Most helpful client reviews
52 of 63 humans found the following review helpful.
People fear the truth of this book!
By npc
This book is a must-read for any individual fascinated in truth. However, it does not inevitably incorporate a pleasant truth (neither to men nor women). The amount of fear stemming from this book is not to be unexpected. It does, after all, deal with one of the most arguable subjects you may find. Just reading over the reviews here after reading the book for yourself will disclose the amount of paranoia related with the noesis contained.
Many people are attempting to break down the validity of this book by claiming it to be a pseudo-scientific product of sexism. I quote from one reader:
“There was once, in Germany, an unbelievable number of evidences suporting how physiologies of the pure race and “others” were different. In the USA, science, “inspired” by that time amount of time and that time’s politics, attempted to show how blacks (and immigrants and all others who were not a fellow member of upper-middle class heterosexual male group) were inferior.”
First of all, these so-called scientific attempts at justifying the superiority of one race over another were conducted for the duration of a time of hatred and oppression with support from the standard population. In Germany, scientists were even commissioned by the government to develop these falsehoods. To compare this book (which was reluctantly written by a geneticist living in times of a feminist uproar with the goal of shedding a great deal of exploration in a dark area) with that kind of racist-inspired nonsense, is ludicrous. This is the type of fear you find from readers who can not receive this book’s overall message: that men and women in truth think and behave differently.
If this book was inspired by a period, then this book would be a direct pseudo-scientific try at justifying feminist ideals because this is precisely what Anne Moir was surrounded by at the time she started out her research. Well, this is utterly not the case. If the book is sexist, which sex does it incriminate versus and why? No one may answer this question with agreeably because the author had no intention of showing one sex to be superior to the other.
This book was written by a woman with the intention of seeking truth. While there are attempts to put forth a good deal of logical interpretations based on the research, this book has, at it is core, a lot of rudimentary truths supported by compelling, scientific evidence. This book is not perfect; a lot of it is just an open discussion, but to deny it as plainly a biased product of sexism only serves to beef up the book to people who genuinely read it with an open mind.
You may practically see after the firstborn 10 pages or so how much the author wanted to repress a good deal of of the exploration because of the controversy it would develop (or perchance plainly her own personal fear of what it would mean), but the proof speaks for itself.
One thing persons in truth need to keep in mind is that the book is in regards to generalities, and it is examining men and women in terms of actual *biological differences*. Lots of reviewers here are attempting to refute the validity of the book because they don’t portion all the traits affiliated with their sex. This book is focusing from the nature side of the argument, not the nurture side! There are tons of sociological effects that affect the way a person turns out. I would effort to say that the divergences among a grown man and woman have more to do with sociology than biology (though you can’t refute the fact that men and women are in truth built differently). This book is not with regards to that. Of course a typical woman may become superior to men at mathematical reasoning. Of course a typical man may become superior to women at judging other people’s character. This book is in regards to the real, biological divergences among a man and a woman – the type of deviations that will still subsist even if you strip away all social barriers.
Another example of the irrational attempts to put this book down comes from one reviewer who claimed that this book attributed the invention of America to Columbus:
“The writers wrote that Columbus came across America. This is known to be false. Columbus did not discover America as Native Americans were already living on this continent as each person knows. To not clarify or modify that statement in the book makes all other given data questionable. If the writers can’t get the facts of history correct, then how may we be expected to trust in the rest of the book.”
I don’t wish to put persons down, but in defense of the book, that person needs to read more carefully. The book reads, “[...] Rather as Columbus might have regarded his invention of America as something of an irrelevance [...]” That makes no assert that Columbus encountered America! I’m not even going to go through the trouble of attempting to explain the divergence because I think the person is well conscious of this. I think that such a person will read this book with spite and will look for the primary thing that will concede him or her to put it down. Quibbling over a historical statement from a geneticist, in particular when taken out of context, is proof of the kind of close-minded mentality that will unluckily keep this book’s message from ever being accepted by the popular population.
43 of 53 people found the following review helpful.
Fearlessly debunks progressed myths
By Alban (eumarrah@trump.net.au)
It may not be politically ‘correct’, but this book shows us men and women actually are different. Physically this is evident for all to see. Psychologically it has also been evident for all to see for the last few million years.
However in the last 30 years we have had a justified push for equality of all humans disregarding of sex, sexual preference, race, belief, etc. In the routine innovative society has beclouded the innate divergences amongst males and females. And a great deal of put shutters over their eyes to make the facts fit their preconceived view of the world.
Brain Sex shows how we are all equivalent but we are likewise different. It shows how we may start out to undertake to grasp each other and to supplement each other. That is real equality.
A fantastic book, but it ought to be read with an open mind.
16 of 18 humans found the following review helpful.
Good read, but don’t take too seriously
By Dean, London
This is an interesting, well written, provocative book which may be read without apparent effort in a couple of sittings. For the most part, it is based on what appears to be rigorous, altho not uncontentious, scientific research. The 20 years that have elapsed since the publication of the book have, if anything, tended to assert it is main arguments when it comes to the importance of pre-natal exposure to sex hormones in ‘brain sex’ (or to be more precise ‘brain gender’) differentiation. The main weakness of the book is that it relies to a great extent (by it is own admission) on statistical averages but then uses these to erect an elaborate ideological super-structure to warrant traditionalisti gender roles. From a theoretical standpoint, this is an illicit move. You can, for example, demonstrate that men are on intermediate more aggressive and competitory than women, and conclude from this that the feminist effort to shoehorn women into ‘male’ roles in the workplace is doomed to failure. But you can’t use this finding to argue that women must be financially dependent on men, or that there aren’t millions of effeminate men or masculine women. To be fair, the writers do know the limitations of their findings, and that the averages don’t apply to everyone. The problem is that, once you do this, all generalisation starts to seem suspect. But the book does, in fact, comprise lots of generalisations. For example, the writers state that males are inherent unsuited to marriage or monogamy. The signification seems to be that women must be more forgiving of infidelity. But numerous men are, in fact, monogamous, proving that we may and do make moral selections in areas affected by gender identity.
‘Brain Sex’ is surely a thought provoking corrective to gender theorists (including most feminists) who emphasise gender as a social construct. It also provides compelling reasons why we will have to regard gender variant conditions such as transexuality as biological, rather than psychological, in origin. But the book is let down by it is tendency to trade in gender stereotypes, and for this reason alone will have to not be taken too seriously.
See all 52 client reviews…
