Talk:Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus

How is the author's personal life?

Another relationship book author pointed in his book, John Gray had divorced many times. Is it true?

No. once. QuentinUK (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment 1

Cut from intro:

bestselling relationship guide written by John Gray and first published in May 1992. It has been translated into at least 40 different languages and sold more than 15 million copies worldwide.

Sounds like a publisher's blurb. Get to the point. Uncle Ed 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC) IS it really neccessary to have 2 seperate criticism sections?164.116.70.116 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Point System

Is this in reference to gifts I take it? If so, the paragraph should probably clarify that

Criticism and controversy

In stressing the differences between men and women, this book was controversial. Many people felt that it was misogynistic and sexist.

Huh? It's controversial to stress differences? Tell us more.

And who called it sexist? And for what reason?

And how does it express hatred for women, for a male author to explain to men how to stop hurting their wives and start satisfying their emotional needs?

I'm not arguing, and I didn't deleted this text. I moved it here to get answers. Please provide the answers and put the section back. Uncle Ed 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some information to the Criticism section and some notes to back it up. The Rebuttal from Uranus is a good site for presenting the anti-Gray case. Also, although there has been a lot of research on sex differences, little of it supports Gray's "different planets" claims.

Yeah, but it didn't work as a "note" because the web link went to a front page - not to the place which mentions the quoted text. I demoted it to an "external link".

By the way, there's a Broadway play which is related to the "cave" thing:

Chris Sullivan delivers Becker’s material deftly, has a nice sense of timing and knows how to engage the audience seamlessly while smoothly keeping them captivated.. Essentially, Defending the Caveman looks at what it means to be a man in normal middle class American society. Becker portrays men as “assholes,” or he believes women depict us in that light. He explains in vivid detail how men are hunters and focus on a single idea or task at a time. Women, conversely, are gathers who relish conversation, multitasking and togetherness. This oversimplified anthropology is so cliché ridden as it depicts men as ignorant, selfish and narcissistic. It may not be too scientific but it does present rich fodder for adroit comedy. Since I never have been married nor lived with a female for an extended period of time, Caveman didn’t speak to me; therefore I found the show to be trite and stereotypically mundane. I have always been an eclectic who lives a bohemian life style so Caveman doesn’t relate to me. [1]

I once heard a disparaging comment about a particular person at a party: "If Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus, then what planet is this person from?" Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The line about Gray's diploma feels completely out of place. It's not a criticism of the work, it's a criticism of the author (if even that). And it doesn't follow the flow of the previous paragraphs at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.68.17.73 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I know; so, I moved it into a separate section marked "Criticism of the author" with an edit summary referencing ad hominem. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

"Gray does not provide references to the research to back up his claims and that they are based on his personal experiences and opinions rather than formal scientific trials". CUT: "Indeed there are many studies (need quotations at least) which contradict the claim that men and women act as if they are “from different planets” . A meta-analysis (?) by Professor Janet Hyde (?)found that “on most psychological characteristics, males and females are more alike than different” ^[2]".

-DOES THE AUTHOR SAY THAT THEY ARE MORE DIFFERENT THAN ALIKE ????

"When sex differences do occur, there is normally considerable overlap between the sexes. For example, women are more likely than men to disclose problems to a friend or partner, but the difference is only about 10 percentage points ^[3]". CUT "This suggests that the generalizations in Gray’s book will not apply to many men and women and that they are simplifications of the real world."

A BOOK, STUDY, THEORY, ETC IS SIMPLIFCATION OF THE REAL WORLD or DOES ANYBODY EXPECTO TO FIND THE WORLD IN A BOOK???? - shouldn't we have rather real criticism?

Removal of Trivia about John Gray's PhD

I've deleted the trivia about John Gray's PhD from this article because I feel it's irrelevant to this article. This book was published in 1992 while John Gray did not have his PhD until 1997. While it is interesting that the author may have an illegitimate degree, it doesn't detract from the value of this book published prior to the PhD issue. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 02:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not relevant? Was not this book published by John on his claims to having a doctorate degree that was later found to be bogus? The fact taht he didn't actually receive the phony degree until later further casts doubt on credibility. --Darth Borehd 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be, but not in an article about the book itself. -- some guy with a point85.179.26.130 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. According to the article, he got his degree in 1982 not 1997. I also question the claim that at the time of his graduation, CPU was highly respected in its field. According to wiki, CPU "was an unaccredited nontraditional distance learning school in California." 72.140.96.54 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The PhD issue may (or may not) be relevant, to those readers who rely on an author's credentials when deciding how much weight to give to his ideas. I read his auto-bio (at his website) and our bio of him, and I've decided to call his PhD a "correspondence course" that he took.

Readers can go to our author article (see John Gray) to get all the details about his education: he earned two degrees in meditation from a university run by people who promote a certain kind of meditation - God only knows how that uni managed to get accredited, but they did!

As for the PhD claim, our author article explains he got a PhD by correspondence, which everyone knows is not the normal way. You have to defend a thesis in front of a board, don't you? But he got an honorary doctorate. I'm guessing the "PhD" mention on the book cover is just to boost sales. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Active men and passive women

Cut from "criticism" section:

The book has been called sexist and chauvinistic. For example, John Gray claims that men go into their “caves” to solve problems and they value “power, competency, efficiency, and achievement”, while women are like “waves” who become overwhelmed by problems and they value “love, communication, beauty and relationships”. This appears to give men the active role and women the passive role.

This passage would be better, if sourced: WHO called it sexist or chauvinistic? And WHY do they feel it is sexist or chauvinistic to stereotype men and women as problem-solving cavemen and talkative waves?

Note that I am not saying (1) that his generalizations are correct or (2) that the active/passive stereotypes are ideals for people to follow. But I am placing the burden of proof on the critics. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote from Susan Hanson, author of the Rebuttal from Uranus and one of Gray's most vocal critics. I also added a positive comment from a review by John Grohol, and tidied up the section a bit. Hopefully this make it more balanced and verifiable. Fionah 09:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits. I just made a few cuts and additions. Here's the biggest cut:

One defence of the book from these claims is that Gray specifically distances his descriptions of "male" and "female" traits by attaching them not to genders but to planets and their citizens. His attribute claims hold more weight if applied to people with relatively very dominant "male" hormones (androgens) or "female" hormones (mainly estrogens).

I've read the book twice - though not, I admit, recently. I don't recall Gray distancing his descriptions. He uses a fanciful metaphor of "they are so different they could be from another planet". However, he hammers home the point that women (in his view) and men need love in several different ways. Such as, women need respect, and men need approval.

I'm going to have to leaf through my copy and type in a few quotes. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Critical reaction" is better than criticism. I tidied up the first paragraph to make it read a bit smoother. I also did some editing to the paragraph on "listening vs giving advice" and made it into a subsection called "Communication styles". It was a bit convoluted as it was and I think it's now easier to read. Again, it's been years since I read the book and I wasn't a big fan but I remember that communication difficulties was one of his major themes. Fionah 11:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You might like Deborah Tannen's books better than John Gray's. Tannen takes an academic, descriptive approach. Her research focuses on different ways males and females communicate (even beginning in childhood). She does not assert that these differences are innate; nor that they are created by the culture. She just reports what she heard, based on detailed transcrits of recorded conversations.

Neither the article nor this talk section is about whose books are better or what someone might prefer. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gray, on the other hand, is prescriptive. He's also not a scholar but a therapist (or counselor?) who writes self-help books and gives seminars.

The difference between Tannen and Gray is that Tannen is describing actual differences between the sexes in a scholarly way. The furthest she goes in terms of "prescribing" is to advise men and women to be aware that the opposite sex might be using language or communication style differently from your sex. Gray, of course, is not a scholar, and never stops talking about dozens of different ways he recommends people try to change their own behavior based on generalizations. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On "I've read the book twice - though not, I admit, recently. I don't recall Gray distancing his descriptions." and "Again, it's been years since I read the book and I wasn't a big fan but I remember that communication difficulties was one of his major themes." -- I'm at a loss as to why people who write such things think they have any business editing this article. Wikipedia articles should be based on sourced material, not people's distant recollections. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Women now support Gray (http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/sum98/meyers.htm), saying there are differences, of course saying: "Females generally attempt to engage in a rather effortful, comprehensive, piecemeal analysis of all available information," says Meyers-Levy. "On the other hand, men are more selective processors of information, who tend to pick up on single, highly salient or personally relevant pieces of information that are quickly and easily processed. They disregard the rest."

QuentinUK (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Claims that Gray makes

Cut from "criticism" section:

Gray does not provide references to the research to back up his claims and they may be based on his personal experiences and opinions rather than formal scientific trials.

I'm unaware of claims that Gray makes that go beyond common knowledge. He says women tend to wear dresses and carry "bags within bags" (like a change purse inside a pocketbook), while men tend to just carry a wallet in a trouser pocket. Nearly all his observations are like this.

If there is a criticism that Gray relies too much on everyday observation, let's quote such a critic. (Should be easy to find one by googling.)

Also, does Gray claim that men and women are inherently different or just that Americans and Canadians often conform to stereotypes? Or even do critics charge him with claiming that men are more different than they really are? It would help if we quoted a critic.

I heard that some feminists scholars almost got a Harvard president fired for daring to suggest that researchers look into whether men and women have mental differences (such as aptitude for math) and what might cause such differences (heredity, upbringing, social pressure). I wonder if Gray's critics are asserting that there are no differences because they oppose the very idea of members of either sex treating the opposite sex differently. This will probably be harder to google. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You’re talking about Larry Summers, and I think the way he was treated was reprehensible. Of course it shouldn’t be taboo to look at gender differences and some of what he said has backup in research (e.g. males having an average advantage at spatial relations and being overrepresented at the top and bottom ends of the IQ scale). However, the evidence for a large gap in communications culture (as Gray and Tannen claim) is not so strong. AIR Gray does claim that his theories are based on years of research although he does not give details. The study quoted by the Chronicle article found little evidence that men and women use language in different ways (I found a link to the original study so I'll add that: the author actually mentions Mars/Venus and says it may be harmful so that may count as a legitimate criticism). You might be interested in The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. There’s a chapter on gender that’s not “politically correct” (it makes definite claims for differences) but he also says that men and women use language in much the same way.

Anyway, all this is a bit of an aside and I don’t want to start an edit war or make the criticism section larger than the rest of the article. Fionah 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, everything you did was fine. I'm glad you "cleaned up my spilled ink" and the extra references were just what the article needed! --Uncle Ed 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) I made a few changes to the gender differences page with reference to the communication styles studies. Fionah 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic deleted

The Magic of Woman website is dedicated to teaching men how to be more loving, understanding and appreciative of women. It is based upon the information contained in the book "What Every Man Should Know About Women" by Les Morgenstern.

"What Every Man Should Know About Women" is the first transcultural book that teaches men from anywhere in the world everything they need to know about women that is both logical and predictable. This knowledge allows any man from any culture to understand, love and appreciate any woman from any culture regardless of her age, race, religion, political persuasion, geographical location or levels of income, education or sophistication.

---

I think the two paragraphs above, which I noticed were cut from the article, could go into an article about Les Morgenstern or What Every Man Should Know About Women. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Description, rather than opposition

The bulk of this article was, at one time, based on a single web site with opposing POV.

Here are some descriptions from people who read the book but saw it as useful:

• Whether we like it or not, men and women are different not so much in ability, as in approach. A man has a different attitude to problems – he is all for solving them with some quick action. A woman may take time to just consider the whole thing – she may not even want the whole thing to be solved before it is due! Such differences have a definite impact on communication. [4]

• John Gray’s work has made famous by now the concept of ‘the cave’ for men and ‘the wave’ for women. Although this part of his work is the one most under attack by feminists for gender equality, many of whom accuse him of creating fresh stereotypes around men and women, which is also very significant. When men go into their cave, they are actually going through a phase of their relationship with a woman, when they want to be left alone. Any woman who has wondered why a boyfriend is not e mailing/calling/messaging/meeting her will know what it feels like to be shut out of the cave. Women and ‘the wave’ is a concept even more resented – it means that women go through periodic phases when they are unable to keep up their spirits without help and assistance from understanding men. At such times, ‘the wave’ crashes, and it needs to be given love and reassurance to rise up again with its usual confidence. In fact, I find, John Gray does portray women to be the strong, resilient creatures. It is only his recommendations of how women should make sure they get their way – underlining a certain manipulative streak, which might have troubled feminists. [ibid]

It might help if we:

1. Describe or summarize what Gray is saying (recommending)
2. Summarize critical responses, such as "great advice, it sure helps" or "typical patriarchal, anti-feminist propaganda; author should be castrated and then shot"

The form, if not the exact content suggested here. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What's with the link to a private webpage in the middle of the last paragraph? It is not in context whatsoever and does not relate to the article, nor has it been written in the proper link section... 85.179.26.130 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple possible typos, but I can not verify

Under the "References in popular culture" section:

"It's one of those American books where once you're heard the title you don't even need to read it." - I think this should be "you've heard"

"Gray adapted Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus as musical romantic comedy; it premiered at Broadway's Gerschwin Theater from January 27-Feb 2, 1997, and was later performed at the Flamigo Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, in 2001." - Probably supposed to be the Flamingo Hotel?

An Expanded Planetary Classification System

I was inspired by John Gray's two-planet classification system to expand it into a four-planet system. I have devised a proposal for a new transportation system (LeviCar[5]), and I am concerned about all its implications. I determined that interest in this invention can be classified into four categories for four different kinds of people — Mars (gee-whiz technogeeks), Venus (those concerned with society, family, and lifestyle), Mercury (economics), and Earth (eco-greenies). Two of these categories are borrowed from John Gray, but the meanings have been changed. Also, I recognize that most people, myself included, are really a blend of two or more of these "planets". Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You've invented Astrology

QuentinUK (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Commercial link?

The link of Gray's new book sends you to a commercial website. If this is not in accordance with wikipedia's rules, wich I assume it is not, it should be removed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.81.208 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The current article contains two sections devoted to criticism. This seems like it violates WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I'd like to collaborate on reducing these sections.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not prevent addition of critical views. Just the opposite - it requires that we include all significant points of view with weight according to prominence. It's usually better to add material than delete it. Perhaps any perceived problem could be solved by adding more non-critical material?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of following policies that's why I brought up WP:UNDUE. I see you have combined the two sections, that's good. I'm going to check the sources and make sure they are properly represented and that all points of view are being represented in a balanced way per NPOV. Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to bring a criticism section back into this article. There is one paragraph that is a critique, there MUST be more than that available about this silly book. Mylittlezach (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable sources that are summarized in a neutral fashion. If you are aware of some reliable sources that contain criticisms of this "silly book" than please provide them and we can incorporate the content into the article. thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rebuttal from Uranus

• In 1996, The Rebuttal from Uranus offered the first published critique of Gray's work and questioned the author's credentials, research methodology, and reliance on gender stereotypes. The site's server went dark in 2009, but the essays have since been republished in the form of a blog.
  • The Rebuttal from Uranus http://susanhamson.wordpress.com/ [Earlier version in the Internet Archive: [6] ]

I'm afraid we probably can't use this material. The website is self-published, so it violates WP:SPS. Further, there's no independent source for the claim that it was the first published critique. If we had some reliable secondary sources which refer to this website as being significant then we might be able to mention it.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On further research I see that the site has been described in reliable secondary sources.[7][8] We could cite one of those, and even repeat their quotations from the site.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish we could use this source, if only for the delicious irony of the title's implications: i.e., that Gray just pulled all these ideas out of his ass. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Clean Up tag

What are the issues with the article that need clean up? Please specify the issues and help achieve them so that the tag can be removed.Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I've removed the tag. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to find translations / editions into other languages?

What is the title in french? Thy.--SvenAERTS (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Chapters

Hi Folks,

I have read 5 chapters of this book by Mr Gray, I was reading another book which was with holding my interest certainly I bought this book and started reading, I think besides the criticism of right and wrong this book offers a guide to behave wisely by men and women when required.

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.105.162.80 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Whom are the Planets named on

Venus is named after greek goddess Aphrodite, while Mars after Ares. And both are dating each other. Should it be included?

Utkar22 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead/lede

The lead/lede of the article does not conform to WP:LEAD. About 1/4 of the article is devoted to criticism, but the lead does not reflect that. I intend to add enough information to the lead to balance that out. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but much of the criticism is straw man. That is, they put words into Gray's mouth and then rebut those words. For example, Gray never said that men and women cannot understand each other; rather, the book is based on the hope that by understanding each other they can get along better.

I think criticism of Gray's book is primarily based on his refusal to accept the politically correct position that there are no important, fundamental, or inherent differences between men and women. Anything that looks like a difference is merely a cultural artifact; i.e., it's just patriarchal society raising boys and girls differently and then discriminating against (or bullying) anyone who tries to break the mold.

I recently fixed up another article about a book whose critics put words in an author's mouth and then accused him of racism for holding such socially irresponsible views (see The Bell Curve). --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This book should be summarized here

The fact of the matter is this: If the book itself is notable enough to be in the Wikipedia, its contents are notable enough to be here. I observe that a user removed the summary that was here; I have restored it.

WP:PROFRINGE says that it's wrong to promote a fringe theory. Summarizing the contents of a very notable bestseller is not promoting a fringe theory; it's describing a book which was a mainstream (read: Not fringe) cultural phenomenon in the 1990s.

We do not delete content on the Wikipedia just because we do not like it.

That in mind, I have restored the summary of the book's contents.

Samboy (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)