Gender and our brains How new neuroscience explodes the myths of the male and female minds

Review by Choice Review

Rippon (Aston Univ., Birmingham) here thoroughly covers the impact of social factors on the human brain, making the case that biological sex differences are trivial compared to social context. The author provides extensive, interesting, up-to-date information on how social context shapes the brain as well as gender. The text purposefully (though in a rather disorganized sequence) lays out problems with existing research on sex and gender and calls for caution when carrying out and interpreting such research. This author, however, is unfortunately biased toward a presupposition that any positive claim about sex differences in the brain is sexist ("neurosexism"). The author is mistaken in arguing that because there are demonstrated effects of social experience, there can be no important innate sex difference, such that postnatal male and female brains develop differently due to biological difference. Some valid limitations of extrapolating from animal models are mentioned, but in largely dismissing them, the author undermines her own argument. To discuss "gender in the brain" without thoroughly discussing animal research is a serious limitation. Overall, this text does provide some important information on the role of social context but lacks a balanced perspective. Summing Up: Not recommended. --Robin Forbes-Lorman, Ripon college

Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.

---

Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

Neuroscientist Rippon painstakingly refutes in this exhaustive study long-held beliefs about gender's role in the development and functioning of the brain. Rippon demonstrates how researchers' expectations can alter a study's findings and how false statistics become lodged in the popular imagination and repeated as facts long after they are disproven, such as the popular belief that women "on average use 20,000 words a day and men use only 7,000." The most illuminating aspect of her account is an explanation of the "plastic" nature of the brain, particularly among infants and children. The brain's "trajectory may not be fixed but can be diverted by tiny differences in expectations and attitudes." Consequently, children as young as 21 months can recognize genders, and by age 5 are adhering rigidly to gender roles (centered around choice of toys, for example) based on the perceived expectations of the adults around them. This is a powerful and well-constructed argument for gender as a social construct-nurture rather than nature. Some of the harder science in the book is not layperson-friendly; Rippon's frequently accessible contradiction of sexist myths also contains massive amounts of neuroscience data. Nevertheless, those interested in gender-related brain differences (or lack thereof) will find this riveting. (Aug.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

---

Review by Kirkus Book Review

An authoritative debunking of the notion of a gendered brain.In her debut book, Rippon (Cognitive Neuroimaging/Aston Univ., Birmingham) examines sex-difference research and finds a dismaying history of bad science and an abundance of design flaws, inadequate controls, and innumeracy. Neurosexism abounds, she asserts, citing studies and naming names with assurance and a touch of acerbity. She calls misconceptions about gender differences "whac-a-mole" myths: Mistaken assumptions, she writes, have "been variously whacked over the years but can still be found in self-help manuals, how-to guides and even in twenty-first-century arguments about the utility or futility of diversity agendas." Further, research findings are often misinterpreted by the press, creating in the public imagination an inaccurate picture of the so-called "male" or "female" brain. Rippon notes that the view of a gendered brain, which has a long history, is stubbornly persistent today. She cites both social psychologist Gustave Le Bon's 1895 declaration that women "represent the most inferior forms of human evolution" and Google engineer James Damore's 2017 blog about the biological causes for the absence of women in technology. Looking at numerous scientific studies, the author sees surprisingly little evidence for brain sex differences in newborns. Rather, she argues, the differences in behavior and interests between boys and girls, and men and women, can be explained by the impact of a gendered world on the human brain. As she notes, gender clues surround children from birth. Attitudes and unexamined assumptions can be toxic, and toys, sports, clothing, and colors have a powerful impact. Young children, writes Rippon, are social sponges, especially attuned to social rules, and their experiences in a pink-vs.-blue world can change the way their brains form. Ultimately, her message is that a gendered world will produce a gendered brain. The result, unfortunately, is that boys and girls are shaped with different expectations and are often driven down career different paths.Well-crafted and thoroughly documented, this is a must-read for parents, teachers, and anyone of either sex who cares for children. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

---

[from] Chapter 1: Inside Her Pretty Little Head--the Hunt Begins Women . . . represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and . . . are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. --Gustave Le Bon, 1895   For centuries, women's brains have been weighed and measured and found wanting. Part of women's allegedly inferior, deficient or fragile biology, their brains were at the heart of any explanation as to why they were lower down any scale, from the evolutionary to the social and the intellectual. The inferior nature of women's brains was used as the rationale for frequently proffered advice that the fairer sex should focus on their reproductive gifts and leave education, power, politics, science and any other business of the world to men.   While views about women's capabilities and their role in society varied somewhat over the centuries, a consistent theme throughout was "essentialism," the idea that differences between female and male brains were part of their "essence," and that these brains' structures and functions were fixed and innate. Gender roles were determined by these essences. It would be going against nature to overturn this natural order of things.   An early version of this story starts, but unfortunately does not end, with a seventeenth-century philosopher, François Poullain de la Barre, bravely questioning the alleged inequality of the sexes. Poullain was determined to have a clear-eyed look at the evidence behind the assertion that women were inferior to men, and was careful not to accept anything as true just because it was how things had always been (or because some appropriate explanation could be found in the Bible).   His two publications, On the Equality of the Two Sexes: A Physical and Moral Discourse in Which Is Seen the Importance of Undoing Prejudice in Oneself (1673) and On the Education of Women, to Guide the Mind in Sciences and Manners (1674), show a startlingly modern approach to issues of differences between the sexes. Poullain even tries to show how women's skills can be equated with those of men; there's a charming section in his treatise on sexual equality where he muses that the skills required of embroidery and needlework are as demanding as those required to learn physics.   Based on his studies of findings from the then new science of anatomy, he made a startlingly prescient observation: "Our most accurate anatomical investigations do not uncover any difference between men and women in this part of the body [the head]. The brain of women is exactly like ours." His close examination of the different skills and dispositions of men and women, boys and girls, drew him to the conclusion that, given the opportunity, women would be just as capable of benefiting from the privileges which were then only offered to men, such as education and training. For Poullain, there was no evidence that women's inferior position in the world was due to some biological deficit. " L'esprit n'a point de sexe, " he declared: the mind has no sex.   Poullain's conclusions were strongly against the prevailing ethos; at the time of his writing, the patriarchal system was firmly entrenched. The "separate spheres" ideology, with men fit for public roles and women for private, domestic ones, determined a woman's inferiority, necessarily subordinate to her father and then to her husband, and physically and mentally weaker than any man.   It was downhill all the way after that. Poullain's views were largely, to his disappointment, ignored when they were first published (at least in France), and had little impact on the established view that women were essentially inferior to men, and would be unable to benefit from educational or political opportunities (which was, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy, as they were not, with notable exceptions, given access to education or political opportunities). This remained the prevailing view throughout the eighteenth century, with little attention to it as a matter worthy of debate. Excerpted from Gender and Our Brains: How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds by Gina Rippon All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

---