Book Review/Detailed Look
of
Dr. Helen Fisher's
The First Sex:
The Natural Talents of Women
and
How They Are Changing the World

LINK THREE

Note: the last page number in each cell is the page number on which the quote is found in The First Sex.
You will note that there are some gaps in the page numbers. That is because there is no comparison
between the two sexes found on those pages However, if you don't have the book
in front of you, you're missing vaulable
information about the female of our species

Please purchase the book by clicking on the link above
and discover the many talents of women.

genders are switched.
My brain is telling me to reverse the DSM chart and have the males on the left and the females on the right side.
I know that you’re smart enough to do the switch, but it would make a neater package.

MALE	FEMALE
The New Holism	The New Holism
The Power of Imagination	The Power of Imagination
The Rise of Working Women	The Rise of Working Women
Fewer Babies	Fewer Babies
Housework Is Getting Easier	Housework Is Getting Easier
More Jobs for Women	More Jobs for Women
Women Want to Work	Women Want to Work
The Worldwide Rise of Women in the Workforce	The worldwide Rise of Women in the Workforce
The Female Advantage	The Female Advantage
Web Thinking Will Be Valued	Web Thinking Will Be Valued
CHAPTER 2	CHAPTER 2
THE ORGANIZATION WOMAN	THE ORGANIZATION WOMAN
Feminine Team Playing	Feminine Team Playing
Men regularly associate power with rank and status. P. 29.	Women more often see power as a network of vital human connections. P. 29
[psycological patterns]….men’s sensitivity to social dominance and their need to achieve rank in real or perceived hierarchies p. 29	[psycological patterns]…women’s interest in personal contacts, their drive to achieve interpersonal harmony, and their tendency to work and play in egalitarian teams versus men’s.(see left column)[See Hoyenga and Hoyenga 1979; Tannen 1990; Gilligan 1982; Rosener 1995; Helgesen 1990; Duff 1993; Chodorow 1974; Gilligan 1988; Seger 1996; Mitchell 1981; Tavris and Offrir 1977.] P.29
…Men’s striving for rank has been widely associated with the male hormone testosterone. P. 29	I believe that women’s taste for egalitarian harmonious connections is associated with the female hormone estrogen. P. 29.
I argue that men’s biological drive for rank has helped them reach the top in traditional hierarchical corporations, …p.30	While women desire for connections (particularly connections to their young) has inhibited their rise into the highest echelons. P. 30.
Men Seek Rank, Women Love Connections	Men Seek Rank, Women Love Connections
Men tend to place themselves in a hierarchy; then they jockey for position. Men are more willing to endure exhausting workloads to attain rank. They more regularly sacrifice their health, safety, and precious time with family and friends to win status, money, and prestige. [Rosener 1995; Helgesen 1990; Duff 1993] Men score much higher in ‘external competitiveness,’ – the willingness to elbow others aside to get ahead.[See Pool 1994]. P. 30.	Women are, on average, more interested in cooperation, harmony, and connections – a network of support. [Chodorow 1974; Gilligan 1982] Women cast themselves in a web of friendships; they make lateral contacts with others, and they form cliques. Then women work to keep these ties intact. Women can be determined and clever at climbing the social or corporate ladder. But when they do achieve high rank, they more regularly downplay their authority. Fewer women are interested in power for power’s sake. P. 30.
Feminine Flat Packs	Feminine Flat Packs
	Little girls rarely engage in outright contests with clear winners and losers when they play informally. Instead, they arrange themselves in ‘flat packs,’ nonhierarchical, leaderless groups of about five or six who are sensitive to one another’s needs.[Tannen 1990] Girls take turns. They offer suggestions. They appeal to reason and try to persuade. Girls almost never resort to force. If a conflict erupts, girls will stop the game, ignore the rules, change the rules, or make exceptions. Somebody’s feelings are at stake. For girls, peace, harmony, social stability, and non-combative, non-hierarchical play are essential to having fun. [Lever 1976, pp. 478-87; 1978, pp. 471-83; Thorne 1993; Gilligan 1982. When girls play informally, winning is not vital; they seek applause and admiration. Paramount to most girls is ‘being liked’. P. 31
Boys play war. Little boys sort themselves into large hierarchical packs; then they spend their days on the playground competing to be top dog. [Lever 1976; Tannen 1990, 1994. If girls want to be liked, boys want to be respected. Boys interrupt, give orders, take orders, tease, and barter status to achieve and retain rank. Their games are more structured and complex than those of girls. Boys focus on the score. And unlike girls – who will quit a game when they get bored – boys stop when they have won or lost. Boys’ games have clear winners and losers. [Lever 1976, 1978; Thorne 1993; Tannen 1990] Boys are much more concerned about rules. Their games, like baseball and football, have set and accepted regulations. Boys more often emphasize the principles of justice, fair play, and duty. [Kohlberg 1981; Gilligan 1982] In a dispute, most boys fight about the rules and search for equitable ways to apply them. But bending the rules is out of the question. To boys, the point is to play by the rules – and win. P. 31
Women’s Win-Win Attitude in the Office	Women’s Win-Win Attitude in the Office
	Women’s style of management is based on sharing power, on inclusion, consultation, consensus, and collaboration.[McCorduck and Ramsey 1996; Helgesen 1990; Rosener 1995; Hampden-Tuner 1994; Duff 1993; Tannen 1994; Seger 1996.] Women work interactively and swap information more freely than men do. Women managers encourage their employees by listening to, supporting, and encouraging them. Women ask for more advice in order to include others in the decision-making process. And women tend to give suggestions instead of giving orders. In fact, women managers sometimes soften their criticisms so much that men don’t realize they have been criticized. [Tannen 1990, 1994] p.32.
	Women personalize. They are more likely than men to join a company if they believe the atmosphere is cordial. Many even proceed to form a strong relationship with the company itself Business analyst Carolyn Duff writes that women often see the organization “as if it were a live, caring person.” [Duff 1993, p. 50]..As a result, women express greater commitment to the company and support company values more frequently than men. [Rosener 1995; Hampden-Turner 1994]. They also spend less on expense accounts and take fewer rewards for themselves. [Tannen 1994] p. 32.
Men Play to Win or Lose	Men Play to Win or Lose
Men then to see business in terms of win or lose. Books written by men on how to succeed in business often advise that the best way to motivate employees is to keep them “off balance” and “in constant competition.” [Helgesen 1995 p. xxxiii.]As a result, men tend to have difficulty sharing information. They collect it and hoard it. [Hampden-Turner 1994; Helgesen 1990; Rosener 1995] Instead of focusing of office relationships, men are more likely to pay attention to who is dominant over whom. [Pool 1994; Kelly 1991, p. 100]. Men assign greater value to titles, office space, a high salary, and perks – the flags and emblems of rank. [Helges 1990; Duff 1993; Daymont and Andrisani 1984, pp. 408-14; see Brown 1995, 973-1106.] Even the way men follow their investments reflects this interest in status. Men are much more likely to compare the investment performance of their portfolio against the performance of the Down Jones Industrial Average than women are. [Paine Webber 1997]. P. 33.
Men, Women, and Office Stress	Men, Women, and Office Stress
[regarding office stress] …[scientists—established] that men agonize when they feel a lack of control over what they are doing at work. Men cope by going to the boss – a hierarchical move. P. 33.	[regarding stress] Women become stressed when they feel they have little or no social support. Women manage by talking to friends and kin – a lateral rescue mission. [Piltch 1992a, pp. 6-7, 1992b.] p. 33.
Men suffer less stress than women from inflexible office rules, boundaries, and procedures. They grew up with inflexible rues on the playing field; the rigid rules of the workplace are nothing new. Besides, as discussed earlier, most men respect abstract rules; they construct them and abide by them. [Kohlberg 1981]. p. 33.	But women have a different orientation. As girls they changed the rules on the playground to suit their more important social needs. With their proclivity for web thinking, women also embrace alternatives more easily. So women become much more stressed than men confronted with office rules they cannot bend. p. 33.
	Women also become more stressed when they feel others are taking credit for their ideas. Because women tend to share power and swap information more freely than men, they are more careful attribution. So if a woman comes up with a solution to a problem and a man paraphrases her ideas—and gets the credit—the woman fells slighted, even robbed. [Tear 1995, p. A14]. pp. 33 & 34.
Men, on the other hand, are used to feeding off one another. They have borrowed ideas since boyhood. Men can’t imagine why women are so sensitive about a minor theft. p 34
Jockeying During Office Presentations	Jockeying During Office Presentations
Men are more restless when they are tense, so they are inclined to take up more space as they speak. [See Hall 1984]Men also tend to spread their papers across the table, put an arm or elbow on the back of a woman’s chair, and lean across her to make a point. P. 34.	Because women have sharp peripheral vision and a keen sensitivity to body postures, they see these gestures as hostile intrusions on their personal space – as well as a hierarchical move. [women] feel stressed. But if a woman asks an overbearing, gesticulating male colleague to remove himself from her territory, he thinks she is being petty or trying to show that she outranks him. P. 34.

Men will more regularly break a thoughtful silence to seize the floor. [See Hall 1994] They also deliver more take-charge speeches [Tannen 1994] Men are more apt to attack with words, and they take coworkers more seriously when they argue back. As one speaks louder, the other follows, stimulating a spiral of “dominance mathching” that can end in a shouting match [Hall 1994] p. 34.	Women shrink from these verbal assaults. They are less likely to confront others during a presentation or to defend themselves when others confront them. To women, verbal jousting is stressful, irrelevant, even cournterproductive to the task at hand: reaching consensus.
[when men command] A man will simply state, “I need your report by Friday.” P. 34.	[when women command] A woman is more likely to ask obliquely, “will this be done by Friday?” Women don’t wish to dominate p. 34.
Office Banter	Office Banter
	Because women regard conversations as ways to cultivate closeness, connection, consensus, and confirmation, they work to make the conversation flow smoothly and equally among office participants. They respect one another’s ‘turn’ to speak and ask questions designed to include others in the conversation. They look for common ground and commiserate to build rapport. So women downplay their certainty with phrases like “I’m not sure.” [Coates 1986; Tannen 1990, 1994] P. 35.
For men, conversations are often negotiations for rank. So men typically downplay their doubts. They brag more. They ask fewer questions, feeling these are appeals for help and admission of lower rank. Men are also more likely to give directives. P. 35.
Men don’t ask for guidance unless they need it….Instead of feeling included, the man may feel superior. P.35.	Women ask for advice more regularly than men, even when they don’t want counsel. Women are searching for connection. So when a woman asks a man for advice, she often does not achieve her objective. P. 35.
[apologizes] Men don’t “get it.” They don’t apologize unless they have made a genuine mistake and wish to admit their fault – and their lowered status. When women make their ritual apologies, men often think this is an expression weakness, subservience – and lesser rank. P. 35 & 36.	[apologizes] In what are known as “ritual apologies,” women say “I’m sorry” to smooth out small imbalances in relationships. [Tannen 1994] p. 35.
[what to talk about in the office] Men gravitate to jokey, teasing one-liners and impersonal chat about politics, business, or sports. P. 36.	[what to talk about in the office] Women generally don’t like impersonal chatter about sports or politics, either. They find these topics evasive and distancing. So women banter with stories and anecdotes. They disclose minor secrets about themselves, and they often mock themselves.[Tannen 1994]. P 36.
[self-mockery] “…self-deprecating humor leave most men cold. To them, self-mockery is passive and pathetic. They regard self-disclosure as entirely inappropriate in a business setting. To reveal one’s personal life is to be weak and vulnerable. P. 36.
Are Boys and Girls Taught to Define Power Differently?	Are Boys and Girls Taught to Define Power Differently?
[study of hunter-gatherers] men’s speech more regularly reflected competition and the pursuit of rank. P. 36.	[study of hunter-gatherers] Women in all of these societies were more likely than men to use language to emphasize cooperation and connection. P. 37.
	[theory] Because girls are not encouraged to separate from their mothers, they develop a world-view in which secure relationships are primary. P. 37.
[theory] Because boys more regularly sever this close bond to adopt male friends, male games, and male ways of interacting, they develop a sense of self as separate and autonomous instead. [Chodorow 1974; Gilligan 1982.] P. 37.
Monkey Politics	Monkey Politics
In almost all primate communities where more than one male resides, males form what primatologists call a “male/male dominance hierarchy.” [in primates] But at any single moment the social lattice is defined. Every male knows who’s who and who’s the boss. Male primates rarely form egalitartian congregations. [Nishida and Hiraiwa-Hasegawa 1986] p. 37.
Among chimpanzees, our closest relatives, males are preoccupied with rank. At the Arnhem Zoo, in the Netherlands, male chimps wrangle over power at least five or six times every day. [Waal 1982] p. 37.	[in primates] Female competition is “low key” and “chronic while male disputes tend to be more “episodic” and much more “intense.” [Smuts 1986, pp. 227-42.] Female chimps compete for food or to protect their young; they rarely bicker over rank. [Waal 1982] . p. 38.
Power as an Aphrodisiac	Power as an Aphrodisiac
	“Power is the great aphrodisiac” Henry Kissinger’s well-known insight is right on target. Women have probably been ‘turned on” by high-status men since their ancestors were living in the trees. For an important reason: ancestral women reared babies as a living. Those who mated with socially powerful men reaped the payoffs of their mates’ intelligence, savvy, charisma – and their ability to protect and provide.[Buss 1994, pp. 157-79; Smuts 1997] p. 38.
Those [males] who rise to the top of the male/male dominance hierarchy usually get more opportunities to mate and breed, passing their seed toward eternity – as well as selecting for the male appetite for rank. P. 39.

P. 29.
Hoyenga, K. B., and K. T. Hoyenga. 1979. The question of sex differences. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
P. 29.
Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
P. 29.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
P. 29.
Rosener, Judy B. 1995. America’s competitive secret: Women managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
P. 29.
Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
P. 29.
Duff, C. S. 1993. When women work together: Using our strengths to overcome our challenges. Bekeley, Calif.: Conari Press.
P. 29.
Chodorow, N. 1974. “Family structure and feminine personality.” In Woman, culture and society, edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
P. 29.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. “Remapping development: Creating a new framework for psychological theory and research.” In Mapping the moral domain, edited by C. Gilligan, J. V. Ward, and J. M. Taylor with B. Bardige. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
P. 29.
Seger, L. 1996. p. 83. When women call the shots: The developing power and influence of women in television and film. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
P. 29.
Mitchell, C. 1981. Human sex differences: A primatologist’s perspective. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
P. 29.
Tavris, C., and C. Offir. 1977. The longest war: Sex differences in perspective. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
P. 30.
Rosener, Judy B. 1995. America’s competitive secret: Women managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
P. 30.
Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
P. 30.
Duff, C. S. 1993. When women work together: Using our strengths to overcome our challenges. Bekeley, Calif.: Conari Press.
P. 30.
Pool, Robert. 1994. Eve’s rib: Searching for the biological roots of sex differences. New York: Crown.
P. 30.
Chodorow, N. 1974. “Family structure and feminine personality.” In Woman, culture and society, edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
P. 30.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
P. 31.
Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
P. 31.
Lever, Janet. 1976. “Sex differences in the games children play. “ Social Problems 23: 478-487.
P. 31.
Thorne, B. 1993. Gender play. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press.
P. 31.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
P. 31.
Tannen, D. 1994. Talking From 9 to 5: How Women’s & Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit & What Gets Done At Work. William Morrow & Company.
P. 31.
Kohlber, L. 1981. The psycholog of moral development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
P. 32.
McCorduck. P., and N. Ramsey. 1996. The futures of women: Scenarios for the 21st century. New York: Addison-Wesley.
P. 32.
Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
P. 32.
Rosener, Judy B. 1995. America’s competitive secret: Women managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
P. 32.
Hampden-Turner, C. 1994. “The structure of entrapment: Dilemmas standing in the way of women managers and strategies to resolve these.” The Deeper News 5 (1): 142. Emeryville, Calif.: Global Business Network.
P. 32.
Duff, C. S. 1993. When women work together: Using our strengths to overcome our challenges. Bekeley, Calif.: Conari Press.
P. 32.
Tannen, D. 1994. Talking From 9 to 5: How Women’s & Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit & What Gets Done At Work. William Morrow & Company.
P. 32.
Seger, L. 1996. p. 83. When women call the shots: The developing power and influence of women in television and film. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
P. 33.
(Helgesen 1995 p. xxxiii – no listing in the bibliography)
P. 33.
Hampden-Turner, C. 1994. “The structure of entrapment: Dilemmas standing in the way of women managers and strategies to resolve these.” The Deeper News 5 (1): 142. Emeryville, Calif.: Global Business Network.
P. 33.
Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
P. 33.
Rosener, Judy B. 1995. America’s competitive secret: Women managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
P. 33.
Pool, Robert. 1994. Eve’s rib: Searching for the biological roots of sex differences. New York: Crown.
P. 33.
Kelly, R. M. 1991, p. 100. The gendered economy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
P. 33.
(Helges 1990 – no listing in bibliography)
P. 33.
Duff, C. S. 1993. When women work together: Using our strengths to overcome our challenges. Bekeley, Calif.: Conari Press.
P. 33.
Daymont, T. N., and P. J. Andrisani. 1984. “Job preferences, college major and the gender gap in earning.” Journal of Human Resources 19: 408-414.
P. 33.
Browne, Kingsley R. 1995. “Sex and temperament in modern society: A Darwinian view of the glass ceiling and the gender gap.” Arizona Law Review 37 (4): 97-1106.
P. 33.
Paine Webber. 1997. Women and investing: An index of investor optimism special report. New York: Paine Webber.
P. 33.
Piltch. C. 1992a, pp. 6-7. Work and mental distress: A comparative analysis of the experience of women and men. Ph. D. diss., Boston University.
Piltch, C. 1992b “Work and stress.” The Radcliffe Quarterly 78 (December): 6-7.
P. 33.
Kohlber, L. 1981. The psycholog of moral development. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
P. 33 & 34
Tear, Jayne. 1995. “They just don’t understand gender dynamics.” The Wall Street Journal, 20 November, A14.
P. 34.
Hall, Judith A. 1984. Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
P. 34.
Tannen, D. 1994. Talking From 9 to 5: How Women’s & Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit & What Gets Done At Work. William Morrow & Company.
P. 35.
Coates, J. 1986. Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differences in language. New York: Longman, Inc.
P. 35.
Tannen, D. 1994. Talking From 9 to 5: How Women’s & Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit & What Gets Done At Work. William Morrow & Company.
P. 37.
Chodorow, N. 1974. “Family structure and feminine personality.” In Woman, culture and society, edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
P. 37.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
P. 37.
Nishida, T., and M. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa. 1986. “Chipanzees and bonobos: Cooper-active relationships among males.” In Primate societies, edited by B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney., R. M. Seyfarth. R. W. Wrangham, and T. T. Struhsaker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
P.37.
Waal, F. de. 1982. Chimpanzee politics. New York: Harper and Row.
P. 38.
Smuts, Barbara B. 1986, pp. 227- 242. “Gender, aggression and influence.” In Primate societies, edited by B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, and T. T. Struhsaker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
P. 38.
Waal, F. de. 1982. Chimpanzee politics. New York: Harper and Row.
P. 38.
Buss, D. M. 1994, pp. 157-79; The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
P. 38.
Smuts, Barbara B. 1997. “Social relationships and life histories of primates.” In The evolving female: A life history perspective, edited by M. E. Morebeck, A. Galloway, and A. Zihlman. Princeton University Press.