Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Refreshingly Ambitious, November 14, 2000
This is a refreshingly ambitious book that takes on a really big issue and does it by making grand survey of Western history. The "it" is Robert McElvaine's attempt to apply the findings of contemporary research on human evolution and the physiological differences between men and women to the writing of history. And his focus throughout is the social relationships between men and women with an emphasis on how (in his view) much of historical civilization has been built around men's fears and the need to contain certain antisocial characteristics that evolved as particularly "masculine."He uses the "Eve's seed" metaphor to describe how the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agricultural ones affected the way men saw their roles in life. In contrast to some of the "evolutionary psychologists" he criticizes, McElvaine uses admirable balance and restraint in integrating the finds of biology and paleontology with his historical narrative. He shows similar restraint in evaluating archaeological finds of very ancient female figurines. He discusses their implications for his theory while refuting the popular theories of prehistoric matriarchal societies and universal goddess worship. Any book about sex differences has some intrinsic appeal. But this one explores aspects of the topic one is not likely to hear on "Oprah!" or the "Jerry Springer Show." His analysis sheds light on questions of community in large urban groups, our attitude toward the environment and contemporary politics. In the book's first half, he gives special emphasis to the evolution of religious ideas and how they both reflected and influenced the relations between men and women. In the second half, he focuses more on European and American history in the last two centuries, dealing with material that will be more familiar to most readers. One of the intriguing aspects of the book is that, even though it's highly critical of certain historically "male" attitudes and practices, the analysis focuses largely on men's perception of their roles and the institutions they built on that basis. Along the way he offers surprising insights into the many ways the relations between the sexes influences the way we understand even seemingly objective information. For instance, he finds that one of the results of the dissemination of Darwin's ideas was to de-feminize nature in people's minds and thus emphasize the idea that nature is a competitor to men, something to be conquered. McElvaine's analysis in some places raises more questions than it answers. For example, he describes the Roman Empire as a place where "male" tendencies to over-consumption, violence and cruelty were carried to great excess, and takes the dualistic Mithra religion as embodying those negative male attributes. But in pointing out that a partial legal and social liberation of Roman women did not to curb those excesses, he doesn't answer the obvious question, why not? If male domination produced particular negative outcomes in Rome, why did an improved social role for women not counteract them? And how did a more "feminine" Christianity win out over Mithraism as the dominant religion? (He does suggest some partial answers to the latter.) One of the ironies of this book is that, in elaborating a more woman-friendly view of history, its view of women in the Bible could serve to undercut efforts of feminist theologians to reexamine traditional interpretations. McElvaine's treatment of the story he makes the book's leading metaphor, Adam and Eve in the Garden, is probably justified in seeing the historical transition to agricultural societies as central to the cultural context of the story. But in focusing on the historical view, the complex theological and ethical aspects of the story are perhaps inevitably shortchanged. Yet some of the readings of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament here can also be questioned on historical grounds. McElvaine seems to implicitly accept the predominant Western Christian reading of the Eden story, which derives largely from Saint Augustine, as an unequivocal story of the human Fall from innocence to Original Sin, with Eve as a sinful villain. But assuming the original hearers of the story understood it this way is a very speculative exercise, and one that can overlook important implications of the story. Fresh readings of the stories of Biblical women in recent decades - Eve, Miriam, Deborah, Dinah, Sarah and Hagar, Potiphar's wife, Bathsheba, Ruth, Jezebel -certainly raise questions about the extent to which we can assume that the dominant "male monotheistic" voice in the Bible reflects more general attitudes in the societies of that time. As do recent findings on the worship of the female goddess Asherah in Israel, who wasn't so despised by ordinary Israelites as by the authors of the Bible. A similar question arises about McElvaine's argument that Second Isaiah, who articulated a more exclusively monotheistic brand of Yahwism than seems to have been prevalent during most of Israel's earlier history, was notable for introducing more "feminine" attributes of God. A great part of the value of "Eve's Seed" is that it does surface such issues throughout. The last chapters apply the earlier observations about sex differences and social roles to discussions of "flappers" in the 1920s, verbal aggression in contemporary life, the youth culture of the 1950s and after, how perceptions of their own masculinity affected several American Presidents, and the feminist movement of recent decades. This is a book meant to provoke thought and discussion. Neither liberals nor conservatives will find it entirely congenial from the point of view of current ideologies. Because it raises some tough questions about deep-seated social problems for which there are no clear solutions. Much less easy ones.
|
|
|
19 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pulling ourselves up by our bra straps...., November 24, 2001
On Sunday, Novemeber 11, 2001, two months after the WTC and Pentagon disasters, the 'Washington Post' ran several articles concerning the future of Afghan women and all women living in Muslim dominated countries. One of these articles, entitled "The Birth of the Myth That Men Are Closer to God" by Robert S. McElvaine so intrigued me that I immediately ordered McElvaine's book EVE'S SEED from Amazon and read it. I've been a feminist ever since my father told me I could not grow up and be a priest. I don't know why he said that, as I had never shown any interest in the vocation, but the mere fact that he told me I could not do something provoked me to ask why? I've been asking why ever since, and though I left organized religion behind in a cloud of dust years ago, I still question the nature of the universe and my place in it, so, "naturally" I was intrigued with McElvaine's book. McElvaine is a historian, but he has included information from related social science fields as well as snippets of science. In fact, his book is a HUGE synopsis of LOTS of material that includes world literature and myths; literature from the American woman's movement; the Bible plus various interpretations of Jesus message; demography; anthropology; history; and psychology. At times he is overly reliant on fellow social scientists who have been somewhat discredited (Margaret Mead, Ashley Montague, Freud). However, McElvaine's summaries also include some recent material from more reputable sources. Although the book jacket categorizes McElvaine's book as 'Science/History' I would describe it as 'Woman's Studies/History/Religion'. Imagine a book entitled EVE'S SEED that discusses the science of human reproduction and fails to include material from THE OVARY OF EVE by Clara Pinto-Correia, especially when Pinto-Correia's book would have supported so many of McElvaine's contentions!! McElvaine also might have included better material to support his thesis that the "two sexes" are composed of biological organisms who form a bimodal distribution along a continuum. He mentions the disparities in male-female medical research, but fails to mention the most egregious example--the failure until recently to include women in the Framingham Heart Studies. (This latter is not an esoteric example. He cites Faludi's book BACKLASH over and over, and if I am not mistaken Faludi raises this point in her book.) At the beginning of 1960s resurgence in the women's movement, I was young and naive and actually thought, "Now the workplace will become a kinder, gentler place because women will bring their values to the office." Wrong!! Instead, the workplace has masculinzed many women. To "get ahead" one must become competitive, agressive, and a sycophant with an ability to laugh at things that aren't funny. As McElvaine points out, Sigourney Weaver's character in the film "Working Girl" (noxious female executive) is closer to the real thing than the sniveling little Melanie Griffin. The female executives I have known are TOUGH cookies!! (Think Margaret Thatcher. Think Madeline Albright!! Think Hillary Clinton!!) McElvaine's subtitle should have been "Religion, the Sexes and the Course of History." Although he does not include any real science, McElvaine does a great job of tackling the way the Judeo-Christian-Isalamic religions have "kept woman in her place" even though it would seem this was NOT the Jesus message. In fact, Jesus is a hero in McElvaine's book (along with Gandi, Martin Luther King, and other 'gentlemen'). I never liked 'Saint' Paul, and now I know why. Seems those early male Christian writers interpreted Jesus to suit their needs. Cover your head indeed!! Old Law is Dead -- they never even heard the message!! It was women who first recognized Jesus as the Christ and women who first saw him after the resurrection!! McElvaine does a fine job of articulating what he believes Jesus message really was (a feminine one about love) and how the church twisted it to suit its needs. McElvaine is not into Catholic bashing either. He points out that while Christianity was founded by a man of peace, Islam was founded by a man of war. He also says Calvin's Geneva was not a real great place for women and Martin Luther instructed his wife, a former nun, to stop singing the Ave Maria. McElvaine's book falls into the category I call "Pop" social science, but it would be wonderful for use in American Studies, Women's Studies, Sociology, History, or Religious Studies classes because it is provocative reading that just might be correct--depending on how you interpret the "facts".
|
|
|
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Challenges and Syntheses, January 22, 2002
Eve's Seed is the best synthesis of these topics that I have read to date. The book falls in the category of 'revisionist' literature/history, but that terminology should be discarded because it only serves to reinforce the cultural bias so skillfully illustrated in McElvaine's book. Another reviewer below, makes the point that the word 'biology' in the subtitle is misleading because McElvaine doesn't vigorously cite biological research in support of his arguments. Rather, the reviewer suggests that 'religion' would be a better substitute in the subtitle due to the thorough analysis religion receives. I respectfully disagree. Religion (at least the Christian incarnation of religion with which I am most familiar) is a historical phenomenon, and thus it has been documented via written records by its various practitioners since its inception. McElvaine is a historian by training and, as such, a thorough analysis of religion (via its historical writings) is warranted. As a biologist, I would have enjoyed more research and discussion regarding biological evolution, but the interpretations and analysis of human biology are sound. With this in mind, lets return to the subtitle: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History. To replace biology with religion is a mistake that misses the thesis of the book; females and males are '...a little different (on average) and wholly equal.' McElvaine's arguments are built around this thesis. Analysis of religion represents a part of the arguments, but not the thesis. 'Hell hath no fury like a man devalued' is due to the misconception that the sexes are not equal (men are from Mars, women are from Venus - sound familiar?). If you are a strong proponent of what is often termed 'traditional' values, and if you long for a return to some long-past utopia where those values played themselves out everyday, then Eve's Seed is for you! The strength and clarity of these arguments will cause you to struggle internally to rationalize the denial that you will continue to externalize. If you already think you are enlightened and open-minded then Eve's Seed is for you, too! The wit and logic presented are delightfully crisp and the conclusions will leave you asking yourself 'why hasn't my own thinking come this far yet?' Maybe some readers have made this intellectual journey, I possessed the pieces, but was still a few years from this level of understanding. Eve's Seed is about challenges and syntheses - isn't that what life is about? PS Hannah: 'The Ovary of Eve' is next on my reading list.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Paul Hawken
