Skip to main content

Testosterone Rex - Cordelia Fine ****

It seems that books about the myth of gendered minds are somewhat like busses - wait ages for one, then two come along close together. I've already reviewed the superb Inferior by Angela Saini, so it was fascinating to be able to contrast Cordelia Fine's impressive Testosterone Rex.

 This is a full-on take on the whole business of the ways that men and women aren't (and are) different. You may think that there's no need to do this in today's world. After, all, we all recognise gender equality, don't we? However, not only is it taking a long time for this to percolate through to equal pay (at the time of writing this review there's been quite a fuss about this at the BBC), it's clear that acceptance that the bias still exists is often, at best, skin deep. I was fascinated to see an online argument, started with a post by a (female) physicist on the topic, only to have a string of male scientists, who really should know better, pile in with a combination of denial, excuses, and attempts to counter studies with anecdotes, somehow forgetting that anecdotes are not data.

 Even more so than with Saini's book, Fine's makes me feel sorry for evolutionary psychologists - these academics are really getting it in the neck with findings that suggest that at least some of their long-held views aren't based on fact. Part of the reason I particularly feel their pain here is that Fine is more full on than Saini: fiery, snarky and writing much more of a polemic than Saini's cool, careful and scientific approach. My suspicion is that the approach taken in Testosterone Rex might have the wider appeal, even though, for me, Saini's book has the edge.

 Luckily, though, the two titles aren't really competitors. There is a strong overlap of theme, but each has a significantly different focus. Here relationships, sex and everyday life are stressed more (down to those infuriating 'girls' and 'boys' aisles in toyshops), while Inferior came particularly from the viewpoint of the influence of gender bias on education and careers, scientific careers in particular.

 I found Testosterone Rex an enjoyable read (I hate the name, though in fairness, Fine does spend a lot of pages on the misunderstanding of the influence of testosterone and how, for example, trading floors are not so much testosterone-fueled as testosterone-generating). The book did sometimes feel a tad repetitive, as in the end it's a vast series of examples illustrating the same point. And, for me, there was also too much about animals. Having established early on that we are very different, even from the other primates, and that there was no point in using animal examples as 'natural' behaviour for us, there didn't seem any point continuing with the animal stories. 

 If you enjoy a good piece of punchy, persuasive writing, but are still to be convinced that 'boys will be boys' or that 'women are naturally less inclined to jobs requiring assertiveness or aggression' this is a must read. If you are already fully committed to equality, you will also enjoy having your beliefs reinforced. Sadly, some will still see this as political correctness gone mad. It's not - it's about getting the scientific basis right, rather than rolling out the same dated and simply incorrect arguments.
Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more