Bachelors: The Psychology of Men Who Haven’t Married

3 Comments/Reviews

  • J. Davis says:
    1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
    4.0 out of 5 stars
    Informative read, September 27, 2011
    By 
    J. Davis (San Diego, CA United States) –
    (REAL NAME)
      

    This review is from: Bachelors: The Psychology of Men Who Haven’t Married (Hardcover)

    Anyone who wants to understand the thinking of bachelors should read this book. The author divides bachelors into 3 types: Conflicted, Entrenched, and Flexible. I identified completely with the description of a Conficted Bachelor–one who can’t decide if he wants to stay a bachelor. Waehler interviews a number of bachelors to give the reader the reasoning behind their resistance to marriage. This book is 15 years old, but still worth reading.

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No

  • Anonymous says:
    4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
    1.0 out of 5 stars
    Opportunistic psychobabble, August 14, 2002
    By A Customer
    This review is from: Bachelors: The Psychology of Men Who Haven’t Married (Hardcover)

    Anti-singles (i.e. see me for p$ychotherapy) analysis of bachelors over 40. My view was confirmed after reading the introduction section in “Men Who Never” by anthropologist Marian Howard who writes the same critique of a Waehler paper presentation.

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No

  • Anonymous says:
    4 of 7 people found the following review helpful
    2.0 out of 5 stars
    Don’t bother with this book…, August 14, 1999
    By A Customer
    This review is from: Bachelors: The Psychology of Men Who Haven’t Married (Hardcover)

    …beyond reading a critique of it at The Martian Bachelor Science Page.

    Synopsis: We’re still waiting for a decent book on this subject to come out of an industry which bends over backwards catering to female tastes, while all but ignoring men. The book would get one star if it were not for an occasional glimpse of wisdom in it and the author’s stated goal of exploding stereotypes (which he unfortunately then seems to go on to strengthen). Tries to be caring, but is acutely devoid of humor or any sort of real social context. Much of the psycho-jargon is opaque. . .need I continue?

    * ChrisMeister

    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

    Was this review helpful to you? Yes
    No

Powered by Yahoo! Answers