoads provides eight footnotes that lead to 18 references. However, when you examine these references you discover that 10 of them are to popular books with a polemical anti-feminist slant and not to the primary scientific literature. Indeed only five of the references are to articles that appeared in refereed journals (meaning that at least some critical review of the experimental methods and data analysis has been carried out prior to publication). As a "good" academic, Rhoads does hedge his bet a little by including one sentence "Some good biologists, however, are not persuaded that testosterone causes aggression." Indeed, the reference provided for this is one of the five refereed publication and is a comprehensive review article of the literature on aggression and testosterone that concludes that the research does not support a link. Interestingly, this review was published in 1993 and more recent reviews of the literature that also critique the link between T and aggression are not mentioned.
I am also very troubled by books that continue to support outmoded dichotomous thinking. The pop culture statements "Men are X" and "Women are Y" never stop to ask "all men? All women?" The "average (whatever that means) man" vs. the "average' woman?" If we have learned anything from biology it is that there is tremendous genotypic and phenotypic variability within populations. The range of talents and interests within each sex, `race' or ethnic group is enormous and the attempt to pigeonhole people by identifying them with some larger group to which has been assigned some arbitrary set of traits is an error that does no one any good. I am truly alarmed that Rhoads, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, teaches what is essentially political indoctrination in the guise of a course on gender differences.
| |
Simplistic and narrow by L. SAXON  3 Stars
June 06, 2008
Rhoads uses evidence about the sexually selected differences between the sexes to argue for the benefits of the 'traditional' family and 'traditional' sex roles for women, men, children, and society as a whole. Firstly, the 'traditional' family and the associated sex roles he portrays, especially a non-productive mother, are actually very novel in our species and certainly not observed in any other species. And human societies today are very different from those in which our sex behavior was selected, as Robert Wright says:
'In hunter-gatherer societies, women have a career: gathering....Reconciling home and work lives is surprisingly practical....and the context [of mothering] is social, even communal. Women weren't designed to be suburban housewives. The generic suburban habitat of the '50s was more "natural", more congenial for men. Like many hunter-gatherer fathers [they] spent a little time with children and a lot of time out bonding with males, in work, play or ritual. This grievance that drove 1950s housewives toward feminism was solidly grounded: suburbia let men behave naturally while forcing mothers into artificial isolation - removed from their kin, often lacking close friends and devoid of purpose beyond child-rearing.'
Traditionally around the world and in the West up to the 19th Century, the family is/was an economic unit where the productive labor of wives and children was both essential to the family and to the husband/father. Traditionally human societies are polygynous (often with less obvious polyandrous mating too) with a man's wealth and status increasing along with the number of wives and children he has to work for him. Some argue that fathers started to desert their families in the 19th Century because of the economic burden of children who were required to spend increasing lengths of time in education and wives who were decreasingly able to earn for the family. The novel role of the breadwinner father with, today, children dependent well into adulthood, dependent wives, and homes bottomless pits for consumer goods is not really conducive to happiness for those not in the very top ranks of society.
Like our love of fats and sugars, we have stone-age preferences and behaviors that in the modern world have become maladaptive. Perhaps some may choose to follow Rhoads' prescription for happiness but in my view it has resulted from a very limited understanding of natural and sexual selection, and of women's and men's traditional motivations and strategies. Not to mention the fact that our selected behaviors are not about happiness but about reproductive success. Darwin was troubled by traits that hindered rather than aided survival and well-being, and this problem was ultimately solved by the understanding that it was the survival of the DNA, not the individual, that mattered. Traits that hinder individual (predominantly male) survival are also those that mean some (predominantly males) have greater reproductive success. As Geoffrey Miller says in 'The Mating Mind', the male sexual ornaments of species that have not yet gone extinct are not yet so costly that they kill off every male in every generation.
Selection is blind to the future. Sexually selected traits, especially those of males, whether cumbersome ornaments or weaponry, can and do lead to extinction of species. We at least need to keep this in mind when we use our selected, especially sexually selected, traits to argue for how we should behave.
What Rhoads has taken from evolutionary biology and psychology are the bits in support of the views he already held and which appear to support the kind of society that suits his personal needs and preferences. It may well suit a number of others too but I'm sure not most. The traits we have that he says are hardwired are presumably still showing variation and still open to natural and sexual selection. Presumably, then, the traits that future humans have will depend on the differential reproduction of ourselves and our descendents. And that's ultimately it. Even strategies that are termed evolutionarily stable strategies, such as those used in sexual behavior, are strategies that vary between individuals or vary within an individual in response to different environments. Variation and change (and extinction) are the very essence of life and evolution.
Rhoads also fails to mention how people change over the lifespan and how men and women become hormonally very much alike in their 50s with men less competitive, more caring about children, softer all round, and women more assertive, especially in the public sphere.
Overall, Rhoads' prescription for how the sexes should behave is narrow and simplistic and is only one interpretation of our evolved sexual psychologies. Yes there are differences but they are still being investigated and interpreted and the bigger picture is far more complex than Rhoads would have us believe.
| |
Take me to the magic of the 50s by Alexander Kemestrios Ben (Allendale, Mi. USA) 3 Stars
February 27, 2008
Rhoads does an admirable job when synthesizing biological, psychological, and behavioral evidence of innate differences between the sexes, but he fails miserably when attempting to draw moral conclusions.
The evidence that there are innate differences between men and women is, by now, undeniable. Literally thousands of studies, most of them well done, back this contention. Not only that, but as Rhoads makes crystal clear, these sex differences are deducible from darwinian theory.
When sticking to these facts, Rhoads is entertaining and lucid. If you want a good, pop-overview of what is known about sex differences, this would be a great place to start (though it is already becomming dated).
Now comes the bad part of the book: Moral conclusions.
It is always a good idea for scientists to stay as value free as possible, else they end up looking like idiots. Rhoads does not do this. In fact, he attempts to use the evidence he cites to draw myriad conclusions- a few such conclusions: feminism is horrible, the sexual revolution was a catastrophe for women, and, generally, that women have capitulated to the male based strategies of one night stands and short term, casual relationships. He thinks this bad because women are generally less promiscuous than men and they tend to get attached emotionally when having sexual relationships. He also asserts that marriage is brilliant because it tames the male propensity towards competition, irresponsibility, and stupidity.
There is obviously a kernel of truth here, but who cares? Should we really role our morality back to the 50s? I do not think the scientific evidence allows for a conclusion either way.
Even if it does, Rhoads does the reader a disservice with his pleading. Let the reader draw their own conclusions!
I know the argument from experience is a bad one, still I have met a plethora of young women who seem just fine using "male" sexual strategies. Also, our mating system is one of female choice, as evolutionary theory predicts (Trivers on P.I.). If this is the case, it is hard to see how the choosing sex is loosing. Are women suddenly choosing to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot? Or, are they pursuing an optimal strategy given the demographic, economic, and social conditions of our time period? These are complex questions that require complex answers, not moralistic drivel longing for the good ole days.
You don't believe me that Rhoads lays the morality play on like peanut butter? Look at who writes a blurb on the back of the book. No less than Dr. Laura Shlessinger, a true beacon of progressive thinking!!
Read, enjoy, become enraged, and take five grains of salt.
| |
Professor of politics pines for the past, no authority on sex differences by Kathy Flaherty 1 Stars
November 27, 2007
Steven Rhoads is a Professor in American Politics at the University of Virginia, and has written this book as a rhetoric on public policy: "I see my task as explaining why the sex differences discussed are profound and why they should affect they way we think about specific policies and cultural issues."
Mr Rhoads sinuously weaves legitimate research and various literature on sex differences with personal opinions and biases in favor of or against certain political and cultural issues. Readers write how they are impressed by the "massive amounts of evidence" that support Rhoads claims. If they were to actually check the bibliography, authors and works cited, they would find in most instances, the references he uses do not support his case.
Rhoads make the statement that there are two types of females and only one type of male. The two types of females he claims, are those who are exposed to the "normal" level of testosterone in the womb - a traditional feminine female, and those who are exposed to a higher level of exposure to testosterone - a career minded masculine female, but all males are masculine and have masculine behavior. The book is rife with inaccurate assertions, androcentric comments, biases and idiosyncrasies.
The policy issues he discusses are:
Chapter 1: Paid postbirth leave for male professors as a way to help level the playing field for women professors trying to obtain tenure while raising children.
Mr Rhoads concludes that men taking postbirth leave will hurt women because they will spend the time on their publishing agenda's rather than help their wives.
Chapter 2: How women's lives are portrayed in textbooks. Mr Rhoads concludes that women should be portrayed in their natural feminine roles of focusing primarily on nurturing the family rather than portrayed solely as focusing on careers.
Chapter 3 is about sexual behavior and how women prefer that men make more money than they do, prefer to look up to powerful men and have fantasies that men dominate them sexually.
Chapter 4 is about sexual behavior and how the sexual freedom and income capacity of women has caused men to abandon them and their children, be noncommittal in relationships and is a large cause of divorce. Women just need to say no to casual sex.
Chapter 5: How sex education should explain natural female vulnerability and why women like to be courted. That female sexual restraint will encourage a courting culture. One paragraph heading reads "Birth Control Pill: Preventing Pleasure and Successful Partnership".
Chapter 6 is about aggression and dominance in which Mr Rhoads concludes that since men naturally possess these attributes, they like competition more than women do - which sets the stage for the next chapter: "Sports, Aggression and Title IX".
Chapter 7: Title IX. Mr. Rhoads concludes that men are more naturally suited for sports than women are, that they need sports competition more than women do and that Title IX is hurting men.
Chapter 8 is about nurturing the young. How females are naturally suited to this activity and men are naturally less interested. This chapter is a segue into the next, titled "Daycare".
Chapter 9: Daycare and whether or not it should be subsidized. Mr. Rhoads concludes that raising children in daycare creates disobedient and aggressive children. That it is likely to impact children's behavior, emotions and physical health negatively. That mothers should be the primary caretakers of children in the home and daycares should not be subsidized.
Mainstream biologists and psychologists who study gender differences will tell you that genes and hormones are only half the story. That societies, roles, rules and expectations also have a determining impact on our behaviors. However, these factors are not static--they go through historical changes. Mr. Rhoads, being a Professor of Politics, finds himself more knowledgeable than those in relevant disciplines.
Mr. Rhoads also wrote a book called "Incomparable Worth", regarding the wage gap between men and women performing identical or similar jobs. In that book Rhoads concludes that pay equity would actually harm the women it's supposed to help.
It appears that Mr. Rhoads desperately wants a return to the 50's of his youth and has been vehemently promoting recruits to join his flat earth society. He does not actually offer any kind of intelligent ideas as to how things could be done differently except to suggest that women need to change their sexual behaviors. It's a shame that Mr. Rhoads is allowed to "teach" such intellectual vacuity in a classroom.
This is not an authoritative book on sex differences. What it amounts to is a pile of bloviating blather.
I would recommend something by Richard Lippa or others that are actually qualified to write about the subject and are able to do so much more objectively than Mr. Rhoads. Hilary Lips and Carol Gilligan are also excellent authors on the subject of sex differences from the female point of view.
This book would receive 5 stars for making a good starter log in the fireplace. Otherwise, it's useless.
| |
SIMILAR PRODUCTS |
| The Future of Marriage
by David Blankenhorn (Author)
In their current demands, Blankenhorn points out, gay and lesbian leaders are not asking for marriage with the adjective gay in front of it, but marriage itself. So in that sense, what marriage is and why it matters are ultimately what this debate is all about. The Future of Marriage answers the whats and the whys of our most important-and troubled-social institution.
| 
| Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
by Jonathan Rauch (Author)
"Thoughtful and convincingly argued . . . Rauch's impressive book is as enthusiastic an encomium to marriage as anyone, gay or straight, could write."
—David J. Garrow, The Washington Post Book World
In May 2004, gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, but it remains a divisive and contentious issue across America. As liberals and conservatives mobilize around this issue, no one has come forward with a more compelling, comprehensive, and readable case for gay marriage than...
| 
| Marriage and Caste in America: Seperate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age
by Kay S. Hymowitz (Author)
A generation ago Americans undertook a revolutionary experiment to redefine marriage. Where historically men and women had sought a loving bond, largely centered on the rearing of children, the new arrangement called for an intimate--and provisional--union of two adults. Now, as Kay Hymowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America, the results of this experiment separating marriage from childrearing are in and they turn out to be bad news not only for children but also, in ways little...
| 
| Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It
by Joan Williams (Author)
In Unbending Gender, Joan Williams takes a hard look at the state of feminism in America. Concerned by what she finds--young women who flatly refuse to identify themselves as feminists and working-class and minority women who feel the movement hasn't addressed the issues that dominate their daily lives--she outlines a new vision of feminism that calls for workplaces focused on the needs of families and, in divorce cases, recognition of the value of family work and its impact on women's earning...
| 
| Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law (Queer Ideas)
by Nancy D. Polikoff (Author)
Part of the Queer Ideas series, edited by Michael Bronski
A persuasive argument for why married couples, gay or straight, should not receive special rights denied to other families
Nancy Polikoff asserts that, in American law, marriage is the dividing line between those relationships that matter and those that don’t. A woman married to a man for nine months receives Social Security benefits when he dies; a woman living for nineteen years with a man or woman to whom she isn’t...
|
|
|
