Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Men Rule

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Why Men Rule]]=

:{{la|Why Men Rule}} ([{{fullurl:Why Men Rule|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Men Rule}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Despite being in print for more than 15 years, the book does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Even its controversial topic does not seem to have been enough to generate third party interest in writing much about the book or commenting on its place in society. There does not seem to be enough reliable, third-party, published source material for a Wikipedia article on the topic. It probably can be covered in Steven Goldberg sufficiently. Suntag (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v46/ai_14987616] seems like an impressive review. I'm puzzled as to how the nom concludes no coverage exists; I see a lot of citations of this book, and that one very lengthy review... it seems there's a lot of stuff to be found out there. --Rividian (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I see a lot of unrelated hits at Excite.com, as well as some related hits for online shopping sites, and a few consumer review sites. We delete way too many articles out of sheer laziness. The article may never be able to obtain featured article status, but there should be enough reliable information out there to at least keep a stub about the book. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The first edition, published in 1972, was instrumental in winning the now uncontroversial "anthropological consensus" (see "Patriarchy" Britannica) that all known societies have been patriarchal. The first edition also popularised the rationale that hormonal effects on brain structure could explain the data. Brain Sex, contemporary with Why Men Rule (the revised and expanded edition), brought awareness of the hormonal model to public attention. There's very little that's controversial in Why Men Rule. It's old news, well established in many subsequent publications, and MRI and genetic results reinforce the cruder hormonal results. Feminist anthropologists like [http://www.cynthiaeller.com/ Cynthia Eller] even extend Goldberg's data into prehistory. Cognitive Scientists like Stephen Pinker and Evolutionary Biologists discuss the same conclusion.

:Why Men Rule explains the foundation for feminism, if men didn't rule, women wouldn't need to organize to challenge the imbalance. Many feminists, like Naomi Wolf, writing in 2008, champion the welfare of women, clearly cognisant of the anthropological and biological data. It is purely a matter of history that Why Men Rule, in its first edition, was the earliest attempt to collate the data and observe the correlation between hormonal effects and the sociological category of patriarchy.

:Why Men Rule contains a lengthy (almost tedious) chapter supplying answers to all criticisms of the first, 1972, edition. To my knowledge, there was no new criticism of WMR, simply because by 1991 the views it expressed had become scientific consensus. It makes two claims: all known societies patriarchal (Britannica calls this "consensus"), male and female brains in Homo sapiens include some substantial hormonally caused differences (well-known scientific datum, MRI since the 90s has given us pictures).

:The point of the WMR article is that it provides an opportunity to lay out the argument of the book for a reader's inspection, something that would be inappropriate in the same level of detail at Steven Goldberg. There was a storm of criticism of the 1972 edition, which is discussed comprehensively in WMR although by that time the criticism had been essentially rendered obsolete by popularisation of the relevant science.

:WMR is a classic work, still cited in academic literature, by scholars both progressive and conservative.

:*Nicole M. Capezza, "Homophobia and Sexism: The Pros and Cons to an Integrative Approach", Journal Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 41 (2007): 248–253.

:*Catherine Hakim, "Dancing with the Devil? Essentialism and other feminist heresies", British Journal of Sociology 58 (2007): 123–132.

:Alastair Haines (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Here are several more reliable sources, these along with what has been mentioned above prove that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself and therefore passes WP:BK
  • Byfield, Ted. "A sociologist explains why men make such disappointing women." Alberta Report / Newsmagazine 21, no. 4 (January 10, 1994): 44. Abstract: Considers sociologist Simon Goldberg's `Why Men Rule,' a book which explains how the feminist movement, in educating women to see the roles associated with males as the worthwhile ones, has left the feminist role diminished and the masculine role inflated.
  • Weeks, Jeffrey. "Telling stories about men." Sociological Review 44, no. 4 (November 1996): 746-756., Abstract: Reviews several books about men. "The Making of Anti-Sexist Men," by Harry Christina; "Masculinities," by R.W. Connell; "Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance," by Steven Goldberg.
  • Ridley, Mark. "Patriarchy is avoidable." TLS (July 1994): 5., Abstract: Reviews the book `Why Men Rule: A theory of male dominance,' by Steven Goldberg.--Captain-tucker (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As well as the sources listed above there are loads more found by a [http://books.google.co.uk/books?num=100&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=26C&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Why%20Men%20Rule%22%20%2Bgoldberg&sa=N&tab=np Google Books search] such as a four page discussion of the book [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HOvFzKtB3qIC&pg=PA5&dq=%22Why+Men+Rule%22+%2Bgoldberg&num=100&sig=ACfU3U3qEJ0v63mdp7mb9Iv87hKe1dU9zw here] and five pages [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KrHVQvHTgIkC&pg=PA138&dq=%22Why+Men+Rule%22+%2Bgoldberg&num=100&sig=ACfU3U1AVZzSd-PASblym6jXNnE74vqjew here]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.