Mismeasure of Woman: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex

by Carol Tavris

When "man is the measure of all things," woman is forever trying to measure up. In this enlightening book, Carol Tavris unmasks the widespread but invisible custom -- pervasive in the social sciences, medicine, law, and history -- of treating men as the normal standard, women as abnormal. Tavris expands our vision of normalcy by illuminating the similarities between women and men and showing that the real differences lie not in gender, but in power, resources, and life experiences.
Winner of the American Association for Applied and Preventive Psychology's Distinguished Media Contribution Award

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Gender, Sociology, Womens

400 pages, Paperback

First published March 27, 1992

About the author

Carol Tavris earned her Ph.D. in the interdisciplinary program in social psychology at the University of Michigan, and ever since has sought to bring research from the many fields of psychology to the public. She is author of The Mismeasure of Woman, which won the Distinguished Media Contribution Award from the American Association from Applied and Preventive Psychology, and the Heritage Publications Award from Division 35 of the APA. Dr. Tavris is also the author of Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion and coauthor with Carole Wade of Invitation to Psychology; Psychology in Perspective; Critical and Creative Thinking: The case of love and war; and The Longest War: Sex Differences in Perspective. She has written on psychological topics for many different magazines, journals, edited books, and newspapers, notably the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. She has given keynote addresses and workshops on, among other topics, critical thinking, pseudoscience in psychology, anger, gender, and psychology and the media. She has taught in the psychology department at UCLA and at the Human Relations Center of the New School for Social Research in New York. Dr. Tavris is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and a charter Fellow of the American Psychological Society; and, for fun, a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. When she isn't writing or lecturing, she can be found walking the trails of the Santa Monica mountains with her border collie, Sophie.

Reviews

[Lindsay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a critique of two popular fallacies about men and women: gender essentialism (the idea that all men and all women resemble their own sex and differ from the other sex in the same ways) and universalizing maleness (using the average man as a stand-in for the average person). She mostly tackles essentialism in popular culture and psychology, particularly by looking critically at the studies cited as proof of gender stereotypes (say, that women are more empathic) and identifying factors those studies neglected to consider, and comparing them to studies that did factor those things in; usually, the gender gap narrows to insignificance in the more rigorous studies. Universalizing of maleness, on the other hand, is more often seen in medicine (where doctors learn anatomy and surgery from male bodies, and test medications and study disease primarily in men, with female physiology considered as an afterthought, if at all) and law (where one's actions often have to pass a "reasonable-man" test, which obscures the fact that a reasonable woman will often not make the same choices that would be reasonable for a man, especially when it comes to self-defense). Also noteworthy is her take on PMS, which she largely does not believe exists.

Very informative, and a great resource for gender-difference myths and facts. (Tavris does *NOT* believe men and women are the same; she merely believes that what differences do exist are small and fairly specialized, and that the variation within each sex is many times wider than that between the sexes).

The only caveat I have about it is that it was written in 1992, so there is probably a lot of gender-related research (both legitimate and in need of debunking) from recent years that will not be addressed here. Which is too bad, since I would love to see what Tavris thinks of Simon Baron-Cohen's hypothesis that autism is an extreme version of the normal, "male" brain.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is the wiser and more knowledgeable sister of The Beauty Myth. Some material is, thankfully, out of date, thanks to 20 years of progress in queer advocacy. But Tavris's discussion of legal equality vs. legal sameness, and of the medicalization of women's hormonal cycle (and the failure to medicalize the far more hazardous mood swings of men!) is still on point.

On hysterectomy for a 'precancerous' diagnosis: "Although prostate cancer is far more common than uterine cancer, no one recommends preventative surgery on the prostate. The very idea would make most men premurderous."

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

Examines critically basic assumptions and "conventional wisdom" underlying the stories modern culture tells about women, and that women tell about themselves, whether dealing with their relation to men, health and psychological issues, social roles, sex, body image, etc. It points out that presenting women as opposite to men, better or worse than men, or the same as men, all involve evaluating women against the cultural norm of the universal male instead of taking women as they are in themselves. A social psychologist, the author promotes social and cultural change as a means to solve women's problems, instead of seeing such problems as stemming from inadequacies or pathologies of individual women.

[Tanjua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. Another feminism book

[Belenen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by a psychologist, The Mismeasure of Woman explores studies on 'gender', focusing on the psychological and social aspects, with a basic section on the brain studies. It took me a while to work through because it's a dense read -- there are so many studies and articles mentioned that the bibliography is 42 pages long. It's quite the emotional rollercoaster! It's infuriating and depressing to realize how much science and society have lied about and mistreated women (and men, though not in the same way); it's exciting and empowering to realize that there is so much human potential that has been ignored or repressed; and it's laugh-out-loud funny in parts thanks to the dry, sometimes sarcastic tone of the author. Despite the fact-dump, it's interesting and entertaining. Also, the author speaks in a genuinely equalist tone; ze doesn't drift into ridiculous "men are the REAL victims here" bullshit but neither does ze ignore the fact that these stereotypes are damaging to men also. Ze challenges both sexes not only to step out of their own roles but to challenge their own ideals and help others step out of those roles.

[Lindsay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not an extreme feminist or anything... but I recommend this book for every woman! I took a psyc. of women class and this book summed it all up. It really makes you think about the issues of being a woman in todays society.

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read - it brought to light a lot of biased ways of thinking about differences between the sexes (and lack thereof) that I may not have noticed previously without being strictly pro-women/anti-man. I thought it was very balanced and also well-written in general.

[Lawrence Bish · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was one of many that have opened my eyes to hidden flaws in my own and the general perceptions of our world, our behaviors, our beliefs and our social practices. A significant and wonderful contribution towards correcting some of the more ignorant problems of western society.

[Katrina · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very interesting. I think any one interested in women’s history or women’s health would benefit from reading this. I am really glad I read this book!!

Pages 20&21 are must reads!

Anyone who is involved in the legal system in anyway should read pages 107-115.

Chapter 5 is a must read!!

Chapter 7 is an eye opener. It talks about how women are blamed for more than their fair share in marital problems and child rearing. At times it feels like this is being justified. I think it feels that way because it is facts and statistics more than anything. I think this is a really important chapter to read. It might be one of the most valuable chapters of any book I have read.

Pages 326-333 are must reads!!!

My concern is with a growing tendency to turn the tables from us-them thinking (with women as the problem) to them-us thinking (with men as the problem). Framing the question in terms of polarities, regardless of which pole is the valued one, immediately sets up false choices for women and men. It continues to divide the world into men and women as if these categories were unified opposites. It obscures the fact that the opposing qualities associated with masculinity and femininity are caricatures to begin with. It perpetuates what I will argue is a misguided belief that there is something special and different about woman's nature, an attitude that historically has served to keep women in their place.
It continues to use the male norm, although this time to define what is supposedly right with women instead of what is wrong with
them. Moreover, celebrations of "women's natural ways of being" have, I believe, the potential to be as oppressive to women as the denigrating attitudes they replace. Pg.60


The best possible understanding of history remains the best possible hope for our future. Pg.79


The sameness/difference approach misses the fact that hierarchy of power produces real as well as fantasied differences, differences that are also inequalities Pg. 124

"equality as acceptance" rather than "equality as sameness.
'Equality as acceptance means that instead of regarding cultural and reproductive differences as problems to be eliminated, we would aim to eliminate the unequal consequences that follow from them. We would ask how to achieve equality despite gender differences, not how to achieve equality by getting rid of (or pretending to ignore) gender differences. We would no longer accept the prevailing male norm as always the legitimate one, while trying to find special circumstances to accommodate women or minorities who are trying to measure up to it. We would stop labeling women's experiences Pg 125

Likewise, people speculate endlessly about the inner motives that keep battered wives from leaving their husbands. Are these women masochistic? Do they believe they deserve abuse? Are they codepen-dent, unwittingly collaborating in the abuse against them? Whatever the answer, the problem is construed as the battered wives, not the battering husbands. But when experts ponder the reasons that some husbands abuse their wives, they rarely ask comparable questions: Are these men sadistic? Do they believe they deserve to abuse others? Rather, their explanations focus on the pressures the men are under, their own abuse as children, or the wife's provocations. Male violence is not considered a problem that is inherent in male psychology; but the female recipients of male violence are responsible because they "provoked" it or "tolerated" it or "enabled it" or are "masochistic problems presumed to be inherent in female psychology." A man who gets into a fight with a stranger and hits him may spur an observer to ask: "Why is this guy so aggressive and hostile?" But if the same man goes home and hits his wife, the same observer is likely to wonder: "Why does she stay with him?" Pg. 176

People who are rigidly masculine or feminine across all situations are less healthy, mentally and physically, than people who can adopt the best qualities associated with both extremes. Pg.293

Women are twice as likely as men to suffer from major depression, for reasons more often cultural than biological, according to the results of a three-year study released Wednesday.
Poverty, unhappy marriage, reproductive stress and sexual and physical abuse are stronger factors than biological conditions in accounting for the difference in depression rates between men and women, the American Psychological Assn. researchers reported . .
"The task force found that women truly are more depressed than men, primarily due to their experience of being female in our contemporary culture," Pg.311


Both men and women, in the short term, have something to gain from things not changing, in not redressing the balance of power, or changing the rules of the game. But for both sexes, in the long run, clinging to old habits is dangerous and, in this world, deadly. -Robin Lakoff Pg. 329

In contrast to the contemporary impulse to pit the contributions of one group against those of another male versus female, East versus West, black versus white I wish to argue here on behalf of Anna Julia Cooper's vision one hundred years ago: a vision of the whole, rather than of segments. I believe it is possible to eradicate (or at least minimize) the assumption of "normal" men and "differ-ent women. But we will not accomplish this in the movement toward particularization, in which each gender, race, or ethnicity seeks only its own validation, celebrates only itself, and rewrites its history and character in false phrases of its own superiority.
We need some new stories, and we need to be critical of many of the existing ones. For ourselves as individuals, one way we can evaluate our stories is not by whether they are "true' or "false"-
most of the time, in trying to find the reasons for the complicated things we do, we can never know. But we can try to examine what the story leaves out, for all stories leave out something. Genetic stories tend to omit experience; psychoanalvtic stories tend to overlook the environment; my own favorite social-psychological stories tend to ignore biology; childhood blame stories leave out current events. We do best, I believe, by adding explanations to our quiver of life stories rather than limiting ourselves to only one.
Further, rather than trying to find the "right" story or the *official" story, we can direct our attention to the origins, contexts, and consequences of stories. What are the supports for narratives that rely heavily on a vocabulary of disease, deficiency, victimhood, and astrological destiny rather than a vocabulary of power, context, and current relationships? As I've tried to show, society has a considerable investment in promoting the former set of stories as explanations for why women are the way they are, and why they differ from men. Pg. 330

In fact, the preponderance of the evidence utterly contradicts these popular impressions. Women who juggle are better off in many ways than those who don't (though they are more tired!). The story of "superwomen," however, draws the heat away from anyone
or any institution that might be able to make it easier on the woman who has a family and a job. It draws attention away from husbands and employers, the division of family obligations, and the structure of corporations. It places the burden of adjustment on the woman, thereby eliminating the need to make adjustments elsewhere. Pg. 331

a story fails when it is sustained at great personal or social cost: when it has unforeseen long-term consequences, when the individual pays the price of living a lie, when a hidden toll is being taken, when it narrows vision instead of expanding it, or when it systematically leads to the exclusion or maltreatment of large segments of the population. Pg. 331-332

the philosophy of(cultural feminism has functioned to keep women focused on their allegedly stable and innate personality qualities instead of on what it would take to have a society based on the qualities we value in both sexes. Further, quite apart from their lack of research validation, these ideas get men off the hook in family arrangements, ignore men's affections and attachments, and underwrite the ideology that women are best suited to certain kinds of jobs. At their worst, they distract us from the hard work we have to do, women and men together, to humanize jobs, foster children's welfare, save the environment, and combat corporate mindlessness.
Stories have consequences, but stories change, and how and why they do is the heart of the human enterprise. Our narratives can reclaim the psychological qualities historically associated with female deficiency, but within a framework of synthesis rather than opposition. Dependency, typically viewed as feminine and a sign of childish regression, is a basic human need. Women do not need to stop being conciliatory in order to be leaders, or to stop caring for others in order to be autonomous. Connection and autonomy are both necessary in human life. The goal for both sexes should be to add qualities and skills, not lose old ones.
We can tell more flexible stories, ones that recognize that our qualities, skills, and actions change over the life span. People develop, learn, have adventures and new experiences; and as they do. their notions of masculinity and femininity change too. The rules of gender are not frozen at one moment in time, whether the psychologically fashionable time is thought to be infancy, childhood, or adolescence. Pg. 332


We can become aware of the hidden agendas not only in old-fashioned stories but also in modern ones. It is easy to discern the political purpose of the diagnosis of drapetomania, that nineteenth-century disease" that afflicted slaves with an uncontrollable urge to escape from slavery. Yet it is equally important to identify the uses of diagnoses such as PMS and Self-defeating Personality Disorder today. It is easy to see the bias in labeling as "sick" those women, years ago, who refused to play their traditional roles and wanted instead to be lawyers, scientists, and artists. It is equally important to recognize the bias in labeling as "sick" (e.g., "addicted" those women today who play the traditional role of caretaker too well.
We can realize that our favorite life stories may not apply to everyone in the same ways. We have learned that the male model of adult development does not apply to all women, the medical model of sexuality does not apply to all women or men, the female model of emotional expressivity does not apply to all men. Likewise, there is no one right way to have (or combine) a marriage, a baby, or career; no one right way to be straight or gay; no one right way to be a parent There is, in sum, no one right way to be no single story that. fits all.
Finally, we can resist the temptation to see the world in opposites.
Western ways of thinking emphasize dualisms and opposites, and pose many questions of human life in fruitless either-or terms. Are we rational or emotional creatures? Will we win or lose? Is this decision good or bad? Are we uniquely human or basically mammal-ian? Are we shaped by nature or nurture, mind or environment? Are we masculine or feminine? As long as the question is framed this way-"What can we do about them, the other, the opposite?" _ it can never be answered, no matter which sex is being regarded as
"hem." The question, rather, should be this: What shall we do about us, so that our relationships, our work, our children, and our planet will flourish. Pg. 333

[Caley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic. The best, most complete, and most helpful book on gender I've ever read. Tavris' ideas deal mostly with the cage our culture imposes by evaluating women to male standards and demanding they adhere to female standards simultaneously. What she does that so many other feminist authors fail to do, though, is offer coherent solutions.

Tavris is a psychologist, and does a very good job of backing up her claims with research. Much of it is dated, though, so as always I suggest looking further into things for yourself. I found most of her assertions held up very well to more up-to-date findings, and those that were incorrect were simply due to inadequate research available at the time (her denial of the g-spot and female ejaculation has since been proven wrong). She is also very fair to men, and maintains that both genders suffer from their culturally-imposed roles.

Most importantly, she points out the error in much feminist (and other) thought about gender: the tendency to polarize things such as nature vs. nurture, equality vs. separate spheres, good vs. bad characteristics of masculine vs. feminine behavior. Her main idea is that we should focus on achieving equality in our results, not just our laws and policies. Treating men and women equally is the ideal, but it ignores the cultural barriers placed on women's achievement and personal growth - and in most cases, women are blamed for this because they fail to act like men and assert themselves in the workplace, demand equal share of housework and childrearing, etc.

Not only that, but there are some things that simply do not have a proper male/female analogy: how do we treat maternity leave in a way that is "fair" when there is no comparable male experience? Is it fair to think of pregnancy as a disability? Tavris deals with these and other problems with such awareness and intelligence that her ideas continue to prove true almost twenty years after the book was written.

[Missy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tavris does an excellent job exploring how everything from PMS to Victimization continues to let men off of the hook and allows us, as a society, to avoid having the tough conversations about what would actually help women have the same standing as men. The scariest thing: this book was written in 1991 and dang if not much has changed!! In her discussion about Victimization she even mentions "me too." Of course, this was WELL before the current meaning of that phrase...and yet nothing has changed. Required reading for those who label themselves as feminists. Also required reading for those who want to understand more about feminism. Tavris's approach is well-argued, rational, and with supporting evidence.

[Valerie]

Stephen Jay Gould noted with delight that the title of this book was borrowed from his own The Mismeasure of Man. The main issue here (as I read it), is that the 'average human' is not a '60 kilogram man', and medical studies that assume so are bound to be misleading--often fatally so. As John Glenn objects to being an 'n of 1' in his research project comparing the effects of aging with the effects of weightlessness, one main goal of this book is to have more studies done on women, or (better yet) on both men and women, of varying sizes, shapes, etc. The median is not (and must not be) the message.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dense read, but many fascinating hypothoses. Her basic premise of is that men and women are more alike than different, which current theory in science, (biological, sociologcical, sexually, in communication) has men and women on polar opposites in most areas. And she posits that this hypothesis holds true in most of the animal kingdom below humans. Sort of a plea to us to not judge the opposite sex so stringently.

[Darnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent overview of the subject despite the dated studies, as all but a few are still valid and relevant. The critique of common methodologies and several key experiments gives grounds to ignore 90% of gender-related headlines out of hand, which in my opinion is worth the cover price alone.

[Cat. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Giving up. Too deep (hah), and I feel like I'm living my early thirties all over again. Which is not a good thing in my case. Don't like the cover either.

I would recommend it for research. It has some gems of information in there in the Nature v. Nurture argument. But I'm just not up for this right now.

[Chris Loves to Read · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Equality as acceptance means that instead of regarding cultural and reproductive differences as problems to be eliminated, we would aim to eliminate the unequal consequences that follow from them.' AWESOME book and met Carol at TAM8, super nice!

[Karen-Leigh · Rating 3 out of 5]

When a man is the measure of all things...women are always trying to measure up. The custom of treating man as the normal standard, woman as abnormal. The real differences lie not in gender , but in power, resources and life experiences.

[Alexa · Rating 5 out of 5]

A disapointment. I'd hoped it was going to answer some questions about what women/men simmilarities. Instead it answered questions about the politics of who is labled with what qualities.

[Noel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Common knowledge is usually an oxymoron. Seek the unbiased, documented information.

[Kaethe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amanda mentioned it on Pandagon, and apparently, it holds up very well.

[Vinaysheel Rao · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is trash. I cannot elaborate because I'd be mansplaining.

[Lady V. · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's nothing more common than an old feminist text and gross amounts of cissexism (among other things). But if we put that aside, this is a great breakdown of the often spurious, unscientific, and quite frankly bizzare theories scientiest and the general population conjure up to explain women's "woes" when better (and arguably more importantly, actually scientifically-backed) theories would make more sense. She goes to great lengths to expose how privileging a particular point of view is harmful, regardless if it centers men or women*. But even when it centers women, patriarchal constructs would transform it to be ultimately harmful to women regardless. My only other real critique is that she is both herself guilty of, and did not advocate strongly enough for hesitance, for slowness that is absolutely *vital* for the scientific method. The way we do science must be tempered by our own ignorance, and that is rarely done, especially when there are other forces at play than a search for answers (and there always are). The author herself is guilty of this, and is part of the reason it reads like a lot of other dated feminist works.

[Emily]

God, the 90s were a different time. I picked this up because I thought it would be an amusing follow-up to The Mismeasure of Man (they have nothing to do with each other, although Stephen Jay Gould gave it a shout-out in his introduction).

It is chiefly interesting as a historical document; it's an excellent example of the limitations of second-wave feminism. Much of what Tavris argues is correct and, alas, much of it is still all-too-relevant. But it's wild how narrow the scope is. When Tavris talks about women she is talking about cis, straight, white, mostly middle-class American women. There are only a handful of references to race, sexuality, and class.

I enjoyed Tavris' breezy writing style and she made some interesting points, but without any awareness of intersectionality this book isn't ultimately very useful today.

[Bruce Stephenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting but challenging read. Carol Tavris sure knows her stuff and turns her incredible knowledge, insight, and experience to the problem of how women are perceived and treated in a society in which male characteristics are the norm. It is interesting to learn how women have not often been included in health studies, how certain conditions unique to females are perceived as deficiencies, and so on. What I like about Carol's perspective is she advocates for progress through the abolition of opposites and dualism. "As long as the question is framed this way - "What can we do about them, the other, the opposite?" - it can never be answered, no matter which sex is being regarded as "them". The question, rather, should be this: What shall we do about us, so that our relationships, our work, our children, and our planet will flourish?
An important, well-referenced book that is a challenging read. While there are parts that are more accessible than others (there are a few more personal stories that are used to make some important points), I feel that overall most people would struggle to get through this book. It is quite dense and prompts much thought on almost every page.

[Fraser Sherman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tavris looks at the history and effects of seeing men as the default setting for "normal human" and women as "different." She covers arguments about innate male superiority (constantly shifting reasons always leading to the same conclusion), female superiority, different mating strategies, PMS, psychological and medical studies and handwaving issues of class, power and race.
Tavris doesn't claim the two sexes are identical, but argues persuasively (admittedly I'm biased) it's more about life experiences than anything innate and fixed. For a 1992 book, this dates less than might be expected: sociobiological explanations for gender differences have gone in the dustbin, but evolutionary psychology fills exactly the same slot. A very good job.

[Abdullah · Rating 5 out of 5]

i'm a MUSLIM , i'd like to give you an example from the HOLY QURAN as to FEMALE & MALE :

لحجرات - الآية 13يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ

(13) O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted .

we believe as of this , female and male are the same .

[Maggie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking and equally critical of many extreme movements. Analyzed the many ways in which society views men as the standard and women as deviant. Focuses on tendency to polarize the two genders as binary opposites when there is actually more variation within the genders than between in many areas. Also pointed out the legitimate differences of experiences between men and women. Lesson in balancing context and story of situation in order to manage your own situation.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read. I particularly liked the 2nd to last chapter - but overall, some great insights regarding communication differences between the sexes. A fascinating table titled Do Men and Women Differ with subheadings:Where the differences are and Where the differences aren't yielded some interesting insights.
Probably a bit out of date - published just under 30 years ago

[Daniel Schulte · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really long book for me. Not that the book itself was really long, but the subject matter was just difficult to wade through sometimes. There were some interesting ideas here, such as women being compared to "male" standards in most areas of life, but men are compared to "female" standards in relationships.

[izad]

REF: La imaginación feminista: Debates y transformaciones disciplinares en el capítulo de Dau García Dauder