This book was very well written. It explains different opinions and viewpoints relating to topics concerning gender and sex roles of men and women. I liked that it was all based on real people and opinions. They gave legitimate explanations and reasons why they believed what they did. Something that didn’t seem to work, at least for me, was that they referred back to their opponents’ side. In more than just a few pieces the author was contradict what their opponent said rather than have their own material ready whether their opponent said what they did or not. Another thing that could have been changed was the layout of the book. All the topics were relevant to the main concept of the book but the order seemed a little abstract and random rather than put together in an orderly fashion. But on the plus side the sociology in the book was very realistic and again that goes along with the fact that it was real people that could give specific examples from their lives to justify their opinions. It might have been inaccurate but then again there’s no way to say if it is or not because the main topics (the question prompts each author followed) were all opinion questions. Finally, the authors all spoke with intelligence and in a way anyone could understand. This book was extremely easy to follow and even easier to understand. The ideas and concepts were laid out in the open and then it always ended up so you could think about and relate to it in your own way.

My book merely debated the stereotypes and roles given to men and women. Every author had a topic and they gave their opinions on that topic. It was opinions and nothing more. There may have been a few facts in each of the author’s pieces but it was based on what they thought and their experiences that led them to these opinions. As for my own personal opinions, I guess I’m more neutral than anything. I see where just about every author is coming from and to a certain extent I agree with almost every one of them.
The first main idea was biology versus culture and which one contributes to gender roles more. I agree that they both contribute equally. We are biologically determined to have certain traits that we put into play every day of our lives but we are also taught where our place is in society and what role we should be trying to fill. As a girl, I believe that girls are biologically configured to be smaller than men; therefore we are not as rough and tough. As well as the hormones girls and boys each produce give them a certain drive and intuition on how to live their life. But also as a girl I was on an all boys baseball team for six years. I could play but it eventually didn’t fit into the lifestyle I wanted and was taught to want. I wanted to be the “beautiful and elegant girl” and baseball just didn’t fit with that. Again, I agree with both sides, it’s in my nature to be more feminine and I’ve been nurtured not to be masculine.
The next idea was acceptance of multiple genders or not. Myself, I have no preference. If someone is homosexual or intersexual it doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s their life and their choices so why would that affect me? If that’s what makes them happy, then why force them to be “normal” when it will make them miserable? So my final say is that yes, eventually multiple genders will be accepted because there’s no reason not to.
Another idea was whether women should marry early or not and whether women should become stay at home moms. I agree with the author that said earl marriage is not a good idea just based on the fact that you may not be as “prime” to have kids and a family later on in life. If you find the person you want to be with and have a family with at eighteen that’s great, but if you don’t find them until your fifty that’s ok too. Neither is bad and neither has a greater amount of advantages over the other. It just depends on what you want in life and I believe how ever long it takes to get what you want is how ever long you should wait. As for becoming a stay at home mom, I agree that a mother’s love is incomparable to a nanny’s but then again if a mom smothers her kids then they will never experience anything on their own. But if becoming a stay at home mom is a better way for you to live, than go for it. But once again I’m more neutral. Neither has more advantages or disadvantages than the other.
The next few ideas were about men. Whether fathers are essential or not and whether men suffered or gained from the feminism movement. Fathers I believe are essential. But in my opinion if you’re planning on being a good role model and father all at once then yes you’re essential in your child’s life, but if you’re not then don’t even bother. Having a screwed up father for a role model just makes things worse and confuses the kid. As for the feminism movement, I believe that it benefited men more than hurt them. Yes it threatened their sense of masculinity a little bit, but in the same respect it also opened up a ton of options for them. It gave them competition, new views on things and the chance to be a stay at home dad if they chose to do so.
The final few ideas were the ones I agreed with most. Every author made their point well and proved it to be a good idea. But again, it depends on each individual’s lifestyle. If traditional roles in marriage is what makes both people happy, then that would be the best solution. If egalitarian roles would make both partners happy, then maybe that would be the best solution. But either way the two ideas that could be agreed upon by everyone is that to relate better with each other, men and women need to quit bashing on one another. It only causes conflict and hurt.

The book I chose to read was Opposing Viewpoints; Male/Female Roles. This particular book was already in sociological form. Within this book there are many authors and tons different viewpoints that all relate back to one topic, gender and sex roles. Many of the authors believe that gender equality is not the issue but rather that gender and sex discrimination is the real problem.
The first main concept was the viewpoints and arguments about where of better yet how gender roles are established. The first argument consisted of two choices, gender roles are established biologically or that gender roles are established culturally. Geoffrey Norman argues that gender and sex roles are determined and established through biology. He says very honestly that he does not know the exact scientific facts but that he can relate and through his own experiences he’s come to the conclusion that it’s in a boys nature to chose more a masculine identity and in the same respect it’s in a girls nature to chose a more feminine one. When it comes to parenting he, himself, has two daughters and has come to learn that although the famous stereotype of a “girly girl” is an overstatement, to an extent every girl could probably relate. He states that even without forcing his girls to play with doll houses they did it themselves. That kind of thing lead him to believe it’s biological that men be more aggressive and women tend to be more nurturing. On the other hand Michael S. Kimmel say that culture is the source of gender and sex roles. He say that in every culture it could be different. In some culture the women are the income and the men are the nurturers. Either way biology does not determine everything. He says in some ways biology determines a little bit, but that does not extend into gender roles. He states that people often confuse gender and sex as if it were one thing and it’s not. Sex is biologically what you are and gender is the role society places on you. This is why he argues culture has more influence on gender roles than biology does.
The next idea was the concept of multiple genders. One author argues that without a doubt the idea of multiple genders has to be accepted eventually and another argued that it in no way has to be accepted and should not be accepted. Anne Fausto-Sterling argues that with the increasing amount of homosexuals and intersexuals and then the government authorities arguing over things such as gay marriage that eventually people will have to accept the idea of multiple genders. Leonard Sax argues against her stating that the bible tells us how we were created and how we are supposed to live and that “the division of sexes is not a “social construct.” It is a divine creation. His main point was that we were made physically and spiritually to be man and women and to be attracted in such a manner that fits with how we were made.
The next main concept was the discussions of what womens roles should be. One idea was the debate over whether women should be encouraged to become stay at home mothers or not. Sibyl Niemann said that yes, they should be encouraged to become stay at home mothers because it benefits their children. She fights that even though she agrees sometimes staying at home can sometimes be lonely and frustrating that the nurture and care a mother can give to her children exceeds that of a day care any day. Opposing her, Reed Karaim argues that forcing a mother to become a stay at home mother not only can result in her losing herself and her own identity but that it’s actually better for the children that the mother not be around every minute of every day. This allows them to explore, learn, and be curious about things outside of their comfort zones. He states that this is necessary for a child to fully learn on his own.
Moving on, the next few ideas deal with feminism and early marriage. Two authors argue that early marriage is the best choice for women and that women should reject feminism. The other two argue that early marriage is not a very wise choice at all and that embracing feminism would be the best choice. The first two argue on the basis that women that embraced the feminism of the sixties find themselves regretting more and more that they didn’t follow their natural need for a husband and family, and because of that they are losing the “tenderness” women naturally have. The second two argue that by not embracing feminism and marrying early you would be rushing your life and not waiting for the “right” person and also in turn losing the right women have fought for.
The third main concept was discussing what men’s roles should be. One idea was arguing whether fathers are essential or not. One author argued that without a stable father figure in the picture a young boy never learns from his experiences and what he grew up around how to treat a woman or how to respond to anything because he’s never seen the right way to respond. On the opposing viewpoint the other author argued that now days in society a single parent or gay parent can do just as good of a job as a happily married man and wife at raising their kids let alone raising their boys. It not unexpected to see everywhere a single or gay parent and just because they are not the stereotypical happy family doesn’t mean they can’t raise a child.
The next ideas were that men might be experiencing a masculinity crisis and that feminism might or might no have benefited men. The first author argued that they are, that instead of getting credit for being the bread winners and fathers men are lately being put into the category of macho jerks. The second author, a woman, argued that feminism helped men and that the men are not experiencing a masculinity crisis but rather they just became threatened by women and are now blaming women for their problems. There is no crisis. Men are just avoiding their responsibilities because women can now fulfill most of those same responsibilities.
Finally, the last concept was the question of consideration, how can male/female relations be improved. There were four authors who came up with three different ideas. The first said that traditional marriage roles would be helpful. He sides with the idea that biologically and culturally it fits that women are the homemakers and men are the “dominant breadwinners.” He states that by obtaining the roles in which we were made for that we could relate better to one another. The second author says that egalitarian marriage roles would be beneficial. She says that marriages suffer because wives constantly sacrifice their careers, take home lower pay, and take on more responsibilities than the husbands do and if the responsibilities and such were spread out more equally that it would be beneficial for everyone. The last authors state that ending male and female bashing would be helpful in relating to one another. The crude and rude jokes are taken to heart sometimes and its within those jokes that the very stereotypes we are trying to diminish are created.

The topic I'm choosing to read about is "gender and sex roles". I chose this topic because it has always been a very large issue in my opinon and I have extremely strong values and opinons relating towards it. I think that women and men are still to this day both stereotyped and I think that it will be a long time before this changes.