Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance

I was going to review this book but now see that Redmund K. Sum has said most all that needed saying. But I'll add some more sticks to the fire that this book predictably brings on from the rabid feminists in our midst. Feminists, like nearly all liberals, are afraid of the truth and so they invent their own, which would be nice if only reality would cooperate. It doesn't. Some day the screeching harpies of the Left may discover that men really do like women, and women don't need to compete with men to have fun, fulfilling lives. No real man -- and that's most of us -- wants to hold women back, and civilization has gone far beyond that stage anyhow. You want to work in science? Go for it! You like math! Go for it! Nobody's holding you back! Steven Goldberg tells us in meticulously chosen phrases why men rule. It's hormonal, ladies, like it or not. Supplement Goldberg with Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae and you will, once and for all, grasp what's wrong with modern feminism. In a word, it's wrong. Completely wrong. Stupidly, embarrassingly, wrong-headedly wrong. Quit wasting people's time and patience with your whining and tantrums, accept the strengths nature gave you and get on with life.

I read Stephen Goldberg's book some years ago, and although it was somewhat difficult to follow, as it is very scholarly, and not intended for light reading, I found myself repeatedly going back to it for clarification, information, and to sharpen my own views about gender roles. This is not a book for close-minded people to read. It is very controversial, and raises at least as many questions as it proposes to answer. I also have to take issue with some of Goldberg's argument about female geniuses. It is well-documented that a disproportionate number of the world's most profoundly gifted individuals are male(according to IQ tests), but to say,or imply that women are not capable of the uppermost echelon of abstract thought is absurd. I'm sure Marilyn vos Savant, who holds the world's record for the highest recorded IQ, might also have a bone to pick with Goldberg.It is also interesting to note that males tend to outnumber females at the other end of the scale, as a higher percentage of the world's most severely mentally challenged individuals are also male. I would say that if you can get past the exhausting details and footnotes, this book will at least help you clarify what you believe about patriarchy, male dominance and gender roles.

It is clear from the reviews here why Goldberg was so careful to clearly and repeatedly define his terms. One reviewer complains that Goldberg fails to show that all societies studied are patriarchal - but the reviewer is using a definition of patriarchal that is completely different from Goldberg's. Another reviewer here seems to think Goldberg does not consider Marie Curie a genius, apparently using Mensa's definition of genius - since Goldberg says Curie was "one of the greatest of experimental scientists," I doubt that the reviewer is correct. But Goldberg is not using the Mensa definition of genius - he is discussing one particular kind of genius, one with "an extraordinary aptitude for dealing with high-level abstraction," and adds that "It should be clear that 'genius' in these chapters refers to a level of aptitude demonstrated by only twenty or thirty people in the history of each of the intellectual, scientific, and artistic areas discussed." At issue here is not Marie Curie's I.Q. but whether she was capable of the high-level abstraction of Einstein. I would say Marie Curie was comparable to Edison, not Einstein, which means under Goldberg's terms she was not a genius. Goldberg supports his argument that there are only male geniuses when it comes to high-level abstraction with the fact that there are female geniuses in other areas - "If an exceedingly high-level ability to deal with abstractions is a condition for genius in mathematics, philosophy, and chess, but not for genius in literature or the performing arts, we would expect women to attain the level of genius in literature or the performing arts, but not in mathematics, philosophy, and chess. This is precisely the case." I think it's a wee tad tricky to compare literature - scientific accomplishments are much more easily defined - but if you accept Goldberg's argument that there have been female geniuses in literature (as I do), this strengthens Goldberg's argument that women have less natural aptitude when it comes to dealing with high-level abstraction. If all the social constraints on women did not prevent them from producing literature, why are there no female geniuses in mathematics? Goldberg makes a brilliant case that in every society "males occupy the overwhelming numbers of upper hierarchical positions... [there is an] association of high-status roles - whichever they happen to be in any given society - with males... [and an] association of dominance in male-female encounters and relationships with the male." But when in his last chapter he then concludes that male aggression makes men more childish than women, and when he argues that "Few women have been ruined by men; female endurance survives. Many men, however, have been destroyed by women who did not understand, or did not care to understand, male fragility" I begin to wonder what planet he lives on. I'm not going to argue that women can be just as childish as men (although IMHO this is the case), bu

I read the earlier edition of this book a few years back, and now read the current version again. Steven Goldberg's book advances a simple yet convincing theory: patriarchy and male dominance is universal among all known societies throughout history of which there is direct evidence. This universality begs an explanation, and that explanation is found in the difference in the hormonal systems of the two sexes, starting with the hormonal musculinization of the male at the fetal stage.Simple and convincing to some, this theory is anathema to the politically correct crowd, especially the "feminists." Thus the earlier version of the book had a dubious honor of being the book rejected (by publishers) the most times that was eventually published. After publishing, furious critics came out and slam the book, predictably.Also predictable, however, was that the critics were mostly political debaters cloaked behind the veritable titles of professors and such, who attempted to discredit Goldberg's theory by rhetoric and muddled logic. Goldberg gave several examples of these professorial arguments and they were downright .... One would burst out in laughter, for example, after reading the "haggis" argued by professor Fausto-Sterling, or the evasiveness of the Lowontin, Rose and Kamin trio, to mention just two.Goldberg spends a lot of energy to answer his critics and in doing so, he literally elevate it into a science. This book is thus also a good course in debunking muddled logic-the confusion of a physical law and a statistical claim, the confusion of cause and effect, the "glancing blow" of attacking the excess to discredit the core, the "red herring", and all forms of misrepresentations and flawed logic can find examples in the critics' arguments.If one accepts the scientific method of inquiry, one has to give credence to Goldberg's theory. As the author wrote: "Empirical analysis in sensitive areas invariably elicits fear, fear that acceptance of its conclusion will compel an unpalatable moral or political position...such fear is never relevant to the correctness of the feared theory..."My criticism of this book is on the writing style. Goldberg wrote out his theory and arguments in a style similar to that of a mathematical proof. As a result, the book is littered with long and windy sentences, covering multiple situations, conditions and pre-established fact, in order to make a point. It requires considerable concentration to follow his long and complex sentences. Perhaps because Goldberg is in a position of answering his critics, he is extremely careful in laying out his arguments, and clarifying what he says, what he means, and what he does or does not argue or imply. In a nutshell, the book is quite tedious to read.The concluding part "The Meaning of Male and Female" with a lone chapter is a refreshing exception. It is polished, thoughtful, and it brings the reader back to the real life of the office and the family living room to illus

A very important and thought provoking book,Steven Goldberg's'Why Men Rule'does not lend itself to a comfortable/lazy reading-those who read this book in this way are bound to be upset.There are different levels of argumentation in his narrative;the simplistic 'men vs. women' is probably the most superficial layer,one is even justified to use the word'pretext'-what is really happening here is the examination of a number of very emotionally charged assumptions of our contemporary North American culture that,as Golberg brilliantly demonstrates,do not stand up to a closer scrutiny.Whithout claiming that he is always right(he never does that either!-remember,this is a theory,a proposal ) Goldberg presents in this work a formidable challenge to those(whether men or women)inclined toward the identification of ideological thinking with reality.Obviously,'reality'and 'ideology'are complex words demanding further clarification outside the scope of this review,still the author challenges us all to take another look at ourselves and our thinking.An essential book for those who are willing to take the risk of investigation!