What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense
Author of the New York Times bestseller Useful Idiots and popular columnist Mona Charen takes a close, reasoned look at the aggressive feminist agenda undermining the success and happiness of men and women across the country
In this smart, deeply necessary critique, Mona Charen unpacks the ways feminism fails us at home, in the workplace, and in our personal relationships--by promising that we can have it all, do it all, and be it all. Here, she upends the feminist agenda and the liberal conversation surrounding women's issues by asking tough and crucial questions, such as:
* Did women's full equality require the total destruction of the nuclear family?
* Did it require a sexual revolution that would dismantle traditions of modesty, courtship, and fidelity that had characterized relations between the sexes for centuries?
* Did it cause the broken dating culture and the rape crisis on our college campuses?
* Did it require war between the sexes that would deem men the "enemy" of women?
* Have the strides of feminism made women happier in their home and work life. (The answer is No.)
Sex Matters tracks the price we have paid for denying sex differences and stoking the war of the sexes--family breakdown, declining female happiness, aimlessness among men, and increasing inequality. Marshaling copious social science research as well as her own experience as a professional as well as a wife and mother, Mona Charen calls for a sexual ceasefire for the sake of women, men, and children.
In this smart, deeply necessary critique, Mona Charen unpacks the ways feminism fails us at home, in the workplace, and in our personal relationships--by promising that we can have it all, do it all, and be it all. Here, she upends the feminist agenda and the liberal conversation surrounding women's issues by asking tough and crucial questions, such as:
* Did women's full equality require the total destruction of the nuclear family?
* Did it require a sexual revolution that would dismantle traditions of modesty, courtship, and fidelity that had characterized relations between the sexes for centuries?
* Did it cause the broken dating culture and the rape crisis on our college campuses?
* Did it require war between the sexes that would deem men the "enemy" of women?
* Have the strides of feminism made women happier in their home and work life. (The answer is No.)
Sex Matters tracks the price we have paid for denying sex differences and stoking the war of the sexes--family breakdown, declining female happiness, aimlessness among men, and increasing inequality. Marshaling copious social science research as well as her own experience as a professional as well as a wife and mother, Mona Charen calls for a sexual ceasefire for the sake of women, men, and children.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published June 26, 2018
128 people are currently reading
930 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
not-to-read
October 18, 2018Why I think nobody should read this book :
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
January 5, 2025
When I was growing up in Italy, it didn't take me long to realize that women were the real resource, the real "gold" of society - more realistic, more care-oriented than men, and especially (on average) FAR more mature. Men tend to see every interaction and relationship in terms of power, and that's nature, yes, but it's also stupid as hell. This is what men are, as a sweeping generalization, when it comes to relationships: idiots. I've always, deeply believed that, and seen it with my own eyes (with many exceptions, of course) in the Italian, German, British and American realities.
Modern feminism, Mona Charen reminds us, wants to take that precise characteristic of men - the unbridled will of power - and make it the main driver of women's life too, while de-valuing traditional family values and femininity.
"The sexual revolution could never have succeeded without the imprimatur of feminists, who endorsed it as a part of women’s liberation. The challenge for today’s women who seek fulfillment without abandoning what is essential to their sexual identity is to liberate feminism from its insistence on standards that pit women against their natures and men and women against each other."
Charen wants to make sure we don’t forget that "sex matters". Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways that she catalogs in her book, and pretending otherwise has resulted in a havoc that she maps out in detail.
The book (I listened to the audiobook) is an indictment of modern feminism, its second wave in particular. Second wavers, she argues, “were determined to change what women wanted altogether.” They were "radical, unhappy, and, ironically, enslaved to the ideas of two nineteenth-century dead, white, European males, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The worldview of second-wave feminists was completely wrong about women, history, and human nature—and it left a lot of wreckage in its wake."
These feminists insisted on a new set of standards for women, ones that seemed strangely masculine despite all the talk about patriarchy.
In pathologizing femaleness, to use the author's words, second-wave feminists set future generations up to fail. She writes: "Of the major second-wave feminists, none had a lifelong successful marriage. Few were mothers. The conventional script of marriage, work, home, children, and grandchildren (something most women hope for) was not their goal. They seemed determined to persuade American women that these things were traps and snares."
Nowadays, for the mainstream culture both in the US and in Europe, girls are encouraged to engage in careless sex when in reality, as Charen reminds us, they are hardwired to care (in fact, women more so than men - which, obviously, does not justify any careless behavior on the side of men). They are encouraged to disdain marriage and delay children, when they by nature long for monogamy and commitment and find deep satisfaction in domestic life. And unlike men, they aren’t biologically set up to wait forever for a family.
Charen delves into the biological and physiological realities that set the sexes apart, and documents the extensive damage that denying these differences has done to both men and women.
She talks about her own countercultural choices like opting to stay home and prioritizing family or embracing the pro-life position when it was a total cultural anathema.
As a European living in the US, I'd like to say that I don't understand why modern feminism has been so intensely politicized, to the point that being a woman on the left side of the political spectrum typically means you will support modern feminism in one shape or another. Or even to the point that today you cannot be feminist and be conservative at the same time. But I think I do understand why.
The crisis of the family as the basic molecule of society, today, has many different causes. But how much can the family be helped by a movement that wants to "empower" women, "take the power" from men, and get women "into the corridors of power"? Is ”being vengeful and aggressive” going to help anybody?
Example. Being a CEO today is already, in itself, a job for sociopaths even for men - hold on, I know I'm using a term inappropriately here (sociopaths), but I hope you get what I mean with this hyperbole: I'm referring to men who commit their entire life, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to self-realization and to the domination of others. In the past, you could do that and get away with less work. Today, aside from a few exceptions, that's impossible: if you want to be a CEO or even a Managing Director pretty much anywhere (especially in the US) you need to TRASH any other aspect of your life. And many men are willing to do that - which I find creepy.
Now, some extremely rare women might be hard-wired to dominate others as well, and that's ok. But why would you fight to make sure that exactly 50% of these crazy CEO roles are covered by women? Why? Following what twisted logic of imaginary biological equality and misguided sense of fairness?
Sorry about the long-winded review. In a nutshell, Charen's book reminds us that when it comes to feminism, the pendulum has swung far too far.
Modern feminism, Mona Charen reminds us, wants to take that precise characteristic of men - the unbridled will of power - and make it the main driver of women's life too, while de-valuing traditional family values and femininity.
"The sexual revolution could never have succeeded without the imprimatur of feminists, who endorsed it as a part of women’s liberation. The challenge for today’s women who seek fulfillment without abandoning what is essential to their sexual identity is to liberate feminism from its insistence on standards that pit women against their natures and men and women against each other."
Charen wants to make sure we don’t forget that "sex matters". Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways that she catalogs in her book, and pretending otherwise has resulted in a havoc that she maps out in detail.
The book (I listened to the audiobook) is an indictment of modern feminism, its second wave in particular. Second wavers, she argues, “were determined to change what women wanted altogether.” They were "radical, unhappy, and, ironically, enslaved to the ideas of two nineteenth-century dead, white, European males, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The worldview of second-wave feminists was completely wrong about women, history, and human nature—and it left a lot of wreckage in its wake."
These feminists insisted on a new set of standards for women, ones that seemed strangely masculine despite all the talk about patriarchy.
In pathologizing femaleness, to use the author's words, second-wave feminists set future generations up to fail. She writes: "Of the major second-wave feminists, none had a lifelong successful marriage. Few were mothers. The conventional script of marriage, work, home, children, and grandchildren (something most women hope for) was not their goal. They seemed determined to persuade American women that these things were traps and snares."
Nowadays, for the mainstream culture both in the US and in Europe, girls are encouraged to engage in careless sex when in reality, as Charen reminds us, they are hardwired to care (in fact, women more so than men - which, obviously, does not justify any careless behavior on the side of men). They are encouraged to disdain marriage and delay children, when they by nature long for monogamy and commitment and find deep satisfaction in domestic life. And unlike men, they aren’t biologically set up to wait forever for a family.
Charen delves into the biological and physiological realities that set the sexes apart, and documents the extensive damage that denying these differences has done to both men and women.
She talks about her own countercultural choices like opting to stay home and prioritizing family or embracing the pro-life position when it was a total cultural anathema.
As a European living in the US, I'd like to say that I don't understand why modern feminism has been so intensely politicized, to the point that being a woman on the left side of the political spectrum typically means you will support modern feminism in one shape or another. Or even to the point that today you cannot be feminist and be conservative at the same time. But I think I do understand why.
The crisis of the family as the basic molecule of society, today, has many different causes. But how much can the family be helped by a movement that wants to "empower" women, "take the power" from men, and get women "into the corridors of power"? Is ”being vengeful and aggressive” going to help anybody?
Example. Being a CEO today is already, in itself, a job for sociopaths even for men - hold on, I know I'm using a term inappropriately here (sociopaths), but I hope you get what I mean with this hyperbole: I'm referring to men who commit their entire life, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to self-realization and to the domination of others. In the past, you could do that and get away with less work. Today, aside from a few exceptions, that's impossible: if you want to be a CEO or even a Managing Director pretty much anywhere (especially in the US) you need to TRASH any other aspect of your life. And many men are willing to do that - which I find creepy.
Now, some extremely rare women might be hard-wired to dominate others as well, and that's ok. But why would you fight to make sure that exactly 50% of these crazy CEO roles are covered by women? Why? Following what twisted logic of imaginary biological equality and misguided sense of fairness?
Sorry about the long-winded review. In a nutshell, Charen's book reminds us that when it comes to feminism, the pendulum has swung far too far.
June 27, 2018
I admit up front that I knew when I bought this book that my politics would not align with those of Mona Charen. Nonetheless, I have two teenage daughters and sincerely believe that an open mind is the first step to real understanding. The topic is important, so I took the plunge.
The book is clearly and competently written and very thorough. Charen has done her homework and if your politics tend to conservative and you take umbrage with liberal feminism you’ll find plenty of data and anecdotes to reinforce your perspective.
The book starts with a detailed history of the feminist movement and the individuals behind it. Unfortunately, Charen uses the time not so much for historical education as to discredit people like Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Kate Millet. And much of the harangue, unfortunately, is irrelevantly personal: “Millett’s father was an alcoholic.” “Steinem’s parents divorced…leaving her the sole caregiver for a mother who suffered from severe mental illness.” Morgan “had a stage mother.”
She reserves her most passionate animus, however, for Sigmund Freud. I get the connection she is trying to make but it somehow seems both overblown and out of place. And while some of Freud’s theories have been discredited, that is the nature of the topics he tackled and the time in which he tackled them. I don’t believe his contributions have been as completely pilloried by the psychiatric community as they are here.
Most of all, however, I’m not sure why any of it is relevant today. Each of these individuals, of course, was part of the collective face of the feminist movement. No single individual, however, no matter how famous, defines history. History unfolds for a vast litany of reasons that are impossible to fully understand, even in retrospect.
A lot of the book deals with motherhood. Clearly Charen has a perspective and I do believe that a lot of women I’ve known and worked with would agree with much of what she has to say. I know my own mother, who was a Registered Nurse in the US Navy during World War II and took time out to raise her family before returning to nursing full time, would agree. It was her perspective and I believe she came by it honestly, not a result of some oppressive patriarchal Stockholm syndrome.
She also devotes considerable space to the old nature v nurture debate. How much of the female reality is nature and how much is the patriarchal expectation? And once again she devotes considerable ink to discrediting the most extreme liberal feminists and academics.
But why? I think we greatly exaggerate, on both sides of the aisle, how much influence the extremists on any topic ultimately have. I have complete confidence that when my own daughters attend college they will be able to listen to virtually any academic opinion and make up their own mind.
Unfortunately, Charen gives less attention to the modern workplace, where women have much yet to achieve equality. The glass ceiling does not persist because of the failings of Friedan et al. It exists because the workplace was designed by men in their image. Despite all of our talk about supporting families, our employment policies are the least family and women friendly in the developed world. We should be ashamed, but somehow prefer to talk about how rich we are instead.
What Charen likewise fails to address fully (in fairness she does acknowledge it) is the reality that poverty trumps all ideology, including feminism. As Maslow noted long ago, if you don’t have food on the table and a secure place to live, nothing else matters. And the reality is that the commercialization of our very existence, while allowing the men who control the capital to economically oppress everyone but their 1% brethren, has done more harm to the goal of ideological feminism than virtually anything else.
The real lost opportunity here, I believe, is the chance to address how we collectively talk about the issues confronting women. It’s the same problem we face in our struggle to begin a civil and meaningful dialogue about race and sexual identity.
While there is no doubt that misogynists, racists, and homophobes remain abhorrently abundant, we tend to exaggerate their numbers by virtue of the conflation of the ideal and the culture commonly associated with it. It’s a conflation that both sides of each of these issues contribute to, in part through the tortured language and demands of political correctness. If we could talk about gender equality, in this case, without insisting on acceptance of which lifestyle choices feminist success manifests itself in, I think we’d get a lot further.
In many ways, given the lifestyle choices she has made, Charen is well positioned to help us get there. In the end, however, I believe she falls short for the simple reason that she falls into the same trap that she accuses those she disagrees with of falling into. This is a book about liberal feminism written by a conservative feminist and the result is inevitable – another mud fight.
That’s not to say that she doesn’t make several valid points. She does. Anyone who puts any value in balance will agree. But the problems are not political, as in liberal versus conservative. They are institutional and structural. And that’s where we should all focus our efforts. The more time we waste chastening individuals—liberal or conservative—the further we get from making real progress.
The book is clearly and competently written and very thorough. Charen has done her homework and if your politics tend to conservative and you take umbrage with liberal feminism you’ll find plenty of data and anecdotes to reinforce your perspective.
The book starts with a detailed history of the feminist movement and the individuals behind it. Unfortunately, Charen uses the time not so much for historical education as to discredit people like Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Kate Millet. And much of the harangue, unfortunately, is irrelevantly personal: “Millett’s father was an alcoholic.” “Steinem’s parents divorced…leaving her the sole caregiver for a mother who suffered from severe mental illness.” Morgan “had a stage mother.”
She reserves her most passionate animus, however, for Sigmund Freud. I get the connection she is trying to make but it somehow seems both overblown and out of place. And while some of Freud’s theories have been discredited, that is the nature of the topics he tackled and the time in which he tackled them. I don’t believe his contributions have been as completely pilloried by the psychiatric community as they are here.
Most of all, however, I’m not sure why any of it is relevant today. Each of these individuals, of course, was part of the collective face of the feminist movement. No single individual, however, no matter how famous, defines history. History unfolds for a vast litany of reasons that are impossible to fully understand, even in retrospect.
A lot of the book deals with motherhood. Clearly Charen has a perspective and I do believe that a lot of women I’ve known and worked with would agree with much of what she has to say. I know my own mother, who was a Registered Nurse in the US Navy during World War II and took time out to raise her family before returning to nursing full time, would agree. It was her perspective and I believe she came by it honestly, not a result of some oppressive patriarchal Stockholm syndrome.
She also devotes considerable space to the old nature v nurture debate. How much of the female reality is nature and how much is the patriarchal expectation? And once again she devotes considerable ink to discrediting the most extreme liberal feminists and academics.
But why? I think we greatly exaggerate, on both sides of the aisle, how much influence the extremists on any topic ultimately have. I have complete confidence that when my own daughters attend college they will be able to listen to virtually any academic opinion and make up their own mind.
Unfortunately, Charen gives less attention to the modern workplace, where women have much yet to achieve equality. The glass ceiling does not persist because of the failings of Friedan et al. It exists because the workplace was designed by men in their image. Despite all of our talk about supporting families, our employment policies are the least family and women friendly in the developed world. We should be ashamed, but somehow prefer to talk about how rich we are instead.
What Charen likewise fails to address fully (in fairness she does acknowledge it) is the reality that poverty trumps all ideology, including feminism. As Maslow noted long ago, if you don’t have food on the table and a secure place to live, nothing else matters. And the reality is that the commercialization of our very existence, while allowing the men who control the capital to economically oppress everyone but their 1% brethren, has done more harm to the goal of ideological feminism than virtually anything else.
The real lost opportunity here, I believe, is the chance to address how we collectively talk about the issues confronting women. It’s the same problem we face in our struggle to begin a civil and meaningful dialogue about race and sexual identity.
While there is no doubt that misogynists, racists, and homophobes remain abhorrently abundant, we tend to exaggerate their numbers by virtue of the conflation of the ideal and the culture commonly associated with it. It’s a conflation that both sides of each of these issues contribute to, in part through the tortured language and demands of political correctness. If we could talk about gender equality, in this case, without insisting on acceptance of which lifestyle choices feminist success manifests itself in, I think we’d get a lot further.
In many ways, given the lifestyle choices she has made, Charen is well positioned to help us get there. In the end, however, I believe she falls short for the simple reason that she falls into the same trap that she accuses those she disagrees with of falling into. This is a book about liberal feminism written by a conservative feminist and the result is inevitable – another mud fight.
That’s not to say that she doesn’t make several valid points. She does. Anyone who puts any value in balance will agree. But the problems are not political, as in liberal versus conservative. They are institutional and structural. And that’s where we should all focus our efforts. The more time we waste chastening individuals—liberal or conservative—the further we get from making real progress.
July 4, 2018
Disappointing
Sadly a political book, many conservatives will probably love this.
I was looking forward to a well researched and well argued attempt to reformulate feminist theory recognizing that Sex Matters. What I’ve found so far is shoddy sourcing in the introduction and inaccuracies in the first chapter. Disappointing as this is a very important topic that deserves a non politically correct reappraisal. Camille Paglia is much better at this.
Sadly a political book, many conservatives will probably love this.
I was looking forward to a well researched and well argued attempt to reformulate feminist theory recognizing that Sex Matters. What I’ve found so far is shoddy sourcing in the introduction and inaccuracies in the first chapter. Disappointing as this is a very important topic that deserves a non politically correct reappraisal. Camille Paglia is much better at this.
February 14, 2019
This is such a well-written, carefully considered, measured, and wise treatment of its subtitle: how modern feminism lost touch with science, love, and common sense. Women actually report being less happy today than in past generations, even though many of the goals of feminism have been achieved. Mona Charen is one of the wisest contemporary women thinkers, and she does yet another thorough job examining the issues of the day that affect society most profoundly -- marriage and family. Will feminists give it a fair read? It's hard to say, although my own experience tells me feminists are so drunk on the Kool-Aid that they will continue to subvert facts to their feelings, even if it is at the expense of children and others. Feminism in fact hurts women and children. We now live in a sex-saturated society where women are taught to wear less clothes, to engage in sex like men, to abort their babies, and that this is "empowerment." In fact, this has created a culture where men get the wants of their baser instincts: sex without commitment. And women wonder why men are dating and marrying in lower rates than ever. Thanks, feminism.
The book reviews the various waves of feminism and focuses on second wave feminism notions of sexual revolution, freedom from "oppression" of the "patriarchy" and other cultural norms largely disbanded over the last generation. Essentially what we have been taught is that the family and the system keep women down, and that in order to be self-actualized women should abandon traditional roles, spurn marriage, and hand over child rearing to the state and the "village." Of course, this has resulted in a host of unintended consequences including plummeting marriage rates, increased divorce rates, anxiety, depression, loneliness, and the list goes on.
Interestingly, despite feminists' unrelenting and ongoing efforts to ignore facts and science, in the most highly developed countries women continue to select caring-oriented careers while men continue to select math and science careers and jobs that include high risk of injury or death. Charen also cites the widely dispelled, and yet still-touted, wage disparity myth that fails to account for choices made by women and men in the arcs of their careers. When will we stop denying the facts that men and women are different, and that those differences are good, we are complementary, not superior or inferior. When will we acknowledge that real marriage (between men and women) produces the best environment for children and provide a foundation of stability best suited for human thriving.
And, of course, this book also examines the current "me too" movement, which itself is a product of feminism which has encouraged promiscuity without consequences. Charen is a brave voice of sanity for stating what should be obvious - women should be the primary protectors of themselves. Rape and sexual assault are always wrong, yet we do a disservice to all women to teach them they should do nothing to protect themselves against attack and that to do so is "victim blaming." And now we are moving into an era of abandoning notions of fairness in the name of "believing all victims," as if no alleged victim has ever lied (Tawana Brawley, Emma Sulkowicz, Crystal Gail Mangum, etc.). The Obama administration created rules on college campuses where those who are accused of sexual assault are not afforded even basic due process rights including to confront the accuser and to present evidence.
I could go on and on about how important this book is in terms of facts and the unintended consequences of radical feminism, which has left families and marriages reeling. The author prescribes more community, church, synagogue, and private organization investment in marriage and family. She rightly notes that if the media, Hollywood, music, etc. would get on board to preach what many of them practice (marriage and family has become a privilege), it would go a long way. But, again, the culture is pretty steeped in the Kool-Aid at this juncture for us to see any major improvements any time soon.
The book reviews the various waves of feminism and focuses on second wave feminism notions of sexual revolution, freedom from "oppression" of the "patriarchy" and other cultural norms largely disbanded over the last generation. Essentially what we have been taught is that the family and the system keep women down, and that in order to be self-actualized women should abandon traditional roles, spurn marriage, and hand over child rearing to the state and the "village." Of course, this has resulted in a host of unintended consequences including plummeting marriage rates, increased divorce rates, anxiety, depression, loneliness, and the list goes on.
Interestingly, despite feminists' unrelenting and ongoing efforts to ignore facts and science, in the most highly developed countries women continue to select caring-oriented careers while men continue to select math and science careers and jobs that include high risk of injury or death. Charen also cites the widely dispelled, and yet still-touted, wage disparity myth that fails to account for choices made by women and men in the arcs of their careers. When will we stop denying the facts that men and women are different, and that those differences are good, we are complementary, not superior or inferior. When will we acknowledge that real marriage (between men and women) produces the best environment for children and provide a foundation of stability best suited for human thriving.
And, of course, this book also examines the current "me too" movement, which itself is a product of feminism which has encouraged promiscuity without consequences. Charen is a brave voice of sanity for stating what should be obvious - women should be the primary protectors of themselves. Rape and sexual assault are always wrong, yet we do a disservice to all women to teach them they should do nothing to protect themselves against attack and that to do so is "victim blaming." And now we are moving into an era of abandoning notions of fairness in the name of "believing all victims," as if no alleged victim has ever lied (Tawana Brawley, Emma Sulkowicz, Crystal Gail Mangum, etc.). The Obama administration created rules on college campuses where those who are accused of sexual assault are not afforded even basic due process rights including to confront the accuser and to present evidence.
I could go on and on about how important this book is in terms of facts and the unintended consequences of radical feminism, which has left families and marriages reeling. The author prescribes more community, church, synagogue, and private organization investment in marriage and family. She rightly notes that if the media, Hollywood, music, etc. would get on board to preach what many of them practice (marriage and family has become a privilege), it would go a long way. But, again, the culture is pretty steeped in the Kool-Aid at this juncture for us to see any major improvements any time soon.
December 15, 2018
Almost all reviews of this book will be heavily skewed by politics, so I'm going to steer clear of that as much as possible.
Mona Charen is a conservative columnist, but her professional focus is on personal and family life, rather than sweeping public policy proposals. This is a refreshing break from most political writing, where authors seem intent on forcing human nature to conform to their ideal theories. Charen's approach is much more individual--she writes about her own experiences with the feminist revolution and the change in perspective that came from becoming a mother of three boys. The strongest chapters in the book are also the most personal.
Charen's major thesis is not that feminism is bad, but that it is too narrow-minded. Second-wave feminism began with the argument that women should be free to shape their own lives (an argument Charen endorses wholeheartedly) but then rapidly progressed into a fanatical effort to control the lives of everyone else, both male and female. She provides numerous examples of the way prominent feminists have clung to arcane theories of human behavior, even as it has become ever more obvious that many people don't fit those theories and don't particularly want to.
The author insists that a code of acceptable male behavior is needed, but then makes the further leap most liberal critics will not: if there are going to be rules for men, there must be rules for women, also. Blaming men for everything is a guaranteed way to foster distrust and backlash, and feminists have paid too little attention to the fact that men have standards, too.
For the mathematically-minded, there are lots of statistics, and the endnotes do a nice job of citing her sources. This is not an academic text (thank God), but a work of popular social commentary, so don't expect a lot of peer-reviewed material.
Charen is an excellent writer and the prose flows smoothly throughout, with a few spots that are seriously amusing. There are places where I felt some of the data was missing the point of the argument, but these are minor. Her fundamental prescription--that women need to take responsibility for their own choices and stop claiming victimhood at every turn--will not sit well with all readers, but she makes her point clearly and backs it up with lots of evidence.
Mona Charen is a conservative columnist, but her professional focus is on personal and family life, rather than sweeping public policy proposals. This is a refreshing break from most political writing, where authors seem intent on forcing human nature to conform to their ideal theories. Charen's approach is much more individual--she writes about her own experiences with the feminist revolution and the change in perspective that came from becoming a mother of three boys. The strongest chapters in the book are also the most personal.
Charen's major thesis is not that feminism is bad, but that it is too narrow-minded. Second-wave feminism began with the argument that women should be free to shape their own lives (an argument Charen endorses wholeheartedly) but then rapidly progressed into a fanatical effort to control the lives of everyone else, both male and female. She provides numerous examples of the way prominent feminists have clung to arcane theories of human behavior, even as it has become ever more obvious that many people don't fit those theories and don't particularly want to.
The author insists that a code of acceptable male behavior is needed, but then makes the further leap most liberal critics will not: if there are going to be rules for men, there must be rules for women, also. Blaming men for everything is a guaranteed way to foster distrust and backlash, and feminists have paid too little attention to the fact that men have standards, too.
For the mathematically-minded, there are lots of statistics, and the endnotes do a nice job of citing her sources. This is not an academic text (thank God), but a work of popular social commentary, so don't expect a lot of peer-reviewed material.
Charen is an excellent writer and the prose flows smoothly throughout, with a few spots that are seriously amusing. There are places where I felt some of the data was missing the point of the argument, but these are minor. Her fundamental prescription--that women need to take responsibility for their own choices and stop claiming victimhood at every turn--will not sit well with all readers, but she makes her point clearly and backs it up with lots of evidence.
October 3, 2019
Unfortunately, I now own a copy of this. Fortunately, I got it for free in a Goodreads giveaway.
Well, it took me three months, but I eventually managed to slog my way through this. It took so long because, inevitably, she would write something that was so repugnant (sexist, transphobic, elitist...take your pick) that I would put the book down and only had the strength to give it a scathing look before I decided I'd rather read anything else than this.
I will admit that I didn't chase down every one of her supposed sources of information, but they read as being contorted. If women are "unhappy" (in what way? How was that measured/quantified? What questions were asked?) then OBVIOUSLY it is feminist's fault! Women (because ALL women are exactly the same in her view) should just go back to what "comes naturally" and go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
The point of feminism is that women should be able to CHOOSE. If they want to stay home, then great! If they want to go to work, then they should be able to do that too! And men need to be held accountable for their own children and child-rearing. Some women want kids and some don't, and the goal of feminism is to value both choices and to make sure women aren't unfairly penalized for choosing one over the other.
I have also seen other reviews mention how well-researched it is, but I didn't find it so. It felt like she kept stating one "sciencey" thing, but then would make a huge "intellectual" leap and claimed that proved it. Rabbits have an internal clitoris and therefore women don't need to orgasm (note: this book does not actually mention rabbit clitori (clitorises?) and is the weaker for it. This is just a random example off the top of my head.) Ummm...what? Those two things are faintly, tangentially related, but you can't claim one proves the other! I felt like this SO MANY TIMES while reading this.
Also, the woman is incapable of considering anyone else's viewpoint or life experience than her own. And is EXTREMELY transphobic.
Anyway, this book sucks. I am going to figure out some sort of fun craft that involves destroying it so there's a small shred less evil in the world.
Well, it took me three months, but I eventually managed to slog my way through this. It took so long because, inevitably, she would write something that was so repugnant (sexist, transphobic, elitist...take your pick) that I would put the book down and only had the strength to give it a scathing look before I decided I'd rather read anything else than this.
I will admit that I didn't chase down every one of her supposed sources of information, but they read as being contorted. If women are "unhappy" (in what way? How was that measured/quantified? What questions were asked?) then OBVIOUSLY it is feminist's fault! Women (because ALL women are exactly the same in her view) should just go back to what "comes naturally" and go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
The point of feminism is that women should be able to CHOOSE. If they want to stay home, then great! If they want to go to work, then they should be able to do that too! And men need to be held accountable for their own children and child-rearing. Some women want kids and some don't, and the goal of feminism is to value both choices and to make sure women aren't unfairly penalized for choosing one over the other.
I have also seen other reviews mention how well-researched it is, but I didn't find it so. It felt like she kept stating one "sciencey" thing, but then would make a huge "intellectual" leap and claimed that proved it. Rabbits have an internal clitoris and therefore women don't need to orgasm (note: this book does not actually mention rabbit clitori (clitorises?) and is the weaker for it. This is just a random example off the top of my head.) Ummm...what? Those two things are faintly, tangentially related, but you can't claim one proves the other! I felt like this SO MANY TIMES while reading this.
Also, the woman is incapable of considering anyone else's viewpoint or life experience than her own. And is EXTREMELY transphobic.
Anyway, this book sucks. I am going to figure out some sort of fun craft that involves destroying it so there's a small shred less evil in the world.
July 27, 2018
This is a difficult book for me to rate. I agree with 98% of what Charen had to say in this book. But, I did not love reading the book because the tone was disrespectful, condescending, and aggressive 60-70% of the time. People are not going to be persuaded to change their thoughts and ideas because they are being lambasted, even if the facts back you up.
Popsugar challenge 2018: a book about feminism
Popsugar challenge 2018: a book about feminism
October 16, 2020
An insightful exploration into the trappings of third-wave feminism. Charen explores sexual promiscuity, modesty, the dating and hookup culture, rape on college campuses, the war between the sexes, divorce rates, the benefits of a two-parent family, daycare, and women's career choices. There's a little more opinion and anecdotal evidence than I would like, but alongside that there's also a lot of stats and facts. So it's still worth a read. Quite enjoyable from a conservative perspective.
April 19, 2020
A book about feminism in practice. Truly wonderful insights with scientific background. My perspective is certainly broadened. Recommend.
January 3, 2023
I have many problems with this book. I think this author may have a nuanced viewe of human nature and the relationships of the sexes today. But she believes that 'progressive feminism' has a flat, unrealistic, monolithic view of the same. She credits her (conservative) side with reasonableness and a well-thought out approach, and ignores the extremists on her side, while talking only about the extremists on the liberal side.
In addition, she spends a lot of time on the well-known, Second Wave feminists, and talks about books published fifty years ago, and I see no recognition that feminism might have grown in fifty years and learned some new things, and that it is human for there to be mis-steps.
Also, she never says it, but I think she thinks that as soon as society recognizes a problem, it's not part of the way we treat each other anymore. In reality, we as a society can recognize an attitude or idea is wrong, and still be guilty of furthering it, because of such things as implicit bias and other cognitive quirks.
Next, she spends a lot of time on how the hook-up culture is destructive, and how rape culture and sexual assault investigations on college campuses have gone wrong. Here again, she's got a nuanced view of some things, but on other things, she seems very black and white. Yes, the sexual investigation process has sometimes gone wrong and hurt some men on college campuses. But women were being hurt with impunity before, and when you change processes, you do not get it right in the first iteration, or even the second, or sometimes even the fifth. Stuff goes wrong, and you re-examine! Which can be tragic for the young men caught up in some of this, but it was tragic for the women in the old processes...so why is seeking a new way, and then talking about how the new way went wrong, a bad thing?
I guess I just feel that this woman seems to want to engage only with the extremes on the liberal side, and she just wants to talk about the mis-steps, instead of talking about what we have learned, what has gone right, what we can continue to encourage, what is far enough and not too far.
And, for god's sakes, no political movement is a monolith where everyone agrees with the most vocal!
In addition, she spends a lot of time on the well-known, Second Wave feminists, and talks about books published fifty years ago, and I see no recognition that feminism might have grown in fifty years and learned some new things, and that it is human for there to be mis-steps.
Also, she never says it, but I think she thinks that as soon as society recognizes a problem, it's not part of the way we treat each other anymore. In reality, we as a society can recognize an attitude or idea is wrong, and still be guilty of furthering it, because of such things as implicit bias and other cognitive quirks.
Next, she spends a lot of time on how the hook-up culture is destructive, and how rape culture and sexual assault investigations on college campuses have gone wrong. Here again, she's got a nuanced view of some things, but on other things, she seems very black and white. Yes, the sexual investigation process has sometimes gone wrong and hurt some men on college campuses. But women were being hurt with impunity before, and when you change processes, you do not get it right in the first iteration, or even the second, or sometimes even the fifth. Stuff goes wrong, and you re-examine! Which can be tragic for the young men caught up in some of this, but it was tragic for the women in the old processes...so why is seeking a new way, and then talking about how the new way went wrong, a bad thing?
I guess I just feel that this woman seems to want to engage only with the extremes on the liberal side, and she just wants to talk about the mis-steps, instead of talking about what we have learned, what has gone right, what we can continue to encourage, what is far enough and not too far.
And, for god's sakes, no political movement is a monolith where everyone agrees with the most vocal!
October 3, 2023
It is very difficult to put into words how utterly frustrating and blood boiling this book is. And lest we forget historically inaccurate, unless you only consider post WW2 USA history. I guess my incredibly high levels of the disagreeable trait always motivate me to write novels about things I don’t like and disagree with, so here are a few thoughts:
In the very beginning Charen spends some time discussing how mothers should spend more time with their infants and how she found it difficult to fit her career into parenting of her first child. Have you never heard of maternity leave? I don’t know what the average full time work week in the hell that is the United States of America looks like, but I know no one - and I mean no one - who works 80 hour weeks. I wanted to start a part time job this week to earn extra cash for the next 1-3 months and found out it was illegal. Since I already work 40hrs, I am legally not allowed to surpass an average of 38,5 weekly hours on a seven week average. I can extend one week to 60 hours, but if the 7-week average were to be surpassed, my employer(s) would be subjected to a fine. If I were to get pregnant tomorrow, it is illegal NOT to go on a paid parental leave, which can extend to until the child surpasses their second year of life. I have an aunt who’s had 3 kids back to back in her 40s, and spent two decades in the work force. She’s been on maternity leave for the past six years. And no one, and I mean not a single person, complains about women spending time off their workforce lives on maternity leave because we’re not deranged. We have to reproduce somehow?! I’ve seen multitudes of people online complain about this, but then again, that’s probably the same cast that doesn’t support healthcare rights. It is deranged to believe that women should jump right back to whatever the job they were doing while they're in postpartum or have infants, because that's just how biology works. I don't know anyone who's mad at that. What is infuriating is that instead of criticizing the economic system which doesn't allow for the natural flow of things, you're diminishing the social movement which let women enter the workforce in the first place. Because believe it or not, some of us have a few things to contribute here and there.
Feminism never meant, hey, let's all be blood sucking witches who only have sexual relationships with one another and hate men to our very core. Of course there are extremists, but every ideology, religion and concept has its extreme members. Instead of critiquing them you’re going after the entire concept?
The progress made by feminism should allow both men and women alike to choose whether they want to pursue their chosen careers or want to remain at home and do the child bearing and rearing. Although when it comes to the child rearing, I don't see how this immediately implies being a "home maker", which includes cleaning, cooking, laundry and everything else. Does no one realize how modern these concepts are? Adam Smith was writing about how many children you'd need to produce in order to have a profit off of their existence in the form of labor. My grandmother was born in the middle of a field her mother was working on, and she has a sister who's only a year older. The moronic "nuclear family" concept only arose when it was allowed to the simplest peasants to pursue more "noble" careers, instead of having to shovel your way through life. In a society where you don't need to have your own chickens and pumpkins to feed yourself, it is really not that "manly" to sit in a cubicle for the suggested 40-60 hours a week in order to "provide". It only delivers a circumstance in which women can be financially behind if they are dependent on their husbands, which was something I though we already solved. Solve the issue of unpaid maternity leave and all of a sudden most of these issues won't be issues.
It goes from bad to worse, for this book glorifies the marriage institution, which is a completely void legal requirement, for what exactly? A joint credit score? Legalizing your marriage, which has a 40% chance of failing anyways, literally only heightens your chances of financial ruin. Since we spend so much time dealing with how children from stable families do better in life (which is something I'd disagree with to a core, and can attest to the contrary from personal experience) why don't we talk about how many more negative effects men have from divorce? Including loss of parental rights, which usually go to women. Why? Because they're women? If you're not religious and don't believe that a martial bond will hold you together in the afterlife, what are you getting married for? I never understood why people propagate and celebrate marriage if it’s not in religious circumstances. Unmarried couples that I know are generally better off financially than married ones, because they are observed as two separate entities in the social system. Whether or not a relationship works out depends on the quality of the relationship, not an expensive, legal, pact. We as a society have a degenerate view over commitment, and I don’t see it being solved anywhere by signing a contact.
This tunnel vision of the world is so infuriating to me personally, as a women who lands on the spectrum with definitely more profound masculine interests and traits. Don't get me wrong, I am not a tomboy for I don't think I own a flat pair of shoes other than my gym equipment, which is used once every blue moon or so. But this book is literally written to highlight the very things women which are alike me fought for. There are so many more things here which are summarized to appeal to the average, which does not help those who aren't.
There is no shame in choosing motherhood over a career. I find it shameful to publicize a book which can only be used by those who are intimidated by prosperous women so they can drool over their own shortcomings, by getting a summarized critique of the personal lives of few women whose lives didn't go as well as they thought it would. So what? How are any of the cherry picked arguments valid for the whole picture of how individuals should organize their lives? Oh right, they aren't. I can find multitudes of examples from women who I know who didn't choose the general home making route and who couldn't be happier. After all, once those kids grow up and develop interests, having a mother whose only suitable for dishwashing isn't pleasurable in the tiniest bit. Whereas being a mother is a large part of life for many, many women, it is by far not the only. And women who make this their entire personality are by far very unhappy. But I guess my personal observations from my life and those closest to me are completely invalid. Just like the examples from this book and do you know why? Because it is up to the individual to decide how they want to live their life. Not your holier than thou recollections of how you raised your kids, and that one "bitch" didn't but let daycare take care of it.
Also makes you wonder why there are so many unstable people brought up by the generations who had nuclear families, but I guess we didn't need to go that far here.
So much wasted potential. Instead of considering ways we can fit in the natural part of lives for most women in our society, she’s reversing back to the concepts which didn’t hold for long historically, and also didn’t prove to be optimal for all.
An absolute abomination.
In the very beginning Charen spends some time discussing how mothers should spend more time with their infants and how she found it difficult to fit her career into parenting of her first child. Have you never heard of maternity leave? I don’t know what the average full time work week in the hell that is the United States of America looks like, but I know no one - and I mean no one - who works 80 hour weeks. I wanted to start a part time job this week to earn extra cash for the next 1-3 months and found out it was illegal. Since I already work 40hrs, I am legally not allowed to surpass an average of 38,5 weekly hours on a seven week average. I can extend one week to 60 hours, but if the 7-week average were to be surpassed, my employer(s) would be subjected to a fine. If I were to get pregnant tomorrow, it is illegal NOT to go on a paid parental leave, which can extend to until the child surpasses their second year of life. I have an aunt who’s had 3 kids back to back in her 40s, and spent two decades in the work force. She’s been on maternity leave for the past six years. And no one, and I mean not a single person, complains about women spending time off their workforce lives on maternity leave because we’re not deranged. We have to reproduce somehow?! I’ve seen multitudes of people online complain about this, but then again, that’s probably the same cast that doesn’t support healthcare rights. It is deranged to believe that women should jump right back to whatever the job they were doing while they're in postpartum or have infants, because that's just how biology works. I don't know anyone who's mad at that. What is infuriating is that instead of criticizing the economic system which doesn't allow for the natural flow of things, you're diminishing the social movement which let women enter the workforce in the first place. Because believe it or not, some of us have a few things to contribute here and there.
Feminism never meant, hey, let's all be blood sucking witches who only have sexual relationships with one another and hate men to our very core. Of course there are extremists, but every ideology, religion and concept has its extreme members. Instead of critiquing them you’re going after the entire concept?
The progress made by feminism should allow both men and women alike to choose whether they want to pursue their chosen careers or want to remain at home and do the child bearing and rearing. Although when it comes to the child rearing, I don't see how this immediately implies being a "home maker", which includes cleaning, cooking, laundry and everything else. Does no one realize how modern these concepts are? Adam Smith was writing about how many children you'd need to produce in order to have a profit off of their existence in the form of labor. My grandmother was born in the middle of a field her mother was working on, and she has a sister who's only a year older. The moronic "nuclear family" concept only arose when it was allowed to the simplest peasants to pursue more "noble" careers, instead of having to shovel your way through life. In a society where you don't need to have your own chickens and pumpkins to feed yourself, it is really not that "manly" to sit in a cubicle for the suggested 40-60 hours a week in order to "provide". It only delivers a circumstance in which women can be financially behind if they are dependent on their husbands, which was something I though we already solved. Solve the issue of unpaid maternity leave and all of a sudden most of these issues won't be issues.
It goes from bad to worse, for this book glorifies the marriage institution, which is a completely void legal requirement, for what exactly? A joint credit score? Legalizing your marriage, which has a 40% chance of failing anyways, literally only heightens your chances of financial ruin. Since we spend so much time dealing with how children from stable families do better in life (which is something I'd disagree with to a core, and can attest to the contrary from personal experience) why don't we talk about how many more negative effects men have from divorce? Including loss of parental rights, which usually go to women. Why? Because they're women? If you're not religious and don't believe that a martial bond will hold you together in the afterlife, what are you getting married for? I never understood why people propagate and celebrate marriage if it’s not in religious circumstances. Unmarried couples that I know are generally better off financially than married ones, because they are observed as two separate entities in the social system. Whether or not a relationship works out depends on the quality of the relationship, not an expensive, legal, pact. We as a society have a degenerate view over commitment, and I don’t see it being solved anywhere by signing a contact.
This tunnel vision of the world is so infuriating to me personally, as a women who lands on the spectrum with definitely more profound masculine interests and traits. Don't get me wrong, I am not a tomboy for I don't think I own a flat pair of shoes other than my gym equipment, which is used once every blue moon or so. But this book is literally written to highlight the very things women which are alike me fought for. There are so many more things here which are summarized to appeal to the average, which does not help those who aren't.
There is no shame in choosing motherhood over a career. I find it shameful to publicize a book which can only be used by those who are intimidated by prosperous women so they can drool over their own shortcomings, by getting a summarized critique of the personal lives of few women whose lives didn't go as well as they thought it would. So what? How are any of the cherry picked arguments valid for the whole picture of how individuals should organize their lives? Oh right, they aren't. I can find multitudes of examples from women who I know who didn't choose the general home making route and who couldn't be happier. After all, once those kids grow up and develop interests, having a mother whose only suitable for dishwashing isn't pleasurable in the tiniest bit. Whereas being a mother is a large part of life for many, many women, it is by far not the only. And women who make this their entire personality are by far very unhappy. But I guess my personal observations from my life and those closest to me are completely invalid. Just like the examples from this book and do you know why? Because it is up to the individual to decide how they want to live their life. Not your holier than thou recollections of how you raised your kids, and that one "bitch" didn't but let daycare take care of it.
Also makes you wonder why there are so many unstable people brought up by the generations who had nuclear families, but I guess we didn't need to go that far here.
So much wasted potential. Instead of considering ways we can fit in the natural part of lives for most women in our society, she’s reversing back to the concepts which didn’t hold for long historically, and also didn’t prove to be optimal for all.
An absolute abomination.
May 31, 2019
After I wearied of Charen's constant equating of second wave feminism with communism, she dropped the bomb that made me quit reading this book on page 48. Asserting that women want sex less than men do, she tells women that this gives them a bargaining chip with men. I do not want to read further to hear what we should trade sex for.
September 15, 2018
Its a good book. Definitely worth the read. I get where the author is coming from but still somethings I didn't agree or choose to see them differently but still worth reading. Thank you for the knowledge and the new perspective
July 31, 2023
I can't take this author seriously when she blames women who drink for being raped. Do better.
July 29, 2018
A must read
December 12, 2018
Mona Charen has long been a favorite columnist of mine. Her insight and wisdom, coupled with her clear and engaging writing style, are a strong combination. In Sex Matters, Charen takes on second-
and third-wave feminism and delivers a devastating critique. That she does so as an intelligent woman who cares deeply about women and children only adds to the books efficacy. That care and concern is evident as she elevates motherhood to the high role it needs to play in our society if we are all to flourish. Best of all, there is a common sense that pervades the book. I highly recommend this book, particularly to pastors and leaders in the church.
and third-wave feminism and delivers a devastating critique. That she does so as an intelligent woman who cares deeply about women and children only adds to the books efficacy. That care and concern is evident as she elevates motherhood to the high role it needs to play in our society if we are all to flourish. Best of all, there is a common sense that pervades the book. I highly recommend this book, particularly to pastors and leaders in the church.
March 28, 2019
This was a good read for me since I’ve always been leery of the impact of feminism on culture. I learned a lot about the origins of feminism which was interesting and disturbing. The author had a very conservative bent but that didn’t bother me because I like reading things from all viewpoints. I like how she ended with the impact of feminism on the family and single parenting. It was also long and tedious with loads of stats. Overall a good read.
December 26, 2022
I read this for book club by mistake instead of "Sex Matters: How Male-Centric Medicine Endangers Women's Health and What We Can Do About It." I regret this mistake. I do not agree with the author's premise that traditional gender roles are common sense in today's society.
January 26, 2020
A book full of arguments that ignore science and history, while falling for the fallacy of correlation not implying causation.
May 23, 2019
Starting as a criticism on liberal feminism, continuing with Freud, hookup culture, and physical differences between sexes, the book is aimed to favour traditional femininity and motherhood. The author makes great context for her ideas to flourish, using statistical data. However for me her argumentation sometimes lacks rationality when referring to “feeling,” such as in a statement hookup culture is divorcing sex from feeling.
February 12, 2025
Absolutely fantastic!!!
November 26, 2025
Great book, well reasoned. Bit repetitive towards the end though.
July 19, 2022
A really nuanced and thoughtful take—would urge people to read it before judging. I found the sections on the increasing prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses as well as the dangers of the kangaroo courts that have emerged in response to be very interesting and vital.
September 18, 2018
It will be incredibly difficult to digest this book into the short space I have to write a brief review. As I look back at notes I made while reading the book I find it harder than I had imagined. Mona Charen’s books are always like that though. Well researched and with plenty of notations to her sources the book provides the proof necessary to back up the concept that she presents here. That concept is that feminism has failed those they claimed to want to help and in the process affected us all while ignoring their failures and doubling down on them instead.
Her arguments are flawless with a hard basis in fact that if entered into a debate would most likely be ridiculed with no fact based evidence to prove her wrong. That’s one of the things she discusses in the book, a torrent of emotions and claims that have been used to promote concepts that have done harm rather than good while ignoring the outcomes of those concepts.
The book begins by taking a look at the modern feminist movement and its leaders. Charen notes that a number of the most widely read of these leaders eventually turned their claims around and realized not everything they felt at first was true. They refuted some of their claims but those refutations gather dust while their books continued to be used by feminist’s studies classes ignoring those refutations. She also makes note of the fact that several of them came to their theories not based on the situations of all women but based on individual occurrences in their personal lives that scarred them and made them go in the direction they chose; they chose to force their personal issues onto the entire fate of womanhood.
Charen notes the biological nature of men and women, ingrained not by social structure but by the way nature has groomed both to behave differently to one another. While feminists argue that this is formed by a patriarchal society Charen can cite various studies that prove this concept wrong. The response is always the same; if you disagree then you ignore the facts and studies and continue to claim victimhood.
As I refer through my notes here I notice the overwhelming abundance of examples and references to facts that back up the various arguments Charen puts forth. There is no way I could present them all without basically re-writing the book in its entirety here. Rather than do so let me just say that this is a book that everyone, male and female, should make a point of reading. And rather than blindly following one belief or another look at the evidence she provides. Feel free to challenge it and look deeper for something to refute it if you can. But the time has come to stop being mindless sheep on both sides of the fence and realize that there is more to life than protests, slogans and memes. Charen’s book is a good place to start.
Her arguments are flawless with a hard basis in fact that if entered into a debate would most likely be ridiculed with no fact based evidence to prove her wrong. That’s one of the things she discusses in the book, a torrent of emotions and claims that have been used to promote concepts that have done harm rather than good while ignoring the outcomes of those concepts.
The book begins by taking a look at the modern feminist movement and its leaders. Charen notes that a number of the most widely read of these leaders eventually turned their claims around and realized not everything they felt at first was true. They refuted some of their claims but those refutations gather dust while their books continued to be used by feminist’s studies classes ignoring those refutations. She also makes note of the fact that several of them came to their theories not based on the situations of all women but based on individual occurrences in their personal lives that scarred them and made them go in the direction they chose; they chose to force their personal issues onto the entire fate of womanhood.
Charen notes the biological nature of men and women, ingrained not by social structure but by the way nature has groomed both to behave differently to one another. While feminists argue that this is formed by a patriarchal society Charen can cite various studies that prove this concept wrong. The response is always the same; if you disagree then you ignore the facts and studies and continue to claim victimhood.
As I refer through my notes here I notice the overwhelming abundance of examples and references to facts that back up the various arguments Charen puts forth. There is no way I could present them all without basically re-writing the book in its entirety here. Rather than do so let me just say that this is a book that everyone, male and female, should make a point of reading. And rather than blindly following one belief or another look at the evidence she provides. Feel free to challenge it and look deeper for something to refute it if you can. But the time has come to stop being mindless sheep on both sides of the fence and realize that there is more to life than protests, slogans and memes. Charen’s book is a good place to start.
December 3, 2018
First half of this book was a 2 star, and the second half was a 4 star, therefore I'm going with a 3 star rating overall.
In the latter half of the book, the author makes some very compelling arguments for traditional family values and marriage. She had sources upon sources of research and studies that show children who are raised by their biological mother and father, who stay in a committed relationship their whole life are more likely to end off well financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc. Her research was really hard to dispute, and I found it very informative. She did not use religious beliefs as a basis for belief in any of these values, although I can tell from her wiring that she does have religious beliefs of some kind.
As someone who holds traditional marriage and family values, I felt that Mona Charen helped defend those beliefs in a very scientific and unbiased way. She also has some differing beliefs from today's "feminist standards" and argues that some of the recent movements actually take away from what many women still want, to marry and loving husband, stay home, and raise children.
I was disappointed in the first half of this book. She outlines the history of feminism, and although I'm sure many of her facts are correct, she takes an extremely condescending tone and is borderline rude. I'm glad I finished the book because the second half was so informative and well researched, but I wish I would have skipped over the first few chapters, which seemed more like a roast fest than anything.
In the latter half of the book, the author makes some very compelling arguments for traditional family values and marriage. She had sources upon sources of research and studies that show children who are raised by their biological mother and father, who stay in a committed relationship their whole life are more likely to end off well financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc. Her research was really hard to dispute, and I found it very informative. She did not use religious beliefs as a basis for belief in any of these values, although I can tell from her wiring that she does have religious beliefs of some kind.
As someone who holds traditional marriage and family values, I felt that Mona Charen helped defend those beliefs in a very scientific and unbiased way. She also has some differing beliefs from today's "feminist standards" and argues that some of the recent movements actually take away from what many women still want, to marry and loving husband, stay home, and raise children.
I was disappointed in the first half of this book. She outlines the history of feminism, and although I'm sure many of her facts are correct, she takes an extremely condescending tone and is borderline rude. I'm glad I finished the book because the second half was so informative and well researched, but I wish I would have skipped over the first few chapters, which seemed more like a roast fest than anything.
February 4, 2019
"Sex Matters" was a fascinating and illuminating read. Impeccably researched and well-written. This book is so relevant, especially with the current political and socio-economic climates. The author tackles an assortment of topics ranging from the impact of the traditional family (or lack of), rape culture, the perceived "wage gap" (this was a very interesting chapter, though I felt that way about all of them!), abortion, and the history of the feminism movement and how we've arrived to where we are today.
Reading this as someone who is more conservative, it was interesting to see how easily a more traditional mindset is mocked, ridiculed, and shamed for being "anti-woman" - when in fact, the traditional/conservative principles are actually more "pro-women" than anything. That's the best part of this book: the immense research that shows how backwards the "feminist movement" has been and continues to be, all at the determent of society.
I highly recommend this book.
Reading this as someone who is more conservative, it was interesting to see how easily a more traditional mindset is mocked, ridiculed, and shamed for being "anti-woman" - when in fact, the traditional/conservative principles are actually more "pro-women" than anything. That's the best part of this book: the immense research that shows how backwards the "feminist movement" has been and continues to be, all at the determent of society.
I highly recommend this book.
December 26, 2021
I started reading this book as an ebook from the library by mistake thinking I was reading another book with the same title. I couldn’t get past the introduction. There were a lot of seriously bias statements like saying children who grow up with their married biological parents do better in life than children in “less stable” situations. So all other family structures than the traditional one are less stable? The author noted zero references or evidence to back up this up next to this statement. Plus, there are a lot of other “stable” family structures. Studies do seem to exist on this topic but tend to have a lot of religious bias. I would skip this book unless you already hold these beliefs and want to give yourself a dose of dopamine from feeling like you are right. I would challenge all readers to look elsewhere for a more balanced overview of this topic.
October 17, 2024
Exodus - 20 : “The Ten Commandments”. This human standard. Ables myself to be the most feministic I can. Meaning. To be the best support I can be for Feminism. I am a boy.
This book is very feministically important to me. Because. I wasn’t in of intention of reading this book to understand the marginalized social respects of how girls are objectified and sexually imaged. I don’t participate with myself contributing to such feminism conversation or issue. I am aware. I just said it, “RIGHT?” That reason… being more formally aware and informed of about association of girls in of respects to SEX.
I read this book in of hopes that feminism would have advanced in of the feminism account of this idea, “Feminism does not discriminate. Like feminist claim. And. That feminism is not gender bias. Because of that. I wanted to know if Feminism has a formal account of about how girls are accounted for. In of Feminism (for that feminism is the formal Social and Political voice of Female). In of these ideas.”
1). What does Feminism determine when a girl violates a Man’s human rights.
2). What does Feminism determine when a girl violates a Man’s autonomy.
3) What does Feminism determine when a girl sexually victimizes and takes advantage of a MAN.
4) What does Feminism determine when a girl takes advantage of her natural respects that a MAN naturally has to her (A Man has to care for Woman).
5) What does Feminism determine when a girl disregards a MAN’s humanity. And. Natural identity. To the point where the MAN wants to commit suicide because of Girl taking advantage of her natural respects that a guy has to her.
6) What does Feminism determine when a girl does not uphold and respect her natural responsibilities as a Girl. To other girls. And. To Males (Boy. Guy. Man. Gay).
7) What does Feminism determine when a girl does not treat a MAN humanely and treats the guy as if he is just a Feministic responsibility (a story to sentimentally account for. For the Feminism project).
8) What does Feminism determine when a girl takes advantage and victimizes a MAN through his natural SEX instincts (towards guys. Towards girls).
9) What does Feminism determine when a girl violates civil rights and humane laws and respects towards a guy and become vulgar and derogatory towards him (Gay. She attacks his faith. Calls him a liar when he’s not. Threatens to kill him).
10) What does Feminism determine when a girl disregards that there are other ways of suffering than just what is considered “Political Correctness” [Covered up by political terms : Domestic violence. Prejudice. Hate Crimes. Sexism. Religious Extremism. Gender Power Struggle. Mostly, just doesn’t listen and thinks she is always right and never wrong. And. That the world only cares about the safety of girl. And. That the law will never be utilized to address a girl’s misbehavior because she believes she is always right to act in the way she is. Because. She thinks that she is right. Because. She believes and governs herself as above natural rules of law and instinct. I believe Natural Rule of Law and Instinct is Exodus 20 : The Ten Commandments).
11) What does Feminism determine when a girl threatens a MAN’s belief and commitment to GOD. Herself saying that he is wrong for calling her a whore when she sleeps with many guys and not married to him (SIN : Adultery. Disrespecting Parents. Lying. Denying GOD). Once you Sin. You prove you Deny GOD.
12) What does Feminism determine when a girl only prioritizes what she wants. What she cares about. What she claims she knows. What matters to her. And. Disregards the MAN’s account. When. The MAN who cares for her. Is providing all she has. 1) Her Wealth. 2) Her Knowledge (Peer Respects : Father to Daughter Social Guidance). 3) Her Intelligence (Formal Education : Degree). 4) Her Safety. 5) Her Respects. 6) Her Value. 7) Her Protection. 8) Her Life. 9) Her Identity. 10) Her Rights. 11) Her Faith. 12) Her Autonomy. Basically. What does Feminism determine when girl determines herself to govern herself. To. Completely deny, eliminate, and terminate a MAN’s Autonomy. Completely Deny, Eliminate, and Terminate a MAN's Right to Exist.
13) What does Feminism determine when a girl only prioritizes the formal account of her Political Voice (Feminism). And. Disregards the MAN's right to also have a formal account of his Political Voice (??????) in of the same societal significance, value, and respects as of Female : "Feminism". Do know. And. Realize. The world may (and is) constructed by MAN. But. MAN takes advantage of his power and utilizes his power to abuse all MAN inferior to Him (Patriarchal Hierarchy System : The Top has most power). That ONE Powerful MAN. Overrules LAW. And. Denies All MAN from the Human Rights to LAW and Country. Denies All MAN... Inferior to that One MAN. In of default statute to have all MAN inferior... be in of no proper existence. Standardizes All MAN inferior to that One MAN. To live a life that is not safe, peaceful, and humane. A life that is defaulted in of Suffering, Torture, Terrorization, and Unwanted Suicide (In of Hopelessness. Lost of sight, feelings, and Belief of Hope).
14) Why does Feminism never Care about MAN. When MAN always cares about Female : “Feminism”. A MAN will always respect his responsibility to himself. He is responsible to account for and CARE in of the best that MAN can provide in of CARE to a Girl (Woman. Female. Lesbian. No Gender: Binary. Cyst Gender. PanSexual. Whatever).
This book is very feministically important to me. Because. I wasn’t in of intention of reading this book to understand the marginalized social respects of how girls are objectified and sexually imaged. I don’t participate with myself contributing to such feminism conversation or issue. I am aware. I just said it, “RIGHT?” That reason… being more formally aware and informed of about association of girls in of respects to SEX.
I read this book in of hopes that feminism would have advanced in of the feminism account of this idea, “Feminism does not discriminate. Like feminist claim. And. That feminism is not gender bias. Because of that. I wanted to know if Feminism has a formal account of about how girls are accounted for. In of Feminism (for that feminism is the formal Social and Political voice of Female). In of these ideas.”
1). What does Feminism determine when a girl violates a Man’s human rights.
2). What does Feminism determine when a girl violates a Man’s autonomy.
3) What does Feminism determine when a girl sexually victimizes and takes advantage of a MAN.
4) What does Feminism determine when a girl takes advantage of her natural respects that a MAN naturally has to her (A Man has to care for Woman).
5) What does Feminism determine when a girl disregards a MAN’s humanity. And. Natural identity. To the point where the MAN wants to commit suicide because of Girl taking advantage of her natural respects that a guy has to her.
6) What does Feminism determine when a girl does not uphold and respect her natural responsibilities as a Girl. To other girls. And. To Males (Boy. Guy. Man. Gay).
7) What does Feminism determine when a girl does not treat a MAN humanely and treats the guy as if he is just a Feministic responsibility (a story to sentimentally account for. For the Feminism project).
8) What does Feminism determine when a girl takes advantage and victimizes a MAN through his natural SEX instincts (towards guys. Towards girls).
9) What does Feminism determine when a girl violates civil rights and humane laws and respects towards a guy and become vulgar and derogatory towards him (Gay. She attacks his faith. Calls him a liar when he’s not. Threatens to kill him).
10) What does Feminism determine when a girl disregards that there are other ways of suffering than just what is considered “Political Correctness” [Covered up by political terms : Domestic violence. Prejudice. Hate Crimes. Sexism. Religious Extremism. Gender Power Struggle. Mostly, just doesn’t listen and thinks she is always right and never wrong. And. That the world only cares about the safety of girl. And. That the law will never be utilized to address a girl’s misbehavior because she believes she is always right to act in the way she is. Because. She thinks that she is right. Because. She believes and governs herself as above natural rules of law and instinct. I believe Natural Rule of Law and Instinct is Exodus 20 : The Ten Commandments).
11) What does Feminism determine when a girl threatens a MAN’s belief and commitment to GOD. Herself saying that he is wrong for calling her a whore when she sleeps with many guys and not married to him (SIN : Adultery. Disrespecting Parents. Lying. Denying GOD). Once you Sin. You prove you Deny GOD.
12) What does Feminism determine when a girl only prioritizes what she wants. What she cares about. What she claims she knows. What matters to her. And. Disregards the MAN’s account. When. The MAN who cares for her. Is providing all she has. 1) Her Wealth. 2) Her Knowledge (Peer Respects : Father to Daughter Social Guidance). 3) Her Intelligence (Formal Education : Degree). 4) Her Safety. 5) Her Respects. 6) Her Value. 7) Her Protection. 8) Her Life. 9) Her Identity. 10) Her Rights. 11) Her Faith. 12) Her Autonomy. Basically. What does Feminism determine when girl determines herself to govern herself. To. Completely deny, eliminate, and terminate a MAN’s Autonomy. Completely Deny, Eliminate, and Terminate a MAN's Right to Exist.
13) What does Feminism determine when a girl only prioritizes the formal account of her Political Voice (Feminism). And. Disregards the MAN's right to also have a formal account of his Political Voice (??????) in of the same societal significance, value, and respects as of Female : "Feminism". Do know. And. Realize. The world may (and is) constructed by MAN. But. MAN takes advantage of his power and utilizes his power to abuse all MAN inferior to Him (Patriarchal Hierarchy System : The Top has most power). That ONE Powerful MAN. Overrules LAW. And. Denies All MAN from the Human Rights to LAW and Country. Denies All MAN... Inferior to that One MAN. In of default statute to have all MAN inferior... be in of no proper existence. Standardizes All MAN inferior to that One MAN. To live a life that is not safe, peaceful, and humane. A life that is defaulted in of Suffering, Torture, Terrorization, and Unwanted Suicide (In of Hopelessness. Lost of sight, feelings, and Belief of Hope).
14) Why does Feminism never Care about MAN. When MAN always cares about Female : “Feminism”. A MAN will always respect his responsibility to himself. He is responsible to account for and CARE in of the best that MAN can provide in of CARE to a Girl (Woman. Female. Lesbian. No Gender: Binary. Cyst Gender. PanSexual. Whatever).
February 5, 2021
It's hard to review this book properly because much of it was frustratingly right-wing. I knew this going in, but it still didn't keep me from rolling my eyes at the somewhat puritanical view Charen has towards certain things. Still, the writing is solid and she does make some arguments that made me reconsider my own opinions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews