Customer Reviews

Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

A very important and thought provoking book,Steven Goldberg's'Why Men Rule'does not lend itself to a comfortable/lazy reading-those who read this book in this way are bound to be upset.There are different levels of argumentation in his narrative;the simplistic 'men vs. women' is probably the most superficial layer,one is even justified to use the word'pretext'-what is really happening here is the examination of a number of very emotionally charged assumptions of our contemporary North American culture that,as Golberg brilliantly demonstrates,do not stand up to a closer scrutiny.Whithout claiming that he is always right(he never does that either!-remember,this is a theory,a proposal ) Goldberg presents in this work a formidable challenge to those(whether men or women)inclined toward the identification of ideological thinking with reality.Obviously,'reality'and 'ideology'are complex words demanding further clarification outside the scope of this review,still the author challenges us all to take another look at ourselves and our thinking.An essential book for those who are willing to take the risk of investigation!

This is a mostly re-written and updated re-release of Goldberg's "The Inevitability of Patriarchy," published in 1973. It neatly exposes the feminist' half-truths and downright untruths concerning supposed "nonpatriarchal" societies. All human societies, past and present, are patriarchal, and here Goldberg demonstrates convincingly the weaknesses and in some cases mendaciousness of feminist claims to the contrary.

Much of the Marxist/feminist ranting against so-called "biological determinism" of the past 20 years has been an attempt to refute Goldberg, and it is extremely revealing that they have been unable to do so without misrepresenting his arguments. Here Prof. Goldberg replies to his Marxist/feminist critics, showing why biological factors are extremely likely to be the cause of the universality of human patriarchy, and why the purely environmentalist explanations fall short.

For the life of me, I don't know why Steven Goldberg chose to name a scientific, theoretical book "Why Men Rule". The title, complete with a garish crown on the cover, practically screams "chauvinism"; not a good message to send to its readers, especially since the core of this book is really not chauvinistic at all. We all know from history that societies have been predominantly patriarchal; whether you find this morally appealing or not is up to you, but it's a simple fact of historical observation. In this book, Goldberg simply offers a (very) thick theory as to "why" this might be.

Inspite of the rather careless title, the text in the book is, for the grand majority, worded in strictly professional and scientific ways; in short, author Goldberg does NOT simply spout sexist stereotypes or propoganda against women. In fact, he remains for the most part very respectful of women: he acknowledges their intelligence, understanding of human nature, accomplishments, and claims that he is not speaking in terms of "superior" or "inferior", nor does he ever claim to be right. This book, in a nutshell, provides a scientific theory as to why patriarchy has been the most commonly practiced form of society and, whether you agree with it or not, most wouldn't argue that it provides a pretty reasonable basis and un-offensive presentation.

One of the flaws in Goldberg's information is the fact that he denies the existence of matriarchal tribes. This is in fact a myth: matriarchal tribes have existed and, according to more than one source, some still exist. Still, this is a common misunderstanding, so it's not too surprising that Goldberg missed it. I should warn you that this book is both a very lengthy and a very thickly worded volume; if you're looking for a fairly simple book, this isn't it.

The only real point of offense was at the end of the last chapter, in which Goldberg seemed to send a veiled threat, or warning, that women should not try and reach beyond their "roles". According to Goldberg, women should not attempt to "compete with men for the goals men attain; women have better things to do." If he's referring to leadership and careers as "men's goals", I can only conclude that he hasn't been paying enough attention to the past forty years: society found out a long time ago that jobs are not just men's goals. Furthermore, why make it into a competition? Only radical feminists and patriocentric men have done that; the majority of society has no problem with women working outside the home.

Goldberg goes on to say that men usually want to protect women and "if woman gives this up, she'll be forced to meet man on his own terms. She will lose." What is that, Goldberg? A threat? LOL You think men are unstable beasts who will go from guard dog to attack dog the minute women overreach their bounds? That's just funny! Most men are smarter and more secure than you give them credit for, and women are not incapable does to be chained and restrained. If Goldberg really thinks that female progression is a threat to anyone, perhaps he should read Esther Vilar's "The Manipulated Man"; Vilar proves that women who limit themselves in order to have male dependence are fools and men who actively try to restrain them end up shooting themselves in the foot. In short: men should not be expected to do it all themselves.

All in all, a pretty good read. Don't take it too personally or seriously, and you'll enjoy an interesting theory.

A word of warning: The title of this book is slightly deceptive, in that the answer to the question "Why Men Rule" occupies only a chapter or two of the book. The balance is spent patiently debunking each and every type of the multitude of invalid critiques that have been leveled at Mr. Goldberg's work over the years. He does a truly great job of this - indeed, this book could be used as a text on reasoning and logic. I recommend it highly for anyone who is rational enough to wonder at some of the fluff that has been foisted off on the public by the women's movement in recent years

This book is mostly aimed at those who believe human societies have ever been matriarchal. It is a follow up to his 'The Inevitability of Patriarchy' and attempts to answer some of the criticisms this first book received. It basically boils down to an argument that male physiology causes the male to experience much greater motivation to compete for status and so he will always far outnumber the female in any position which is associated with status. The only evidence the author argues is necessary for proof is the universality of patriarchy, male attainment and male dominance plus the biological evidence of differences between the sexes.

Most people now would accept there are biological differences between the sexes. I also would not argue against the evidence that patriarchy is universal and that there have never been matriarchies. But that males always have authority over females in dyads? This one I'm far less sure of. The whole argument could be covered in a short paper but it is repeated again and again as the author answers criticisms. He continues to insist that male dominance is inevitable but covers himself by saying that, should things change we will then have become a different species.

The author certainly does not want any change and this comes across most chillingly in the final chapter where he reveals his fear of what would become of men if women refuse to submit and he both pleads for women's submission and tries to threaten women who still refuse. Basically, he says if women do not submit to male dominance they will lose anyway! It is very much along the lines of extortion - you give us obedience and we will protect you from the other men who might not be as nice as we are!

Though the author agrees that socialization may well push the sexes much further apart than nature ever intended he thinks that this is OK. Though biology certainly is at the root of our behavior I find it curious that, if female nature is naturally submissive and passive, human societies have needed to go to such lengths to enforce it. It is like cutting people's legs off to stop them jumping off tall buildings!

What the author strictly avoids is stepping outside of a very limited view of things. He uses biology but leaves out natural and sexual selection because if he actually had to look at the real biology behind all this he would have to accept the forceful and deliberate imposition of the self-interest of the male in all this. The fact that in no other species is the female controlled to the extent the human female has been controlled should make us stop and think about what we actually can say female nature is. A female simply cannot have evolved naturally into exactly what the male ordered - where male self-interest reigns. This took a lot of social, political, economic, legal, cultural etc etc enforcement.

Goldberg also avoids evidence of female domination in other primates such as lemurs but particularly bonobos. He does say that other species are not necessary as evidence but he would have to admit that the extremely close physiology of the human and the bonobo means they cannot be easily dismissed. Male bonobos are still more aggressive than the females on a day to day basis but females generally ignore this are clearly accepted as being dominant.

These points about 1. natural selection, 2. our ignorance of what female nature really is and 3. the evidence of the bonobo is certainly a challenge to Goldberg's insistence that male dominance is an inevitable fact of the human species. If things change and he says we are then not human then so what? Who said evolution is over?

Even Goldberg admits in the final chapter that the woes of the world are to be blamed on the male characteristics of its leaders - and that female qualities are more important to the survival of the species but, because these very qualities preclude women from political power and influence women should not even try to save the species!!!!!! Is he upset about this? No. He wants everything to continue just as it has always been with women wiping the brows of their men and telling them how wonderful they are!! I think he vastly underestimates how adaptable women can be and how, in spite of the odds stacked against them, women will not sit back and watch men kill children and our children's future. Natural and sexual selection makes it very clear that the interests of the male are sometimes very different from those of the female and even those of children so the potential harm of male rule has to be recognized.

Goldberg seems to think that women would be sacrificing protection in their struggle for a better world for themselves and their children. Many women might say 'good riddance'. One thing that any decent human should appreciate is that telling women to obey men or they'll get hurt by men does not make a good argument in support of 'protection' and is more a selfish demand. Do we really have to accept that 'might is right'? That being a bully is what pays?

Steven Goldberg has provided a reasonable argument that patriarchy is universal and that male-male competition means men are more motivated to seek status and dominance. He has then revealed a very suspect, selfish and bullying side of himself and men in general that is very ugly.

I am about to read the book and I noticed a previous review with bad data. Doing a quick search on the internet, I discovered that the Yoruba, Ibo, and Mende societies are/were not matriarchal.

Yoruba - Less so than other societies, but definitely patriarchal. Patrilineal. Ruled by hereditary kings.

Ibo - Polygynous. Women not much more than property.

Mende - Patrilineal. Monotheistic. Ruled by male chiefs.

In doing a quick search, I couldn't find sufficient data on the Sherbro or Asante, but I suspect I would just find the same thing.

I was going to review this book but now see that Redmund K. Sum has said most all that needed saying. But I'll add some more sticks to the fire that this book predictably brings on from the rabid feminists in our midst.

Feminists, like nearly all liberals, are afraid of the truth and so they invent their own, which would be nice if only reality would cooperate. It doesn't. Some day the screeching harpies of the Left may discover that men really do like women, and women don't need to compete with men to have fun, fulfilling lives. No real man -- and that's most of us -- wants to hold women back, and civilization has gone far beyond that stage anyhow. You want to work in science? Go for it! You like math! Go for it! Nobody's holding you back!

Steven Goldberg tells us in meticulously chosen phrases why men rule. It's hormonal, ladies, like it or not. Supplement Goldberg with Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae and you will, once and for all, grasp what's wrong with modern feminism. In a word, it's wrong. Completely wrong. Stupidly, embarrassingly, wrong-headedly wrong. Quit wasting people's time and patience with your whining and tantrums, accept the strengths nature gave you and get on with life.