Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance [Paperback]

Steven Goldberg (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 22, 1999

The first edition of this book was lavishly praised by many authorities as the most formidable demonstration of an unpopular truth: males rule in all societies known to history or anthropology, for reasons arising from innate physiology, a brute fact that can never be conjured away by tinkering with social institutions. This new edition has been completely rewritten in the light of two decades of scholarship and debate, taking account of all published criticisms of earlier editions.

Product Details

• Paperback: 254 pages
• Publisher: Open Court (January 22, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812692373
• ISBN-13: 978-0812692372
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (19 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #298,901 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

33 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Pay attention when he defines his terms..., March 9, 2006

By 

shilohmm - See all my reviews

This review is from: Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Paperback)

It is clear from the reviews here why Goldberg was so careful to clearly and repeatedly define his terms. One reviewer complains that Goldberg fails to show that all societies studied are patriarchal - but the reviewer is using a definition of patriarchal that is completely different from Goldberg's. Another reviewer here seems to think Goldberg does not consider Marie Curie a genius, apparently using Mensa's definition of genius - since Goldberg says Curie was "one of the greatest of experimental scientists," I doubt that the reviewer is correct. But Goldberg is not using the Mensa definition of genius - he is discussing one particular kind of genius, one with "an extraordinary aptitude for dealing with high-level abstraction," and adds that "It should be clear that 'genius' in these chapters refers to a level of aptitude demonstrated by only twenty or thirty people in the history of each of the intellectual, scientific, and artistic areas discussed." At issue here is not Marie Curie's I.Q. but whether she was capable of the high-level abstraction of Einstein.

I would say Marie Curie was comparable to Edison, not Einstein, which means under Goldberg's terms she was not a genius. Goldberg supports his argument that there are only male geniuses when it comes to high-level abstraction with the fact that there are female geniuses in other areas - "If an exceedingly high-level ability to deal with abstractions is a condition for genius in mathematics, philosophy, and chess, but not for genius in literature or the performing arts, we would expect women to attain the level of genius in literature or the performing arts, but not in mathematics, philosophy, and chess. This is precisely the case." I think it's a wee tad tricky to compare literature - scientific accomplishments are much more easily defined - but if you accept Goldberg's argument that there have been female geniuses in literature (as I do), this strengthens Goldberg's argument that women have less natural aptitude when it comes to dealing with high-level abstraction. If all the social constraints on women did not prevent them from producing literature, why are there no female geniuses in mathematics?

Goldberg makes a brilliant case that in every society "males occupy the overwhelming numbers of upper hierarchical positions... [there is an] association of high-status roles - whichever they happen to be in any given society - with males... [and an] association of dominance in male-female encounters and relationships with the male." But when in his last chapter he then concludes that male aggression makes men more childish than women, and when he argues that "Few women have been ruined by men; female endurance survives. Many men, however, have been destroyed by women who did not understand, or did not care to understand, male fragility" I begin to wonder what planet he lives on.

I'm not going to argue that women can be just as childish as men (although IMHO this is the case), but I will point out that 89 percent of all murders are committed by men, and female endurance, whatever that may be, gives you no edge when you're dead. Even when you get down to less easily measured methods of destruction, men rape more women than women do men, and the destructive impact of rape on women as a whole is considerable. I don't doubt there are men who "have been destroyed by women who did not understand... male fragility," but I strongly doubt that the number of men destroyed by women is considerably greater than the number of women destroyed by men. I rather suspect that more men have been destroyed by other men than have been destroyed by women.

As someone here said, much of this book reads like mathematical proofs. When Goldberg sticks to that sort of thing, he does very well. His arguments are lucid and precise, if sometimes repetitious. I frankly don't see how anyone who follows his arguments can remain unconvinced (every unconvinced review I've read thus far misrepresents - and thus presumably misunderstood - his arguments). Unfortunately, when he wanders from his thoroughly researched thesis, he sometimes drifts right into nonsense - but a couple of nonsense statements after more than two hundred pages of clear thought is livable.

15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Exhausting, but enlightening, May 22, 2006

By 

J. jones "Book fiend" (Anderson,IN) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Paperback)

I read Stephen Goldberg's book some years ago, and although it was somewhat difficult to follow, as it is very scholarly, and not intended for light reading, I found myself repeatedly going back to it for clarification, information, and to sharpen my own views about gender roles. This is not a book for close-minded people to read. It is very controversial, and raises at least as many questions as it proposes to answer. I also have to take issue with some of Goldberg's argument about female geniuses. It is well-documented that a disproportionate number of the world's most profoundly gifted individuals are male(according to IQ tests), but to say,or imply that women are not capable of the uppermost echelon of abstract thought is absurd. I'm sure Marilyn vos Savant, who holds the world's record for the highest recorded IQ, might also have a bone to pick with Goldberg.It is also interesting to note that males tend
to outnumber females at the other end of the scale, as a higher percentage of the world's most severely mentally challenged
individuals are also male.
I would say that if you can get past the exhausting details and footnotes, this book will at least help you clarify what you believe about patriarchy, male dominance and gender roles.

48 of 63 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Example of Courageous Scholarship, September 24, 2002

By 

Redmund K. Sum (Los Altos, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Paperback)

I read the earlier edition of this book a few years back, and now read the current version again.

Steven Goldberg's book advances a simple yet convincing theory: patriarchy and male dominance is universal among all known societies throughout history of which there is direct evidence. This universality begs an explanation, and that explanation is found in the difference in the hormonal systems of the two sexes, starting with the hormonal musculinization of the male at the fetal stage.

Simple and convincing to some, this theory is anathema to the politically correct crowd, especially the "feminists." Thus the earlier version of the book had a dubious honor of being the book rejected (by publishers) the most times that was eventually published. After publishing, furious critics came out and slam the book, predictably.

Also predictable, however, was that the critics were mostly political debaters cloaked behind the veritable titles of professors and such, who attempted to discredit Goldberg's theory by rhetoric and muddled logic. Goldberg gave several examples of these professorial arguments and they were downright .... One would burst out in laughter, for example, after reading the "haggis" argued by professor Fausto-Sterling, or the evasiveness of the Lowontin, Rose and Kamin trio, to mention just two.

Goldberg spends a lot of energy to answer his critics and in doing so, he literally elevate it into a science. This book is thus also a good course in debunking muddled logic-the confusion of a physical law and a statistical claim, the confusion of cause and effect, the "glancing blow" of attacking the excess to discredit the core, the "red herring", and all forms of misrepresentations and flawed logic can find examples in the critics' arguments.

If one accepts the scientific method of inquiry, one has to give credence to Goldberg's theory. As the author wrote: "Empirical analysis in sensitive areas invariably elicits fear, fear that acceptance of its conclusion will compel an unpalatable moral or political position...such fear is never relevant to the correctness of the feared theory..."

My criticism of this book is on the writing style. Goldberg wrote out his theory and arguments in a style similar to that of a mathematical proof. As a result, the book is littered with long and windy sentences, covering multiple situations, conditions and pre-established fact, in order to make a point. It requires considerable concentration to follow his long and complex sentences. Perhaps because Goldberg is in a position of answering his critics, he is extremely careful in laying out his arguments, and clarifying what he says, what he means, and what he does or does not argue or imply. In a nutshell, the book is quite tedious to read.

The concluding part "The Meaning of Male and Female" with a lone chapter is a refreshing exception. It is polished, thoughtful, and it brings the reader back to the real life of the office and the family living room to illustrate how the stereotypical roles of the sexes have worked to the advantage of society and, indeed, to the survival of the specie.

This book is not exactly pleasure reading and is not for the casual reader. However, except for the ideologically predisposed, it settles the issue of sexual difference in behavioral tendencies.