What do you think?
Rate this book
Taking Sex Differences Seriously
Most contemporary discussions of sex differences assume that they are determined by society rather than biology. It is society that teaches little girls to be feminine and little boys to be masculine--society that tells women to respond to babies and men to respond to sports. Reflecting the fashionable idea that male and female roles have been "socially constructed," most commentators speak of gender instead of sex. Because men and women are virtually interchangeable, so the argument goes, men should do an equal share of domestic and childrearing work so that women can compete equally outside the home There's only one problem with this beguiling vision of androgyny. Whatever we might like to believe, as Dr. Steven Rhoads shows, sex distinctions remain a deeply rooted part of human nature. In "Taking Sex Differences Seriously," Rhoads assembles a wealth of scientific evidence showing that these differences are "hardwired" into our biology. They range from the subtle (men get a chemical high from winning while women get one from nursing) to the profound (women with high testosterone levels are more promiscuous, more competitive, and more conflicted about having children than those with average levels.) Rhoads explores disparities in aggression and dominance, in sexuality and nurturing. He shows how denial of these differences has helped to create the sexual revolution, fatherless families, and policies such as Title IX, and the call for universal day care. But while insisting that we must take sex differences seriously, Rhoads also advocates discouraging some natural tendencies, like men's desire for irresponsible sex, and encouraging others, like women's greater interest and talent in caring for babies. In this provocative exploration of the masculine and feminine, Steven Rhoads dispels contemporary clichés and spotlights biological realities. Meticulously researched and elegantly written, "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" is a groundbreaking look at the way we are.
362 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 1, 2010
Reading this book mostly infuriated me. Sloppy scholarship, a very clear political agenda, and an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence made Rhoads' central argument an even harder sell than it otherwise would have been: We should return to the gender roles of the 1950s. (If you didn't live through the 1950s, the show Mad Men is a good reminder of what being a woman would have been like during those days.)
But that's not to say that I didn't find portions of the book interesting. "Portions" might be overstating it, actually--more like summaries of individual studies. For instance, did you know that a girl's biological father emits pheromones that delay the onset of menstruation while a step-father's pheromones actually bring on an earlier onset? Fascinating.
And I also sympathize with Rhoads' assertion that the effects of the sexual revolution have been mixed at best. I do believe that there are few women who do not crave companionship and children in addition (or sometimes instead of) a career. And I can see how the availability of relatively "easy" sex prohibits many men from committing to marriage.
However, personal beliefs aside, I am suspect of the "evolutionary psychology" that leads Rhoads to many of his conclusions. Someone better versed in this field correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read in this area seems pure conjecture. Like a bunch of people sitting in a room saying "And then humans did THIS! Yeah, that makes sense!"
If you're interested in a scientific study of sex differences, there have got to be better books out there.
But that's not to say that I didn't find portions of the book interesting. "Portions" might be overstating it, actually--more like summaries of individual studies. For instance, did you know that a girl's biological father emits pheromones that delay the onset of menstruation while a step-father's pheromones actually bring on an earlier onset? Fascinating.
And I also sympathize with Rhoads' assertion that the effects of the sexual revolution have been mixed at best. I do believe that there are few women who do not crave companionship and children in addition (or sometimes instead of) a career. And I can see how the availability of relatively "easy" sex prohibits many men from committing to marriage.
However, personal beliefs aside, I am suspect of the "evolutionary psychology" that leads Rhoads to many of his conclusions. Someone better versed in this field correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read in this area seems pure conjecture. Like a bunch of people sitting in a room saying "And then humans did THIS! Yeah, that makes sense!"
If you're interested in a scientific study of sex differences, there have got to be better books out there.
June 15, 2012
one of my all time favorite books. what a wonderful, thought provoking, engaging read. there is this distorted view out that that tries to convince men and women we are exactly the same and our sex is interchangeable and socially constructed. but male and female bodies were made to complement one another.. your body is not accident, your body express the person. and the author pinpoints so many relatable topics from title 9, to daycare, to how we pursue relationships, to hormones..i love this book.
September 18, 2012
Really good book. I wish people would look past their own opinions that have actually been constructed by society and look at the things that naturally set us apart, things that have put men and women in two separate categories since the beginning of mankind, and see that they shouldn't be calling them "1950s gender roles" but rather "for all of time sex roles" and this book brings those hard hitting facts to life.
December 21, 2007
If you are a feminist, you may not like this book. I found some of it a bit hard to swallow.However, if you allow yourself to open your mind a bit, this book gives frank insight into the differences between men and women and why we should spend more time understanding and embracing these differences.
June 26, 2026
AN ARGUMENT FOR BASICALLY ‘CONSERVATIVE, TRADITIONAL’ GENDER DIFFERENCES
Steven Rhoads (1939-2026) taught public policy at the University of Virginia for more than thirty years.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “In 1996, a botched circumcision left one of two male identical twins without a penis. A leading sex psychologist, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, persuaded the parents to raise the toddler as a female. When the child was 22 months old, surgeons castrated him and constructed what appeared from the outside to be female genitalia. Called ‘Brenda’ and treated like a girl, the child was later prescribed female steroids… When Brenda was 12, Dr. Money reported that she and her parents had adjusted well… In academia, numerous … psychology and sociology texts used the case to argue that sex roles are basically learned… the girl’s parents ‘bent over backwards to feminize the girl and succeeded.’ …
“Nonetheless, when the facts became more accurately known, it was clear that neither the chemicals nor the socialization efforts had succeeded in making Brenda a girl… researchers and journalists were able to show that Dr. Money had completely misrepresented the results of his experiment. In the early 1990s, they located the grown-up Brenda and found that she was now named ‘David,’ working in a slaughterhouse, married to a woman, and the adoptive father of three children… At age 15… she had been told the truth about her biological past. She announced that she had always felt like a male and wanted to become one again. She was given a mastectomy, male hormones and a constructed penis…
“As the real story of the reconstruction of David was made public, responsible researchers at Johns Hopkins… decided they should find out what had become of the many boys born without penises, most of whom had been castrated and subsequently raised as girls. Of 25 located… 14 had declared themselves to be boys… an expert in sexual differentiation asserted, ‘When the brain has been masculinized by exposure to testosterone [in the womb], it is kind of useless to say to this individual, ‘you’re a girl.' It is the impact of testosterone that gives males the feeling that they are men.’” (Pg. 1-3)
Rhoads explains “in most circles even the title of this book would be considered anachronistic. Instead of ‘sex differences,’ contemporary observers now usually say ‘gender differences.’ The term… reflects the assumption that any distinction between the sexes’ traits… and behaviors arise from society’s rigid gender roles, which channel people’s thoughts and actions in stereotypical directions. This book goes against that grain. It argues that sex differences are large, deeply rooted and consequential… The book presents evidence that these differences can be explained in part by hormones and other physiological and chemical distinctions between men and women.” (Pg. 4-5)
He continues, “this book focuses on three of the most fundamental human passions or instincts---sex, nurturing, and aggression or competitiveness---and shows how differently they manifest themselves in men and women. It reveals why these differences are a part of male and female natures, and why… we should take them into account when we think about our culture and public policies…. The culture wars are really about the role of women. But women are split between a majority who are traditionally feminine and others who are more like men than their sisters are. The latter group, which on average has been exposed to higher levels of testosterone, is more interested in the physical side of sex, more independent, assertive and career-oriented, more competitive in sports and more conflicted about children. The tension between the two kinds of women will arise in all parts of the book.” (Pg. 5)
He continues, “I see my task as explaining why the sex differences discussed are profound and why they should affect the way we think about specific policies and cultural issues… I do not think my burden of proof is high. I will not consider my argument disproved if some of my evidence is questioned. There is so much of it that what remains will be enough to challenge the dominant ideology of the last 30 years that sees men and women as having fundamentally equivalent natures and goals. Such an ideology, I believe, cannot withstand scrutiny. We need a new view of gender for a new century.” (Pg. 6)
He reports, “Our study of parental leave in academia shows that despite egalitarian gender ideologies, almost none of our male faculty, including male leave takers, do half the baby care. Even the … men … who say they DO perform half the work are not simultaneously recovering from pregnancy and delivery as their female counterparts are. Moreover, none of them is breastfeeding, a task more time-consuming and physically draining than any of the other tasks in the survey… Refusal to take sex differences seriously, rather than helping women, leads to a policy that could injure those seeking tenure by giving their male counterparts an unfair advantage. If men should begin to take leave in much greater numbers, far from leveling the playing field, gender-neutral postbirth leaves will tilt the field further in favor of men.” (Pg. 13)
He states, “If some female researchers reluctantly abandoned the view that socialization accounted for significant sex differences after seeing research evidence, others first began to doubt socialization theories when they had children of their own. Many educated, nonacademic feminists also became more open to the arguments for the centrality of sex differences after they became parents. This makes good sense because many sex differences become apparent at an astonishingly early age---well before society has had much of an opportunity to shape preferences, character, and behavior. And they often occur in families that are determined to raise gender-neutral children.” (Pg. 22)
He asserts, “scientists usually study women because the more interesting and consequential differences are among women. Those with below-average levels of testosterone seem more feminine; those with high testosterone often seem to mix the feminine and masculine. In short, while there is one basic type of man in civil society, there appear to be two types of women.” (Pg. 29) Later, he adds, “The real issue among men is whether they have enough testosterone or too much---whether they are masculine or hypermasculine.” (Pg. 32)
He says, “women like strong, powerful men---men with status who can dominate their male competitors and protect and provide for their mates. If this finding is provocative, the sexual, intimate side of women’s desire for dominant men is even more so.” (Pg. 66)
He notes, “In the last 50 years, the family has changed dramatically… Declining and less stable marriages have meant more fatherless families. At the same time, evidence has accumulated that two-parent families produce healthier children than alternative arrangements. While recognizing that two-parent families are not always possible, policy and cultural analysis must focus on innate male-female differences in sexuality if the number of fatherless families is to be reduced.” (Pg. 79)
He observes, “A serious sex education begins by emphasizing the reasons why female sexuality is dramatically unlike male sexuality; it explains the natural reasons for female vulnerability. It explains to women why they like to be courted and how their sexual restraint can encourage a courting culture. It makes possible an education that does much more to rein in male sexuality.” (Pg. 131)
He suggests, “Another explanation for males’ greater aggressiveness focuses on demonstrable biological differences. One study exploring interaction between adolescents and their families suggests that males are more aggressive than females not because they have a greater propensity to become angered, but because they are less able to control behavior resulting from that anger. As they are growing, many young men also have a particular problem with impulsive violence.” (Pg. 141)
He asserts, “After pubertal development is completed and the ‘soothing effects’ of estrogen are fully available, the worst of the female ‘backbiting, bickering and cattiness’ fades away. There is then a ‘marked rise’ in the female preference for cooperation over competition. The characteristic female superiority in reading emotions, responding to social cues and cultivating intimate relationships is further developed.” (Pg. 158)
He contends, “Only when we begin to take sex differences seriously enough to see that men are intrinsically more attracted to sports---and need sports competition more than women do---will we be able to design public policies that are just, functional, and sensible.” (Pg. 187)
“He summarizes, “Marriage underlies most of the foregoing discussion of cultural and policy issues. Fatherless families exist in the first place either because parents do not marry or because they divorce. The sexual revolution makes women unhappy because it interferes with men’s ability to transform their sexual passions into a more enduring love that inspires them to commit to a long-term future. Title IX administration is troubling, in part, because by removing a positive outlet for men’s aggression and urge for dominance, it eliminates one means of making them suitable for marriage. Finally, day care has provided a sorry substitute for the marital alternative, mothers, as the principal caretakers for children.” (Pg. 244)
He concludes, “Civilization needs more family-oriented men. If we took sex differences seriously, we would not be looking for new ways to weaken the historic role of men in the family. By challenging the titular familial leadership of the male and undermining the centrality of his role as provider for his family, modernity has reduced the number of men to whom marriage seems desirable. But the titular familial leadership role of the male survives… Wives doubtful about whether to grant titular household leadership to husbands should realize they may not have to give up much more than the title… A woman who seeks power outside the family though a dominant and aggressive personality will have to be as agile as Spider-man if she is to be happily married as well.” (Pg. 262-263)
Rhoads does not seek to use religion to support his conclusions, instead relying on social science research. This book will appeal to some, but be rejected by many others.
Steven Rhoads (1939-2026) taught public policy at the University of Virginia for more than thirty years.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “In 1996, a botched circumcision left one of two male identical twins without a penis. A leading sex psychologist, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, persuaded the parents to raise the toddler as a female. When the child was 22 months old, surgeons castrated him and constructed what appeared from the outside to be female genitalia. Called ‘Brenda’ and treated like a girl, the child was later prescribed female steroids… When Brenda was 12, Dr. Money reported that she and her parents had adjusted well… In academia, numerous … psychology and sociology texts used the case to argue that sex roles are basically learned… the girl’s parents ‘bent over backwards to feminize the girl and succeeded.’ …
“Nonetheless, when the facts became more accurately known, it was clear that neither the chemicals nor the socialization efforts had succeeded in making Brenda a girl… researchers and journalists were able to show that Dr. Money had completely misrepresented the results of his experiment. In the early 1990s, they located the grown-up Brenda and found that she was now named ‘David,’ working in a slaughterhouse, married to a woman, and the adoptive father of three children… At age 15… she had been told the truth about her biological past. She announced that she had always felt like a male and wanted to become one again. She was given a mastectomy, male hormones and a constructed penis…
“As the real story of the reconstruction of David was made public, responsible researchers at Johns Hopkins… decided they should find out what had become of the many boys born without penises, most of whom had been castrated and subsequently raised as girls. Of 25 located… 14 had declared themselves to be boys… an expert in sexual differentiation asserted, ‘When the brain has been masculinized by exposure to testosterone [in the womb], it is kind of useless to say to this individual, ‘you’re a girl.' It is the impact of testosterone that gives males the feeling that they are men.’” (Pg. 1-3)
Rhoads explains “in most circles even the title of this book would be considered anachronistic. Instead of ‘sex differences,’ contemporary observers now usually say ‘gender differences.’ The term… reflects the assumption that any distinction between the sexes’ traits… and behaviors arise from society’s rigid gender roles, which channel people’s thoughts and actions in stereotypical directions. This book goes against that grain. It argues that sex differences are large, deeply rooted and consequential… The book presents evidence that these differences can be explained in part by hormones and other physiological and chemical distinctions between men and women.” (Pg. 4-5)
He continues, “this book focuses on three of the most fundamental human passions or instincts---sex, nurturing, and aggression or competitiveness---and shows how differently they manifest themselves in men and women. It reveals why these differences are a part of male and female natures, and why… we should take them into account when we think about our culture and public policies…. The culture wars are really about the role of women. But women are split between a majority who are traditionally feminine and others who are more like men than their sisters are. The latter group, which on average has been exposed to higher levels of testosterone, is more interested in the physical side of sex, more independent, assertive and career-oriented, more competitive in sports and more conflicted about children. The tension between the two kinds of women will arise in all parts of the book.” (Pg. 5)
He continues, “I see my task as explaining why the sex differences discussed are profound and why they should affect the way we think about specific policies and cultural issues… I do not think my burden of proof is high. I will not consider my argument disproved if some of my evidence is questioned. There is so much of it that what remains will be enough to challenge the dominant ideology of the last 30 years that sees men and women as having fundamentally equivalent natures and goals. Such an ideology, I believe, cannot withstand scrutiny. We need a new view of gender for a new century.” (Pg. 6)
He reports, “Our study of parental leave in academia shows that despite egalitarian gender ideologies, almost none of our male faculty, including male leave takers, do half the baby care. Even the … men … who say they DO perform half the work are not simultaneously recovering from pregnancy and delivery as their female counterparts are. Moreover, none of them is breastfeeding, a task more time-consuming and physically draining than any of the other tasks in the survey… Refusal to take sex differences seriously, rather than helping women, leads to a policy that could injure those seeking tenure by giving their male counterparts an unfair advantage. If men should begin to take leave in much greater numbers, far from leveling the playing field, gender-neutral postbirth leaves will tilt the field further in favor of men.” (Pg. 13)
He states, “If some female researchers reluctantly abandoned the view that socialization accounted for significant sex differences after seeing research evidence, others first began to doubt socialization theories when they had children of their own. Many educated, nonacademic feminists also became more open to the arguments for the centrality of sex differences after they became parents. This makes good sense because many sex differences become apparent at an astonishingly early age---well before society has had much of an opportunity to shape preferences, character, and behavior. And they often occur in families that are determined to raise gender-neutral children.” (Pg. 22)
He asserts, “scientists usually study women because the more interesting and consequential differences are among women. Those with below-average levels of testosterone seem more feminine; those with high testosterone often seem to mix the feminine and masculine. In short, while there is one basic type of man in civil society, there appear to be two types of women.” (Pg. 29) Later, he adds, “The real issue among men is whether they have enough testosterone or too much---whether they are masculine or hypermasculine.” (Pg. 32)
He says, “women like strong, powerful men---men with status who can dominate their male competitors and protect and provide for their mates. If this finding is provocative, the sexual, intimate side of women’s desire for dominant men is even more so.” (Pg. 66)
He notes, “In the last 50 years, the family has changed dramatically… Declining and less stable marriages have meant more fatherless families. At the same time, evidence has accumulated that two-parent families produce healthier children than alternative arrangements. While recognizing that two-parent families are not always possible, policy and cultural analysis must focus on innate male-female differences in sexuality if the number of fatherless families is to be reduced.” (Pg. 79)
He observes, “A serious sex education begins by emphasizing the reasons why female sexuality is dramatically unlike male sexuality; it explains the natural reasons for female vulnerability. It explains to women why they like to be courted and how their sexual restraint can encourage a courting culture. It makes possible an education that does much more to rein in male sexuality.” (Pg. 131)
He suggests, “Another explanation for males’ greater aggressiveness focuses on demonstrable biological differences. One study exploring interaction between adolescents and their families suggests that males are more aggressive than females not because they have a greater propensity to become angered, but because they are less able to control behavior resulting from that anger. As they are growing, many young men also have a particular problem with impulsive violence.” (Pg. 141)
He asserts, “After pubertal development is completed and the ‘soothing effects’ of estrogen are fully available, the worst of the female ‘backbiting, bickering and cattiness’ fades away. There is then a ‘marked rise’ in the female preference for cooperation over competition. The characteristic female superiority in reading emotions, responding to social cues and cultivating intimate relationships is further developed.” (Pg. 158)
He contends, “Only when we begin to take sex differences seriously enough to see that men are intrinsically more attracted to sports---and need sports competition more than women do---will we be able to design public policies that are just, functional, and sensible.” (Pg. 187)
“He summarizes, “Marriage underlies most of the foregoing discussion of cultural and policy issues. Fatherless families exist in the first place either because parents do not marry or because they divorce. The sexual revolution makes women unhappy because it interferes with men’s ability to transform their sexual passions into a more enduring love that inspires them to commit to a long-term future. Title IX administration is troubling, in part, because by removing a positive outlet for men’s aggression and urge for dominance, it eliminates one means of making them suitable for marriage. Finally, day care has provided a sorry substitute for the marital alternative, mothers, as the principal caretakers for children.” (Pg. 244)
He concludes, “Civilization needs more family-oriented men. If we took sex differences seriously, we would not be looking for new ways to weaken the historic role of men in the family. By challenging the titular familial leadership of the male and undermining the centrality of his role as provider for his family, modernity has reduced the number of men to whom marriage seems desirable. But the titular familial leadership role of the male survives… Wives doubtful about whether to grant titular household leadership to husbands should realize they may not have to give up much more than the title… A woman who seeks power outside the family though a dominant and aggressive personality will have to be as agile as Spider-man if she is to be happily married as well.” (Pg. 262-263)
Rhoads does not seek to use religion to support his conclusions, instead relying on social science research. This book will appeal to some, but be rejected by many others.
August 26, 2016
This book took me almost a decade to read. Some of it was interesting, but it was mostly exhausting and infuriating every time I picked it up. I don’t know anyone who has claimed that men and women are exactly the same. Feminism has to do with creating opportunities that in the past have not been available to women. Rhoads is also (mostly) addressing 2nd wave feminism (the media’s fav) which was a period that lasted between 1960 to 1980s. We’ve moved past this.
Rhoads central argument is that we should rewind the clock and go back to 'traditional' (pre-1950s) roles for men and women. I didn’t look at all cited sources but found that those I looked up were misrepresented and used in a sloppy manner in which to support Rhoads’ obvious bias he (naturally) refuses to acknowledge. He makes overly broad assumptions and stereotypes men and women.
There was very little written about men. Although, I did learn that men like competition (sports), sex and their career/providing for women. I find it improbable that this is all there is to men.
I find the problem with these types of texts is that they try to undermine who I am for the sake of who they think women, as a whole population, should be. They attempt to stuff me into a box. Individuals are complex. And even women who are seen in a more traditional light defy some of these boundaries placed on them. I want the right to be president or a mother if I want to be, without all my actions being seen through the lens of femininity. I want to be seen as equal and not some strange anomaly for wanted to live my life on my terms. Mostly, this book and other similar texts just leave me exhausted. I’m exhausted always defending myself and my beliefs to people who think women should only be a certain way. I’ve even dated men like this and it’s exhausting to know I consistently don’t live up to their standards. As if I’m doing it all wrong.
Easy read if you can stomach the subject matter.
Rhoads central argument is that we should rewind the clock and go back to 'traditional' (pre-1950s) roles for men and women. I didn’t look at all cited sources but found that those I looked up were misrepresented and used in a sloppy manner in which to support Rhoads’ obvious bias he (naturally) refuses to acknowledge. He makes overly broad assumptions and stereotypes men and women.
There was very little written about men. Although, I did learn that men like competition (sports), sex and their career/providing for women. I find it improbable that this is all there is to men.
I find the problem with these types of texts is that they try to undermine who I am for the sake of who they think women, as a whole population, should be. They attempt to stuff me into a box. Individuals are complex. And even women who are seen in a more traditional light defy some of these boundaries placed on them. I want the right to be president or a mother if I want to be, without all my actions being seen through the lens of femininity. I want to be seen as equal and not some strange anomaly for wanted to live my life on my terms. Mostly, this book and other similar texts just leave me exhausted. I’m exhausted always defending myself and my beliefs to people who think women should only be a certain way. I’ve even dated men like this and it’s exhausting to know I consistently don’t live up to their standards. As if I’m doing it all wrong.
Easy read if you can stomach the subject matter.
July 18, 2011
Implied note from the author: Back to the kitchen and nursery for you, ladies; there's nothing for you out here.
September 5, 2012
Basically my whole philosophy on life into words. I love it! So insightful and true! Will anger many, but hopefully will help them in the end!
April 13, 2024
Unscientific and not worth anyone's time.
August 31, 2009
Just when you thought you’d never figure out the opposite sex, Dr. Rhoads does it for you.
Oddly enough, though its length and title suggest textbook, Dr. Rhoads and his colleagues offer tremendous insight into the cognitive and biological differences between the sexes in a very straight forward and clear manner. There is revelation, upon revelation in each chapter, almost each page.
Dr. Rhoads main thesis being that due to a well-intentioned but incorrect pressure to be politically correct, biologically natural gender roles and behaviors have been suppressed, confused, and mistreated in our modern society. In essence, men are men and women are women, and their general behavior is dictated by their nature as such, a theory which is backed up by endless amounts of data and research.
For instance, in relation to dating, Dr. Rhoads’ study found that the common desire of a woman to find a “sensitive man” to couple with is, in fact, a myth. A myth generated by a wave of thinking out of 2nd wave feminism that called for the reversal of gender roles, i.e. women being more aggressive and dominant, and men being more passive and open, when in fact, survey after survey of young women found those traits of the “sensitive man” to be the least appealing. Anonymous surveys showed women like confident men that exhibited behavior such as interrupting them when they spoke, politely kidding them about innocuous topics, and blatantly flirting with them.
It’s usually one fascinating topic after the other.
There is, at times, a feeling of an agenda on the part of Dr. Rhoads to not just outline his findings, but disprove or discredit those of the 2nd wave feminist movement. Understanding that he’s needs some sort of benchmark with which to compare and contrast, he seems to overstep the line in one chapter on children by recalling admissions by early 2nd wave feminists that they regret not going through the process of being a mother. Unnecessary, and almost cruel move on the authors part since it provided nearly no evidence for his later theories.
Yet, still a highly engaging and fascinating read. It may not answer all of your questions on the opposite sex, but it covers a lot.
Oddly enough, though its length and title suggest textbook, Dr. Rhoads and his colleagues offer tremendous insight into the cognitive and biological differences between the sexes in a very straight forward and clear manner. There is revelation, upon revelation in each chapter, almost each page.
Dr. Rhoads main thesis being that due to a well-intentioned but incorrect pressure to be politically correct, biologically natural gender roles and behaviors have been suppressed, confused, and mistreated in our modern society. In essence, men are men and women are women, and their general behavior is dictated by their nature as such, a theory which is backed up by endless amounts of data and research.
For instance, in relation to dating, Dr. Rhoads’ study found that the common desire of a woman to find a “sensitive man” to couple with is, in fact, a myth. A myth generated by a wave of thinking out of 2nd wave feminism that called for the reversal of gender roles, i.e. women being more aggressive and dominant, and men being more passive and open, when in fact, survey after survey of young women found those traits of the “sensitive man” to be the least appealing. Anonymous surveys showed women like confident men that exhibited behavior such as interrupting them when they spoke, politely kidding them about innocuous topics, and blatantly flirting with them.
It’s usually one fascinating topic after the other.
There is, at times, a feeling of an agenda on the part of Dr. Rhoads to not just outline his findings, but disprove or discredit those of the 2nd wave feminist movement. Understanding that he’s needs some sort of benchmark with which to compare and contrast, he seems to overstep the line in one chapter on children by recalling admissions by early 2nd wave feminists that they regret not going through the process of being a mother. Unnecessary, and almost cruel move on the authors part since it provided nearly no evidence for his later theories.
Yet, still a highly engaging and fascinating read. It may not answer all of your questions on the opposite sex, but it covers a lot.
February 14, 2011
9/24/10 Dr. Laura recommended this book & a book by Christina Hoff Summers (on my "to read" list too).
Finished most of the book & it's really interesting.
Note to self (the book marks are between the pages and I don't remember which of the two pages has the quote): Go back & copy quotes from- page 36 or 37, 60 or 61, 76 or 77, 78 or 79, 90 or 91, 120 or 121, 124 or 125, 146 or 147, 170 or 171, 174 or 175.
He defines himself as an evolutionist and refers to evolutionary opinions several times, so I kept that in mind as I read.
Finished most of the book & it's really interesting.
Note to self (the book marks are between the pages and I don't remember which of the two pages has the quote): Go back & copy quotes from- page 36 or 37, 60 or 61, 76 or 77, 78 or 79, 90 or 91, 120 or 121, 124 or 125, 146 or 147, 170 or 171, 174 or 175.
He defines himself as an evolutionist and refers to evolutionary opinions several times, so I kept that in mind as I read.
March 23, 2013
Really enlightening. He says things about male/female differences that people don't dare to acknowledge, and he has solid evidence for it. I think he's right, but I don't know what can be done about it. Have to admit it starts ploddingly, but the writing style is less of an issue as you go on.
April 25, 2008
Really enlightening. He says things about male/female differences that people don't dare to acknowledge, and he has solid evidence for it. I think he's right, but I don't know what can be done about it. Have to admit it starts ploddingly, but the writing style is less of an issue as you go on.
January 24, 2009
Facinating overview of a number studies documenting the ways that boys and girls are different.
January 21, 2009
Quite good.
Read
July 30, 2011Terrific Book!
Read
April 29, 2007I hate this man...again with the negative stars.
December 12, 2008
Good for raw data and citations, but his interpretation of some studies is tenuous.
Want to Read
October 16, 2018Recommended here (around the last six minutes of the video).
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews