(Book Review) Mind Maps: Quicker Notes, Better Memory, and Improved Learning 2.0 by Michael Taylor

More and more, we find ourselves in an age where we are inundated with information, most of which has no use to us. We are in need of a method or technique to frame our thoughts and control the flow of information we take in. Confronting this reality, this book helps us take in information and frame our thoughts through the method of mind mapping.

Mind mapping is a useful and deceptively simple tool to organize and frame our thoughts. It helps us think about things differently as we note information differently than the traditional way of note taking. It is designed to make its user record and use information the exact way our brains take in and interprets information.

Mind Mapping has positive implications for all of us in the information age as we seek to educate ourselves and learn about new subjects. Specially, as we come across new experiences shaping our thinking and ultimately how we react in the world.

In sum, this book is a must grab is it does what most books you encounter don’t; help you deal effectively with a new reality and, through some trial and error, adapt to it.

Get your copy of  Mind Maps: Quicker Notes, Better Memory, and Improved Learning 2.0 

here.

(Book Review) Milo Moon: Milo Moon demonstrates Why Derek Haines is one of the better writers around

When reading Derek Haines' Milo Moon two things become clear within` the next three chapters, that Derek Haines is one of the better writers around and Milo Moon is one of the better Sci Fi books you’ll read. Milo Moon is a hot-potch of ideas that are hardly original yet executed well enough for you not to notice with shades Philip K Dick’s Lies, Inc. and Michael Bay’s The Island. Milo Moon touches on  so many genres it’s hard to place this piece in any clearly defined niche.

First off we start with Milo Moon, a unremarkable man leading an even more unremarkable life, when ARC (Alpha Reality Control) employee George Smithe (with an ‘E’) takes Milo on a ride (which we later find out was more psychedelic than anything else) . After such a ride Milo lands and finds out he’s part of the biggest conspiracy that could bring the EU and a number of other organizations with them. However, what’s most interesting is the philosophical and political implications of Milo Moon .

There seems to be message that two heads are better than one and one can live a better when one consciousness is continuous dialogue rather than a one sided, severely critical internal monologue. For example, Milo Before meeting George Smithe or being one part of a mind meld with Michael Fischer was a rather unremarkable man with very few achievements to pin to his name, seemingly drifting through life with no real purpose with his only friend in the world, Cindy, his cat.

However as the story progresses, Milo become fulfilled the moment he mind melds with Michael Fischer, a character with which Milo shares a mind and body. Milo Finds that being part of a consciousness is better as he doesn’t have to make every decision and can take turns living life which is best described in the book with milos interaction with Michael’s Wife Claire. However, even in the mind meld with Michael he still finds that he has little purpose despite finding life much easier to manage.

This view is confirmed further by Milo’s utter despair caused by Michael share of consciousness whittles away into nothingness which leaves Milo, once again, to deal with life on his own. Milo Moon provides a healthy critique of psychoanalytic experiments that took place not too long after the Second World War where the CIA and other governments around the world did their best, unsuccessfully, to master control over others through the use of drugs or experimental psychological methods.

In Milo Moon, we see the stories of the CIA’S mind control experiments in the 50’s from the perspectives of the victims rather than through the eyes of doctors who prove once and for all that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In sum, Milo Moon is a well written book by an author with a knack of writing for the reader making his books easy to pick up and a real challenge to put down. 

(Book Review) "Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud" and How "Don't Say I Do!" Relationships Are Different

                                                                               

     

While the differentiation between the bodies of men and women rare greater than ever, Thomas Laqueur's seminal work Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud seeks to provide an understanding of where this trend began. A well written and argued book, Thomas Laqueur in Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud makes the argument that there was a paradigm change in the field of sexual anatomy in the 1800s and 1900s – from a "one sex" to a "two sex" model theory of human anatomy.

According to Lacquer, the "one sex" model theory was embraced by intellectual greats such as anatomist Galen and Greek philosopher Aristotle which saw the similarities between the bodies of men and women rather than the differences prevalent in modern culture. They saw women as variants of men,and the genitalia of women as the inversion of a man’s sex organs.However, such similarities were related to the body only and did not reflect any similar position of power between the genders, or equal social standing for women, for in such realms men have gained an upper hand.

At the turn of the 18^th century views and attitudes towards the one sex model of human anatomy began to change. Between the optimism towards the Enlightenment in the latter part 1800’s to the outright critical appraisal of it in the 1900’s, attitudes towards "one sex" began to change, as intellectuals of the time sought to determine what was of nature and society,which often led to making links between the two.

From fields as diverse as politics, law, mathematics, science and economics, thinkers were positing new theories which have changed forever how we see the world. The way we were to see our own bodies was to be no different, for study of nature and society was applied to the structure of the bodies of men and women, their bodily functions, as well as their social roles.

In this context, the paradigm change between the "one sex" to "two sex"model of human anatomy took off, as philosophers began posting views towards women and their roles, where differences of women bodily structures and functions in comparison to men's were stressed, and the corresponding inferior social standing of the woman's model was evident.

Such views further strengthened the "two sex" model, as their studies suggested a woman role in society should be closer to their biological traits, emphasizing anatomical inferiority of women to men. This also led to intellectuals (always men) proscribing ways in which a woman should act or behave in public or private. Needless to say, in both models, the "one sex" and "two sex," the bodily and social inferiority of women was part of the agenda. For in the "one sex" model, the woman appeared as a reversed version of the male, where as in the "two sex" model, the women came as an inferior parallel model. 

Mary Wollstonecraft in her seminal work on the Vindication of the Rights of Women spoke to the prevailing double-standard when she cited “many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue”.

Simply put, Wollstonecraft made the point that the acquisition of virtue has very little to do with men or society’s expectations of a woman’s behaviour in public or private and even less to do with gender altogether.Laqueur is quick to portray the "two sex" model theory of the human anatomy as a paradigm change that has helped keep women at a disadvantage; however it can also be argued better than the former, that the "two sex" model theory has been the most helpful intellectual trend in women’s opposition to patriarchy.

Without the "two sex" model theory, women wouldn’t have been forced to find their own voice and identity in the face of arguments made by men amenable to male anatomical and thus societal superiority. The works of intellectual giants such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone De Beauvoir and many others would not be necessary if there hadn't been such a clear demarcation between anatomical differences between the sexes.

Evidently, the modern world has been shaped by the "two sex" model to the point where women now have more choice than ever before to decide about their body functions and actions. Women are no longer hamstrung by anatomical or societal implications of inferiority,for women can now choose their partners, form of relationships, family settings and motherhood, as well as when to adjust such structures to their needs.

Furthermore, women are more educated nowadays and in higher paying jobs than ever before. Orna Gadish’s outstanding book Don’t Say I Do! Why Women Should Stay Single details the growth in the freedom of choice for women, all based on women having to define themselves in the modern world where marriage is no longer a rite of passage – taking into consideration the harsh history of discrimination where women were portrayed as peculiar creatures, long before the "two sex," or even the ancient "one sex" model.

In sum, for the last 150 years women have fought successfully against the political, social and psychological side effects of the "one sex" and "two sex" models theories of human anatomy, and the world at large has been better for it. The new choices for single women, unmarried woman and divorced women of today, as well as the new relationship options and family structures discussed in Orna Gadish's Don't Say I Do! are the living proof for women's ability to change the picture for the better, notwithstanding long-lasting discrimination and biased patterns of thought.

(Opinion) Marriage Decline is Happening Now. Two Excellent Books Discuss the Reasons

It is no secret that the institution of marriage is on the decline today, but the causes and factors involved in this trend are less straightforward. However, two excellent books, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today (Knopf 2009) written by Andrew Cherlin, and Don’t Say I Do! Why Women Should Stay Single (New Horizon Press, 2012) written by Orna Gadish go some way in addressing marriage and its apparent decline

Both books provide insight into the transformations and conflicts in modern society that have brought about record numbers of divorce, such as different life expectations between the generations, everlasting gender gaps, social and cultural indicators, and pervasive individualism in America (Cherlin), and throughout the western world (Gadish). However, despite the outwardly similarity of positions with regard to marriage decline and marriage obsolescence in society and culture taken by both authors—these books sharply diverge in their conclusions about marriage.

While critical of the institution of marriage, Andrew Cherlin still seems to have faith in it citing studies detailing the negative effects of divorce. For Cherlin the pervasive individualism of modern culture has made people judge marriage not based on level of commitment but rather on the level of happiness. This can explain the record growth of divorce, as modern couples are less tolerant of unhappiness, and thus, lack the "spirit of compromise" required for successful marriages. However, according to Cherlin, despite the record levels of divorce, people in the U.S. are still likely to get married or re-marry, thus leading to "a marriage go round."

Orna Gadish, author of Don’t Say I Do!, comes to a different conclusion altogether based on the same facts, as she accents viable modern options and opportunities in relationships and alternative family settings that have become part of consensus today. Such prevalent alternatives in modern society were neglected by Cherlin in the Marriage Go Round (published in 2009), for Cherlin is evidently leaning toward the old-fashioned agreement of matrimony, and that in stark contradiction to modern and western social trends.

While the difference in outlook might be ideological, I believe that the timing of release of both of the books, Don't Say I Do! (in 2012) and the Marriage Go Round (in 2009) could have also played a role. Don’t Say I Do! clearly propagates a postmodern vision, and unlike the Marriage Go Round focuses on single, unmarried, and divorced women of the global and digital age, in U.S., Europe, Israel, and the western world, while Cherlin documents merely the status in America.

Gadish, unlike Cherlin, looks at the decline of marriage and assesses the alternatives advantageous to women within her focus groups that included, among others, married women, unhappily married women, unmarried women, divorced women, and single women. Gadish’s work is a decidedly more ideological read, yet that fails to take away anything from the intellectual rigour and the uplifting voice  in her argumentation, discussion and  overall analysis of marriage decline as an international phenomenon (Gadish) rather than a local U.S. trend (Cherlin).

As a women herself, Gadish is more likely to embrace a female perspective than the traditional white-male one, and rightly addresses a blind spot in Cherlin's analysis. Whereas both authors point to a greater individual freedom as a factor to be considered in marriage demise, Gadish pin points the growth in the freedom of choice for women as a potential indicator for its happening. According to Gadish such freedom  of choice is a positive cultural change embraced by women throughout the western world, where women are realizing their true potentials in fulfilling careers, and through actively opting out of marriage and remaining single, unmarried and divorced.

According to Gadish, women do not have to get married today, as there are alternatives that may make them equally "settled down" or contented, such as living together with a partner (cohabitation) or living together apart (LTA) arrangements. The postmodern vision of Don’t Say I Do! further punctuates the difference between the two works, as Cherlin seeks to assess what is going wrong with marriage, while Gadish, on the other hand, outwardly endorses the decline of marriage in favour of growth of women’s rights to choose their individual paths, their personal goals in love life and relationships, motherhood, family and career matters, as well as their contentment and self-actualization.

For Gadish, there are no benefits to be had in stepping onto the "marriage go round" as women stand to experience costly legal hassles, custody battles, financial loss, and overall, heartache and resentment in entering multiple marriages ending in divorce, which are bound to make such women sceptical of their chances of achievement of happiness or success to least the least.

In sum, while a well written, researched and argued book, apparently the Marriage Go Round is a limited work, for it describes trends, but makes no real judgements as to what they mean for modern women and indeed men. On the other hand, Don’t Say I Do! may be more political in its stance on the decline of marriage, however it provides what the Marriage Go Round is missing, a reference to modern life outside the U.S., freedom of choice for women, and a real sense of perspective. 

(Book Review) A New Book "Don't Say I Do! Why Women Should Stay Single" Says Single Women and Unmarried Women Can Benefit More Than Married Women

There are plenty of books in this world you can read, books that can excite, anger, provide insight or give a new perspective on a topic you thought all had been said and done; however, DON'T SAY I DO! Why Women Should Stay Single by Orna Gadish manages to do all of the above at the same time.

DON'T SAY I DO! is a powerful book that challenges the institution of marriage and  its restrictive effect on women, and proposes new forms of relationships, and alternative family settings, with the sole aim of empowering women with choices and opportunities in an age where there are so many.

Author Orna Gadish genius lies in her deconstruction of marriage as a choice among many, not a mandate from god or state that women are consigned to obey. According to Gadish, women can choose to enter various types of relationships and family settings, or actively decide not to. Social expectations for Gadish are a distant second to the freedom of choice of women across the globe.

However, this book is not so much about marriage as about the choices now open to women realizing that their marital status does not have to define or confine them.  Thus, the real achievement of DON'T SAY I DO! Why Women Should Stay Single is not its strong arguments against women limiting their choices with regards to the form of relationships they enter, but the trends in modern culture that make such choices viable.

We live in an age where choice is widespread for women with regards to work and relationships, yet, it looks like the same arcane social expectations are guiding us today. DON'T SAY I DO! serves as a well-argued reminder, that social expectations are what you make of them. A woman can marry, stay unmarried, be in a relationship with a man or not, bear a child, raise a child, adopt a child, and live together or apart from her partner with or without a child, if that is her choice.

Motherhood options are also abundant today to women without marriage. And marriage is definitely not a prerequisite for creating a family nest today. According to Gadish, there is a sea of options for single women, unmarried women, unhappily married women, and divorced women, where marriage need not be perceived as the best choice, but rather as one of the choices for women, for [post]modernity offers no limitations at all.

Despite its suggestive title, DON'T SAY I DO! should not be read as a book against  the institution of marriage or a militant feminist tract, but a heartfelt letter to women suggesting there's more than one road to happiness and success. Therefore, the arguments made in DON'T SAY I DO! are commonsensical in light of the high divorce rates and frequent infidelities in the global age that lead to  question of the necessity and efficacy of matrimony in the face of the modern changes.

With all statistics and facts in place, DON'T SAY I DO! smartly challenges marriage as the first choice for unmarried women today; asking if marriage is really the most  feasible option among many others that may make more sense to a woman's particular situation in regards to her busy lifestyle, career, motherhood, friendships, and family needs.

In sum, DON'T SAY I DO! Why Women Should Stay Single is a well  written and well-argued book, which in light of the damning facts about marriage, dares to ask not only sensible questions about the institution of marriage, but those necessary that might save it. 

(Video) Moore on healthcare win

Author and filmmaker Michael  Moore shares his view about the recent supreme court decision.