Cathy Young looks at dozens and dozens of feminist and left-thinking theories with a critical eye and analyzes each one for accuracy, content and believability. Some obvious complaints are that she only looks at "one side" of the issue -- yet as a professor of mine once said with unwavering certainty, "I am the other side of the issue." For those who find Young's argument too one sided, there are plenty of books and articles available that argue for the opposite side. There are however very few that put forth arguments that hold up statistically and scientifically like Young's argument. After all, it's not obvious that she has an agenda to destroy feminist theory. She simply looks at it with a critical eye and examines the evidence they have put forth. What she found, was that much of the evidence they have presented doesn't exist or was greatly exaggerated.
Young opens Ceasefire with the story of how she became disenchanted with the feminism of the late 1980s and early 1990s that professed every political concept must be measured on the basis of whether or not it helped women. And to add to the melee - everything was political. Lest you deign yourself to label Young a conservative she also criticizes those who sit too far on the other side of the issue and embrace anti-feminism in an effort to counter the feminists with whom they can't seem to identify. "Too many women waste their energy on 'anger,' while others, disgusted by feminist excess, embrace traditionalist views at odds with their own lives."
Young reserves much of her criticism for extremists. She takes issue with those who believe differences between men and women are either purely genetic or purely social. For instance she uses anecdotal evidence to point out the fact that the notion of an all-female sports team will not have the problem with egos that men have and therefore be better team players (always) is ludicrous. Having played competitive sports off and on all my life I can offer up plenty of my own anecdotal evidence in agreement with her assessment.
She also points out that differences can't be purely socialization as well. John Lott, the king of gun research, (More Guns, Less Crime) once said in a radio interview that while his wife tried desperately to raise their three sons in a "gender neutral" environment, his boys would pull the heads off the dolls and pretend they were guns. I think what is important to note here and as Young points out, the differences between males and females are neither 100% nor 0%, neither completely biological nor completely cultural.
