User Review - Flag as inappropriate
Guh. Just a mish-mash of scarecly-connected topics wrapped in the intensely irritating analysis that only sociologists seem to manage. Some interesting facts, but little history. Minor questionable errors (see for instance, the claim that Bartolomeo Eustachi, who died in 1574, was a homeopath; homeopathy's first concepts were first published by Samuel Hahnemann in 1807). A lot of popular culture (apparently Moore watched a lot of CSI). Perhaps because I am not a sociologist and not trained in the inscrutable analytic methods used, it really just looks like a lot of cherry-picking and interpretation. I particularly found annoying her criticism of the treatment of sperm in children's books on reproduction. Criticizing children's books for anthropomorphizing sperm in books aimed at six-year-olds strikes me as questionable. EVERYTHING is anthropomorphized in children's books, since children anthropomorphize EVERYTHING. Essentially a long treatise on how sperm isn't actually masculine, which is valid I suppose, but accomplishable in a single sentence. Even though only men produce sperm, sperm itself is a cell and has no masculine traits.