I really, really wanted to like this book. I've studied cognitive, perceptual and developmental neuroscience for 25+ years, and I'm also a clinical psychologist. I've been interested in gender differences for just as long. I teach undergrad and grad courses on neuroscience, cognition, emotion, behavior, learning, and sensation and perception. I make a point of covering what is known about sex differences. I think the issues are really important and I've found that it is very important to get facts right because this controversial issue is a lightning rod for anger, frustration, tension and malevolent personal biases. My strong belief, shared by many, is that competent clinical psychologists and other clinicians must work hard to understand and manage their gender biases in order to manage "counter-transference" and help their clients. I know what good science is, including good neuroscience, good cognitive science, and good clinical psychology. There are plenty of women who conduct high-quality research on mind and brain, and make huge contributions. I've witnessed this personally, repeatedly. Over the years, I've worked for and with a large number of women, and I've trained a fair number too. Among first rate scientists and scientific thinkers there are plenty of women. I imagine that they will be just as disappointed in this book as I am.
Some observations:
1) The author begins the book by emphasizing her credentials and her influences in the acknowledgements section. The academic pedigree is impressive: UC Berkeley, UCSF, Harvard Med School, Yale Med School, University College, London. She thanks a long list of great scientists, teachers and students who have influenced her thinking. It is an impressive collection of names and places. By implication, the author would seem to be a rare expert who has learned from the greats. So please note: Many of the great scientists listed here are alive. But how many of these people have endorsed the book? Unless I'm mistaken, none of them have endorsed the book. I read a mostly positive review of the book by Deborah Tannen, but it seemed a bit guarded. I didn't find an endorsement from the renowned gender researcher, Eleanor Maccoby, who reportedly critiqued drafts of the book. It appears that researchers who have dedicated their lives to science and the science of gender have remained silent about this book.
2) The author consistently confuses neural structure (brain) with psychological function (mind, mental performance, emotions, behavior). This is a huge error. The author is extraordinarily fond of citing functional gender differences. She'll talk about differences in verbal output, memory, eye contact, thoughts about sex, emotions, divorce initiation, aggression, chilhood behaviors, etc. She'll say these functional effects are in the brain, repeatedly. Good scientific thinking doesn't confuse these things. Part of the work is to measure sex differences in the brain (e.g., anatomy, physiology, chemistry). A completely separate part of the work is to measure psychological variables (e.g., behaviors, cognitions, emotions, perceptions). The third, most essential part, is to discover true correlations between structure and function. Many of the most egregious and elementary errors of cognitive neuroscience occur when researchers attempt to localize psychological functions inside brain regions or chemicals. All good neuroscientists understand this, but it is a tricky issue. One of my mentors, Davida Teller, spent years contemplating the issues surrounding "linking" hypotheses, while many great neuroscientists have struggled with this third part (Robert Efron, Steve Kosslyn, Georg von Bekesy, Gustav Fechner, and on and on and on). The author's disregard for this elementary issue is an obvious felony in my book.
3) There are PLENTY of good popular and scientific books and articles on gender differences. Take a look at the work of the eminent cognitive psychologist, Carol Tavris. She has written a scientifically-informed classic, "The Mismeasure of Woman", along with numerous other excellent articles and books. Or familiarize yourself with scientist Janet Hyde, who has recently authored a college text on gender differences. Tavris, Hyde and others aren't impressed by data suggesting massive biological differences in most mental functions, especially if the claim is that these differences are innate. Among the people who DO believe in significant gender differences, take a look at authors like Judith Hall and Leslie Brody. Scientists have studied these issues carefully since Maccoby's heyday. Compared to other sources, "The Female Brain" so simplistic and biased that it seems like a step backward. The current treatment seems dumbed-down and distorted to me.
4) The book felt like an advertisement for certain drug treatments, including controversial hormone therapies and the anti-depressant drug Zoloft. There's no doubt that the author has expertise in these areas, and most of her scholarly work is in these areas. And she spells out clinical issues and controversies in informative ways. One gets the impression that she's worked with many women clinically, and added value and comfort to their lives. I can believe these things. But I'm also aware of the rewards for towing the drug company line. Scientists and clinicians get perks for doing this. Beatrice Golomb, one of the most brilliant and courageous scientists on the planet, has discussed how these conflicts of interest compromise the quality of medical care and research. My radar went up when I kept reading about Zoloft. Zoloft is a popular antidepressant but just one brand out of many SSRIs (e.g., Prozac, Celexa, Paxil, Lexapro). Why emphasize Zoloft?
5) The book indulges in male bashing. That becomes immediately evident on the book flap: "Women will come away from this book knowing that they have a lean, mean communicating machine. Men will develop a serious case of brain envy." Oh really? The negative comments toward men are especially evident in the first third of the book. It seems like the author wants to take men down a few notches to make women feel good, if I'm not mistaken. I felt especially sad as the author discussed infants' facial gazing. She cited and over-interpreted research on facial gazing, projecting her issues onto her own son, who didn't gaze much at her face. I can say, having spent many years observing infants' looking behaviors, that infant boys are generally intrigued by faces, especially mothers' faces. If there are sex differences, they do not jump out. And if there are measurable differences, how does the author know that these things are innate? (on to the next felony).
6) The author is happy to attribute gender differences to inherent, inborn brain differences. Making that leap so quickly is another "felony." This is big, complicated issue that has attracted much attention from philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists. There's a whole field of behavioral genetics that struggles with the nature-nurture issue in sophisticated ways. The author claims to be aware of these things, but doesn't communicate this in a convincing way. She seems to have missed key points regarding environment and socialization. In doing so, she also seems to miss the enormous pioneering contributions of neuroscientist Marian Diamond. Diamond did much to demonstrate the relationship between brain and environment.
7) The author says a minimum amount about the large individual differences that characterize people. She acknowleges within-group variability, but always "finds ways around" these things. She prefers to focus on average differences, and this adds to the dangerous reinforcement of stereotypes. Many human abilities are distributed along a continuum, independent of gender, but the author emphasizes dichotomies. It is dangerous to pidgeonhole people into "the" female mind and "the" male mind.
8) Why is this book called "The Female Brain"? Just 2 years ago, Darlington published a book with the same title. And it really did cover structural and functional brain issues.
So that's my less than positive take on this book. The value of the book comes from its discussion of some specific clinical issues. But in a nutshell, it offended too many of my sensibilities regarding cognition, neuroscience, and the psychology of women.
