The frequent invisibility of women in the considerations of political scientists appears to be reflected in the number of women of influence in the field and their ability to bring women's issues into focus. Lovenduski claims that women have only gained a "toehold" in this discipline, concentrating mainly on correcting culturally determined implicit sexist assumptions from existing models, rather than developing a radical "... altogether innovative feminist Political Science."

Much energy appears to be diffused into "correction" of existent epistemological constructs. Furthermore, this preoccupation can often lead to co-optation as in Psychology where "... to a large extent the feminist critique has been co-opted by main- stream psychology without any wide-scale corresponding change in psychology's nature, theory or practice."

It is difficult to determine which is more dangerous to women in the academy: being co-opted or being ignored. In her excellent essay, "Education: The Patriarchal Paradigm and the Response to Feminism," Dale Spender discusses the problem faced by women who have worked arduously to bring politics into education, to draw the attention of professional educators to the inherent sexism in their model: "Educationalists, until now, have chosen to ignore it. It is not possible to say what the final outcome will be but it is possible to suggest that the odds are not on the side of patriarchy; the feminist achievement is too substantial for it to remain 'non-data.'" While she acknowledges that men have "set up their own circle," and that one way to assess the advance of women might be to document the extent to which women have managed to penetrate that circle, she rejects this as the only form of assessing the effect of feminist theory. In fact, because women have already produced our own knowledge and are now challenging the very authenticity of the male model, she believes that whether or not women are admitted into the male circle, the "impact of feminism could be to shift the locus of power." Naturally, as a feminist educator, I hope she is right; on the other hand, I think it is possible to underestimate the power of those who ultimately have their hands in the till.

The essays on law and medicine tend to be very focused on the British context, which makes them interesting, but not as widely applicable as one would hope? In both cases, the writers talk of changes in practice that is actual changes in the law or in the practice of medicine. Although some attention is paid to the epistemological basis of these professions, it is fairly cursory. Curiously, though, it is in these two areas of study, which depend so strongly on public support, that one sees the least amount of change from within the profession in Great Britain.

Most of the important changes have come from groups outside of the profession which bring political pressure to bear for change in practices and procedure. It is not encouraging that women within these professions have not been able to make a serious impact on the theoretical basis of practice; indeed one wonders what percentage of the women lawyers and doctors are feminists. Since the biases of these professions are so blatantly sexist, and since the training and filtering process is so rigorous, it would seem that many of the women who succeed within the systems are precisely those least likely to challenge the very system which validates them.

The most radical essay in this volume is Cathy Overfield's "Dirty Fingers, Grime and Slag Heaps: Purity and the Scientific Ethic." In this essay, Overfield questions the very philosophical basis of what is considered scientific "fact". She also discusses the sociology of science and its political implications: the scientific ethic, as much as the capitalist and imperialist ethics, was based on exploitation, elimination of rivals, domination and oppression." She believes that this model is antithetical to "female culture" and is an explanation of why women "don't fit in" to the prevalent scientific model as either subjects or practitioners. Hence, she poses the question: "Do women really want to be part of this science?" Her answer is a solid "no": "while a patriarchal, hierarchical, oppressive society exists, so too will a science of that form... And so will the objectivity/subjectivity division: male/female being opposing sides, representing opposing qualities." Overfield does not stop at this analysis, however, but urges a radical praxis: women have the obligation to understand and organize every area of scientific activity and it is urgent, for "If women do not get it right, we will carry on being scientific 'objects' and acceding in our own - and humanity's elimination."

As you can see, there is a large palette of ideas and preoccupations in Men's Studies Modified; it makes for interesting reading. Its scope makes it less than comprehensive, often diffuse, and raises more questions than it answers. I see this book as a catalyst to further study in each area covered. There are numerous ideas to be picked up and developed. Dale Spender is to be congratulated for this important work, fascinating reading in itself, and a landmark which indicates to us all what must be pursued in both theory and development of praxis.

Greta Hofmann Nemiroff is the Director of the New School at Dawson College in Montreal and the Quebec Director of CCLOW.