I am a stepmother. I am stepmother who never wanted kids. I am a stepmother who never wanted kids who nonetheless has a pretty fantastic relationshipI am a stepmother. I am stepmother who never wanted kids. I am a stepmother who never wanted kids who nonetheless has a pretty fantastic relationship with her stepkids.
For these reasons, this is going to be an intensely personal book review.
I learned a few things from this book. 1) 70% of remarriages with children fail . Holy shit. 2) Most of those fail within the first three years. 3) If you make it to 5 years, remarriages with kids actually have a lower divorce rate than the general population. 4) I have three years to go before I am statistically "safe". Or at least "safer". 5) I am SUPER, SUPER LUCKY .
This book reads as a warning label to all women to Never, ever marry a guy with kids. I mean, I think it was supposed to be supportive, but holy god, if you weren't already a stepmom, I don't think you'd ever want to be after this. If books about parenting were this negative, people would lose their shit. What I got from this book is that basically, stepmothering is shit, and if for some twist of fate it's not total shit, you should get down on your knees and thank whatever god you believe in.
Ok, maybe it wasn't THAT bad. But still, it was pretty negative. And I get that the idea was to normalize the negative feelings you have as a stepparent. And the negative interactions you might have. But lets be honest, ALL parent have problems with their kids from time to time. Step parents just generally aren't allowed to voice that out in the world. Somehow, it's ok for biological parents to be frustrated and overwhelemed, but not stepparents. Particularly step mothers. I'm going to go ahead and blame sexism for this one.
There's a lot of focus in the book on the fact that you aren't going to love your stepkids like you love your own kids. That maybe you won't love your stepkids at all, and maybe you guys will never be more than civil to each other. I couldn't possibly say if the first part is true. I don't have biological kids, I won't have them and so I have no comparison. That being said, yes, it is hard to form a bond with a kid that you didn't pick out and that you weren't really looking to get. It can be hard to form a bond with your in-laws too, but no one faults you for that bond taking time. Or for it not being the same bond you have with your own parents. But god for fucking bid you not immediately fall in love with kids you just met who have to adjust to you being a parent in their life. Because kids are precious, and special. Vomit. Kids are people and we tend to forget this in our very kid-centric culture. They have personalities and those may not get along well with their biological parents, let alone the new stepparent. Basically, kids are people and you have to adjust your approach to forming relationships with them based on who YOU are and who THEY are. I'm pretty sure this should be common sense. I'm sorry it's not.
I'm not sure what I was expecting with this book, but I don't think I got it. I really appreciate Wednesday Martin putting out a public space for women to hear that the "bad" thoughts they have and the less than pleasant ways they feel about their stepkids are normal. i appreciate that she is honest that she's coming from a pretty heteronormative, white, upper class, American perspective. I like that she tried to incorporate other cultures and biological perspectives. But man, I could have done with a more balanced look at being a step mother and maybe some helpful and non-contradictory advice.
Also, why are all the men in this book complete and total douches? I know my husband felt guilty after his divorce. I know that he admits he went totally overboard financially the first Christmas after his divorce. But he's not a permissive parent. He's laid back, so am I. But he has rules. And he doesn't hesitate to see when his kids do something wrong and correct them. Because, you know, HE'S A FUCKING PARENT. It was very clear in this book that A TON of the problems stepmothers face come from their shit-for-brains husbands. "He feels guilty" "He's passive" "He can't hear anything bad about his kids" He's a fucking idiot. Your problem is that you married a mouse who shirks his responsibilities.
Which brings me to what I really got out of this book: I'm goddamn lucky. The circumstances favored me. I mean, my husband and I went through hell in the first year we were together. His ex-wife got remarried and moved 7 hours away. There was a court battle. There were custody fights. But that gave us a common goal. It gave us a place to come together and fight against something outside of the house. And it gave us a lot of time just us, away from the kids. Plus, we made a huge change, we moved to where the kids were. It gave us a fresh start, together, as a family. It showed the kids how important they are to us BOTH.
I also am smart enough to have married a man who DOES value our relationship. Who makes time for just the two of us. Who has ALWAYS made it clear to his kids that I'm a part of the family, that I'm a parent (albeit a step parent) and that he won't tolerate them misbehaving towards me. He gives me space to vent when I've had a bad day with the kids. He gives me space to "do me", and he takes time for the two of us, even when the kids are with us.
If you are going to marry a man with kids, marry one like mine. Don't marry a man who can't set boundaries with his ex and/or kids, it will apparently set you up for a really difficult time, more difficult than what you are already getting into. And remember, it's ok to have bad days. Every parent does. ...more
The historical context for the biblical story of David and Goliath made that story WAY more logical. It explains the single warrior combat and the fact that shooters would have been a normal part of combat (it wasn't just some little, crappy slingshot)but that no one expected that type of weapon to be used in that context. Frankly, it took some of the magic out of the story, but since he left us with logic, that's a trade I'll take.
The story about the girls basketball team using the full court press all the time was interesting, too. It was the only part of the book that I didn't have any objections to. And it was the only part of the book that actually did what the book jacket told me it would. How do we take a weakness and turn it into an asset? The answer: think differently. Thanks, every business cliche, ever!! Basically, the book boils down to "when you have nothing to lose you can do things other people wouldn't dream of". Yes, that is called desperation. Sigh.
And every other part of this book is on the spectrum from kinda crap to total crap.
On the kinda crap side: the London bombings during WWII. The idea of remote miss v. near miss v. direct hit: kind of interesting. That people who miss being victims of terror on a regular basis begin to believe that nothing will happen to them is interesting. Perhaps we could have looked at some studies about this. I mean, there must be some from the modern middle east. But we are assuming that the only reason the Nazis bombed London is for the terror effect... couldn't there have been other benefits to that? Like destroying buildings, supply lines or killing people? If those were at least part of the reason then the whole argument about why it "didn't work" falls apart. Which is why I'd be interested in looking at modern terrorism, the whole purpose of terrorism is terror so creating remote misses would be more problematic.
On the mostly crap side: The benefits of dyslexia...what? Great, some resilient kids are able to turn the detriment of dyslexia into a huge benefit later in life. The book flat out admits that this doesn't happen for a particularly large portion of people with dyslexia. I agree that facing adversity can make people develop alternate strategies for dealing with problems. I agree that those alternate ways of thinking can help people become successful, but can we not gloss over the fact that MOST people don't end up getting a benefit from dyslexia? It's like the whole part was a pep talk to parents of kids who are dyslexic not to give up all hope... great, but don't go thinking your kid is going to become a titan of business either. It's possible, not probable.
On the total crap side: The doctor with a shitty childhood who developed Leukemia treatment. His mother was unavailable, his dad committed suicide, his stepfather was an ass, he had no attachments, he had no empathy... everything in his history told me he had RAD. Not a good thing, feel free to look it up. And he took chances with people because he admits to having no empathy, but you want me to think of him as a hero? That's the definition of hindsight. We are praising him because he stumbled upon a treatment that worked, but there are plenty of people who take chances with other's lives that it doesn't work. I agree that when you are desperate you can take calculated risks, that people may be willing to try crazy treatments because the alternative is death, and frankly, I'm ok with that. But let's not glorify someone who feels its ok because they don't have any empathy for the people going through it. And to suggest that losing a parent makes people more resilient and successful? FUCK ME SIDEWAYS. Please, please, for the love of god, go read the ACEs study. I'll wait. Adverse childhood events, it's not pretty. Great that a small minority of people are able to bounce back. I know people can be incredibly resilient, but holy balls, what???
Basically, this book takes the exceptions that prove the rule and make them a big deal. I know sometimes we need it pointed out to us that NOTHING is always all bad, but can we not be the cheering section for having a positive outlook while ignoring the fact that bad things typically have bad effects? ...more
This book was not what I was hoping for and I kept waiting to have some revelation about interpersonal interaction... I never did.
I am not the intendeThis book was not what I was hoping for and I kept waiting to have some revelation about interpersonal interaction... I never did.
I am not the intended audience for this book and neither are any of my social worker friends (so feel free to skip it, you already know everything in this book anyway). And neither are you if you've ever thought or studied about how people relate to one another.
Basically: people do OK figuring out general things about what others are thinking and their motivations, but never great. And Shocker! we think we are WAY better at this than we actually are. Oh, I'm sorry, should I not be snarky about that? "ahem" People think that they are better at knowing what other people think than they actually are. Basically, we all overestimate our abilities when it comes to understanding other people.
I suppose this book is great and super helpful if you don't have a social work degree and didn't spend years studying how to identify and address stereotypes and to help others do the same. Basically the best advice Nicholas Epley (and all of the PhD's he cites) can give you is : ask people about their experience and what they are thinking and then LISTEN to them. Otherwise, feel free to Imagine what other people are going through and what outside circumstances effect their lives but don't expect to be right. Keep an open mind and be curious, ask, and listen to answers!!!
Or you can go get an MSW like I did and be totally bored with pretty much every book on human behavior that you read. Perhaps its time for me to stop reading about this crap and go get a PhD in behavioral economics so I can learn new things ;)
Oh, total sidenote: This author earns MAJOR points for calling out The Female Brain as the SPECTACULAR piece of total brain frying, stereotype reinforcing garbage that it is. ...more
Basically, people make decisions in numerous ways. We have emotional reactions and rational thought. We can and should think about how we make decisions and what our biases might be. This isn't new (or news) or at least shouldn't be. This didn't go into the details of how evolution fine tuned our emotional minds to make decisions why we are so attuned to other people. It didn't go into how to get to the level of being an expert or what goes into making the emotional mind an expert; if you want that read Outliers: The Story of Success.
I did learn a couple of amusing things about myself though. There is an experiment presented in the book that gauges emotional/rational decisions by presenting a scenario about incest and if what happened was immoral. My first reaction was "yuck, but not immoral" and apparently I'm very odd. That yuck reaction made most people decide it was immoral. Fair enough, but I was in a heavy minority. The other thing that I had a reaction to was the descriptions of the monkey raising experiments (you know the ones. motherless monkeys, much sadness). I have read about those experiments more than once and still my reaction was how horrible humans are and how much we deserve a http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/ Rise of the Planet of the Apes style revolution.
This book is a good introduction to human thought and decision making. However, it is not as explanatory or challenging as some of the other books written on the subject. In all, its not a bad book, its just at the bottom of the list of much better ones....more
This book deeply disturbed me. In fact, it upset me so much I had to stop reading it and made my partner get rid of it. Because as much as I was horriThis book deeply disturbed me. In fact, it upset me so much I had to stop reading it and made my partner get rid of it. Because as much as I was horrified by it, I couldn't put it down. Ultimately, however, I didn't finish it. I couldn't. It was wrecking my ability to look at or talk to my man.
That being said, Jensen brought out a lot of things that I keep in a small closet in my brain. The things that I don't want to take out and look at. Jensen's analysis of porn is that it is violently anti-woman and that it is getting worse. And I don't mean that its anti-woman in the sense that women don't like porn or that its made and marketed for men. Its anti-woman in the sense that the messages it conveys about women are violent and horrible.
Jensen spends a lot of time breaking down differnt porn scenes. The things that he points out are the details. Like to woman who was on the verge of tears, or the women who have pained looks on their faces. Or the woman who was literally chocking on a dick. Or the women who scream in pain (not pleasure). Even worse than that this happens is that the editors choose to keep these things in the porn. Worse still are the movies where the commentary actually acknowledge those things and make a joke of it. Frankly, how the hell is it funny that some dude's sexual actions hurt a woman?
Now, I've seen plenty of porn in my life. I'm not one of those girls who is horrified by the idea of seeing sex. I don't find it threatening to my relationships or think that my man watching porn means that he loves me less. BUT, porn has changed in the last ten years. (I wasn't really old enough to watch much porn before then). I have been distinctly more and more uncomfortable with porn as the years have passed. I haven't been able to really put my finger on it. Or, more probably, I haven't wanted to look at why I am uncomfortable.
I'm uncomfortable because I can't imagine that anyone enjoys having a penis shoved down the back of their throat, or that its anything other than painful to have two penises in any orifice. I'm uncomfortable because most male-female porn shows things that I KNOW have to be physically uncomfortable at best, terribly painful at worst.
This book made me look at something I didn't want to see. I have a live and let live attitude, but Jensen did an excellent job of pointing out the anti-woman attitude of general porn. Its not just the "extreme" porn that has this attitude that women are just things to act on sexually, and that their pain is funny at best and a turn on at worse.
I feel that Jensen did a great job with his thesis, but I didn't like his voice. He came off like a sanctimonious asshole. No, really. He's so much more enlightened than everyone else. And he's a feminist. He feels it necessary to tell you that he's a feminist at least once a page. He also name drops every radical feminist from the past 25 years.
The book is interesting, he does an excellent job proving his theory. But this book is VERY hard to read. You have to be really ready to look at gender relations in order to read this. I imagine this is just as hard to look at as a man (or at least a man who likes to think of himself as someone who likes and respects women) as it was to look at as a woman. However, I think its a conversation that is worth having and is important to examine how society reinforces sexual violence....more
How is this a book? No, I am seriously asking. I have no problems with the material in the book. In fact it seems to be a good follow up to First BreaHow is this a book? No, I am seriously asking. I have no problems with the material in the book. In fact it seems to be a good follow up to First Break All The Rules. The problem is tht there are about 45 pages of book and the rest is a couple of case studeis and then all about the categories. And not in an indepth way...more in a useless bulleted overview way. This book had potential but ended up feeling like a bloated magazine quiz. This never needed to be anything more than the website with quiz....more
I have very mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to like this book. I really, really did. However, the writer was a man and while that shouldn't bI have very mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to like this book. I really, really did. However, the writer was a man and while that shouldn't be a problem, it kind of was for this book. Maybe a different man would have done a better job, but honestly, there was too much bewilderment from the author coming through the narrative. If I had to make a guess about this author, I'd guess that he likes and respects women, but is one of those men who find women to be an "other" some kind of un-understandable creature. And if this book had really embraced that perspective and tried to use these women to help other men understand women it probably would have been more honest to the author and frankly, a better read. I'm sure that it doesn't help that the author is a columnist. The book felt like a REALLY long colunm. Like he had no idea how to structure the story he wanted to tell or create any drama or anticipation.
So, while my feelings about the writing are pretty clear, my feelings about the women and their story are more complex. I'll be honest, I haven't had a group of girlfriends since I was a kid. I have girlfriends. They are wonderful and supportive and have become my pseudo-siblings. But they aren't a group. At this point, most of them have met each other, but I am friends with each of them pretty much independently of others. This fact may make me just totally unable to relate to the women who are the subject of this book. However, I like to think of myself as able to stretch and relate to people with different experiences from myself (I am a social worker after all), and I sincerely hope that this isn't what my problem was.
First of all, I had a terribly hard time keeping the women straight. I had to refer back to the photos at the front of the book all the way until the end of the book. This is supremely unusual for me. Seriously, I read King novels (I love him, but damn does he like to have a huge cast of characters) and fantasy books with maps and geneologies in the front. Now, I don't want to say that the real women from the book are indistinguishable because I'm sure that if I interacted with them in person they would be wonderful individuals. However, the characters were not presented in such a way that I was able to differntiate one from another.
Secondly, the way the book was organized contributed to my inability to really keep them straight. I love a good flashback in a novel, but in this book it just annoyed the shit out of me. Frankly, I couldn't figure out what the organization was. It wasn't chronological, although it was vaguely chronological. It wasn't set up by "girl", although each chapter had a kind of focus on a particular woman. Basically, it was frustrating. And there was no surprise or suspense as to what happened...I mean the first pages with photos and info gave away the two deaths in the book.
And, in the interest of being totally honest...well, some of these women did something that I HATE. In fact there was a significant minority who did it. They went to college and then decided to become stay at home moms. Yea, I know. Don't shoot me. Don't leave nasty messages. I HATE this. I know that as a feminist I should support any career/family decision that women make. But I don't. I judge, I'm human. So many of these women went to college and then chose to be stay at home moms. Its a life path that I have NEVER understood. It seems really selfish and indulgent and retro in a bad way to me. In any case, it was a decision that a lot of the women in the book made. It made me not like them as much as I wanted to.
However, what this book did do well was show real realttions between real women. They didn't always get along. They frequently disagreed. They were sometimes self-involved. But they were always presented as being real people. And more importantly, despite their challenges, they loved and supported each other. It was a really good depiction of what happens to women's friendships as they age and move away from each other.
All in all, it was an interesting concept for a book. It just didn't live up to its potential. ...more
Yes, yes, I know. I am the absolute last person on earth to read this book. I have been meaning to do so but I just haven't gotten around to it.
MaybeYes, yes, I know. I am the absolute last person on earth to read this book. I have been meaning to do so but I just haven't gotten around to it.
Maybe I would have liked this book more if I had read it when it came out. Maybe I would have liked it more if I hadn't had a bazillion people telling me how great it was.
Yes, it was interesting. Yes, looking at math is interesting. I think that using statistical analysis to examine cheating teachers might not be the worst thing someone's done. However, it just made me think about all the cheating teachers who would use this book as kind of a guide to how to cheat better.
Also, some of the book just seemed stupid to me. I mean, I know that there are people out there who have this fantasy of all drug dealers making shit tons of money, but seriously...really? I mean, in what world do dudes who hang out on the street selling to people who are scrapping together a few bucks for a hit making tons of money? The people who make all the money selling drugs aren't even those dudes running drug distribution operations. They are the guys who are selling to the rich, hell, even the middle class. You don't get rich selling crack to homeless, mentally ill people, you get rich selling drugs to people who come to your home to get it, or better yet, to people you bring the drugs to. Hell, you can make tons more money selling pot to suburbia than heroin to urbanites.
In any case, I thought that the idea of the book was better than the reality of the book. Not to say that the book was poorly written. It wasn't. In fact, it was really readable and the authors did a good job looking at an array of subjects. It was just that I think there are better topics out there to look at and better ways to bring in stats.
I guess I might have expected more Malcolm Gladwell and less freshman year textbooks. And honestly, I think that I have been spoiled by the wonderful writing of Gladwell...the next time I try to read a book that takes a "fresh" look at problems I will try to go in with lower expectations. I promise. ...more
I am a huge Gladwell fan. Let's just get that out of the way now. I am totally biased, I have yet to read anything of his that I didn't like. In fact,I am a huge Gladwell fan. Let's just get that out of the way now. I am totally biased, I have yet to read anything of his that I didn't like. In fact, I would say that reading his books is what got me started on reading nonfiction for fun.
That being said, I didn't love all of the pieces. I think that is because they were a collection of his previous writings for the New Yorker and at some point I must have read some of them. Not that they weren' all very good, just I wanted it to all be new stuff. I'm selfish, ok? =)
Now that that's out of the way, there were a few articles that stuck with me. The article about the dog whisperer was interesting mostly because I've watched the show and been impressd with Cesar.
The article about intellectual property was fascinating, mostly because I am currently finishing my masters and and subjected to the academic standards of that all the time. Academia is really harsh about source material and properly citing where you got your information from. So it was a little weird to see a writer whose material had been used arguing for looser standards about obtaining permission. And while he argued for looser standards when the copier is doing something different from the origina source, I can't say I agree. Honestly, if you are using something I said (or wrote) that was my idea, how hard is it to put a footnote in your work? Or list me in your sourcs? I don't need the whole world to use APA formatting citations, but I want credit for my ideas and words. Particularly when its something identifiable as mine. Really, it boils down to manners for me. Its rude to borrow something from someone without acknowledging where you got it from!
The article that I had the most to speak to however, was one that I know rather a lot about. There was an article about homlessness and use of services. As I am a social worker in the arena of homelessness, I see a lot of what he was talking about. More interesting, Dennis Culhane, the researcher Gladwell discusses, is one of my professors at Penn. I've heard him give the lecture on housing the homeless, and he presents in a similar fashion to how Gladwell presented it. Unfortunately for Culhane, Gladwell does it with more style. What is interesting is that many cities in the US are moving towards Culhane's suggestion, also known as "housing first". The current administration gave HUD a lot of money to conduct "rapid rehousing" programs, which are essentially getting people into a place to live no matter what.
Even more interesting though, was Gladwell's glance at why people can't get behind a housing first model. It's not because it doesn't help people (it does). It's not because its more expensive (it isn't). It's because people have this static notion of what "fair" is. At least in the United States, we have the concept of "fair" as treating everyone in exactly the same way. This is completely retarded. The only arena we reject this notion of fairness in is the medial one. No one argues that every person who has suffered a stroke has the same needs. No one argues that everyone with Bipolar disorder needs the exact same dosages of the exact same drugs. We understand that people's bodies are all slighly different and that while one drug might work well for me, it might give you an allergic reaction. However, when it comes to social services, we assume there is a one size fits all solution. Suddenly, hungry people aren't allowed to be vegetarians or to keep kosher. We think that they should take what they can get. Fairness doesn't mean treating everyone exactly the same way, it means giving everyone the same amount of dignity and consideration.
In any case, that housing first is catching on in this country is not surprising to me. Despite our stupid ideas about fairness, the concept takes a lot from the tipping point. The idea is sticky because its surprising. YOu can't hear that 5% of people are costing 55% of service dollars without remembering it.
Its interesting when someone's work not only sticks with you, but begins to relate to itself in an intelligent way. No wonder I'm such a Gladwell fan......more
I'm sure that there are many negative reviews of this book, and I'm sure one of the main complaints is that the author can't be impartial because she'I'm sure that there are many negative reviews of this book, and I'm sure one of the main complaints is that the author can't be impartial because she's writing about her life but as a scholar. I have to say that that strikes me as total crap. This author makes no bones about her own experiences and weaves them throughout the book. Her feelings about her experiences serve to make the book richer, more emotional and more understandable. She doesn't hide her bias, she puts it right there in your face. But even better is the long list of sources that she cites throughout the book so that you know this isn't JUST her opinion. And she happens to know what she's talking about: as a woman who has lived through this and as an academic...this is her field.
What I really got from this book was a personal, emotional, first hand look at feminism from the 1930s until the 1990s. In traditional history classes the feminist movement is touched on in the 60s and 70s but its not studied in depth like the civil war or WWII. In fact, I had to fight in high school with my teacher to learn anything about something that 1) wasn't a war and 2) was after 1950. The joys of an American public school education, I guess.
Ms. Douglas really uses pop culture well. She does a great job at deconstructing the messages coming from pop culture and the mass media. I guess she should since that's what the book is about and its what she does. However, it makes it really nice to read and relate to. Some of the songs from the 60s that she argues were very feminist and have been universally panned are songs that I HATE. In fact, I hate them because they strike me as totally unfeminist and passive. My mom and I have gotten into many fights about songs like "Leader of the Pack". Luckily, she didn't mention some of the ones that really get me going or I might have set the book on fire! But she gave me a whole new perspective on what those songs and tv shows meant at the time they came out. I think I can accept both views.
But really the best thing I got out of this book was a history of what it has been to be a woman in the US. That having conflicting thoughts and roles is VERY female and pushed by our culture and the mass media. And I got a much better understanding of what it must have been like for my mom to grow up in that time. It makes me proud that my mom has never wavered in her feminism (at least outwardly) and her determination to constantly press alternative views on me.
For the record: I promise I'm going to cleanse the sentence "I'm not a feminist, but..." from my lexicon. I embrace a lot of feminist ideals, aspirations and dreams. Its ok if I don't always agree with them, or don't embrace all of them. Yes, I'm a feminist and I think there is still a lot of work to be done for women, here and across the world. ...more
I really liked this book, although it is about a subject I find interesting so I'm sure I started out biased in its favor. The book spends a good amouI really liked this book, although it is about a subject I find interesting so I'm sure I started out biased in its favor. The book spends a good amount of time discussing what you can discern about someone by looking at their home or office. Most of it was not earth shattering, but there were parts that were counterintuitive. There were also parts that just made you wonder what the correlation between the two things were.
However, the most interesting, by far, part was what you couldn't learn from someone's space. Throughout the book there are parts of a person's personality that you can't determine by their things and how they keep their space. What was even more interesting was that in his research many, many people thought they could tell. People were really poor predictors of certain traits.
I liked that this book was written by the PhD who actually has done a good bit of research. While I love Gladwell and his synthesising of research, I can appreciate even more a researcher who is able to write a book that is readable and enjoyable. He works the magic of being able to make you curious enough about his examples that you actually go out and look into them. Truly an interesting and enjoyable read....more
This book pissed me off more than anything I've read in a long time. In fact, I think the last thing I hated this much was Sharp Teeth. And this pieceThis book pissed me off more than anything I've read in a long time. In fact, I think the last thing I hated this much was Sharp Teeth. And this piece of drivel was way worse.
This crazy bitch makes Dr. Laura look like a raging feminist. I understand that this woman is a doctor and I get that she thinks she was doing the world a favor by explaining why women are the way they are. HOWEVER, she takes a very stereotypical view of women and does not make any allowances for women whose behavior is different. She provides a "scientific" excuse for women to be bad at math and science and says that women tend to leave math/science careers for jobs where they can be with people because that is what women value. Um, right. Her evidence for this? She has a friend (yes, one, one friend) who did this.
This book was so bad and so stereotypical that I had to put it down numerous times. In fact I couldn't even finish it because I was having fantasies of setting it on fire.
On top of her science being suspect and her tone being patronizing 1950s bullshit her style rather sucked too. I love books that take science and make it readable, but this was not one of them. She had a very chatty, we're all girlfriends here so I don't have to explain things kind of attitude with the reader. She was neither witty nor enaging and her commentary was dull.
All in all what this book did for me was to understand why people burn and ban books. Not that she doesn't have a right to spew her drivel on the world, but damn, do I wish that no one would ever read it....more