Brain Sex [Paperback]

Anne Moir Ph.D. (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 1, 1992

Why can't a woman be more like a man? What is this thing called "feminine intuition"? Why are men better at reading maps, and women at other people's characters? The answers lie in the basic biological differences between the male and female brain, which, say the authors, make it impossible for the sexes to share equal emotional or intellectual qualities.

--This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

Editorial Reviews

From Kirkus Reviews

If men and women are equal, why have males been the dominant sex virtually throughout history? Here, geneticist Moir and BBC- TV writer-producer Jessel argue convincingly that the answer lies in the difference between the male and female brain. Writing with clarity and style, and documenting their data every step of the way, Moir and Jessel explain how the embryonic brain is shaped as either male or female at about six weeks, when the male fetus begins producing hormones that organize its brain's neural networks into a male pattern; in their absence, the brain will be female. Not surprisingly, there are endless variations in degree of maleness, and mishaps can lead to a male brain in a female body and vice versa. Moir and Jessel include a brain sex test that lets the reader discover just how masculine or feminine his (or her) brain is. For the nonscientist, they translate considerable research into the structural and organizational differences between male and female brains, demonstrating how these differences make men more aggressive and competitive and better at skills that require spatial ability and mathematical reasoning, and women more sensitive to nuances of expression and gesture, more adept at judging character. Women, it seems, are more people-oriented than men, who are more interested in things. Moir and Jessel assert that it is necessary to ``accept who we are before arguing about what we should be,'' and that denying gender differences means ignoring their value. A literate, entertaining, and, for some, surely wrath- provoking presentation of scientific data about the differences between the sexes. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Details

• Paperback
• Publisher: Laurel; First Edition edition (August 1, 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0440504678
• ISBN-13: 978-0440504672
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.2 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (55 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,048,413 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

52 of 63 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars People fear the truth of this book!, January 22, 2005

By 

npc - See all my reviews

This review is from: Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women (Paperback)

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in truth. However, it does not necessarily contain a pleasant truth (neither to men nor women). The amount of fear stemming from this book is not to be unexpected. It does, after all, deal with one of the most controversial subjects you can find. Just reading over the reviews here after reading the book for yourself will reveal the amount of paranoia associated with the knowledge contained.

Many people are trying to break down the validity of this book by claiming it to be a pseudo-scientific product of sexism. I quote from one reader:

"There was once, in Germany, an incredible number of evidences suporting how physiologies of the pure race and "others" were different. In the USA, science, "inspired" by that time period and that time's politics, attempted to show how blacks (and immigrants and all others who were not a member of upper-middle class heterosexual male group) were inferior."

First of all, these so-called scientific attempts at justifying the superiority of one race over another were conducted during a time of hatred and oppression with support from the general population. In Germany, scientists were even commissioned by the government to create these falsehoods. To compare this book (which was reluctantly written by a geneticist living in times of a feminist uproar with the goal of shedding some research in a dark area) with that kind of racist-inspired nonsense, is ludicrous. This is the type of fear you find from readers who cannot accept this book's overall message: that men and women actually think and behave differently.

If this book was inspired by a period, then this book would be a direct pseudo-scientific attempt at justifying feminist ideals because this is precisely what Anne Moir was surrounded by at the time she began her research. Well, this is absolutely not the case. If the book is sexist, which sex does it incriminate against and why? No one can answer this question with agreeably because the author had no intent of showing one sex to be superior to the other.

This book was written by a woman with the intent of seeking truth. While there are attempts to put forth some logical interpretations based on the research, this book has, at its core, many fundamental truths supported by compelling, scientific evidence. This book is not perfect; a lot of it is just an open discussion, but to deny it as simply a biased product of sexism only serves to strengthen the book to people who actually read it with an open mind.

You can practically see after the first 10 pages or so how much the author wanted to repress some of the research because of the controversy it would create (or perhaps simply her own personal fear of what it would mean), but the evidence speaks for itself.

One thing people really need to keep in mind is that the book is about generalities, and it is examining men and women in terms of actual *biological differences*. Lots of reviewers here are trying to refute the validity of the book because they don't share all the traits associated with their sex. This book is focusing from the nature side of the argument, not the nurture side! There are tons of sociological effects that affect the way a person turns out. I would venture to say that the differences between a grown man and woman have more to do with sociology than biology (though you can't refute the fact that men and women are actually built differently). This book is not about that. Of course a typical woman can become superior to men at mathematical reasoning. Of course a typical man can become superior to women at judging other people's character. This book is about the real, biological differences between a man and a woman - the type of differences that will still exist even if you strip away all social barriers.

Another example of the irrational attempts to put this book down comes from one reviewer who claimed that this book attributed the discovery of America to Columbus:

"The authors wrote that Columbus discovered America. This is known to be false. Columbus did not discover America as Native Americans were already living on this continent as every person knows. To not clarify or change that statement in the book makes all other given information questionable. If the authors can't get the facts of history correct, then how can we be expected to trust in the rest of the book."

I don't wish to put people down, but in defense of the book, that person needs to read more carefully. The book reads, "[...] Rather as Columbus might have regarded his discovery of America as something of an irrelevance [...]" That makes no claim that Columbus discovered America! I'm not even going to go through the trouble of trying to explain the difference because I think the person is well aware of this. I think that such a person will read this book with spite and will look for the first thing that will allow him or her to put it down. Quibbling over a historical statement from a geneticist, especially when taken out of context, is evidence of the kind of close-minded mentality that will unfortunately keep this book's message from ever being accepted by the general population.

44 of 54 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Fearlessly debunks modern myths, May 31, 1999

By 

Alban ([e-mail]) (Hobart, Tasmania) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women (Paperback)

It may not be politically 'correct', but this book shows us men and women really are different. Physically this is obvious for all to see. Psychologically it has also been obvious for all to see for the last few million years.

However in the last 30 years we have had a justified push for equality of all humans regardless of sex, sexual preference, race, belief, etc. In the process modern society has clouded the innate differences between males and females. And some put shutters over their eyes to make the facts fit their preconceived view of the world.

Brain Sex shows how we are all equal but we are also different. It shows how we can begin to try to understand each other and to complement each other. That is real equality.

A fantastic book, but it must be read with an open mind.

17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good read, but don't take too seriously, January 20, 2010

By 

Dean, London - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women (Paperback)

This is an interesting, well written, provocative book which can be read easily in a couple of sittings. For the most part, it is based on what appears to be rigorous, although not uncontentious, scientific research. The 20 years that have elapsed since the publication of the book have, if anything, tended to confirm its main arguments about the importance of pre-natal exposure to sex hormones in 'brain sex' (or to be more precise 'brain gender') differentiation. The main weakness of the book is that it relies heavily (by its own admission) on statistical averages but then uses these to erect an elaborate ideological super-structure to justify traditional gender roles. From a theoretical standpoint, this is an illicit move. You can, for example, demonstrate that men are on average more aggressive and competitive than women, and conclude from this that the feminist effort to shoehorn women into 'male' roles in the workplace is doomed to failure. But you can't use this finding to argue that women should be financially dependent on men, or that there aren't millions of feminine men or masculine women. To be fair, the authors do acknowledge the limitations of their findings, and that the averages don't apply to everyone. The problem is that, once you do this, all generalisation starts to seem suspect. But the book does, in fact, contain lots of generalisations. For example, the authors state that males are inherently unsuited to marriage or monogamy. The implication seems to be that women should be more forgiving of infidelity. But many men are, in fact, monogamous, proving that we can and do make moral choices in areas affected by gender identity.

'Brain Sex' is certainly a thought provoking corrective to gender theorists (including most feminists) who emphasise gender as a social construct. It also provides compelling reasons why we should regard gender variant conditions such as transexuality as biological, rather than psychological, in origin. But the book is let down by its tendency to trade in gender stereotypes, and for this reason alone should not be taken too seriously.