Review of Is The Anything Good About Men ?

I disagree with many of the arguments presented in " Is There Anything Good About Men ?". The first thing I disagree with is that I do not see how the title goes with the article, since the article talks about how supposedly culture assigns roles to men and women that make society more successful, and not about bad mouthing men. The issue the author does not address is who or which group within society makes the role assignments accepted as society's culture.

The author claims that culture assigns men to do very risky activities like sailing, going to war, etc. But he fails to recognize that nature assigned women the risky and at times the life threatening role of bearing children. In poor countries women are pregnant a large portion of their adult years risking their personal lives and their health to keep producing children to work the land. He also fails to mention that many women, especially in developing countries, are forced to work as prostitutes, an extremely risky activity forced upon them because of culture and the economic reality that they face. Finally, he forgets to mention the women workers in factories, meat packing plants and canneries that sufffer tremendous amounts of injuries because of the work society assigns to them. I totally disagree with his argument and after reading the paper I am left with the impression that his research was not very comprehensive.

The author mentions motivation as an explanation for the differences in salary. He says that men are workaholics and are more motivated by work, and that is why they get paid more and promoted more. I think he fails to take into account that it is not that women are not workaholics, but the extra hours the man is working at the paying job the women is working domestic work and child care, for which she is probably not being paid for, and obviously not being promoted either. Domestic work never ends.

The author indicates that women prefer narrow intimate relationships while men prefer larger groups and less intimate relationships, which has resulted in men being more succesful in society. But the author fails to recognize that women's preference may be the result of centuries of staying at home doing domestic work assigned to women where the opportunity women had to develop relationships were with the other women also staying at home instead of with the broader group of business people and workers in town that the men were meeting. This isolation has economic implications. Men at work may meet more people that may be key to get promotions, change jobs or get your artistic piece out in the market where it may be appreciated, while women are isolated in the house. Perhaps the Internet will change this and become a factor in helping women achieve equality. I do not believe that women choose a sphere that led to less power within society than men's sphere. I believe women were not given choices. It seems that from the beginning women had the role of mother assigned to them by nature, and since then society did not give them a right to choose other roles that may interfere with women's role as a mother and child care provider. I believe that women are as workaholic, motivated and creative as men, but society has not provided women the choices it has provides men. Women were not provided choices outside the small sphere of interaction that according to the author women have chosen.