Book Review: “The Female Brain”
I’ve been reading a book called “The Female Brain,” by Louann Brizendine, which is, not surprisingly, about the female brain. The author is a neuro-psychiatrist who describes how estrogen and other female hormones stimulate various parts of the female brain from a very early age–like before we’re even born. She posits that these hormone-stimulated parts of the brain are responsible for girls and women being better at reading other people’s cues and being more social and empathetic than their male counterparts.
It has been an interesting read, but I keep finding myself questioning some of the generalizations she makes based on these biological differences. Like, I don’t find there to be such a huge difference between boy and girl babies around their tendency to look at people’s faces, and I don’t find girls to be THAT much better at reading social cues than boys. I do see some tendencies in these directions, but I found her descriptions to be so broad and so black and white, that I found myself shaking my head as I read.
Then I read an article in Slate Magazine that totally debunked a lot of the conclusions being drawn by this author and another writer doing similar stuff. The Slate article did a nice job of looking at not only her conclusions but also the actual research that she and others have done on these topics. The writers of the article took issue with a lot of the same things I was having doubts about, so that was very validating.
Even though I don’t whole-heartedly buy into everything Brizendine says, I still find it helpful to acknowledge that there are some possible biological differences between males and females. In a way it makes sense that there would be those differences, but it also makes sense to treat children and adults according to their own individual personalities and needs, and not just assume that they’re going to fit the biological model that scientists have identified. Another reason to treat people as individuals is that the binary gender model is not really accurate in my opinion. I don’t think we’re each all-female or all-male, so to me its a moot point to identify “male characteristics” and “female characteristics” as if we were all one gender or the other. But, I digress.
I guess my overall impression of this book is that its interesting, but it needs to be taken with a big old grain of salt. I do appreciate Brizendine’s commitment to the topic of female brains; I’ve always found my female brain to be quite interesting, so I’m glad there’s someone else out there that agrees with me.
July 6, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I’ve always found your female brain quite interesting too!
July 7, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I, too, agree that your brain is most interesting and always has been, Lupita. Sometimes in the most curious ways……:)
I’m intrigued by Brizendine’s hypothesis concerning the female of the species being better able to read other people’s cues and being more social and empathetic than their male counterparts. If all physical functions, including hormonal ones, have a raison d’etre, I wonder when and how did these female skills began to develop? While the Paleolithic husband was hunting megafauna w/ his atlatl, what kinds of social interactions was mom experiencing to keep survival going smoothly back at the cave? Keeping the little fur-clad kiddies behaving well and out of danger as well as amicably sharing wooly mammoth recipes w/ other cave ladies no doubt helped develop these important skills. Seriously.
Love,
Mom
February 13, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Ya know having just finished last learned term about Separate Sphere’s theory of men and women in the Victorian Era I find the mere idea of the book somewhat flabbergasting yes women in general have certain hormones in greater levels then men and men greater levels of other hormones but can we not go back to 19th century ideals of raising kids… 0,o
I agree lets raise our children as the unique beings they are !
April 22, 2009 at 6:55 am
This is very hot information. I think I’ll share it on Digg.