» » Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance

eBook Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance epub

by Steven Goldberg

eBook Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance epub
  • ISBN: 0812692373
  • Author: Steven Goldberg
  • Genre: Social Sciences
  • Subcategory: Social Sciences
  • Language: English
  • Publisher: Open Court (January 22, 1999)
  • Pages: 254 pages
  • ePUB size: 1697 kb
  • FB2 size 1656 kb
  • Formats txt mobi mbr docx


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.

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

Steven Goldberg (born 14 October 1941) is a. .Buffalo, New York: Promethius Books, 1991. Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance.

Steven Goldberg (born 14 October 1941) is a native of New York City and chaired the Department of Sociology at the City College of New York (CCNY) from 1988 until his retirement in 2008. He is most widely known for his theory of patriarchy, which attempts to explain male domination through biological causes. Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993. Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences.

Steven Goldberg's book advances a simple yet convincing theory: patriarchy and male dominance is universal among all .

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. 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.

Start by marking Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Why Men Rule" is a book by Steven Goldberg, published by the Open Court Publishing Company in 1993

Why Men Rule" is a book by Steven Goldberg, published by the Open Court Publishing Company in 1993. The hypothesis proposed by Goldberg is that social institutions like patriarchy, that are characterised by male dominance, can be explained by the biological differences between men and women. Thus, in his view, male dominance is quite possibly inevitable. Why Men Rule" is Goldberg's second book on this subject.

The Inevitability of Patriarchy. The institutions Goldberg examines are patriarchy, male dominance and male attainment. United States of America. The Inevitability of Patriarchy is a book by Steven Goldberg published by William Morrow and Company in 1973. The hypothetical psychophysiological phenomenon he proposes to explain them, he denotes by the expression differentiation of dominance tendency. He explains this refers to dominance behaviour being more easily elicited from men on average than from women on average. In other words, he theorises a biologically mediated difference in preferences.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. Qty

Items related to Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance.

Items related to Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. Steven Goldberg Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. ISBN 13: 9780812692372.

Goodwin, . Operario, . & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Situational power and interpersonal dominance facilitate bias and inequality.

Why men rule: A theory of male dominance. Gomez-Mejia, L. McCann, J. & Page, R. C. (1985). Goodwin, . Journal of Social Issues, 54, 677–698. Green, R. & Ashmore, R. D.

Open Court, 1993 - 254 sivua

Open Court, 1993 - 254 sivua.

The first edition of this book was lavishly praised by many authorities as the most formidable demonstration of an unpopular truth: males rule in all societies known to history or anthropology, for reasons arising from innate physiology, a brute fact that can never be conjured away by tinkering with social institutions. This new edition has been completely rewritten in the light of two decades of scholarship and debate, taking account of all published criticisms of earlier editions.
Comments: (7)
lacki
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), but I will point out that 89 percent of all murders are committed by men, and female endurance, whatever that may be, gives you no edge when you're dead. Even when you get down to less easily measured methods of destruction, men rape more women than women do men, and the destructive impact of rape on women as a whole is considerable. I don't doubt there are men who "have been destroyed by women who did not understand... male fragility," but I strongly doubt that the number of men destroyed by women is considerably greater than the number of women destroyed by men. I rather suspect that more men have been destroyed by other men than have been destroyed by women.

As someone here said, much of this book reads like mathematical proofs. When Goldberg sticks to that sort of thing, he does very well. His arguments are lucid and precise, if sometimes repetitious. I frankly don't see how anyone who follows his arguments can remain unconvinced (every unconvinced review I've read thus far misrepresents - and thus presumably misunderstood - his arguments). Unfortunately, when he wanders from his thoroughly researched thesis, he sometimes drifts right into nonsense - but a couple of nonsense statements after more than two hundred pages of clear thought is livable.
Zulurr
The thing that kept occuring to me while I read this book was that if it was my sex that had so thoroughly dominated human history and therefore was primarily responsible for all the evil, misery, death and suffering humans have inflicted on ourselves and on the planet, then I don't think I'd be so foolish as to broadcast it from the rooftops.
Both Goldberg and a number of early Second Wave feminists made the mistake of assuming that there exists some kind of strange competition between men and women that allows for only one winner rather than seeing us first as a species that has always worked together to guarantee mutual survival. This was somewhat understandable from the perspective of feminism in the 1970's -- the movement was just getting started again and, like all new cultural and political movements, was interested in proving that its members have made significant contributions to our history, that we have been and continue to be an important and valuable asset to our community and that we are capable of playing a much more vital role in the future. The same thing occured of black historians claimed that their ancestors used to rule the world and that they had been subjugated by white barbarians who then took credit for all the inventions and discoveries made by the conquered people.
It's regretable that non-dominant peoples respond this way, but it is also entirely human. The problem I have with Goldberg is that rather than simply refuting his critics, he fails to realize that the whole premise of their claims and his response is largely irrelevant. Yes, men have dominated those aspects of our culture that men have valued most. But that doesn't mean anything except that men as a sex, have been conditioned by our society to value dominance over cooperation, say, and that they tend to be better at achieving this dominance by virtue of the fact that they have more testosterone than do women and that they are not "burdened" by pregnancy and child-rearing.
Goldberg's book would have been better had he refrained from refighting old battles with his critics and instead concentrated on exploring how our society is going to change in the future now that women and girls are beginning to have greater access to the types of education, employment and sports that have always been available to men and boys
Xava
(In Africa, where I work...) Mende, Sherbro, Ibo, Yoruba, Asante... How many are needed?
Warianys
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.
eBooks Related to Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance
Contacts | Privacy Policy | DMCA
All rights reserved.
lycee-pablo-picasso.fr © 2016-2020