Most Helpful Customer Reviews
20 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
As well-reasoned as a Euclidean proof, November 20, 1999
By A Customer
This book is a joy to read, if what you like is painstaking, step-by-step logic, with Mr. Goldberg proving the strongest possible case -- that patriarchy is not merely highly probable but inevitable -- using the fewest possible determiners. He dismantles feminist arguments -- putting them forward as reasonably as possible, trying to make sense of them when they themselves do not make sense, and then carefully illustrating the fallacies therein. And not only the fallacies, but the distortions of evidence . . .
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Inevitably annoying, December 5, 2003
This review is from: The inevitability of patriarchy (Hardcover)
This book is bound to annoy, if only slightly, any woman reading it. Naturaly we don't like to be told that patriarchy is inevitable, that all societies everywhere have always been male-dominated and always will be, and that men are always going to predominate in leadership roles. We don't like it, but must nevertheless consider if it may be true. This book was published in the early seventies and i understand has been updated since. There is one point in the book where Mr. Goldberg states confidently "South Africa will never elect a black Prime Minister". Oops, I bet that line's been deleted from the new edition. The references to Germaine Greer seem strangely dated too, nowadays she has little interest in feminism and mostly writes about her garden. Mr Goldberg does not argue that women are less intelligent or less able than men, merely that few women have the drive to achieve high-ranking positions of authority. Is this true? I don't know, certainly it does seem that there are still relatively few women in high-ranking positions in many professions. He writes that there are no women in the Senate, is that still true? Frankly, I'm not entirely clear what the difference is between the Senate and the Congress, sorry but I have enough trouble coping with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, keeping track of foreign political systems is too much for me. His argument that there are far fewer women of genius than men of genius is one I've heard before, he doesn't say that there are none, just fewer (he does not, as the previous reviewer claims, suggest that Jane Austen, George Eliot and the Brontes are less talented than male authors). I found myself struggling a bit with parts of this book, it gets quite technical here and there, but it's interesting.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sound Logic, February 1, 2006
This review is from: The inevitability of patriarchy (Hardcover)
Consider the great women through history you've read about: great women scientists, writers, etc. What do they have in common? They had unusually high levels of testosterone.
So pointing to them as proof that a woman can be a genius is self-defeating.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|