Customer Reviews

Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As a social psychologist, I read this book with some eagerness, thinking of it as a potential text for my classes. However, I ended up feeling rather disappointed and concluding that--while it makes some good points--it suffers from many of the same criticisms it points out in the work of feminist scholars.

As an example, the book devotes an inordinate amount of space to criticizing the work of Carol Gilligan. I was actually glad to see this, because the authors correctly point out that Gilligan's work has had a disproportionate and scary amount of influence on cultural thought despite severe methodological flaws (e.g., small sample, reliance on unrepresentative anecdotal accounts, refusal to allow other researchers access to data, etc.). However--and without any apparent sense of irony--Barnett and Rivers rely heavily on anecdotes from their own clinical practices throughout the book to make THEIR points. And if it's not okay for Gilligan to do so, why is it okay for them?

A second feature I found disappointing in this book is that the authors misinterpret "small differences" to mean trivial or meaningless. For example, a frequent refrain throughout the book is that studies comparing genders find more variability within genders than between genders. This is undoubtedly true, but it does not mean that the obtained mean differences are unimportant. As an illustration, take the height difference in men and women. Few people would argue that men, on average, are taller than women. Of course, there is greater variability within genders than between; in other words, the difference between the tallest ten percent of men and shortest ten percent is greater than the difference between the average man and woman. But that does not call into question the documented sex difference: Men are, on average, taller than women, and this difference reflects innate biological sex differences. Height, of course, is a trivial trait I chose to make the point vividly, but the same argument can be made about any of the cognitive and psychological traits that solid science (e.g., peer-reviewed meta-analyses) reveals to demonstrate sex differences. To give a more substantive example, while men and women do not differ on overall IQ, they DO differ in the shape of the distribution, with men being disproportionately represented in the tails. To put it bluntly, there are more severely retarded men...but there are also more male geniuses. Why, nobody knows, but it does no good to try to pretend these differences don't exist or to blame it on some nonexistent glass ceiling that is preventing women from geniushood.

In short, I feel this book goes too far in trying to deny the existence of sex differences. I agree with the authors that the "Men are from Mars" and Carol Gilligan crowd is doing a disservice to men and women alike by stereotyping and pigeonholing us and insisting that we do not have the capabilities or flexibilities to show traits associated with the opposite gender. But I think "Same Difference" undermines their own argument by insisting too steadfastly that there are no differences at all, and their argument is undermined further by a willingness to rely on anecdotal evidence they (rightfully) dismiss in others' work. Yes, there is tremendous variability within genders, and both men and women are capable of an infinite range of behaviors, emotions, and talents. But men and women also differ, reliably, consistently, and in statistically significant and practically important ways. To pretend that they don't is the tale of the emperor's new clothes all over again.

This book was a breath of fresh air for me, as I will bet it has been for many others - both male and female.

I must respectfully disagree with those who would say that the authors of this book are trying to minimize the differences between men and women. They agree that there are, indeed, differences. But the point they make - and I feel eloquently - is that the differences are not as sharply drawn as we think and they do not need to hamper communication between the genders and/or limit what life choices either gender "must" make.

Before I go on, let me state that I am a feminine acting woman. I have a lot of interests that fit the image people have of women "should" be like. I'm a certified bilingual elementary school teacher, I teach piano lessons, I love children and pets. I even knit teddy bears. However, as I now look over this list, I realize that my interests are not just limited to the female of the species. Perhaps more men will choose certain careers and more women will choose others; it could very well be. Perhaps we will always have more female kindergarten teachers than male and more male engineers than female. Maybe more women than men will knit and crochet and more men will tinker with engines and motors in general and automobiles in particular. But steering either men or women away from certain careers because of gender can be damaging to an individual. Somewhere we need to understand that each person is an individual and that trying to stuff people into arbitrary categories hurts individuals and the possible contribution they can make to society.

Perhaps the difference in physical size and strength (a very real one) could account for more men going into certain professions and more women going into others. But there are others such as engineering into which more women are entering. I had an enlightening talk with an older female friend who was a math teacher who said that when she was a young woman studying math she could not go into engineering because she, being a woman, was not permitted to go out into the field. The authors of this book tell about a school counselor who guided girls away from studying math - and I could bet that there are many examples of this.

I feel strongly about this because I was, at one time, struggling with it myself. For many years I thought that I as a female could never be logical. Consequently, I didn't study the wonderful subject of logic. When I finally did, I was surprised to find out that I did quite well. In fact, my logic professor (a man) told me that in his classes, women actually outperformed men! While this was just his classes and didn't include statistics from other logic classes, it was certainly food for thought. The same thing held true for mathematics. I often had trouble in algebra (a trait I've since found out that I have in common with a lot of men, including author C. S. Lewis) but later on I found out that with extra study, conferring with people who knew more about it that I did, and a big dose of self-discipline, I could do it, too.

I also feel strongly about this because in spite of my "feminine" activities, I still did not fit the stereotype of women. I married late in life - in my 50's. The drive and desire that makes many women want to have a home and family was left out of my makeup, and I lived happily as a bachelorette for many years before meeting the man who is now my husband. I put up with a lot of verbal garbage from people because I stayed single for so long.

I have wondered if men who don't fit the stereotype feel the same way. I think about my father who is a very nurturing, caring person who is at his happiest and most vital mindset when with his grandchildren. How about a man who is not good in math? (And there are many) How about a tenderhearted man? (And there are many)

The differences between men and women should not have to hamper the communication between the two genders. A good dose of listening skills and old-fashioned good manners can eliminate a lot of communication problems.

Essentially a critical overview of gender ideas in current Western culture, the authors provide a comprehensive argument that the differences between genders are largely cultural constructions.
A variety of sources are cited, from scientific research to influential popular media.

Having just read the entire book, I am surprised that reviewers are criticising the authors so harshly for providing an occasional anecdote along with all the other viewpoints represented in the book. The vast majority of this work is citation, critique and synthesis.

The book could have done without it's sparse anecdotal content, and would be MORE scholarly for the lack of it, but omission of all such contect would have perhaps left the book ten pages (a generous estimate) shorter than it's current length of two hundred fifty four pages (discounting the 23 pages of source notes in the rear of the book).

The vast majority of this work consists of cited research and solid logical criticism of that research. This is essentially analytical, not at all written in an anecdotal style. Nonetheless the style is engaging: entertaining and easily understandable.

It is a very informative book, and the basic point and conclusion of this book is well-supported by the arguments made and by the variety and quality of sources that inform these arguments.

Comparison of this work to other work on gender is very favorable in terms of the variety of information adressed, and the soundness of it's critiques. I would recommend this work to anyone I know as an informative and interesting read that may lead to a greater understanding of gender and the social elements of it's construction.

It would be interesting to supplement a work like this with a work related to the science behind cognitive classification systems related to handling information - and particularly how thinking in polarities affects our lives for better or worse. Sometimes polarized thinking makes life much easier and sometimes it makes life miserable.

The New Inquisition would be an interesting supplement to "Same Difference" because it concerns cognitive processing, social conditioning, and belief systems. I haven't read it in a long time, so I'm not prepared to give a really solid critique of it- I'll just say it's at least mostly interesting.

The New Inquisition

It's about time someone took on the sexist rubbish which now
is killing our society.I for years have been furious at the
writers who insult men and women by placing us in conflict,
by telling us we are different and unable to understand one
another.My guess is the books sold because of people's
inability to see one another as individuals.
So much harm has already been done.A friend's son picked up
"The Wonder of Girls" from a friends home and went telling
everyone in town "girls are dumb and can't do math" This has
a horrible effect on our children.
As a woman,I grew so tired of hearing how women are
"supposed" to be "more emotional" "have low self esteem"and
are more prone to "depression" I was never infected with any
of these problems.And then if a man is depressed he's afraid
someone will see him as "weak" and he won't get help.
Some of us have been able to look beyond the gender rubbish
and see it as a good sell for the writers instead of the
gospel truth.
If we don't think of one another as individuals,there will
be unfairness in school,the work place and in life.
I even saw a site for a women's college which stated
" women have different learning styles" I was thinking,what?
People have different learning styles,not the sexes.
This book is so refreshing!

I am reading Same Difference much to the dismay of my husband. It is a wonderful book that eloquently relates what I have been feeling for years - ever since my mother and father got me a copy of John Grey's Mars and Venus book for a wedding gift. My husband, of course, loves this book as it puts him in a position of power in our relationship. I hated it from the first page. Same Difference, however, makes much more sense to me. I don't have "natural" mothering instincts and caring for others does not come easily. Now I realize that I am not a failure as a woman, nor am I a "manly" woman. Honestly, I cannot tell you how fascinating this book is and what an impact it is having on my life at this very moment. I am going to send a copy to my sister and my best friend, both recently married, so that they will know they do not have to settle into traditional power structures and live unhappily. And perhaps I will send my mother a copy as well - though it may be too late for her!

Though this book does have it's flaws, it sparked my interest in the meaning of gender. At first I checked out this book from the library after having a hard time trying to figure out what men want. Those books were telling me to act "feminine" to act in ways that I did not particularly think the sort of man that I wanted would desire in the first place. Reading this book helped me learn of gender and that even if we have physical differences, we are still all humans no matter what society labels us to do. I now look at people as individuals regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, and other labels. And this book was the start of my new viewpoint.

This book goes a little too far in denying differences between the sexes but on the whole it should be read by anyone who, like myself, finds sociobiology/evolutionary psychology an exciting new area for understanding ourselves.

The fault in the sociobiology/EP argument is that it can come across as creationist in that it makes human nature appear fixed today just as if it has been created by God. This is a serious misunderstanding and miscommunication.

In the example of height differences between the sexes used by Monica J Kern, the problem is that we can see those differences and can see how tall some women are and how short some men are. With brain differences we cannot see the variability and it is too easy to make the wrong assumptions about people based on their sex which in turn constrains their behaviour.

Regarding evolution, we could look at gibbons and see that the males and females are virtually indistinguishable in body and behaviour yet we share a common ancestor with them. There has never been a FIXED body and behaviour for any species and the human species could evolve into one where males and females converge in body and behaviour - it will depend on environmental factors and what traits are better at surviving and reproducing.

Both sexes have a vast range of skills and srategies that have simply been used in different contexts for most of the past.
Barnett and Rivers are right to remind us about the similarities and the overlap between the sexes and, most importantly, how studies can be used to create myths about sex differences.

My point would be that there are differences that are a result of the different ways the sexes successfully reproduced in the past but that these differences are not immutable. From the variation that exists within the sexes today the future humans will be selected - and it just might turn out to be that this future human is drawn from the middle-ground of the male/female divide and is the only way our species and planet turns out to have survived into the future.

It could turn out to be a great tragedy if we limit the potential of each sex to what we believe is some fixed way of being - after all, isn't it said that insanity is not realising that if you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you always got? Add nuclear weapons to the traditional male and we'll end up with nothing at all - along with all the other species that became extinct because they were unable to adapt and change.

As a transgendered person, I am particularly sensitive to gender roles and the double standards that come along with it. I am glad to see books like this blow away all the cobwebs and myths of gender related behavior. Yes sometimes it is possible to measure mean differences between genders but even these measureable differences are minor in the bigger picture of life. I have realized how much our society has become muddled in the politics of gender warfare particulary that from gender femininsts who have been the most active over the last few decades propagating lies about the systematic oppression of women, patriarchies, uneven pay, glass ceilings etc which have only resulted in angry, delusional women and confused, apologetic men. So I wholeheartedly love to see books which demonstrately prove that we are all just individuals all capable of exactly the same types of behaviour no matter what gender you belong to.

It is about time that we revert back to an individualistic approach and abandon ideas that gender defines who we are. This book may not be the greatest insight nor is it the most scientifically balanced but if it encourages others to take up the fight to prove once and for all that gender is an irrelevant tag in an individualistic society then this book will be remembered as an important milestone.

I just wanted to say that I finished reading your book last night, and it brought me back to being in Women's Studies classes in the early 90's! I am now married, with one child, but WOW!! Thank you so much for exposing what these theories are actually doing to women.

I have always thought that the Mars/Venus stuff was crazy, and couldn't believe how much of it people were buying. When I was pregnant, attachment parenting was the big thing with all my friends, and I read the Sears books cover to cover. What they don't tell you is that attachment parenting is not parenting - it is mothering plain and simple. They also don't believe that fathers can be good enough, and I can't tell you how much guilt that brought me when our son had colic. Luckily, my husband knew it was crazy, and that he could take care of our son just as well (if not better during colic episodes)

So, thank you for writing this book!! It was absolutely wonderful, and I hope it becomes as much of a standard in women's studies classes as "In a Different Voice."

Gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children and our jobs: that's the contention of Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers in Same Difference: a hard-hitting social analysis which pinpoints groundless beliefs about 'natural' differences between the sexes. Generations have accepted the idea of intrinsic qualities and values differentiating men and women and leading to special strengths and weaknesses in each: the authors here argue that biological determinism is bunk - and chapters draw on years of research to prove it.