This is a difficult book for a layman to review: the arguments are persuasive, but I don't know what is left out. She argues, for example, that there is no good evidence for men having higher reproductive variance than women, but check out this empirical data from human societies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/table/tbl1/?report=objecton... Higher male variance looks to be normal. So enjoy this book, but with caution. ( )

I dithered between 3 and 4 stars. I've enjoyed Fine's books in the past, and I liked this one also. A great sense of humor! She comes up with wonderful "nurture" explanations for the differences between behavior of women and men, and does a great job of debunking poorly designed and reported-on experiments that promote the "nature" viewpoint. BUT... when she cites experiments that show the opposite there appears to be no special rigor in looking at their methodology or appropriateness to the topic.

So this book was a good counterbalance for me, because honestly I tend to be drawn to the "nature" side of things, and I tend to read more about that. (I certainly grew up believing more in the "nurture" side of things, and gradually switched over the last 20 or so years.) But clearly on both sides of the nurture/nature thing there is a lot of confirmation bias stuff going on.

If I were to use the terms Ni for one of Nature/Nurture terms and Nj for the other, WITHOUT saying which was which, too much of the stuff I read would look like this:

"Well of course who we are is the result of BOTH Ni and Nj, in large amounts, and with amazingly complex interactions between the two. But for various reasons, our culture seems to emphasize Ni and delegates Nj to be a minor influence. This trend supports some social situations I don't like. So here is an example of poorly designed research the supports the primacy of Ni - and here's why that research and the reporting of it is all wrong. On the other hand, here is some intriguing research showing Nj to be of much greater importance, and we'll assume it has the finest scientific rigor, because the results are so obviously correct!"

I really believe this narrative comes out from both sides - I wish science wasn't being played as a team sport this way. But I guess this is who we are (for whichever reason, or whichever combination of them). ( )

Like Delusions of Gender, this is a look at how sex differences are exaggerated in pop science and the media. Her biggest target here is evolutionary psychology and how it portrays sex differences as rigid.

It's an interesting, opinionated, pretty quick read, but not as interesting as Delusions of Gender. 3.5/5, rounded up. ( )

audiobook nonfiction; science of gender (2017)

summary: gender stereotypes aren't accurate--at best, it is a lot more complicated than people may assume. If you are feminist, you likely don't subscribe to them anyway. If you are anti-feminist, you aren't going to be reading this book. If you fall somewhere in between, you might pick this up, but then get bored with it pretty quickly. I wanted the author to talk at least a little about trans people and non-binary people (at least to acknowledge their existence, even if there aren't a lot of studies about trans and non-binary folks to discuss, but was sorely disappointed in this aspect.

first 1/3 discusses/deconstructs theories about sexual promiscuity (in humans and in animals); second part (the bulk of the book) focuses on stereotypical gender traits (risk taking, nurturing, etc.); there is a shorter "the future" section at the end which basically says, "let's try not to stereotype." Overall, I found the presentation totally boring, though the author succeeded in interjecting occasional moments of levity. ( )

I read Fine's Delusions of Gender a few years ago and really enjoyed it, so when I saw she had another one coming out I knew I had to order it. It is just as good as Delusions, and I would recommend it to anyone to read.
In this book Fine takes a look at testosterone and asks is it really the reason behind financial crisis, risk taking, and the differences between the sexes.
the short answer is no. The slightly longer, but still short version is that it has an important role to play but it is equally as important as all other hormones in the human body. For more go read the book, it is fascinating, interesting, funny and very readable. Fine has a great style. She weaves personal anecdotes in with scientific studies as well as her own speculation. She counters arguments with facts and figures, but never in a dry and boring way.
It is also a most quotable book, if you follow me on tumblr you may have noticed, if not click here for a selection and if that doesn't prompt you to think about trying this book I don't know what will.
One of my very favourite lines is Social events regulate gonadal events. I think it should be my new motto.
But apart from the writing style what she says in the book is important. She never says that there aren't differences between men and women, but she emphasizes that we cannot accurately tell what is causing those differences. From the moment we are born we are influenced by both genes and environment, and sometimes environment has a greater influence. Never mind the fact that when you average everything out there are more differences between men (or women) than between the sexes. Also, sex is a spectrum, not an either or. Stereotypes and hardline "men are like this" views do nobody any good.
People are people, and people are different to people in many many ways. And society and experience do a lot to shape people. If you think about the idea behind "privilege" for example you can see that influences how people of differing backgrounds see and act. It isn't what you were born with, it is how society around you that shapes what you were born with.
I've skimmed a few of the negative reviews on Goodreads and many of them seem to say "I don't agree with this so it is wrong" and some say that Fine wants to proclaim that there are no differences between men and women. Well, I've read the book and she makes it perfectly clear that there are differences, both in humans and in other species, what she is looking at is how innate those differences are and can they be altered? Also across the whole species are the differences really there. And in some cases she argues that, yes, they are. In others no, the variables even out across a large sample. Fine also points to numerous studies that show that just because X has been the way for so long, it doesn't mean it can't ever be altered.
Of course I came to the book on her side, so maybe I'm just agreeing with her because it supports my view of the world. I'm not a scientist and am not about to go through hundreds of studies in an attempt to prove myself wrong. However I have skimmed through some of those "men are from mars" type books, you know the sort that try to argue that all relationship differences exist because men are like this while women are like that, and in most cases I don't identify with the version of womanhood that they portray. So maybe I'm just an outlier, or maybe there is more to being a person than what is between your legs. ( )