Status
Available
Call number
Description
Drawing on the latest research in neuroscience and psychology, Cordelia Fine debunks the myth of hardwired differences between men's and women's brains, unraveling the evidence behind such claims as men's brains aren't wired for empathy and women's brains aren't made to fix cars. She then goes one step further, offering a very different explanation of the dissimilarities between men's and women's behavior. Instead of a "male brain" and a "female brain," Fine gives us a glimpse of plastic, mutable minds that are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender.--From publisher description.
Pages
338
DDC/MDS
| 612.82 |
Language
Awards
John Llewellyn Rhys Prize (Shortlist — 2010)
Warwick Prize for Writing (Shortlist — 2013)
Victorian Premier's Literary Award (Nominee — Nettie Palmer Prize for Australian Nonfiction — 2011)
Bristol Festival of Ideas Book Prize (Nominee — 2011)
User reviews
LibraryThing member rivkat
Really engaging look at, among other things, how people respond to stereotypes (even being reminded that one is a woman can decrease performance on a math test, while being exposed to a competent woman can improve it), how society pervasively genders children (I remember how desperate strangers
Show More
were to figure out whether my infant was a boy or a girl), and how bad neuroscience gets used to “prove” that the differences between men and women are hardwired, because we’re all egalitarians now so obviously any remaining differences are the result of genes. Sample summary dealing with the fact that self-reported data about supposedly gender-linked characteristics is unreliable: “if you want to predict people’s empathic ability you might as well save everyone’s time and get monkeys to fill out the self-report questionnaires.” She has a detailed discussion of supposed brain differences and what they might (or might not) mean for thinking. My favorite bit of that is a quote from someone else—you may have read about the idea that men’s brains are more hemispherically localized while women’s are more interconnected, supposedly making men more suited for in-depth thinking and women for putting things together. Ian Gold, a philosopher of science, says, “May as well say hairier body so fuzzier thinker. Or that human beings are capable of fixing fuses because the brain uses electricity.” In fact, as Fine points out, it’s not surprising that there are different configurations that perform the same functions in the world. The story she tells is both depressing—we’re so eager to declare victory/defeat with respect to sex differences—and inspiring—small interventions can make big differences. I need to figure out how to do more of this debiasing when I teach. Show Less
LibraryThing member Paulagraph
I would give this book extra stars if I could. All parents, prospective parents, educators, human resource professionals, in fact, every person who still reads, should read this book. As someone who is skeptical with a capital S about such notions as men are from Mars & women from Venus, women
Show More
can't do math, men are more likely to be geniuses, pink & purple are for girls while blue is for boys, and that male & female brains are "hard-wired" differently, I winced, snorted (Cordelia Fine is funny!) & fumed all the way through this wonderful book. Although I could write a lengthy appendage of anecdotes, observations & go-to-wall-and-bash-head-against-it experiences with "neurononsense" & "neurosexism" (I love these terms) in my own life, I will restrict myself here to quoting from the book-jacket's summary (I have to alas! return Delusions of Gender to the library & await its publication in paperback in order to annotate & underline with abandon.): "Drawing on the latest research in neuroscience and psychology, Cordelia Fine debunks the myth of hardwired differences between men's and women's brains, unraveling the evidence behind such claims as men's brains aren't wired for empathy and women's brains aren't made to fix cars. She then goes one step further, offering a very different explanation of the dissimilarities between men's and women's behavior. Instead of a "male" brain and a "female" brain, " Fine gives us a glimpse of plastic, mutable minds that are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender." I was reminded throughout of Stephen Jay Gould's debunking of the notion that correlation implies, let alone proves, causation. Show Less
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Men aren't from Mars; women aren't from Venus. Ms. Fine's work is a witty, insightful, and healthily skeptical look at the science of gender studies. As a father of twins who'd like to do whatever possible to help both learn how to be happy, healthy, and successful in whatever they choose to do
Still, I highly recommend this even if it may not look like a field of interest at first glance. If nothing else, it's a primer on how to hone our bs detectors and apply critical thinking to matters of social justice. I
Show More
with their lives, I found this fascinating. And troubling. Troubling because the more we understand how our minds create the culture that shapes our minds, it's increasingly obvious how much work their is to do to fix the culture that warps and constrains our minds and imaginations ... Still, I highly recommend this even if it may not look like a field of interest at first glance. If nothing else, it's a primer on how to hone our bs detectors and apply critical thinking to matters of social justice. I
Show Less
LibraryThing member CBJames
Are men and women innately different due to the way our comparative brains are built, or are the differences we perceive between us the result of cultural conditioning, a by-product of living within a world that sets different expectations for men and women from the moment we are born?
Has science,
Cordelia Fine, in her informative, entertaining and highly readable book Delusions of Gender, makes the case that we are not hard-wired for anything as far as gender roles go and that modern neuroscience has been used to pass along the same old prejudices our fore-fathers and fore-mothers endured.
I did not enter reading Delusions of Gender on Ms. Fine's side. Prior to reading her book, I believed that we're all prisoners of our DNA in the end and that someday we would find differences in the DNA of men and women that bring about the behavioral differences we all observe. However, Ms. Fine builds such a strong case against a neurological basis for behavioral differences, that I am forced to look at my own views in a new light.
Ms. Fine makes a thorough, detailed critique of the neurological research done to date as well as the more popular books supposedly based on this research. While it's often the case that a particular research study Ms. Fine critiques should be viewed with great skepticism, it's more often the case that the popular books claiming to illuminate the differences between men and women based on neuroscience are basically fiction. It's remarkable how many books like Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, misquote, misunderstand, misinterpret or simply make things up about the studies they cite as the basis for the arguments they make. Some of this relates to things many of us have come to take for granted. The notion that women like to talk through problems while men address them in straightforward manner, is one example. Whether this notion is correct or not, Ms. Fine is able to clearly demonstrate that it has no provable basis in neuroscience. If it exists, it is most likely the product of learned behavior.
This was the most striking notion I took away from Delusions of Gender, just how much behavior appears to be learned, how strongly it can affect people in testing situations and how early this learning begins. Several studies Ms. Fine looks at show how simply asking the subjects in a test to state their gender before it began can affect how they will respond to the test itself. Asking people to think of themselves as a man or a woman will cause them to respond in ways they think men or women are supposed to respond. Other studies show that very young children begin to look at the men and women around them as behavioral models possibly even before they can speak.
After reading Delusions of Gender I was I'm humbly reminded that I should always view scientific claims with skepticism, especially if the evidence for them is slight. This is something I have known since the 1980's when one study proved that gay men had bigger hypothalmuses (spelling?) than straight men did which supposedly suggested a reason why gay men were gay, though it did not explain why straight men were straight. That I've taken so many statements on gender difference as fact without looking at the studies they are based on embarrasses me. I don't think it will happen anymore.
Ms. Fine reminds us all that we should read the footnotes and check the studies before we quote them especially if the book we are reading is simply using science to confirm prejudices (or opinions) we already hold. If you believe it's natural for girls to like pink more than boys do, then it's very easy to agree with a book quoting a 'study' that proves this is based on new discoveries in neuroscience. Ms. Fine does the leg work for us in Delusions of Gender and finds that while girls may like pink more than boys do, this has no basis in the structure of their brains.
But is Delusions of Gender a book you'll enjoy reading? I can only say that I found it fascinating. It's not a breezy read, but neither is it a highly academic book. I would say that it falls just over the line towards academic on the popular---academic continuum. It's just academic enough to lend credibility, which is right where I'd like a book like this to be.
Has science,
Show More
neuroscience in particular, helped us discover the truth about our natures or has it enabled us to simply re-confirm age-old prejudices through more respectable means?Cordelia Fine, in her informative, entertaining and highly readable book Delusions of Gender, makes the case that we are not hard-wired for anything as far as gender roles go and that modern neuroscience has been used to pass along the same old prejudices our fore-fathers and fore-mothers endured.
I did not enter reading Delusions of Gender on Ms. Fine's side. Prior to reading her book, I believed that we're all prisoners of our DNA in the end and that someday we would find differences in the DNA of men and women that bring about the behavioral differences we all observe. However, Ms. Fine builds such a strong case against a neurological basis for behavioral differences, that I am forced to look at my own views in a new light.
Ms. Fine makes a thorough, detailed critique of the neurological research done to date as well as the more popular books supposedly based on this research. While it's often the case that a particular research study Ms. Fine critiques should be viewed with great skepticism, it's more often the case that the popular books claiming to illuminate the differences between men and women based on neuroscience are basically fiction. It's remarkable how many books like Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus, misquote, misunderstand, misinterpret or simply make things up about the studies they cite as the basis for the arguments they make. Some of this relates to things many of us have come to take for granted. The notion that women like to talk through problems while men address them in straightforward manner, is one example. Whether this notion is correct or not, Ms. Fine is able to clearly demonstrate that it has no provable basis in neuroscience. If it exists, it is most likely the product of learned behavior.
This was the most striking notion I took away from Delusions of Gender, just how much behavior appears to be learned, how strongly it can affect people in testing situations and how early this learning begins. Several studies Ms. Fine looks at show how simply asking the subjects in a test to state their gender before it began can affect how they will respond to the test itself. Asking people to think of themselves as a man or a woman will cause them to respond in ways they think men or women are supposed to respond. Other studies show that very young children begin to look at the men and women around them as behavioral models possibly even before they can speak.
After reading Delusions of Gender I was I'm humbly reminded that I should always view scientific claims with skepticism, especially if the evidence for them is slight. This is something I have known since the 1980's when one study proved that gay men had bigger hypothalmuses (spelling?) than straight men did which supposedly suggested a reason why gay men were gay, though it did not explain why straight men were straight. That I've taken so many statements on gender difference as fact without looking at the studies they are based on embarrasses me. I don't think it will happen anymore.
Ms. Fine reminds us all that we should read the footnotes and check the studies before we quote them especially if the book we are reading is simply using science to confirm prejudices (or opinions) we already hold. If you believe it's natural for girls to like pink more than boys do, then it's very easy to agree with a book quoting a 'study' that proves this is based on new discoveries in neuroscience. Ms. Fine does the leg work for us in Delusions of Gender and finds that while girls may like pink more than boys do, this has no basis in the structure of their brains.
But is Delusions of Gender a book you'll enjoy reading? I can only say that I found it fascinating. It's not a breezy read, but neither is it a highly academic book. I would say that it falls just over the line towards academic on the popular---academic continuum. It's just academic enough to lend credibility, which is right where I'd like a book like this to be.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LeighMatthews
I feel compelled to give this book to everyone I know and, if I have to, bribe them to read it. An incredible exposition of gender and how neurononsense can lead us to dangerous conclusions about ourselves and our positions in society. Anyone considering becoming a parent, or who already is a
If you're examining gender and essentialism and are tempted by the biological fallback to explain seemingly inexplicable sex differences then Cordelia Fine's astute and incisive prose will help. She's also wryly amusing, which makes this book a delight to read.
Show More
parent and has thought about gender-neutral parenting styles should read this. It may preserve your sanity. If you're examining gender and essentialism and are tempted by the biological fallback to explain seemingly inexplicable sex differences then Cordelia Fine's astute and incisive prose will help. She's also wryly amusing, which makes this book a delight to read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Larou
I do not read much in the way of non-fiction books any more, and even back when I did, it was almost all either literary criticism, philosophy or history, pretty much in that order both of amount read and importance attached to it. I have only ever been interested in science when it was paired with
To sum things up, the book was not quite what I expected, but definitely not in a disappointin way. A large part of Delusions of Gender is indeed dedicated to the critique of studies on gender (and the popular books referring them), and I openly admit that most of my enjoyment in reading that part stemmed from sheer Schadenfreude - Schadenfreude at seeing the “It’s Science!” cudgel bludgeoned over the heads of those who are so fond of wielding it themselves, and Schadenfreude at the hollow sound resulting from that encounter.
An even greater part of the book, however, concerns itself with a related, but markedly disinct problem – it not just asks whether perceived gender differences are innate or acquired, but also explores the sexism inherent in the concept of the female brain being different from the male one, which supposedly leads to women thinking differently than men. Cordelia Fine points out quite correctly that even if we accept the first as true, the second does not necessarily follow, and that even this presumed difference is as yet far from being a proven fact. She also shows how the arguments in favour of an innate gender difference seem to repeat established clichés with an uncanny regularity, and in fact echo very closely supposedly scientific proofs of the inferiority of females that scientists have been writing from the nineteenth century onwards – their methods and results are simply risible today (and Fine quotes them to great comic effect), but their ideological impetus is not really any different from contemporary books that tell us how men excel in mathematics and science while women are good only at the touch-feely stuff.
I am not a scientist myself, and don’t necessarily agree with everything Cordelia Fine states – I am, for example, not at all sure whether the way she explains the implicit influence of sexist clichés on various test results (e.g., the apparently harmless question for the testee’s genders automatically leading to one gender testing worse than the other) always escapes an overly simple Pavlov-style concept of stimulus and response. Fine does try to avoid that pitfall by explaining it as certain stimuli playing into a given cultural context, which at least prevents the connection of being viewed as a natural one, but it seems to me that even with that explanation she still remains inside the behavourist model.
Anyhow – as I was saying, I’m not a scientist myself, but even I can see that basing your study on a tiny empirical foundation of just a handful of test subjects is not how science is supposed to work, that not applying Occam’s Razor just because you like the results of your study is intellectual laziness, that not being aware of your own prejudices and ways they might be falsifying your results is shoddy work, or that any other of the many (sometimes outrageous) flaws and omissions Delusions of Gender finds in the studies it examines has no chance to lead to results that could be considered valid. And yet – again, Cordelia Fine quotes a lot, and with obvious relish – just a mere shout-out at “Science!”, no matter how thin the argument or how flimsy the actual empirical data – can give justification and weight to even the most hare-brained and reactionary sexist theories about so-called “hardwired” (and Cordelia Fine gets extra brownie points from me for dissecting the use of that highly annoying term) gender differences.
Delusions of Gender is not without problems of its own in that regard, though. The main issue I had with it is that after heaping example on example of how questionable the basic methodology of the majority of those supposedly scientific studies is and how none of their results stands up to close scrutiny, Cordelia Fine then proceeds to merrily quote studies using the identical methodology to support her own argument, leaving the reader to wonder just how those studies are different from the ones she just criticized. In fact, one cannot help but wonder – considering the huge amount of empirical evidence pointing in that direction which Delusions of Gender presents – whether the methodology is not inherently gender-biased, or, to put at its most bluntly, whether science is not intrinsically sexist. Fine unfortunately does not go there, but this does of course not invalidate her criticism, and I think even people skeptical about the whole innate gender differences thing will take some new and valuable insights from this book – it very convincingly shows how even in our enlightened and emancipated society, there still remain vestiges of sexism that may be all the more pernicious for being implicit and so well hidden that even convinced feminists can end up speaking in their favour. Even beyond the particular cases its presents, Delusions of Gender sharpens the reader’s sensibility for inherent gender bias in many aspects of contemporary society, and for that alone it is well worth reading.
Show More
fiction, so reading a non-fiction science book, even if it is popular science like this one, is quite unusual for me (it might even be the first time ever, but after several decades of reading I’m a bit hesitant to make such a claim). What drew me to Delusions of Gender in spite of all this was (apart from the mention on Steven Brust’s blog which directed my attention to it in the first place) the memory of countless frustrating debates about gender differences supposedly being innate, and this book promised a closer and very critical look at the studies making that claim.To sum things up, the book was not quite what I expected, but definitely not in a disappointin way. A large part of Delusions of Gender is indeed dedicated to the critique of studies on gender (and the popular books referring them), and I openly admit that most of my enjoyment in reading that part stemmed from sheer Schadenfreude - Schadenfreude at seeing the “It’s Science!” cudgel bludgeoned over the heads of those who are so fond of wielding it themselves, and Schadenfreude at the hollow sound resulting from that encounter.
An even greater part of the book, however, concerns itself with a related, but markedly disinct problem – it not just asks whether perceived gender differences are innate or acquired, but also explores the sexism inherent in the concept of the female brain being different from the male one, which supposedly leads to women thinking differently than men. Cordelia Fine points out quite correctly that even if we accept the first as true, the second does not necessarily follow, and that even this presumed difference is as yet far from being a proven fact. She also shows how the arguments in favour of an innate gender difference seem to repeat established clichés with an uncanny regularity, and in fact echo very closely supposedly scientific proofs of the inferiority of females that scientists have been writing from the nineteenth century onwards – their methods and results are simply risible today (and Fine quotes them to great comic effect), but their ideological impetus is not really any different from contemporary books that tell us how men excel in mathematics and science while women are good only at the touch-feely stuff.
I am not a scientist myself, and don’t necessarily agree with everything Cordelia Fine states – I am, for example, not at all sure whether the way she explains the implicit influence of sexist clichés on various test results (e.g., the apparently harmless question for the testee’s genders automatically leading to one gender testing worse than the other) always escapes an overly simple Pavlov-style concept of stimulus and response. Fine does try to avoid that pitfall by explaining it as certain stimuli playing into a given cultural context, which at least prevents the connection of being viewed as a natural one, but it seems to me that even with that explanation she still remains inside the behavourist model.
Anyhow – as I was saying, I’m not a scientist myself, but even I can see that basing your study on a tiny empirical foundation of just a handful of test subjects is not how science is supposed to work, that not applying Occam’s Razor just because you like the results of your study is intellectual laziness, that not being aware of your own prejudices and ways they might be falsifying your results is shoddy work, or that any other of the many (sometimes outrageous) flaws and omissions Delusions of Gender finds in the studies it examines has no chance to lead to results that could be considered valid. And yet – again, Cordelia Fine quotes a lot, and with obvious relish – just a mere shout-out at “Science!”, no matter how thin the argument or how flimsy the actual empirical data – can give justification and weight to even the most hare-brained and reactionary sexist theories about so-called “hardwired” (and Cordelia Fine gets extra brownie points from me for dissecting the use of that highly annoying term) gender differences.
Delusions of Gender is not without problems of its own in that regard, though. The main issue I had with it is that after heaping example on example of how questionable the basic methodology of the majority of those supposedly scientific studies is and how none of their results stands up to close scrutiny, Cordelia Fine then proceeds to merrily quote studies using the identical methodology to support her own argument, leaving the reader to wonder just how those studies are different from the ones she just criticized. In fact, one cannot help but wonder – considering the huge amount of empirical evidence pointing in that direction which Delusions of Gender presents – whether the methodology is not inherently gender-biased, or, to put at its most bluntly, whether science is not intrinsically sexist. Fine unfortunately does not go there, but this does of course not invalidate her criticism, and I think even people skeptical about the whole innate gender differences thing will take some new and valuable insights from this book – it very convincingly shows how even in our enlightened and emancipated society, there still remain vestiges of sexism that may be all the more pernicious for being implicit and so well hidden that even convinced feminists can end up speaking in their favour. Even beyond the particular cases its presents, Delusions of Gender sharpens the reader’s sensibility for inherent gender bias in many aspects of contemporary society, and for that alone it is well worth reading.
Show Less
LibraryThing member themulhern
A book that shouldn't have to be written. The excerpts from irritating bits of pseudo-science make one gnash one's teeth. The author is a tad sloppy and inconsistent; in one part of the book the notion that you can draw any conclusions about human brains from studies of rats is mocked, in another a
Show More
rat study is used to support the author's argument. The book is occasionally rather funny. The best part is the John Stuart Mill quotation at the beginning; when Victorians wanted to talk sense they used awfully long and weighty sentences. Show Less
LibraryThing member csoki637
Delving into both historical examples and recently published books and articles, Cordelia Fine offers a very thorough overview of the science — and pseudoscience — of neurosexism and gender socialization, ultimately critiquing how science can be used to justify and uphold inequality. Some of
Show More
her strongest takedowns are of Louann Brizendine (of The Female Mind) and Leonard Sax (of Why Gender Matters), but another impressive section is her comprehensive summary of studies showing how deeply children are affected by gender stereotypes. Her analysis is well organized, and ironic commentary adds humor to the otherwise depressingly misogynistic landscape. An eye-opening and engaging read, Delusions of Gender is a book I'd definitely recommend, but I could have done without the scattered praise of the author's husband — yes, he's tolerant of feminism; no, that doesn't necessitate applause. Show Less
LibraryThing member Calavari
Just as the title makes it sound, this book debunks many of the popular theories on the differences between men and women, girls and boys and their respective brains. The main message is that gender is social, not biological. In the end, there is an admittance that it may one day prove to be
This book is definitely recommended for anyone who writes about or is interested in gender roles and stereotypes as well as pretty much all parents. It is important to understand the genderscape as a parent because it is parents who will shape the next generation’s views on gender. It is highly informative of where these concepts come from in our children and how they are policed.
My favorite point in the book is that children learn so much more from the way that people act than from what they say. It relays the message (in my opinion) that if you want your children to disregard traditional gender roles, you will have to do this in your home first. It also doesn’t seem to be about each gender specifically going against stereotype as much as each person in the home sharing each of the house chores evenly. If the child sees that the person who takes out the trash is whoever saw that it was full, they are less likely to associate it with a gender role. Likewise with doing the dishes. This is where it can start and it doesn’t have to stick with gender roles, this holds true for all the places where life intersects with differences.
Show More
biological, but no compelling evidence currently exists that cannot be debunked and was not influenced by the researchers in some way instead. Culture drives gender roles and gender stereotypes so well that there is virtually no way to really know how soon such things start. There are some unique examples of families that have found ways around stereotypes of gender, but they are very few.This book is definitely recommended for anyone who writes about or is interested in gender roles and stereotypes as well as pretty much all parents. It is important to understand the genderscape as a parent because it is parents who will shape the next generation’s views on gender. It is highly informative of where these concepts come from in our children and how they are policed.
My favorite point in the book is that children learn so much more from the way that people act than from what they say. It relays the message (in my opinion) that if you want your children to disregard traditional gender roles, you will have to do this in your home first. It also doesn’t seem to be about each gender specifically going against stereotype as much as each person in the home sharing each of the house chores evenly. If the child sees that the person who takes out the trash is whoever saw that it was full, they are less likely to associate it with a gender role. Likewise with doing the dishes. This is where it can start and it doesn’t have to stick with gender roles, this holds true for all the places where life intersects with differences.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 2chances
READ IT.
Cordelia Fine's examination of the many popular books and research studies which purport to prove that the male and female brains might as well belong to different species is simply brilliant. I gobbled this non-fiction up like it was a light lunch after a hard day's manual labor. Every
WRONG. Cordelia Fine looked up the study (thank you, Cordelia! That would be a big nuisance for the Average Reader) and as it turns out? ALL OF THE THERAPISTS IN THE STUDY WERE WOMEN. Yeah, that's right. They only recruited women for the study, so the study proves absolutely nothing about men vs. women. And if you think this sort of thing is an anomaly, wrong again - Fine's detailed work found this sort of thing occurring over and over again. Moreover, Fine is terrific at highlighting how the social context of everything men and women do contributes to these gender stereotypes, and at explaining how gender bias affects the neuroscientific research. This is an absolutely fantastic book - I have the urge to acquire copies for every teacher, every employer, every parent on the planet. It made me rethink more of my life that I would have believed possible. Seriously, even if you think you would disagree with it: READ IT. If nothing else, you will enjoy Fine's smooth and witty prose.
Cordelia Fine's examination of the many popular books and research studies which purport to prove that the male and female brains might as well belong to different species is simply brilliant. I gobbled this non-fiction up like it was a light lunch after a hard day's manual labor. Every
Show More
page was packed with jaw-dropping information - horrifying methodological flaws, research which argues two diametrically opposed concepts, and outright deception, all designed to prove that men and women are not and cannot possibly be equal. Like, just for one small example: Fine mentions the author of a popular book on the subject, who cites research about "mirror neurons," (women have more of them, which supposedly makes them more empathetic.) The author mentions a study of therapists which indicated that the most successful therapists are those that "mirror" their clients words, gestures, and verbal patterns. Interestingly, (says the author), ALL of the successful therapists were women. Because they have more mirror neurons, and are more attuned to others, right?WRONG. Cordelia Fine looked up the study (thank you, Cordelia! That would be a big nuisance for the Average Reader) and as it turns out? ALL OF THE THERAPISTS IN THE STUDY WERE WOMEN. Yeah, that's right. They only recruited women for the study, so the study proves absolutely nothing about men vs. women. And if you think this sort of thing is an anomaly, wrong again - Fine's detailed work found this sort of thing occurring over and over again. Moreover, Fine is terrific at highlighting how the social context of everything men and women do contributes to these gender stereotypes, and at explaining how gender bias affects the neuroscientific research. This is an absolutely fantastic book - I have the urge to acquire copies for every teacher, every employer, every parent on the planet. It made me rethink more of my life that I would have believed possible. Seriously, even if you think you would disagree with it: READ IT. If nothing else, you will enjoy Fine's smooth and witty prose.
Show Less
LibraryThing member wyvernfriend
This book looks at some of the popular assumptions about hardwired gender norms and asks some timely and serious questions about them. She shows that by presenting tasks as being gender biased that it can skew the results. That western culture encourages a very rigid adherence to gender norms, that
It's an interesting read and I found it a wonderful antidote to The Female Brain by Brizendine, Fine also found The Female Brain to be toxic, but she also had the resources and knowledge to be able to point out that much of the research cited in the Female Brain to be at best flawed and at worst poor science. I was disgusted to find that many of the generalisations were based on such small sample sizes (8 subjects isn't a survey, it's a start)
I found it an engaging read, interesting and humourous. I laughed a few times and found myself caught up in the read, nodding regularly as well. It asks almost as many questions as it answers but it does ask one of the most important questions, why people get away with sweeping generalisations that are so flawed and why there aren't more writers like her pointing out these flaws. I would like to read more by her, I found her writing gave me a better understanding of the topic and made me think, without talking down to me.
Show More
it's hard to escape them and that we are priming girls to fail at maths and science and priming boys to regard housework as tasks for girls/women. I also found it interesting how a change in name in a job application is the difference between hiring and not hiring and that a mans name on a fake CV with worse credentials than a woman can get a job, even when there's women doing the hiring!It's an interesting read and I found it a wonderful antidote to The Female Brain by Brizendine, Fine also found The Female Brain to be toxic, but she also had the resources and knowledge to be able to point out that much of the research cited in the Female Brain to be at best flawed and at worst poor science. I was disgusted to find that many of the generalisations were based on such small sample sizes (8 subjects isn't a survey, it's a start)
I found it an engaging read, interesting and humourous. I laughed a few times and found myself caught up in the read, nodding regularly as well. It asks almost as many questions as it answers but it does ask one of the most important questions, why people get away with sweeping generalisations that are so flawed and why there aren't more writers like her pointing out these flaws. I would like to read more by her, I found her writing gave me a better understanding of the topic and made me think, without talking down to me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member FrancoisTremblay
Delusions of Gender, by Cordelia Fine, is a book that concerns itself with the central question of gender: are there really inherent behavioral differences between men and women, or are those differences all culturally constructed? As an anti-genderist, I am definitely on the “all differences are
The book is divided in three main parts. Part 1 concerns itself with measured behavioral differences and studies which seek to explain them. Her central concept is that of associative memory, which creates implicit associations in our brain between concepts, such as associating a gender with stereotypical concepts such as empathy or mathematics. Fine discusses a wide variety of studies which show that, whether we are aware of them or not, our implicit associations have a profound impact on what we think about ourselves and how well we perform tasks.
Part 2 discusses the attempts to point to neuroscientific data that supposedly proves a neurological basis for gender. Fine exposes this “research” as being little more than a fallacy of insufficient sample. She also highlights the fact that social conditions structure the brain and create gender difference where there was none. Finally, part 3 explores the issue of how our implicit associations form in early childhood and why attempts at “gender-neutral parenting” and other individualistic solutions must necessarily fail.
I have not so far read a lot of the anti-genderist literature so I can’t really compare this book to others on the subject, but this is one of the best non-fiction books I’ve ever read. Cordelia Fine combines startling insights into the construction of gender with a keen observational mind. I heavily recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in anti-genderism.
Show More
culturally constructed” side, and Fine takes that side also.The book is divided in three main parts. Part 1 concerns itself with measured behavioral differences and studies which seek to explain them. Her central concept is that of associative memory, which creates implicit associations in our brain between concepts, such as associating a gender with stereotypical concepts such as empathy or mathematics. Fine discusses a wide variety of studies which show that, whether we are aware of them or not, our implicit associations have a profound impact on what we think about ourselves and how well we perform tasks.
Part 2 discusses the attempts to point to neuroscientific data that supposedly proves a neurological basis for gender. Fine exposes this “research” as being little more than a fallacy of insufficient sample. She also highlights the fact that social conditions structure the brain and create gender difference where there was none. Finally, part 3 explores the issue of how our implicit associations form in early childhood and why attempts at “gender-neutral parenting” and other individualistic solutions must necessarily fail.
I have not so far read a lot of the anti-genderist literature so I can’t really compare this book to others on the subject, but this is one of the best non-fiction books I’ve ever read. Cordelia Fine combines startling insights into the construction of gender with a keen observational mind. I heavily recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in anti-genderism.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Jaylia3
Just when it looked like neuroscience was justifying our current worldview that innate differences are somehow “hardwired” into the brains of little boys and little girls author Cordelia Fine comes along and checks out the scientific studies. What she exposes and describes in detail are poorly
Show More
designed experiments, blind leaps of faith and convoluted circular reasoning. In scientists! According to what Fine uncovered we have mutable brains, continuously influenced and changed by our cultural environment. Besides being thought provoking—it may make you rethink a lot of your beliefs—this book is both funny and well written. Show Less
LibraryThing member Alfonso809
God damn! This book actually changed the way I see the world!! I shall do it justice with a worthy review! Just way till I get my hands on a computer!
LibraryThing member SChant
Don't really get sociology & psychology. This book seems to be telling me that if you pander to people's prejudices you'll reinforce them, and if you don't you won't.
LibraryThing member lauriebrown54
All those studies that say that women are bad at math and men are bad at relationships because their brains are hardwired that way can be very discouraging, and there are a LOT of those studies. But Cordelia Fine has looked into those studies and found flaws in them. Add into that a large number of
Fine’s thesis is rather than there being any physical difference between male and female brains, the differences that we see in math scores are there because our culture expects them to be there. Even when people attempt to raise their children in a gender neutral environment, culture intervenes. On TV, in schools, in children’s books, in the clothing sold to children- everything is divided into genders, and females end up less adventuresome, more nurturing, expected to be nicer and not fight, and to focus on home and caring rather than invented and discovering. Toys for girls and boys are separated, and children who choose to play with toys for the opposite gender are disapproved of, especially boys who play with dolls or other ‘girl’ toys. Tomboys may be told to act more ladylike, but boys will get beat up by other boys.
The core of her argument is that studies where test takers are primed to consider themselves members of sets other than gender yield different results than tests taken when the test takers are told things like “men traditionally do better on this test”. For instance, when a group of males and females take a test and are told before hand that people who go to certain colleges (colleges that some of the test takers go to) do better on this same test, the test takers conform to this and the males and females who belong to the colleges mentioned both do better on the test than the non-certain collegians- and the males and females in that group score the same as each other on the test under these conditions. These tests have been done numerous times by different researchers, and the results are always the same- the test takers conform to expectations set up before the test. Therefore, psychology trumps brain structure where intellectual subjects are concerned.
It’s an interesting proposition, and one I think needs to be investigated more- much more. There’s a lot still to be untangled in gender studies. Intellectual abilities are jumbled in with emotional tendencies, and I definitely think they should be considered separately. She pretty much ignores the effect of hormones on emotional states except for the case of fetal testosterone. I think that while this book doesn’t settle any gender issue questions, it does cast a lot of doubt on previous studies and urges us to look at them much harder.
Show More
studies that show how easy it is to jigger people’s minds into doing better or worse at tasks depending on how they are psychologically primed before hand and we can see where the author is coming from. Fine’s thesis is rather than there being any physical difference between male and female brains, the differences that we see in math scores are there because our culture expects them to be there. Even when people attempt to raise their children in a gender neutral environment, culture intervenes. On TV, in schools, in children’s books, in the clothing sold to children- everything is divided into genders, and females end up less adventuresome, more nurturing, expected to be nicer and not fight, and to focus on home and caring rather than invented and discovering. Toys for girls and boys are separated, and children who choose to play with toys for the opposite gender are disapproved of, especially boys who play with dolls or other ‘girl’ toys. Tomboys may be told to act more ladylike, but boys will get beat up by other boys.
The core of her argument is that studies where test takers are primed to consider themselves members of sets other than gender yield different results than tests taken when the test takers are told things like “men traditionally do better on this test”. For instance, when a group of males and females take a test and are told before hand that people who go to certain colleges (colleges that some of the test takers go to) do better on this same test, the test takers conform to this and the males and females who belong to the colleges mentioned both do better on the test than the non-certain collegians- and the males and females in that group score the same as each other on the test under these conditions. These tests have been done numerous times by different researchers, and the results are always the same- the test takers conform to expectations set up before the test. Therefore, psychology trumps brain structure where intellectual subjects are concerned.
It’s an interesting proposition, and one I think needs to be investigated more- much more. There’s a lot still to be untangled in gender studies. Intellectual abilities are jumbled in with emotional tendencies, and I definitely think they should be considered separately. She pretty much ignores the effect of hormones on emotional states except for the case of fetal testosterone. I think that while this book doesn’t settle any gender issue questions, it does cast a lot of doubt on previous studies and urges us to look at them much harder.
Show Less
LibraryThing member BillRob
Good way to think about gender, lots of research to back it up, got a little long winded.
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
This is one of the most important books I've read lately. The author approaches the science of gender with a skeptical mind, and peels back the layers of hype to see what's underneath. Well researched and well written, it should be read by all who cite Lawrence Summers as their hero, and seek to
Show More
find justification for their sexism in the scientific literature. Also should be read by all feminists who have bought into the idea of "the feminine brain" - which, it appears, is possessed by slightly under half of the female population. Show Less
LibraryThing member Cyanide_Cola
Loved it! Couldn't put it down. Engaging, funny, and chalk full of good information. Takes a hard look at some of those "hardwired gender norms". This is a must read for anyone interested in gender studies. Bring a highlighter or a notebook, your gonna need them. Theres lots of good information
Show More
that your gonna want to keep track of. Show Less
LibraryThing member reader1009
Adult nonfiction; sociology/psychology. I didn't have as much time to spend with this book as I probably should have, but it appears to be a systematic debunking (or partial debunking) of all of the research that had appeared to show differences between genders. Malcolm Blackwell in Blink wrote
Show More
about how black students who are asked to identify their race prior to a math test will tend to score more poorly on the test than those who didn't have to consider their ethnicity (unless the students had been watching the Olympics, in which case they did as well or better). Similarly, Cordelia Fine shows that women are susceptible to exactly this kind of behavioral change based on their perceptions of gender. Show Less
Publication
W. W. Norton & Company (2010), Edition: 1, 338 pages
Media reviews
Can we stop talking about brains now? Those who can’t, and anyone else who would like to know what today’s best science reveals about gender differences – and similarities – could not do better than read this book.
As Fine argues in this forceful, funny new book, the notion that gender accounts for differences in minds and behavior through some biological, brain-based process is an idea as popular as it is unproven.
“Delusions of Gender” takes on that tricky question, Why exactly are men from Mars and women from Venus?, and eviscerates both the neuroscientists who claim to have found the answers and the popularizers who take their findings and run with them.
The author, Cordelia Fine, who has a Ph.D. in
Show More
cognitive neuroscience from University College London, is an acerbic critic, mincing no words when it comes to those she disagrees with. But her sharp tongue is tempered with humor and linguistic playfulness, as the title itself suggests. Show Less
Fine's book is a remarkably researched and dense work that, even while tackling highly complex subject manner, retains a light, breezy touch.
Original language
English
Original publication date
2010
Physical description
338 p.; 8.6 inches
ISBN
0393068382 / 9780393068382