Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
The Inevitability of Patriarchy Paperback – December 31, 1977
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
He states, "whether we are referring to woman's response to male aggression or to the emotions underlying woman's universal role as life creator and life sustainer, feminine behavior and the institutions that are related to this behavior are as inevitable as patriarchy and are inevitable for the same reasons." (Pg. 25) He asserts, "Every society gives higher status to male roles than to the nonmaternal roles of females..." (Pg. 45)
He insists, "it is not surprising that, until their recent resurrection by feminists, the totally discredited matriarchal and evolutionary theories of Lafitau, Bachofen ], Ward, McLennan, and Briffault ] (and a host of popularizations of their theories by Helen Diner and others]... have long been buried beneath a well-deserved obscurity. There is no reason to detail again the nearly innumerable factual errors and logical fallacies that are specific to each of these works..." (Pg. 55)
He contends, "the hormonal system that renders the man more aggressive... alone would explain patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high-status roles; for the male hormonal system gives men an insuperable 'head start' toward attaining those roles which any society associates with leadership..." (Pg. 104-105) Later, he adds, "Societies conform their institutions and socialization to the sexual directions set by physiological differentiation, first because they must and second in order to function most efficiently." (Pg. 118)
He is quite dismissive of feminist writers: Elizabeth Gould Davis's book ] is "uniformly inaccurate and incompetently done." (Pg. 56) Germaine Greer The Female Eunuch (P.S.) is "a master at introducing irrelevant factors" (Pg. 162); Kate Millett's Sexual Politics is "most annoying to the serious scholar," and writers like Shulamith Firestone ] "camouflage their intellectual inadequacy behind a facade of scholarship". (Pg. 169)
I would have found Goldberg's book more persuasive had he spent less time stating (and restating) his theories, and more time laying out scientific data (e.g., ethnographic studies, cross-cultural observation) supporting his arguments. Nevertheless, this book is a famous/infamous statement of the position, and remains interesting reading---whether or not you agree with him.
So pointing to them as proof that a woman can be a genius is self-defeating.