Scan barcode
walinchus's review against another edition
5.0
I thought this book would be mostly about how women are denied opportunities in science, and of course the author mentions that. But really what makes this book brilliant is that it teases out the problems with older studies that draw broad conclusions from scant evidence.
For example, there's a big randomized study done on a Florida college campus in the 70s (and later 80s) where they recruited people to go out, talk to strangers, and invite them out either on a date or to have sex that night. Most of the men said yes to sex. Evey single woman said no.
The researchers concluded that men and only men have an evolutionary advantage in sleeping around (i.e. more children) and therefore that's why they get their result.
First, they failed to account for a social stigma against women who agree to sex with stranger, and secondly, and most importantly, duh women fear violence from strange men.
This study was recently repeated in Europe in both public and in a lab. They found similar results for public places. But women said yes to sex just as often as men in the lab where they could be assured of their safety.
Saini also goes over the many reasons that women would also have an evolutionary advantage of many partners. For example, in most primates, if a new alpha male ascends to the head of the group, he will kill the infants- but not those he thinks might be his. In the Amazon, there are some tribes that believe multiple men can "build up" a woman's fetus and the baby grows up with multiple fathers.
There's also an enduring belief in science that language developed because men had to coordinate their hunting parties.
First of all, in some hunter-gatherer societies, women do hunt. They just weave a basket and strap their breastfeeding infant onto them. Though there are fewer of these societies compared to male hunting societies, we have no way of knowing which would have been the norm.
Second, there are lots of studies that show that in societies where men hunt, women, the gathers, tend to bring in more calories, and more consistently. So the guy who comes back with a big prize once a month might just be using this to gain social status, and mates. Much like lions have manes and peacocks have large colorful tails.
Third, we just have no evidence that something that left no trace, like written language, developed exclusively as a result of hunting at all, it could have developed as our brains faced many tasks in our varied environments.
I could go on and on, there are so many interesting things in this book. But long story short, brilliant read I would recommend it for everyone.
For example, there's a big randomized study done on a Florida college campus in the 70s (and later 80s) where they recruited people to go out, talk to strangers, and invite them out either on a date or to have sex that night. Most of the men said yes to sex. Evey single woman said no.
The researchers concluded that men and only men have an evolutionary advantage in sleeping around (i.e. more children) and therefore that's why they get their result.
First, they failed to account for a social stigma against women who agree to sex with stranger, and secondly, and most importantly, duh women fear violence from strange men.
This study was recently repeated in Europe in both public and in a lab. They found similar results for public places. But women said yes to sex just as often as men in the lab where they could be assured of their safety.
Saini also goes over the many reasons that women would also have an evolutionary advantage of many partners. For example, in most primates, if a new alpha male ascends to the head of the group, he will kill the infants- but not those he thinks might be his. In the Amazon, there are some tribes that believe multiple men can "build up" a woman's fetus and the baby grows up with multiple fathers.
There's also an enduring belief in science that language developed because men had to coordinate their hunting parties.
First of all, in some hunter-gatherer societies, women do hunt. They just weave a basket and strap their breastfeeding infant onto them. Though there are fewer of these societies compared to male hunting societies, we have no way of knowing which would have been the norm.
Second, there are lots of studies that show that in societies where men hunt, women, the gathers, tend to bring in more calories, and more consistently. So the guy who comes back with a big prize once a month might just be using this to gain social status, and mates. Much like lions have manes and peacocks have large colorful tails.
Third, we just have no evidence that something that left no trace, like written language, developed exclusively as a result of hunting at all, it could have developed as our brains faced many tasks in our varied environments.
I could go on and on, there are so many interesting things in this book. But long story short, brilliant read I would recommend it for everyone.
bookph1le's review against another edition
4.0
Between the Me Too movement and challenging questions about the quality of peer review and disturbing new revelations about how bias is negatively impacting science, this book is very relevant. A lot of the science isn't clear, as this book shows. The core strength of the book is how it picks apart "conventional" wisdom and exposes how threadbare is the supposed evidence that's used to excuse biased research and the way it's held back social promise. Look at the French women refuting Me Too's rise, a refutation based on the internalized misogyny that's the byproduct of dubious gender research. The time is ripe for a reckoning, and I hope books like this help hurry it along.