|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0316182346
| 9780316182348
| 0316182346
| 4.25
| 12,979
| May 06, 2014
| May 06, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
I loved this. Like The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements, I loved this. Like The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements, Sam Kean uses anecdotes and humor to share scientific discoveries that shaped our knowledge of how things work. This book was longer and more detailed, but also more relevant to my field since the focus was on neuroscience. Though lighter in tone than the works of Oliver Sacks, this book similarly contained many fascinating tales of neurological damage and its idiosyncratic effects. It also asked a number of profound questions about the age-old mind/body problem and whether we truly have free choice given increasing evidence that our personalities and practically everything we do can be located in our neurology. While it helps to have a preexisting interest in the topic, I'm betting that even people who don't think they're interested in the brain could get into this book (hey, it happened to me with the periodic table when I read The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Feb 16, 2016
|
Feb 16, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1594206279
| 9781594206276
| 1594206279
| 3.80
| 188,130
| Jun 16, 2015
| Jun 16, 2015
|
really liked it
|
This fun and breezy book is a window not only into the social mores of modern dating but into some of the ways in which technology has impacted the wa
This fun and breezy book is a window not only into the social mores of modern dating but into some of the ways in which technology has impacted the way we think and interact. Aziz starts out by exploring the ways in which dating has changed in just a few decades. Whereas adults once expected to get married in their early twenties, today they tend to spend that decade exploring a variety of options before settling down (maybe) in their late twenties or early thirties. Unlike those in earlier generations who were happy to select from a limited pool and settle down with a good-enough spouse for a companionate marriage, people today tend to seek their soul mates and want a marriage that will be instantaneously passionate and fulfill a wide range of lofty expectations -- a set-up for inevitable disappointment, some scholars say. The protocol of asking someone out has changed as well. The rise of texting has led, it seems, to heightened anxiety about actually calling a prospective date. Texting also tends to depersonalize the other person and disinhibit the texter, and texts can be highly embarrassing or, perhaps worse, generic and noncommittal. Texting can also result in an endless and unproductive back-and-forth before people actually meet, and some confusion about whether the person is being asked to "hang out" or asked out on a real date. When the dater is actually interested in the person, a whole lot of mind games ensue (e.g., how long to wait before texting back, the length of your texts vs. the length of their texts, etc.). Then, there's the question of how to respond if you're not interested in dating the person who texted you. Etiquette just gets more and more complicated, it seems. Aziz goes on to discuss online dating and the impact of having exponentially more dating choices. "That's the thing about the Internet," says Aziz. "It doesn't simply help us find the best thing out there; it has helped to produce the idea that there is a best thing and, if we search hard enough, we can find it...we live in a culture that tells us we want and deserve the best, and now we have the technology to get it." We have an unprecedented number of romantic options today, but is having more choices a good thing? Aziz explains the concepts of maximizers, people who do a rigorous amount of research to seek out the best, and satisficers, who are happy to make do with good-enough. In today's day and age, with the Internet, why not be a maximizer, right? Interestingly, research has found that with regard to jobs, maximizers put more time and effort into their job search and land better jobs but are less satisfied with them. Satisficers, on the other hand, have jobs that seem worse on paper but actually report higher job satisfaction. What happens is that the maximizers, who research a large number of jobs, end up creating a fantasy in their mind combining the best features of all the jobs they've researched and wishing for this unattainable ideal. The same may very well be true for people who perceive themselves as having lots of dating options available. In fact, in another famous experiment, while people are more likely to sample jams from a stand that offers many choices, they're more likely to actually buy jams from a stand that sells a smaller number of flavors. Aziz seems to suggest that daters would be better off focusing on a smaller number of people and trying to get to know them better rather than allowing themselves to be continually distracted by the availability of so many other options. With so many options available, people can also set the bar unrealistically high for a first date to impress them. This is compounded by the fact that first dates are often boring, taking place in banal settings with unoriginal choices of activity and conversation. They arguably don't offer daters the opportunity to show much personality or creativity, in contrast to more original date settings. Aziz also suggests giving dates more than one opportunity to impress you; many first dates are just okay whereas second and third dates can give someone an opportunity to warm up and improve rapport. After going cross-cultural to inform us about the dating scenes in Tokyo and Buenos Aires, Aziz discusses the impact of technology on many age-old dating behaviors, e.g., jealousy, infidelity, and sexual intimacy. He explores the rise of sexting, the disinhibiting effect of texting and social media on infidelity, the fact that difficult breakup conversations can now take place on screens rather than in person, and the temptation to monitor your significant other's activities by snooping in their phone and/or computer. Aziz then explores the process of deciding to settle down in a serious relationship as opposed to continuing to play the field. Casual dating is fun for a while, says Aziz, but eventually it gets old, particularly as your single buddies increasingly couple off. Despite this, it can still be difficulty to take the plunge and remove oneself from the single life, where there is always the theoretical possibility of an "upgrade." Aziz discusses the typical phases of relationships, passionate love followed by companionate love. Passionate love is, and should be, short-lived; the world couldn't function if people remained infatuated with their partners and obsessed with their relationships. That being said, the transition from passionate love to companionate love can create some challenges. In some cases, as the haze dissipates, people realize that they've made a poor choice of partner. Even in the best-case scenario, the relationship's waning excitement can make people wonder if they've made a poor choice. According to researchers, this phase is normal and typical and, if you stick it out, you'll often find that you've created a deeper relationship. Examining all of this, Aziz asked an interesting question. Wouldn't life be more enjoyable with a series of multiple passionate relationships, so that someone can repeatedly experience passionate love rather than only experiencing it once and having it dissolve into apparently more mundane companionate love? The answer he received from the psychologist he asked bears quoting: "If you think the best life would be the one with the most passion in it, then yes, that strategy would be much better than getting married. Falling in love is the most intense and wonderful experience..." However, the psychologist adds that there is another way of thinking about satisfaction -- what he calls the narrative view, "that the best life is about building a story." He states: "If you take a narrative view, there are different things to accomplish at different stages of life. Dating and having these passionate flings are perfect when you're younger, but some of the greatest joys of life come from nurturing and from what' called 'generativity.' People have strong strivings to build something, to do something, to leave something behind. And of course having children is one way of doing that. My own experience having children is that I discovered there were rooms in my heart that I didn't even know were there. And if I had committed to a life of repeated sexual flings, I never would have opened those doors. If you think the whole point of life is to gaze into your lover's eyes all day until you die -- well, then, I wouldn't want your life." Aziz also tells us honestly that although it's one thing to imagine a single life that is an endless series of passionate relationships, the reality is far more complicated and less satisfying. Since many of my clients are adult singles seeking a relationship, it was fascinating to get this window into today's dating world and how things have changed. What I truly appreciated, though, was the opportunity to consider the impact of technology on our functioning beyond dating. The accessibility of so many choices -- good for us, or bad for us? Is it better to be a maximizer or a satisficer? Finally, Aziz points out that although books like this can make us get negative about technology and its impact and romanticize the past, the reality is more nuanced. Technology also gives us tools to store, remember, and share reminders of our love for each other. And finally, Aziz tells us, "no matter how many options we seem to have on our screens, we should be careful not to lose track of the human beings behind them. We're better off spending quality time getting to know actual people than spending hours with our devices, seeing who else is out there." ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Feb 07, 2016
|
Feb 07, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465048978
| 9780465048977
| 0465048978
| 4.27
| 4,651
| Dec 29, 2015
| Dec 29, 2015
|
it was amazing
|
It's always a tough call for me to give a book five stars. I'm afraid of overselling something and then disappointing people (although my critical rev
It's always a tough call for me to give a book five stars. I'm afraid of overselling something and then disappointing people (although my critical reviews appear to offend more people than my hyperbolic ones). I was also reluctant because the beginning of this book felt like hackneyed, well-trod ground and I wasn't sure I should bother to keep reading. But I did, and this book completely grew on me, with insights that I found original, useful, and truly resonant. So five stars it is. Leonard Sax, impressively, is a family physician who also has a Ph.D. in psychology. He has been practicing medicine for about 20 years, and has also traveled cross-culturally to examine current developments with children and adolescents. His book is informative and heavily footnoted but also easily readable, which is nice. Sax begins with the problems and then offers some solutions. Sax starts off by describing a "culture of disrespect" which has developed in America. He reports that schools were once more responsible for imparting cultural rules in the early years, but have changed their focus to academics so that the burden of socializing children falls more heavily on parents than it once did. Alas, parents today suffer from role confusion, wanting to be their child's friend and the object of their affection and confusing authority (which Sax defines as having their opinion valued by their children) with discipline (i.e., enforcing rules). Feeling uncomfortable disciplining too harshly, parents relinquish their claim to authority. As a result, children value their same-age peers' opinions more than those of their parents. Sax makes the interesting claim that this contributes to an increase in anxiety and fragility in children (ironically, sometimes manifested as excessive reassurance seeking from parents in early adulthood after having soundly rejected their opinion in adolescence) because they seek the elusive conditional approval of their friends rather than valuing the unconditional support of their parents. Sax then takes on a number of contemporary childhood challenges. He writes convincingly about childhood obesity as a function of parents' abdicating authority over their children's food choices. Then there's that topic so close to my heart as a psychologist, the overprescription of psychotropic medication for kids. According to Sax, a number of behavioral problems for which medication is prescribed might be better addressed by turning off devices so that children sleep more at night, teaching children self-control by setting and enforcing limits, and, according to some surprisingly stark research findings, eating dinner as a family. Apparently, at almost every step from zero up to seven evening meals consumed as a family per week, each extra dinner a child has with a parent significantly decreases the risk of emotional and behavioral problems -- not to mention reducing the risk of obesity. Finally, Sax explores possible reasons for American students' underachievement and emotional fragility. So much for problems. Lest we get too depressed, Sax does move into some possible solutions. He makes a compelling case for bringing back those underrated virtues, self-control and humility. He encourages parents to make changes that will help them actually enjoy time spent with their children. Finally, in one of my favorite chapters, he encourages parents to teach children about the meaning of life which he quotes as meaningful work, a person to love, and a cause to embrace. He challenges the "middle class script," which he describes as work hard in school so you can get into a good college --> get into a good college so you can get a good job --> get a good job and then you will make a good living and have a good life. Of course, this is a script I have been zealously promoting to my four children so I must admit that reading this gave me pause. I'm no fan of poverty and want financial security for my children, so it felt like Sax and I were parting ways here. But Sax redeemed himself for me when he described what he calls "the Flashdance illusion." Based on the 1980s movie, Sax describes this as, "Go for your dream. If you work hard enough, it will happen. If you build it, they will come." This is a toxic script, says Sax, leading kids to focus on one narrative: "initial failure must be met with the resolve to try harder in the same domain, leading to ultimate success." Instead, Sax advocates being willing to accept failure and try other things. He also advocates finding meaning not through personal success but through character development, and moving away from Hollywood-esque self-absorption and into service and integrity. Achievement vs. happiness is a false dichotomy, says Sax. Instead, have a sense of meaning in your life so that you know why your achievement is worth pursuing. It's always a good sign when I find myself folding down pages of a book because there are passages I want to remember -- for myself, for clients, etc. Definitely a keeper. Five stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 23, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0674088700
| 9780674088702
| 0674088700
| 4.04
| 7,277
| Oct 06, 2015
| Oct 06, 2015
|
liked it
|
This slim book, a relatively fast read, documented an interesting dialogue between staunch atheist Sam Harris and former Muslim radical Maajid Nawaz.
This slim book, a relatively fast read, documented an interesting dialogue between staunch atheist Sam Harris and former Muslim radical Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz offers us a fascinating and nuanced view of how radicalism develops (making this an interesting book to read in tandem with Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist: An American Story) as well as various Muslim communities' relationships with their heritage and with radical views. I only gave it three stars, though, because I found Nawaz's sections lengthy, rambling, and hard to follow at times (this could just be me) and ultimately, I'm not sure what I'm really walking away with. This book feels to me like a nice beginning rather than a comprehensive addressing of the various issues, which I guess is to be expected given its short length. That being said, I think it's a worthwhile read with much to discuss. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0316498602
| 9780316498609
| 0316498602
| 4.27
| 184
| Nov 13, 1995
| Jan 01, 1995
|
it was amazing
|
My five star rating is entirely subjective. I don't know how others might feel about this book, or whether it would speak to them the way it spoke to
My five star rating is entirely subjective. I don't know how others might feel about this book, or whether it would speak to them the way it spoke to me. I found it highly compelling, but I'm sure that has at least as much to do with my own background and interests as with the book's objective power. I very much enjoyed Like Dreamers: The Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, and the Divided Israel They Created and was eager to read this, the author's far more personal book. Here, Yossi Klein Halevi describes his Orthodox childhood in 1950s-1970s Boro Park, raised by a Holocaust survivor father whose views were very much shaped by his experiences and the broader reactions of Jewry to the Holocaust. From an early age, Yossi felt passionate about wanting to fight for Jewish causes and sacrificed his grades and other more typical pursuits as well as intellectually honest complex thinking in service of becoming a radical activist. As Yossi matured, he began to struggle with the fascinating insight that rather than a way to fully embrace life, his activist activities were actually an escape. Gradually, he distanced himself from radical friends and ways of thinking and found more moderate ways to advocate for fellow Jews, joining the ranks of individuals he had earlier disdained. Some of the appeal of this book for me, admittedly, lay in the familiarity of Yossi's childhood context (although he's significantly older than I am) and the influences that shaped his thinking. I also loved his passion and his earnest desire to act, not just think and feel. Most of all, though, I appreciated Yossi's honesty and insight. While adeptly helping the reader feel what he felt and understand his choices, Yossi remains self-critical and causes you to consider the flaws as well as the appeal of embracing an activist view. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 07, 2016
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
Jan 07, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465039693
| 9780465039692
| 0465039693
| 4.18
| 411
| Sep 08, 2015
| Nov 24, 2015
|
really liked it
|
I have four children, and there was never a question of whether I would breastfeed them. I had read about all the benefits of breastfeeding, and with
I have four children, and there was never a question of whether I would breastfeed them. I had read about all the benefits of breastfeeding, and with all the uncertainty surrounding parenting, breastfeeding was on a very short list of things I knew I could do right. But when I had my first child, it was not that simple. Nursing hurt. Her feeding schedule was unpredictable. I felt tied down in all sorts of ways, physical and emotional, by the need to be on call for her and the pressure of being the only thing standing between her and starvation. When I returned to school and work after two and a half months, I had the added pressures of pumping to contend with at a time when there was far less awareness of the needs of nursing mothers in the work environment. It was a stressful and anxiety-provoking period, and although I believed I was doing the right thing I struggled with a great deal of ambivalence. What made things even harder was being surrounded by family members who were militant advocates of breastfeeding. Of course, they were all stay-at-home mothers who had no clue about the challenges I was experiencing and didn't especially sympathize given that I had made different lifestyle choices. "Call La Leche League!" one of my relatives urged when I told her I was struggling. But I didn't want to call La Leche League. This same relative had blithely described La Leche League as an organization that would support my nursing by insisting I do it no matter what. That wasn't the answer I wanted to hear. I didn't want someone pushing a nursing agenda on me. In this, as in so many other areas, it felt as if my personal needs no longer counted now that I had an infant. Thankfully, I got through that period okay. I ended up nursing my daughter, and my subsequent three children, for fourteen months each and have no regrets about having done so. Part of me feels that the pressure surrounding me, unpleasant though it was, helped strengthen my resolve to continue nursing and ultimately I'm grateful that I kept it up. But I do remember the resentment and anxiety I felt, and have wondered at times whether it was truly warranted. Naturally, I was extremely curious when I heard about this book and it did not disappoint. Courtney Jung reports that she breastfed both of her children. She tells us that she's happy she did it. She also acknowledges that, for a variety of reasons, her breastfeeding experience was easier than that of many mothers. And she adds that the pressure many mothers feel to breastfeed may be unwarranted, coming from a conflation of societal agendas of varying origin and validity. According to Jung, La Leche League was founded in 1956, when formula feeding was far more popular than breastfeeding in the U.S., out of an interesting combination of feminist and conservative agendas. From a feminist perspective, La Leche League wanted to empower women to wrest control of their bodies and childrearing practices away from the (largely male) medical establishment. At the same time, La Leche advocated for an agenda of full-time mothering and prioritizing childcare above all else, including housework and appearances. What further separated La Leche League from the feminists was the issue of whether to take a stand against abortion in the early 1970s. Although La Leche League was a marginal organization for a while, breastfeeding got another boost in the 1970s when people became aware of high infant mortality rates in developing countries. These rates were attributed in part to the increasing popularity of baby formula in these countries, where conditions for preparing the formula were frequently unsanitary and poor mothers couldn't afford sufficient formula to nourish their babies. Idealistic Americans began boycotting baby formula companies and viewing breastfeeding as an act of social consciousness. Feminists, too, jumped on the breastfeeding bandwagon as an issue of female empowerment. And as Dr. Sears and his books promoted attachment parenting in the 1980s, our culture of hyperparenting lent more support to breastfeeding. Hipsters embraced breastfeeding as part of a larger movement toward socially conscious consumption practices that includes fair trade coffee, locally grown produce, etc. Fundamentalist Christians embraced breastfeeding as part of God's plan. Politicians claimed that breastfeeding would reduce nationwide medical costs. And businesses, such as breast pump manufacturers, stood only to gain by enhancing breastfeeding's popularity. But is breastfeeding truly superior? Maybe a little, but not nearly as much as people would have you believe. According to Jung's investigation, the benefits of breastfeeding are highly overstated. Much of the research is mixed or inconclusive. While there is some legitimate research supporting certain benefits of breastfeeding, the list is far shorter than people think and the benefits are modest at best. Further, it remains to be clarified whether the benefits are due to breastmilk itself or due to other aspects of breastfeeding, i.e., the bonding that mother and infant experience during the process. Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of breast pump manufacturers and government regulations to make the workplace friendlier to mothers who need to pump, the milk itself may not be the issue here (this was particularly disheartening for me to read, although I do believe that my efforts to pump were worthwhile because they helped maintain my milk supply at a time when I was out of the house a lot). In what may be the most damning chapter, Jung discusses La Leche League's alignment with AIDS denialists and dangerous support for breastfeeding by mothers who are HIV positive. I was so horrified I had to google this. Sure enough, consistent with Jung's book, La Leche states that "it is no longer necessary for HIV positive women to give up all hope of breastfeeding." According to Jung's research, although the risk of transmitting HIV to infants through breastfeeding can be somewhat reduced under very particular conditions, reaching these conditions is not always realistic; formula feeding, on the other hand, would eliminate the risk altogether. This type of fanaticism is akin to bombing abortion clinics out of an ostensible concern for human life; if the goal of La Leche League is to protect the health of infants, why would they promote breastfeeding in a situation that could only increase the danger to an infant's health? As I struggled in my early days of nursing, I remember one relative's dogmatic insistence that there is absolutely no such thing as a woman not having sufficient milk, a position which is likely espoused by La Leche League. Jung debunks this myth as well. Although it's certainly far from the majority, a small percentage of women are in fact unable to nurse for physical reasons. To deny this possibility is highly irresponsible and does a terrible disservice to mothers and infants. Although I do think that nursing is a struggle for many mothers initially and, in my experience, is most often is due to a learning curve rather than to physical factors, it's important to explore all the possibilities rather than unnecessarily torturing yourself and your infant because of misguided propaganda. Having said all that, I'm still a fan of nursing. The research has in fact firmly established some health benefits, even if they're not quite as far-reaching as we would like to believe. I'm happy that I got through my initial adjustment period and feel that both I and my children benefited from my breastfeeding in tangible and intangible ways. But I believe it's a personal choice, especially since the margin of benefit is not nearly as wide as is popularly believed. Aside from my interest in nursing itself, this book was a fascinating look at the way various societal agendas can converge to promote a trend with great emotional urgency at the expense of intellectual honesty. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Dec 19, 2015
|
Dec 19, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385349947
| 9780385349949
| 0385349947
| 3.95
| 262,426
| Jul 07, 2013
| Mar 12, 2013
|
really liked it
|
I'll go ahead and give this four stars for being an interesting, provocative read that was relatively undemanding. It's nice when a book can get you t
I'll go ahead and give this four stars for being an interesting, provocative read that was relatively undemanding. It's nice when a book can get you to contemplate things without placing an excessive burden on your time or level of focus. I didn't agree with everything Sheryl said and felt she was naive at points. Further, a lot of this felt removed from my work life; as a psychologist, I work in a feminized field and have been largely surrounded by women at my various workplaces, both in leadership roles and otherwise. Still, though, there's what to think about here. The simple version of Sheryl's thesis is that women should be more assertive and proactive in the workplace and men should be more assertive and proactive at home. Archaic gender stereotypes are causing women to doubt their abilities and aim low, and also to be seen as bitchy (my word, not hers) when they take initiative to try to climb the career ladder (or jungle gym, as Sheryl puts it). Since men are overrepresented in leadership positions, women seeking career mentors often have to look to men which can create uncomfortable situations. Anxious to find mentors, women sometimes seek them out in ways that keep them one-down rather than doing this assertively. Sheryl also spends a lot of time discussing the myth of "having it all," noting that women who realize they can't "have it all" are often choosing to make career sacrifices rather than prioritizing across the board and setting their partners up to pick up their slack at home. I guess the part of the book I related to most was the whole work-family/having it all thing. This was also the part that left me most ambivalent. Sheryl describes a friend of hers who tested her dates' commitment to supporting her career by cancelling on them because of work conflicts and seeing whether they were willing to bend over backward to accommodate the constraints of her professional commitments. Maybe this is an emotional knee-jerk reaction for me, but in general I'm really not a fan of this kind of game-playing in relationships so that put me off from the get-go. And then, isn't the guy allowed to have his own career conflicts? Would this same woman imposing all these demanding tests be equally accommodating of his needs? I was also a little skeptical of Sheryl's various anecdotes about men pulling their weight at home with childcare and household duties. She paints a rosy picture of what could be based on a couple of people she knows, but in my experience division of household labor between spouses can be a highly fraught issue no matter how much they negotiate ahead of time, and it would be unwise to overlook or minimize this. Sheryl was equally glowing when it came to describing women with great careers who also had great relationships with their kids, and ostensibly managed this by prioritizing and letting go of perfectionism, e.g., not caring if the linen closet was orderly. Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, letting go of perfectionism and getting ahead at the workplace are not always the most compatible goals. Second of all, unless you can afford great household help, working moms have to deal with a lot more than messy linen closets. How do you get a nutritious dinner on the table five nights a week when you're gone before 8am and back after 6pm, and then clean the kitchen so you don't have mice, while still connecting with your spouse (if you're lucky enough to have one) and kids and somehow managing to get enough sleep to function the next day? Linen closet? What's that? But there were many things I liked about the book. I felt that Sheryl was open and honest about her own struggles, and made the insightful (I felt) point that having options by definition means being a little conflicted and ambivalent about what you ultimately choose. Her descriptions of the conflict many women experience between wanting to be a good parent and wanting to succeed at work resonated with me, and I also appreciated her point that many of the conflicts facing working moms would be diminished if workplace policies (e.g., family leave) were more family-friendly. There was a lot more to the book, which still managed to clock in at under 200 pages. Overall, I tend to be a sucker for an engaging and undemanding read which piques my interest. So although objectively this may have been more of a 3.5, I'll err on the side of 4. It was pleasant and offered some fodder for discussion. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Nov 19, 2015
|
Nov 19, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1250052939
| 9781250052933
| 1250052939
| 3.74
| 7,241
| Mar 31, 2015
| Apr 01, 2015
|
really liked it
|
In my experience, essay collections tend to be uneven and repetitive. While this particular collection didn't completely escape, it was surprisingly e
In my experience, essay collections tend to be uneven and repetitive. While this particular collection didn't completely escape, it was surprisingly enlightening and enjoyable with pretty consistent quality. My favorite essay was the one by Lionel Shriver, who made a good case for why someone would not want to have children while acknowledging that this represents a societal value shift that may not reflect entirely positively on us. Other authors wrote more personally about going through periods of ambivalence followed by resolution and making peace with the decision to be childless. Some essays touched me more than others, but the vast majority of them were interesting and provocative. As someone who grew up in a society where it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that one will become a parent (provided circumstances allow), a decision that goes largely unexamined and unquestioned, it was fascinating to read about this as a complex choice. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Nov 02, 2015
|
Nov 02, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0345812891
| 9780345812896
| 0345812891
| 3.92
| 3,226
| Sep 01, 2015
| Sep 29, 2015
|
really liked it
|
I appreciated this book on women, work, and family, finding it more nuanced and realistic than Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Slaughter op I appreciated this book on women, work, and family, finding it more nuanced and realistic than Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Slaughter opens her book with a personal anecdote. In 2010, she accepted a prestigious opportunity to work for Hillary Clinton in Washington, D.C. This job meant that she would be a commuting parent, living in Washington during the week and spending the weekends at home with her family based in Princeton. Slaughter accepted the job with the ostensible support of her husband and her two sons, aged 10 and 13 at the time; however, she began to feel that her children were paying a heavy price for her absence. Slaughter ultimately decided to leave the job, which raised a great many questions for her as a career-focused, achievement-oriented feminist. This book attempts to tackle those questions. Slaughter begins by analyzing what she calls "half-truths women hold dear" and offering more realistic versions of these "feminist mantras." To "You can have it all if you are committed enough to your career" Slaughter adds, "and if you are lucky enough never to hit a point where your carefully constructed balance between work and family topples over." To "You can have it all if you marry the right person" Slaughter adds, "[if that person]...is willing to defer his or her career to yours; you stay married; and your own preferences regarding how much time you are willing to spend at work remain unchanged after you have children or find yourself caring for aging parents." To "You can have it all as long as you sequence it right" Slaughter adds, "as long as you succeed in having children when you planned to; you have an employer who both permits you to work part-time or on a flexible work schedule and still sees you as leadership material; or you take time out and then find a good job on a leadership track once you decide to get back in, regardless of your age." Clearly, having it all is at least as much about luck as it is about choices one makes. Slaughter also makes an interesting point about the dichotomy she labels "care vs. competition." In contrast to popular views of work vs. family as a women's problem, Slaughter posits that our society tends to value competitiveness and self-development over caring for others. Women and men both suffer as a result; women are often relegated to caregiving roles that earn less respect, and men are often expected to step up at work at the expense of time with their families. For example, while men are often offered paternity leave on paper, they are viewed negatively by their companies if they take advantage of this offer. And women who adopt more flexible roles at work so that they can meet caregiving responsibilities at home are often automatically viewed as no longer on the leadership track, despite the fact that they may have skills and abilities which could make them valued leaders at work at a later date when their family responsibilities become more manageable. Slaughter suggests a number of ideas for how men and women can rethink their various roles and their contribution to work-family issues. She also has a number of ideas for workplaces, some of which sounded more idealistic than practical to me (lots of vacation time to avoid burnout! Lots of flexibility about when, where, and how much you work!). But it was interesting to imagine a world in which professional and caregiving responsibilities could be seamlessly integrated rather than in opposition to each other. All in all, this book spoke to me more than Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead did. While Slaughter's suggestions can be critiqued and may need a great deal of tweaking, they represent an interesting attempt to address conflicts that many of us are experiencing between our professional and caregiving roles. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Dec 09, 2015
|
Oct 23, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 9652297984
| 9789652297983
| 9652297984
| 4.31
| 1,346
| Aug 01, 2014
| Feb 01, 2015
|
really liked it
|
I recently saw an unfamiliar title posted as to-read by one of my goodreads friends, followed by an enthusiastic thank-you from another goodreads memb
I recently saw an unfamiliar title posted as to-read by one of my goodreads friends, followed by an enthusiastic thank-you from another goodreads member for alerting them to that book's existence. The title of that other book sparked my curiosity, and I read the description and sighed. Yet another book about Israel, billed as non-fiction, reportedly "eye-opening" and revealing the "hidden truth" about Israel. Every time I read a book like this, the "hidden truth" appears to be that Israel is a simple place with blameless victims and evil aggressors. This "truth" is revealed through emotionally manipulative narratives, one-sided interviews, and a distinct lopsidedness when it comes to critical thinking. I lived in Israel for many years, and the truth is far from simple. A conflict that's as deep and longstanding as that taking place in Israel is clearly not a Disney movie with unequivocal heroes and villains, and I have a hard time trusting any author who would imply otherwise. And yet, the world seems to swallow these stories whole. Along comes Tuvia Tenenbom, described as a "gonzo journalist," here to share his experiences posing as a German Christian in Israel. Well, talk about shocking hidden truths and a lack of intellectual honesty. Although some of my fellow readers questioned a few of Tuvia's narratives, if even half of this book is true (and it's hard to imagine the whole thing is fabricated; too many people were mentioned by name who could easily call Tuvia out if that were the case), it gives one pause. At the very least, wherever one's sympathies lie, I hope people will read this book and reexamine their gullibility on this topic. This book was packed full with narratives that were both amusing and disturbing, and I couldn't possibly do the book justice if I tried to recount them all. Tuvia is clearly a bombastic man with a lack of social boundaries, and if you want hidden truths, especially in Israel, you're probably more likely to get them that way than by being polite. All I can say is, this book is easy to read, compelling, and will hopefully make you a more critical consumer of books about the Middle East. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 2015
|
Oct 01, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0393073726
| 9780393073720
| 0393073726
| 3.98
| 3,472
| Oct 13, 2014
| Oct 13, 2014
|
really liked it
|
It's always a joy to find a non-fiction book that's both engaging and informative. Reading The Birth of the Pill: How Four Crusaders Reinvented Sex an It's always a joy to find a non-fiction book that's both engaging and informative. Reading The Birth of the Pill: How Four Crusaders Reinvented Sex and Launched a Revolution reminded me very much of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks; chances are if you liked that book, you'll enjoy this one. In telling the story of the various people and processes that came together in order to introduce the birth control pill, Jonathan Eig offers a well-written, interesting narrative that fleshes out the various characters involved as well as the many challenges they faced. He also discusses the pill, and resistance to the pill, as a social phenomenon which is the piece that interested me most. It's always interesting to think about social norms we take for granted, and how different things were just a couple of decades ago. Although Jonathan Eig acknowledges that the pill was as much a symptom of preexisting societal change as it was a catalyst for this change, it clearly played a definitive role in revolutionizing women's lives. I also thought it was fascinating to consider a point he made very briefly -- that although part of Margaret Sanger's agenda in pushing for the pill was to improve marriages, the divorce rate has shot up in the decades following the introduction of the pill. Although correlation is not causation, it's an interesting irony to contemplate. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Aug 08, 2015
|
Aug 08, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0743260465
| 9780743260466
| 0743260465
| 3.91
| 951
| Mar 26, 2004
| Feb 08, 2005
|
liked it
|
The Mommy Myth Trialogue Popular Culture: It’s amazing to be a mom! I am so blissed out as I take care of my baby, and if you’re not, there’s something The Mommy Myth Trialogue Popular Culture: It’s amazing to be a mom! I am so blissed out as I take care of my baby, and if you’re not, there’s something wrong with you! Feminism is overrated and anti-motherhood! Douglas & Michaels, authors of The Mommy Myth: No! No! No! This is all a bunch of momism (i.e., an impossible standard of perfection in mothering perpetuated by the media). And feminists actually love stay-at-home mothers! They just think men should help more, and want more childcare options. Take that, Christina Hoff Sommers! Hapless reader: Wait a minute, guys – I read a book by Christina Hoff Sommers on feminism. I didn’t find her antifeminist per se as you guys claim, and she cited a heck of a lot of data to support her points. Meanwhile, your acerbic and often vitriolic tone is admittedly bitingly funny and saves this book from being dry, but I’m not sure about your credibility; you can get a bit rhetorical. Popular culture: In women’s movies, guys can be jerks but the happy ending comes when the heroine ends up with a more sensitive man. Douglas & Michaels: Drag that heroine to a gay bar where she can meet some decent women! These heterosexual happy endings with sensitive guys are deluding audiences by masking the patriarchy. Hapless reader: Hey, I’m also not a fan of wish fulfillment in Mary Sue movies, but judging from the number of them out there, I guess other people are. Once we’re appealing to people’s fantasies, is it so terrible to imagine that our heroine finds a decent guy? Is that really so unrealistic? Last I checked, there were still some decent guys out there. Popular culture: It’s all over the news – kids are being kidnapped! Kids are being poisoned! Lots of bad stuff happens at daycare centers! Douglas & Michaels: You see? It’s all a plot. They’re trying to get mothers to leave the workplace and go back home. Hapless reader: Or maybe news shows are just trying to get ratings by being sensationalist and appealing to people’s vulnerabilities. As more mothers work, these will naturally be hot topics. Popular culture: Look at all these celebrities just loving being moms with their five nannies and three chefs! And look how skinny and gorgeous they are all the time, and how they never complain! Douglas & Michaels: And how is the average women’s magazine reader supposed to feel when she sees how short she falls compared to Hollywood celebs? They’re sending you a message – if you fail at motherhood, you fail at womanhood. Hapless reader: I’m not sure how deliberate or calculated this all is, and most of my friends and I aren’t comparing ourselves to Angelina Jolie and struggling with inferiority complexes as a result. Popular culture: Welfare queens! Crack babies! Child abuse! Maternal delinquents! Douglas & Michaels: The media sets up motherhood good guys and bad guys, and are giving us a vastly oversimplified picture. They’re causing us to stereotype people on welfare and exacerbating our tendencies toward racism and classism. These images of evil mothers make insecure mothers with aspirations to perfect motherhood feel better about themselves. But really, mothers on welfare are being unfairly stereotyped and really need their government funding which is now in jeopardy. Hapless reader: I’ve worked with people who were underprivileged, and I’ve met a wide range of people living off of government programs. I’ve met people who fit the media stereotypes, and I’ve met people who were more like the people Douglas and Michaels claim are more typical (hard-working, given a bad break in life, doing the best they can, striving to get off of government programs), and I’ve also met people who fall on different places in that continuum. The system definitely needs an overhaul. But I’m not sure Douglas and Michaels’ image is any more accurate, or less one-dimensional, than that of the media. Popular culture: All mothers are locked in mortal combat in “the Mommy Wars,” clawing desperately at each other as they fight to the death over who’s right, the stay-at-home moms or the working mothers. Douglas & Michaels: First of all, this presupposes that mothers are choosing to work when many of them are not. Second of all, many stay-at-home mothers are sympathetic to and/or envious of mothers who work, and vice versa, but this is entirely overlooked because it’s more fun for the media to pit us against each other. What’s really going on here is that an impossible standard of motherhood is being promoted which is making all of us insecure and defensive. What’s also happening is that an ideal of individualism is being sold to women, which is replacing feminism and the sisterhood of collectively advocating for women’s needs. Ha! The government wins! No need to give women’s needs high priority, because there’s no more women’s lobby! Hapless reader: Yeah, I also thought the “Mommy Wars” were highly overrated and find that most of the mothers I know manage to find some balance between being with their kids and developing a career, even if that balance looks different for different people. I wouldn’t say that there’s an anti-feminist backlash agenda here, just an attempt by media to get readers/listeners/viewers by drumming up controversy among existing social movements. Popular culture: Daycare is bad. Research has found that it negatively affects child development in all kinds of ways. And look at all those sexual abuse scandals that happened in daycare centers! Douglas & Michaels: Well, a lot of that damning research on daycares was agenda-driven and problematic. Jay Belsky, a major researcher in this area, misrepresented his findings as well as his status on the research team just to get attention. And what those scandals really show us is that we need to have better daycare across the board, available to all working mothers, not just the ones who can afford those astronomical prices for quality daycare. Government, where are you? Why can’t we be more like Denmark, Sweden, and France? Shame on you! Hapless reader: I want better daycare, but I’m not sure that I want higher taxes and a more socialized government. I think this issue is far more complicated than Douglas & Michaels are making it out to be. Popular culture: You have to buy your child the best toys, or they won’t develop properly. And you have to buy your child the hippest toys, or they’ll feel deprived compared to their friends. Douglas & Michaels: These educational toys are so overrated, and many of the hip toys are also sexist. Stop commercializing the mother-child relationship! Stop pressuring moms to anticipate, and cater to, all of their child’s needs! Hapless reader: Unfortunately we do live in a materialistic society, and some of this is unavoidable. I agree that it’s regrettable, though I’ll admit that this particular chapter got a bit long-winded for me. Popular culture: Beware of SIDS and other childhood dangers (that can only be prevented by buying our expensive products)! Dr. Laura is proud to be her kid’s mom, and will rip you if you’re not – no confusing moral ambiguity there. Basically, women need to be independent, achievement-oriented, successful, both equal to men and appealing to men, selfless, accommodating, nurturing, and of course, slim and beautiful – “some hybrid between Mother Teresa, Donna Shalala, Martha Stewart, and Cindy Crawford.” (p. 325) Douglas & Michaels: Somehow, kids survived in earlier generations without all these products. Dr. Laura is a hypocrite who has a major career despite being her kid’s mom, and capitalizes on women’s ambivalence about working in a context where it’s hard to afford good daycare (boo to you, government) by reaffirming the sexual division of labor and creating a black-and-white world that infantilizes her callers. Let’s replace momism with something more honest and real. Let’s acknowledge that motherhood, though it can be deeply rewarding, is not an endless high. Let’s ridicule momism, which is really little more than an attempt to sell us stuff and divide women, and instead, let’s come together and advocate for things that mothers actually need. Hapless reader: Douglas and Michaels, for all my making fun of them in this review, are intelligent academics who make a lot of good, or at least stimulating, points. I also found myself chuckling a lot at their acerbic barbs and satire. That being said, they’re clearly agenda-driven and, in their way, just as one-dimensional as all those people promoting the new momism. This book needs to be read critically. It’s also long, and a bit of a commitment. But I’m not sorry I read it, and if the topic speaks to you, you may enjoy it as well. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jul 24, 2015
|
Jul 24, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 149155181X
| 9781491551813
| 149155181X
| 3.94
| 1,465
| Apr 01, 2012
| Oct 14, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
This book made me wish I had taken more personality courses in grad school. Or at least better ones, preferably taught by a professor like Brian Littl
This book made me wish I had taken more personality courses in grad school. Or at least better ones, preferably taught by a professor like Brian Little. Smart, articulate, engaging, but not at the expense of providing solid content -- and sometimes, surprisingly funny. The book begins with a discussion of personal constructs, ways that we judge and characterize other people as well as ourselves. We see people behaving in certain ways and create entire narratives around this limited information, thinking we're incredibly perceptive. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're way off. People who tend to do this a lot are "person specialists," fascinated by people's intentions and motives. People who tend to do this less may be "thing specialists," focusing on the concrete things they actually see and not inferring more than meets the eye. It was validating for me to read this, because I know a couple where the wife fancies herself highly perceptive and her husband a doltishly poor judge of character. People around them, including the husband, tend to believe this narrative which was largely created by the wife. I was more skeptical, especially since I noticed that on many occasions, the wife's assessments tended to be pretty speculative. Her husband, in contrast, was sometimes the better judge because there are times when what you see is what you get, and creating a whole elaborate narrative could actually mislead you. Of course, I don't think either of them noticed those instances because of the confirmation bias and all that (see Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts). But I digress. Anyway, one of the points the book makes with regard to well-being is that being flexible about your personal constructs gives you room to tolerate information that takes you out of your comfort zone. The book then discusses "The Big Five" dimensions of personality -- conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. Where people fall out on these different continuua are defining features of their personality. The book also notes that we sometimes have the capacity to act out of character occasionally on any of these dimensions in accordance with situational demands -- an introvert may turn on their inner extrovert when they need to, for instance. Is that being fake? Not necessarily. Choosing to act contrary to one's innate character as a means of pursuing a value or goal is arguably just as authentic as doing what comes naturally, even if it requires more effort. Acting out of character over a long period, though, can be stressful as I'm sure most of us know. There are people who do this more, called high self-monitors, who try hard to conform to situational demands in the moment. People who do this less are called low self-monitors, insisting on being themselves no matter where they are or who they're with. The former might be called pragmatic, the latter, principled. Is one innately superior? The answer, of course, is that it depends on the situation. The book then discusses locus of control, or the perception that one has control over events and how things will turn out. Some people really and truly believe that they have the power to affect change; others are more fatalistic. One question the book discusses is whether it's better to have a high or low locus of control, which is not as clear-cut as one might think. Another question is whether it's good or bad to be deluded about the level of control you actually have. The book then discusses stress and health, leading into the ever-popular "Type A" and "Type B" personalities. The relationship between being a "Type A" personality and health is not nearly as clear-cut as was once believed. Some other surprises in this book include the traits of creative people (not always what you would think), a look at person-environment fit (there are, in fact, "country people" and "city people" but the traits differentiating them are not simple), and a discussion of our personal projects and what they say about us. Though not a self-help or pop psych book, the book wraps up with a discussion of what all of this means in terms of our well-being. Maybe I just liked this because I'm a psychologist and have a preexisting interest in the topic. But this book wasn't written for psychologists, and that wasn't the only thing I liked about it. What I really admired was Brian Little's ability to be informative, engaging, and funny -- exactly what I look for in a good non-fiction read. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jun 24, 2015
|
Jun 24, 2015
|
Audio CD
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465090974
| 9780465090976
| 0465090974
| 3.97
| 2,431
| 1992
| Oct 06, 1993
|
really liked it
|
Well, if you thought Donna Reed represented a long line of traditional family values, or even the typical 1950s family, it seems you were mistaken. St
Well, if you thought Donna Reed represented a long line of traditional family values, or even the typical 1950s family, it seems you were mistaken. Stephanie Coontz is here to disabuse you of that notion. She unpacks several myths, one at a time, including the idea that American families were always self-reliant, the idea that women were always stay-at-home, hands-on mothers, the idea that alcoholism, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy are modern-day problems, etc. This book was informative, and the subject matter highly provocative. That being said, it was a dense read. Additionally, there were times when I felt Coontz had a bit of an agenda; she appears to be on a bit of a soapbox against blame-the-victim thinking with regard to poverty. While I'm never a fan of blame-the-victim thinking, I wasn't always sure where Coontz's factual information ended and her agenda began. Worth a read if the subject matter interests you but be advised that it's a commitment, and should be read critically. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 10, 2015
|
May 10, 2015
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0465022324
| 9780465022328
| 0465022324
| 3.71
| 685
| Jun 30, 2008
| Jan 04, 2011
|
really liked it
|
I enjoy Stephanie Coontz's books, with their critical analysis of the way we think things were historically vs. factual evidence. This book overlapped
I enjoy Stephanie Coontz's books, with their critical analysis of the way we think things were historically vs. factual evidence. This book overlapped a little with her book on marriage but focused on myths and facts surrounding The Feminine Mystique and its impact, both perceived and actual. In her introduction, Coontz tells us that The Feminine Mystique "has been credited -- or blamed -- for destroying...the 1950s consensus that women's place was in the home." Passionate opinions abound about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, including many from people who've never actually read the book. When Coontz finally read the book, she discovered that she found it "boring and dated...repetitive and overblown," as well as making oversimplified claims about feminism in the 1920s and antifeminist reactionary sentiments in the 1940s and 1950s. Friedan was also not exactly liberated by today's standards -- she opined against homosexuality, failed to acknowledge the experience of people of color, and was actually not as single-minded about women working outside the home as she is perceived to be. Coontz begins by acknowledging that the early 1960s was in fact a time of much institutionalized sexism in America. She writes about Freudian psychiatrists promoting ideas that if a woman felt dissatisfied in her wife/mother role, there was clearly something wrong with her rather than with her situation. Coontz notes that Friedan did not actually challenge the notion that women should be wives and mothers. Rather, Friedan gave voice to the fact that many housewives, while striving mightily to convince themselves and others that they were content to revolve their lives around the routines of housework and childcare, felt a deep insecurity, self-doubt, and unhappiness that they could not articulate. This was a message which spoke to a large number of 1960s housewives. According to Coontz, a prominent theme of The Feminine Mystique was that women, like men, want to feel that their lives have a greater meaning and purpose. Friedan argued that although a woman who could stay home and raise her children was arguably privileged, and may feel guilty for failing to appreciate her situation, she could still feel frustrated and stifled. This struck a chord with many women in this situation, who were struggling with depression and taking tranquilizers and blaming themselves for the dissatisfaction they felt. Interestingly, Coontz notes that "Nowhere does the book advocate that women pursue full-time careers or even suggest that women ask their husbands to help them with childcare and housework if they went to school or took a job." In fact, many later feminists felt that The Feminine Mystique failed to confront male privilege in the home. Friedan simply advocated for women to "pursue and education and develop a life plan that would give meaning to the years after her children left home." This agenda was hardly a militant one. According to Coontz, Friedan argued that following women's suffrage and the first wave of feminism in the 1920s, the Great Depression and World War II resulted in a backlash that drove women back into the home out of a need for family stability in trying times. Friedan added that manufacturers saw the population of homemakers as ideal consumers, and promoted household goods as a source of self-actualization for women in these roles. She named other sources as well as promoting the idea that women should feel entirely fulfilled in homemaking roles and have no need for any other outlets. However, Coontz adds, Friedan's account does not exactly jive with actual history. Although successful activism by women for the sake of women's suffrage resulted in progress, feminism in the 1920s was not a monolithic movement and many expressed discomfort with the changes on this front. More women began working at this point, but it was a time of glaring double standards and inequalities. Further, having gained the vote, feminism lost a unifying cause and the threat of fascism in the 1930s became more of a concern than women's rights. Additionally, a review of popular articles published in the late 1940s and 1950s suggests that Friedan's ideas were not as novel as people believe; in fact, feminist ideas were being voiced and the ideal of a woman staying home was being challenged in a variety of quarters. In other words, although there was some truth to Friedan's views of feminist history from the 1920s until the 1960s, the picture was more complex than she acknowledges. That being said, Coontz acknowledges that reading The Feminine Mystique was transformative for many women. Many women describe The Feminine Mystique as liberating them from the self-blame they experienced as they struggled with anxiety and depression in their roles as homemakers, sometimes with difficult marriages. Although Friedan's claims had been anticipated by some earlier scholars, Friedan's book reached a wider audience and was therefore perceived as original. Some women credit Friedan with giving them the courage to leave their unhappy marriages; however, Friedan was actually not anti-marriage. Friedan's argument was that marriages would be happier when women no longer tried to meet all of their needs through their assigned roles as wives and mothers, not that women should leave their marriages. In fact, Coontz encountered women (and men!) who reported that reading The Feminine Mystique actually helped their marriages. According to Coontz, many critics dismiss The Feminine Mystique "as written by a middle-class housewife who did not understand the needs of working women or minorities and who addressed problems unique to elite, educated readers." Coontz notes that the book was clearly biased in favor of women from middle-class backgrounds, and had its biggest impact on women who were college-educated but could not see how to integrate their education with their adult life as wives and mothers. This was certainly a different problem from women who were working out of necessity, although some working-class women embraced The Feminine Mystique as well. Coontz is sympathetic, noting that although the pain of women struggling with hardship and deprivation should clearly not be overlooked, the internal struggles of middle class women experiencing role conflict are worth examining as well. In her final chapters, Coontz notes that Friedan exaggerates the originality of her ideas and fails to acknowledge some of her source material. The Feminine Mystique was not actually ahead of its time, according to Coontz, who states that books "don't become bestsellers because they are ahead of their time. They become bestsellers when they tap into concerns that people are already mulling over, pull together ideas and data that have not yet spread beyond specialists and experts, and bring these all together in a way that is easy to understand and explain to others." Rather than innovating, The Feminine Mystique "synthesized a wide range of scholarly research and contemporary social criticism." Coontz also notes that Friedan exaggerated the "hostile reception" her book received; in fact, she had a large number of supporters. According to Coontz, "The women's movement certainly would have taken off without Friedan's book." What Friedan did accomplish, though, was "lifting so many women out of such deep self-doubt and despair." Coontz describes The Feminine Mystique as a "journalistic tour de force, combining scholarship, investigative reporting, and a compelling personal voice." According to Coontz, Friedan's "insistence on the need to break down prevailing assumptions about women, work, and family and to look for the societal origins of dilemmas that are often experienced as purely personal remains extremely relevant." Coontz describes Friedan as far from a "'man hater.'" Rather, she was "consistently, almost romantically, optimistic about heterosexual love and marriage in a world where women were men's equals." According to Coontz, although sociologists and economists correctly predicted that women with more resources would be more likely to walk away from an unsatisfying marriage, after an initial increase the divorce rate actually began to decline after the 1980s. More women are happily integrating careers and motherhood, and more men are helping with housework, even if their wives stay home. The lowest level of life satisfaction is not reported by stay-at-home mothers or by working mothers -- rather, it's reported by those who have had one of these paths forced on them when their preference is the other path. Coontz argues that we have come a long way since The Feminine Mystique; however, we have some new problems. According to Coontz, in out time of increasingly liberal dress norms, young girls are increasingly preoccupied with looking "hot" without looking "slutty," and this early emphasis can lead to girls becoming sexually active before they are emotionally ready. Coontz adds that as a society, we continue to give conflicting messages about motherhood and work as well as promoting the myth that stay-at-home mothers and working mothers are divided into two hostile camps and sides must be taken about who is "right." According to Coontz, while most women desire some combination of professional development and hands-on motherhood, rigid work policies create a reality where one of these goals must take a backseat, even if it is no longer sacrificed entirely. Today, "...few workers have the luxury of a full-time caregiver at home, even though obligations to children last longer than in the past..." and "...employees who do earn enough to support a family...are often forced to work more hours than they really need or want." Coontz notes that other countries set limits on the maximum length of the workweek and are more generous with subsidized parenting leaves. I remember learning in high school that The Feminine Mystique rocked American society, and in my religious circles, feminism is often blamed for the breakdown of families and all sorts of societal ills. It was fascinating to examine this rhetoric through the lens of a historical look at the book that supposedly -- though not actually -- launched the movement. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1416575987
| 9781416575986
| 1416575987
| 3.61
| 2,510
| Apr 21, 2009
| Jan 01, 2009
|
really liked it
|
If you're looking to feel good about the direction society is moving in, don't read Jean M. Twenge. In an unsurprising follow-up to Generation Me: Why If you're looking to feel good about the direction society is moving in, don't read Jean M. Twenge. In an unsurprising follow-up to Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--And More Miserable Than Ever Before, Twenge and her colleague now take on what they see as the rise of narcissism in America in recent decades. They begin with a discussion of narcissism -- how to define it and related myths and facts. They discuss possible causes, including parenting, celebrities/media, the internet, and easy credit making a self-indulgent lifestyle deceptively accessible. They identify some ramifications of increased narcissism, such as vanity, materialism, an insistence on "specialness," rudeness, relationship difficulties, entitlement in the workplace, and changing religious practices. Finally, they make predictions about future directions for narcissism and offer suggestions for countering this "epidemic." Twenge and Campbell make some convincing arguments. They cite studies and bring examples, often humorous, that support their case. I did struggle a bit with the way that they define narcissism, for example, differentiating it into extroverted and introverted/"vulnerable" subtypes, which was a distinction that was unfamiliar to me. They differentiate between narcissism and "really high self-esteem," claiming that narcissists "think they are smarter, better looking, and more important than others, but not necessarily more moral, more caring, or more compassionate." As psychology academics who've done their research I imagine Twenge and Campbell know more about this than I do, but I did wonder whether this was an accurate statement; I've seen a lot of people behave in ways that I viewed as narcissistic who also expressed a strong sense of moral superiority. In fact, I would expect a narcissist to be more self-righteous than someone who's merely self-confident, not less so. I appreciated Twenge and Campbell's arguing against the "myth" that narcissists are truly insecure underneath, although I wonder if this is more of a semantic or academic argument. In my encounters with people I viewed as narcissistic (although admittedly I hadn't diagnosed them clinically), their defensive reaction to critical feedback suggested a certain fragility to me that I have a hard time associating with genuine self-confidence. That being said, I definitely connected with Twenge and Campbell's views of self-esteem. I've been saying for a long time that I feel self-esteem is one of the most highly overrated concepts in today's culture; the way I see it, a realistic assessment of one's strengths and weaknesses combined with motivation and investment in improving oneself is far more useful than "high self-esteem." Twenge and Campbell offer an interesting historical analysis of America's increasing narcissism. They suggest that, while American culture was always individualistic, the 1960s emphasis on introspection and self-improvement gradually morphed into an emphasis on self-expression in the 1970s, which became even more entrenched in the materialistic 1980s. It was around this time that America's obsession with celebrities began, followed by reality TV and all kinds of oversharing on the internet. Parenting, too, has changed over the past several decades. In the 1950s, according to Twenge and Campbell, "Parents were often emotionally distant authority figures who rarely got down on the floor to play with their children." "Because I said so" and physical discipline characterized parental limit-setting rather than explanations and attachment-focused parenting. While Twenge and Campbell acknowledge that it's a good thing that parenting has become more sensitive and emotionally attuned, they feel that we have gone to the other extreme with helicopter parenting and failure to set appropriate limits and invoke authority. They make some good points about the overuse of praise, particularly nonspecific praise, and research-supported ramifications of its negative effects. Twenge and Campbell then take on celebrities and reality TV as negative influences and models of narcissistic behavior. They discuss messages that may be absorbed from social media, e.g., "I must be entertained all the time"; "If you've got it, flaunt it"; "Success means being a consumer"; and "Happiness is a glamorous adult (with adulthood defined primarily in terms of sexuality)." They give commonly expressed arguments for superficial internet friendships replacing more meaningful real-time friendships, artificial self-presentation, exhibitionism on blogs and facebook and the belief that your every move is interesting, etc. They also talk about easy credit and the temptation to engage in conspicuous consumption created by buy-now, pay-later possibilities. Twenge and Campbell claim that plastic surgery is on the rise because of increased vanity, and that materialism and greed are resulting in harm to the environment as well as mental health issues when accumulating more things doesn't result in increased happiness. In a particularly amusing chapter, they discuss the problematic nature of believing that everyone is special, citing the popularity of unusual names as a symptom of this mentality. They also discuss the increase in rudeness and aggressive behavior as attributable to more narcissism. I also enjoyed the chapter on narcissism and relationships, particularly Twenge and Campbell's challenging the oft-cited myth that "you have to love yourself in order to be able to love someone else." They claim that, while people with low self-esteem can be clingy, anxious for reassurance, and focused on their insecurities, they also make more caring and devoted partners than do self-absorbed narcissists. I found this a provocative claim; certainly an insecure life partner presents its share of challenges. At the same time, I think it's worth considering the possibility that high self-esteem in a life partner may be overrated while a little insecurity in a life partner may not be the worst trait to have to live with. Then, of course, there was the chapter on the work ethic. As someone who's worked with graduate students, I've spent much time with middle-aged colleagues like myself bemoaning the decline of the American work ethic, the fragility of students' egos whereas I was expected to just suck it up when I was at their stage, etc., etc. My other thought, though, being someone who came of age at an arguable transition point between the older times and the newer times, is that I had some traumatic experiences with insensitive, bullying supervisors when I was a student and might have developed more quickly and smoothly as a professional had I been able to work with more nurturing, supportive role models. I still don't know what the answer is, but I do agree with Twenge and Campbell that I've witnessed some inappropriate entitlement in some of the students I've worked with, and I kind of wonder if/when it will catch up with them. Well, this is certainly turning out to be a long review and it's probably pretty narcissistic of me to assume that anyone is still reading. Or is it more narcissistic if I say that it doesn't matter; I just want to get my thoughts out regardless of whether they interest anyone but me? I guess I'll sum up by saying that reading the range of goodreads reviews on this book is interesting, and a lot of intelligent criticisms have been voiced, even if some of them smack of a little defensiveness. My husband complained that the authors sound like scolds, and some goodreads reviewers accuse them of a conservative agenda. More concerning are suggestions that the authors are defining narcissism too broadly and citing research improperly without the appropriate disclaimers. That being said, it's an interesting and provocative read for someone who enjoys the topic, with what I felt was a good balance of information and anecdotes/humor. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 31, 2015
|
Jan 31, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0307452417
| 9780307452412
| 0307452417
| 4.17
| 4,185
| Apr 13, 2010
| Apr 13, 2010
|
really liked it
|
I voted for two polarized reviews of this book -- one extolling its virtues, the other dismissing its arguments as simplistic. I suspect both are vali
I voted for two polarized reviews of this book -- one extolling its virtues, the other dismissing its arguments as simplistic. I suspect both are valid. As a psychologist I frequently meet individuals of all ages who are taking psychotropic medication. Medication as an appropriate treatment option is unquestioned by most of the people I work with, although my colleagues often bemoan the fact that people prefer medication to therapy, thinking popping some pills will be a quick fix. I was required to learn about the range of psychotropic drugs available when I was in graduate school, memorizing their names, uses, and side effects. None of my professors or supervisors ever raised the question of whether the entire basis for prescribing psychotropic medication might be flawed. The author of this book has an agenda, and doesn't cite counterarguments or counterevidence. That being said, this is a book that makes you sit up and take notice. Apparently Thorazine, the drug said to have kicked off the psychopharmacology revolution in the 1950s, was inadvertently discovered when a failed malaria medication was found to have sedating qualities. So in a context when frontal lobotomy was considered an appropriate and effective treatment for mental illness, and just as doctors were being newly granted prescription privileges and forging a new relationship with pharmacists, a rash of tranquilizers hit the market as a means of fighting mental illness. The whole mind-body question seemed to have been answered as people embraced the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness. While it seems to have been true that the new drugs affected brain chemistry, the question of whether mental illness was actually caused by a chemical imbalance was really not sufficiently explored. So were these drugs solving a problem, or creating one? More drugs entered the market, and they seemed effective in the short run. Long-term outcomes were murkier, and even short-term outcome studies, upon examination, were frequently flawed and agenda-driven. Not to mention side effects and the possibility of long-term brain damage. Plus, as people relapsed whenever they went off their meds, and even when they were on them, the utility of these medications seemed questionable. Whitaker cites studies suggesting that mental illness outcomes were more positive before the introduction of medication, and notes that lots more people are collecting disability for mental illness today than ever before. So have the medications in fact helped us fight mental illness? In the 1970s, it seems, people were actually becoming disillusioned with psychiatry, psychotropic medication, and the medical model of mental illness. Feeling threatened, the American Psychiatric Association revised the Freudian DSM-II and produced the DSM-III, which identified 265 psychiatric conditions. Although the biological underpinnings of mental illness remained unclear, the book was well-received and, according to Whitaker, launched a movement of scientific propaganda to promote the idea that mental illness was biochemical in nature and could be treated with psychotropic medication. The field was ripe for the introduction of Prozac and other newer psychotropic medications in the late 1980s, touted as miracle drugs despite appallingly shoddy research results. In the 1990s, with the popularization of childhood diagnoses like ADHD and childhood Bipolar disorder, prescribing these drugs to children took off. Although this was a readable, intelligent, and persuasive book, I'm not ready to swallow Whitaker's arguments whole. He continues to insist that we don't have sufficient evidence to support the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness. Is that still true today, with the technological advances we have? If studies conducted today are failing to support the chemical imbalance theory, wouldn't this information get out? Are the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists so powerful that they can suppress news like that? And is Whitaker the first person to realize that research done by pharmaceutical companies carries an inherent conflict of interest? Has no one else ever thought of this, or taken steps to publish unbiased research on psychotropic medication? Whitaker also claims that people who aren't prescribed psychotropic medication, or don't use this medication, have better outcomes than people who take psychotropic drugs. But might there be a selection bias there? What if the people who aren't receiving the prescriptions, or are choosing not to take them, are the people who are higher-functioning to begin with and whose problems are less pressing? Similarly, there's the age-old question of whether there's actually more mental illness today, or whether it simply went undiagnosed in earlier decades? But here's what I think is true. I can see why popping a pill sounds more appealing, efficient, and cost-effective to everyone -- doctors, patients, parents -- than years of therapy. I can see why this might make doctors trigger-happy and prone to overdiagnosing and overprescribing, and well-meaning patients and parents eager to do what seems best. Medicine does seem more scientific and carry more authority than therapy, where so many human variables affect outcome. The psychiatrists I work with have said to me on more than one occasion that they think my job is much harder than theirs; certainly I wrestle with a lot of ambiguity and resistance in my work that doesn't seem to plague them as much. And I have memories of pharmaceutical companies showering my various workplaces with gifts and elaborate luncheons -- there's no doubt that marketing is a big priority for them, and that they would go to great lengths to promote their products. So is this book agenda-driven? Yes. Simplistic? Somewhat. Whitaker acknowledges that psychotropic drugs were found to be more effective than placebos or no treatment for individuals with severe mental illness, and that it may be appropriate to prescribe these drugs judiciously for that population. So what he's saying is not black-and-white. When I was an intern, I was told that psychotropic medication was meant to be short-term, and was intended to make the client more accessible to therapy; with successful therapy, the client would learn missing skills and be weaned off of their medication. I think even Whitaker might agree with that particular use of medication in theory; unfortunately, I haven't seen it happen that way a lot in practice. Whitaker cites a lot of compelling evidence. What I would like to see now is a good counterargument, also supported with solid evidence. Of course, if psychiatrists and pharmacists are in cahoots as Whitaker seems to suggest, that might be hard to find. But I'll be looking for it, and would welcome any recommendations. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 21, 2014
|
Jan 03, 2015
|
Dec 21, 2014
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1451636016
| 9781451636017
| 1451636016
| 3.91
| 47,512
| Jan 01, 2014
| Sep 09, 2014
|
really liked it
|
Well, it didn't surprise me to learn that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens were buddies. Like Hitch, Sam is a fantastic writer and brilliant thinker Well, it didn't surprise me to learn that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens were buddies. Like Hitch, Sam is a fantastic writer and brilliant thinker who's no fan of religion. In this compelling book, he shares his views on spirituality and consciousness, discussing meditation as a means of achieving spirituality which is entirely independent of religious belief and ritual. Obviously, as a practicing religious person, Sam and I are not on the same page. I also struggled to understand his chapter on meditation; he lost me at several points which almost cost the book a star. And I was hoping he would discuss the connection between temporal lobe stimulation and transcendent spiritual experiences; something I heard about briefly once and would love to know more about. That being said, this was a provocative and enjoyable book which was worth reading (although it demands focus). As a psychologist, much of his information about our power to influence the way we think and the impact this has on our experiences was highly relevant to the work that I do. I especially enjoyed his chapter on religious gurus, where he brilliantly articulated the dynamic that frequently takes place between religious leaders and idealizing sycophants. Overall, my religious beliefs and practices notwithstanding, I think it's fascinating to contemplate what spirituality means and whether true spirituality can exist independent of religion. Sam's views, though different from my own, are impressively expressed and worth contemplating. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Nov 15, 2014
|
Oct 19, 2014
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0671675230
| 9780671675233
| 0671675230
| 3.81
| 246
| 1983
| Sep 15, 1989
|
it was amazing
|
Certainly this book spoke to me as a therapist, someone who tries to help people who are dealing with strong feelings of all sorts but frequently ange
Certainly this book spoke to me as a therapist, someone who tries to help people who are dealing with strong feelings of all sorts but frequently anger. But it spoke to me on a personal level as well. I've been the unfortunate recipient of angry outbursts from people who seemed to believe that their feeling enraged justified their attacking me, and that their "need" to release their anger trumped my need for, well, basic respect and courtesy, to say the least. And over the course of my life, I've experienced things that have caused me to feel resentful, and it's been hard for me to let go of some of those feelings despite my intellectual understanding that holding on to these grudges was doing me no good. So I picked up this book with a great deal of interest. I've enjoyed Carol Tavris's writing on other occasions (e.g., Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me: Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, And Hurtful Acts), and was eager to hear what she would say about anger. I wasn't disappointed. Tavris begins by pointing out that we, as a society, have a legacy of ambivalence about anger. Having once believed in ideals of stoicism and suffering in silence, current popular thinking is that expressing anger in its full force is the only way to discharge it; otherwise, it will supposedly come out in other, more insidious forms. Beliefs abound, even among therapists, that expressing anger increases self-esteem (not true, according to research findings), that it's a necessary part of resolving conflicts (in fact, conflicts can be solved without anger), that the positive consequences of expressing anger outweigh the negative ones (actually, expressing anger often makes things worse, not better), and that venting leads to positive feelings (again, research findings beg to differ). Tavris then describes both causes and expressions of anger across a variety of cultures, with surprising ramifications for rethinking our own views of anger. She discusses the physiology of anger, examining the conflicting evidence that anger has physical causes and the more convincing evidence that our own beliefs and interpretations of events are more relevant to whether or not we feel angry. She adeptly challenges popular theories such as "depression is anger turned inward" (something I still frequently hear from colleagues), and "Type A" individuals are more prone to heart disease (a highly simplistic and somewhat illusory correlation when one examines the research carefully). In what may be the most relevant chapter, Tavris debunks popular views of catharsis. While some people report that they find aggressive behavior to feel tension-reducing, in fact acting aggressively frequently inflames one's anger rather than exorcising it. It also has the additional effect of provoking and upsetting the person you're in conflict with, thus exacerbating rather than mitigating whatever disagreement caused your anger. And a big ouch moment for therapists like myself -- talking out your anger with someone else can actually make things worse, not better. Talking to others endlessly about how victimized you feel by the other person simply gives you the opportunity to rehearse and solidify your view that they're 100% wrong and you're 100% right. While talking about your anger with the goal of solving the problem can be a necessary early step, continually venting about how rotten the other person was/is simply entrenches you in your anger with them. Though it may seem counter-intuitive, well-intentioned friends and therapists who want to help someone who's suffering would do better to gradually (and kindly, of course) set limits on venting rather than offering unlimited sympathy. Similarly, Tavris brings convincing evidence that parents should set appropriate limits on excessive tantrums and sibling rivalry rather than tolerating them unconditionally based on the assumption that they represent healthy anger expression in children. Does this mean we shouldn't express our anger at all? No, says Tavris. Sometimes it's right, and constructive, to express your anger. But first, the anger needs to be directed at the appropriate party. Second, the anger needs to be perceived as restoring justice and creating appropriate consequences. Third, the anger must either change the person who hurt you or provide you with new insights. Fourth, the recipient of your anger must be able to hear what you're saying and respond appropriately. Finally, you need to be safe from retaliation by the other person. Under those conditions, says Tavris, expressing your anger is helpful rather than harmful. Of course, it requires work and responsibility on your part to make sure that many of those conditions are met. And some of them are not in your control. Not to suggest, of course, that silent sulking and passive aggression are preferable to venting. But distracting yourself and calming down is a necessary first step before deciding whether, and how, to address your anger. Tavris then discusses some of the stresses of modern life which have been implicated in anger -- frustration, crowds, road rage, etc. According to Tavris, the "mean drunk" is probably someone who was angry to begin with, not someone who can fairly blame alcohol for their behavior. Overall, while various stimuli can make us more susceptible to anger, self-awareness can go a long way when it comes to preventing and offsetting the consequences of these stimuli. It seems that, notwithstanding popular gender stereotypes, both men and women are equally likely to experience and express anger in similar ways. Further, marital anger is a layered and complex condition -- often a combination of contrasting backgrounds, unrealistic expectations, petty issues taking on greater importance because they occur in a context of multiple unresolved differences, dissatisfaction with one's role in the marriage, different styles of anger expression, and many more. As I've said to many a couple, the only way to solve this is for each person to stop trying to change the other and accept responsibility for their own functioning in the relationship. While Tavris's views of spousal abuse are different from the ones I learned (I was always taught that the abuser is responsible for their abusive behavior, and the abusee is responsible for keeping themselves safe), I'm inclined to trust the validity of her statements given her general copiousness of research. After a chapter on anger as a step toward social justice, Tavris ends by sharing suggestions for "Living with Anger and Moving Beyond It." Tavris discusses the need to employ cognitive techniques and humor to help ourselves reevaluate situations and turn our focus toward self-management and solutions rather than venting. She recognizes that some events can't be reevaluated and advises us to pick our battles and sometimes work toward acceptance rather than solving or changing things. Tavris discusses the problem of "The Difficult Person" (who doesn't have at least one in their lives?), and the importance of taking responsibility for your part of your interactions with them. She talks about divorce, and the need to move on afterward even if your ex was legitimately a jerk. She provides tips for parents of aggressive children, emphasizing the importance of consistent limit-setting and catching them being good. And she talks about when you're the victim of someone else's wrong behavior -- the need to decide to stop punishing the other person by being angry, the need to share feelings with the goal of making sense of them rather than endless venting, taking action to help others, trying to see the other person's perspective, etc. Long and detailed though this review was, there's a lot more in the book. An excellent book on an important topic. Five stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 29, 2014
|
Oct 12, 2014
|
Sep 29, 2014
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0805242600
| 9780805242607
| 0805242600
| 3.78
| 815
| Mar 04, 2011
| Mar 15, 2011
|
it was amazing
|
Deborah Lipstadt is my new go-to for Tisha be-Av reading. I started this book on Tisha be-Av and read most of it, only finishing it up today. Although Deborah Lipstadt is my new go-to for Tisha be-Av reading. I started this book on Tisha be-Av and read most of it, only finishing it up today. Although I've OD'd on Holocaust fiction, there is some wonderful, enlightening Holocaust non-fiction out there and this is a prime example. In this relatively slim book (200 pages), Lipstadt gives us a meticulously researched, multifaceted, and very readable account of the Eichmann trial -- his capture, his prosecution, his defense, and arguments for and against throughout the procedure. We see Hausner's decision to have various Holocaust survivors testify about their experiences from a variety of perspectives, both critical and supportive, ultimately ending with the effect this had on history (and even that is complex). After covering the trial, Lipstadt moves into discussing Hannah Arendt's writing about it. Here too, she takes a balanced view. Although Arendt was vilified by many, and justifiably so, Lipstadt manages to defend some of her actions as well. Lipstadt is not only informative and readable, but excellent at fleshing out the various sides of an issue. I'm going to wait until next Tisha be-Av to pick up another one of her books, but I'm confident that it will be satisfying and a good choice for the day. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Aug 16, 2014
|
Aug 16, 2014
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.25
|
it was amazing
|
Feb 16, 2016
|
Feb 16, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.80
|
really liked it
|
Feb 07, 2016
|
Feb 07, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.27
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Jan 23, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.04
|
liked it
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.27
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 12, 2016
|
Jan 07, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.18
|
really liked it
|
Dec 19, 2015
|
Dec 19, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.95
|
really liked it
|
Nov 19, 2015
|
Nov 19, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.74
|
really liked it
|
Nov 02, 2015
|
Nov 02, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.92
|
really liked it
|
Dec 09, 2015
|
Oct 23, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.31
|
really liked it
|
Oct 2015
|
Oct 01, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.98
|
really liked it
|
Aug 08, 2015
|
Aug 08, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.91
|
liked it
|
Jul 24, 2015
|
Jul 24, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.94
|
it was amazing
|
Jun 24, 2015
|
Jun 24, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.97
|
really liked it
|
May 10, 2015
|
May 10, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.71
|
really liked it
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.61
|
really liked it
|
Jan 31, 2015
|
Jan 31, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.17
|
really liked it
|
Jan 03, 2015
|
Dec 21, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 3.91
|
really liked it
|
Nov 15, 2014
|
Oct 19, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 3.81
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 12, 2014
|
Sep 29, 2014
|
|||||
|
| 3.78
|
it was amazing
|
Aug 16, 2014
|
Aug 16, 2014
|
Loading...
