51 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
title a tad misleading, April 26, 2000
By A Customer
This book deals mostly with primates. Despite the layperson style title, the book itself is quite scientific and detailed. This can be great for those educated in anthropology and sociobiology as it is very thorough, giving exact names and evolutionary history on the primates discussed, yet can seem a little dry to the layperson, especially if read for long stretches. However, layperson, do not despair. Hrdy will often use humour to lighten or better explain an idea and when she occasionally uses jargon it is usually tongue-in-cheek and always explained. Many of you will be attracted by the feminist-sounding title, but do not be fooled. Only rarely does the author tie in her observations with human behaviour. In fact, any feminism does not appear until the final 2% of the book and seems to simply be angry raving against the oppression of women, and is not linked as well as it could be to the previous 150 or so pages. Generally, however, I enjoyed the book, even though it contained more detail than I, as a layperson, actually needed. To anyone unhappy with the stereotype of the strong male in charge of his passive harem of females or with the aggressive male just using the females as a vessel for his genes, then this can shed new light on the way primates behave and are shaped by their biology. Tying in the information with the woman in the title is left up to the reader.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The house feminist of sociobiology, March 1, 2010
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is supposedly a feminist sociobiologist. In reality, she is more sociobiological than feminist. Reading her book was a real disappointment.
Despite its feminist veneer, "The Woman That Never Evolved" is essentially just another sociobiological book preaching that biology is destiny, patriarchy is natural and women complicit in their own oppression (no less!).
The only difference with the regular androcentric literature is that Hrdy wants to believe that equality between the sexes is at least a possibility. However, her belief in sociobiology is so strong that this possibility seems very remote indeed. She clearly thinks that only the contemporary Western world has achieved something close to equality, and that this is a unique situation that might never be repeated again. The reason? Our evolutionary heritage, which apparently favours the males, after all.
Naturally, Hrdy attacks the idea that there ever was equality between the sexes: "The female with `equal rights' never evolved; she was invented, and fought for consciously with intelligence, stuborness, and courage. (...) To assume that women today are regaining a natural pre-eminence, or reinstating some original social equality, belittles the real accomplishments and underestimates its fragility. However well-intentioned, these myths pose grave dangers to the actual progress of women's rights. They devalue the unique advances made by women in the last few hundred years and tempt us to a false security".
This, of course, simply isn't true. There is ample anthropological evidence that non-patriarchal societies have existed: the Iroquis are a classical example, another are the Montagnais-Naskapi. Other examples could be mentioned, too. Women have wielded considerable power even in hierarchic societies, for instance in Africa. Nor is it true that patriarchy was the norm in prehistoric times. How does Hrdy explain the Neolithic cultures, which were often peaceful, egalitarian and were centred on worship of female deities? Pointing out the enormous variation between human cultures is hardly a "grave danger" to the fight for women's rights. Quite the contrary, it bolsters it. Besides, the activists who believe in these supposed "myths" hardly "underestimate" remaining patriarchal structures. Chances are, it's exactly these people who most sharply criticize, say, androcentric sociobiology...
Another problem with this book is that it mentions the bonobo only in passing. This may have been understandable in 1981, when the book was first published. It's less understandable in a new (almost unrevised) edition from 1999. Bonobos are "matriarchal", since the females dominate the males. Leaving this out in a book about our evolutionary history smacks of an ideological blind spot. Bonobos, after all, are just as closely related to humans as are chimpanzees. Interestingly, bonobos are peaceful and bisexual, in marked contrast to the murderous chimps, infanticidal langurs and harem-herding Hamadryas baboons so beloved by sociobiologists (all dutifully included in this book). The bonobo also undermine Hrdy's idea that australopithecines must have been polygynous and (presumably) patriarchal since they had sexual dimorphism, with the males being larger. Bonobo males are larger than the females and have canines. Despite this, the females are dominant!
True, humans aren't bonobos. But then, we aren't chimpanzees, langurs or baboons either. If comparisons should be made between humans and other primates, great care should be exercised, otherwise we might simply project a behaviour typical of our own culture onto a suitable animal, and then use this projection as "proof" that our own culture is "natural". Since human cultures are variable, and primate species differ in their behaviour, anything can be proven with such a method.
Supporters of women's emancipation will find little of use in this book. It's a pity that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy haven't transcended her role as the house feminist of sociobiology.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
