I bought this book with high hopes, but alas it has turned out to be a bit of a mixed bag. There is some good stuff here, but some bad as well, and while I wholeheartedly approve of the topic and its place in our regrettably male-dominated society, this book is not the answer we need.
The author is not a scientist, which is fine. She is an academic with a PhD. There is much here to admire, science included, in some of the nine chapters, each of which discusses a part or aspect of female mammalian anatomy. The chapters on milk, legs and voice are excellent. The chapter on menopause is interesting, and may include some valid material, but, as with most of the latter chapters, it descends into opinionated speculation. There’s actually nothing wrong with that either, except here the speculation is done by an author who believes biology and genetics contribute far more to human life than anything else. This leads her down some bizarre alleys, not least in the terrible final chapter, in which nothing of any note or relevance is said about love. I’m all for informed speculation, but this chapter and the one on human brains are just bonkers.
Then there’s the writing style. The author believes herself to be amusing, even funny. She is not. Moreover, she uses that irritating style of constantly emphasising with. Short sentences. For effect. Yes. It’s really. Annoying.
A second major gripe: never-ending, mostly pointless or irrelevant footnotes which must run to 20% of the book. They’re often unnecessary, as when for instance the author makes some lame joke. The problem with footnotes of this length is that the eye is constantly distracted by them, spoiling the reading experience even when you’re trying to ignore them.
I was also astonished by the throwaway reference to knowledge transfer in oral societies, not least because the author’s Ph.D is in narrative and cognition. WTF? Here’s the statement, in reference to the status of elders: “Before we could write stuff down, it was especially important to have someone in the group who could remember earlier crises. It’s usually not hard to find someone who can remember a difficult thing that happened ten years ago. It’s much harder to find someone who remembers a difficult thing that happened forty years ago, or how, precisely, that community managed to find a workaround. Oral history provides only so much after the storyteller dies.” This “fact” is presented as one actual reason humans evolved to live longer, that is, in the case of women, beyond menopause. I find this pretty extraordinary from a woman who has a high academic qualification in narrative and cognition.
You only have to browse reader reviews online, some from evolutionary scientists, to see that the author has pushed too far on this one. The book lacks most of the qualities, of, say, Angela Saini’s recent work The Patriarchs. Which is a shame, because booting men out of their privileged, women-ignoring position is critical to human progress.
This book takes biology and splatters it all over culture. The good bits are really good. The bad bits are terrible.
The author is not a scientist, which is fine. She is an academic with a PhD. There is much here to admire, science included, in some of the nine chapters, each of which discusses a part or aspect of female mammalian anatomy. The chapters on milk, legs and voice are excellent. The chapter on menopause is interesting, and may include some valid material, but, as with most of the latter chapters, it descends into opinionated speculation. There’s actually nothing wrong with that either, except here the speculation is done by an author who believes biology and genetics contribute far more to human life than anything else. This leads her down some bizarre alleys, not least in the terrible final chapter, in which nothing of any note or relevance is said about love. I’m all for informed speculation, but this chapter and the one on human brains are just bonkers.
Then there’s the writing style. The author believes herself to be amusing, even funny. She is not. Moreover, she uses that irritating style of constantly emphasising with. Short sentences. For effect. Yes. It’s really. Annoying.
A second major gripe: never-ending, mostly pointless or irrelevant footnotes which must run to 20% of the book. They’re often unnecessary, as when for instance the author makes some lame joke. The problem with footnotes of this length is that the eye is constantly distracted by them, spoiling the reading experience even when you’re trying to ignore them.
I was also astonished by the throwaway reference to knowledge transfer in oral societies, not least because the author’s Ph.D is in narrative and cognition. WTF? Here’s the statement, in reference to the status of elders: “Before we could write stuff down, it was especially important to have someone in the group who could remember earlier crises. It’s usually not hard to find someone who can remember a difficult thing that happened ten years ago. It’s much harder to find someone who remembers a difficult thing that happened forty years ago, or how, precisely, that community managed to find a workaround. Oral history provides only so much after the storyteller dies.” This “fact” is presented as one actual reason humans evolved to live longer, that is, in the case of women, beyond menopause. I find this pretty extraordinary from a woman who has a high academic qualification in narrative and cognition.
You only have to browse reader reviews online, some from evolutionary scientists, to see that the author has pushed too far on this one. The book lacks most of the qualities, of, say, Angela Saini’s recent work The Patriarchs. Which is a shame, because booting men out of their privileged, women-ignoring position is critical to human progress.
This book takes biology and splatters it all over culture. The good bits are really good. The bad bits are terrible.
