The Female Brain
The basic idea behind this book is this: male and female brains are physically built differently, and almost everything we do can be explained by hormones. I think this idea is both the strength and weakness of this book.
First, the strength. The author mentions that she came of age during the Feminist movement of the 1970's, and the idea that all humans are born "unisex", and we are socialized to be either male or female. It was said that there is no inherent physical difference between the sexes, beyond a few minor details like reproductive organs. Yet, a careful comparison between brains in males and females show different parts of the brain being different sizes between the genders. On average, female brains are about 10 percent smaller than male brains, but they have the same number of neurons. Areas of the brain that process emotion are about 4 times the size in females than in males, an the areas that process aggression are much larger in males than in females. This can be shown by simple MRI's and autopsies.
She spends quite a bit of time describing how female brains spend most of their lives being flooded by different hormones every month, as part of the menstrual cycle. This is obviously not the case with male brains. In utero, all brains are female, up until a point when testosterone levels spike in male fetuses, which actually destroys neural pathways leading to parts of the brain that process emotion and so-called "bonding" areas, while leaving the "rational regions" of the brain alone. Male brains are born with a relatively stable hormonal process, dominated by testosterone, whereas female brains are constantly being "washed" by a cycling "stew" of hormones.
She then describes how 95% of the time-span that humans have existed have been in primitive, stone-age conditions, and our brains are wired as a result of surviving these conditions. The fact that women define themselves largely by their ability to maintain social bonds, and the fact that men define themselves by their independence, was a survival advantage in the distant past, so naturally these people passed their genes on, which survive today.
She argues that primitive males needed to be strong and independent to survive and reproduce. Females didn't have the physical strength of males so their survival odds were increased by the ability to form alliances with other females. If all of life is defined by survival and reproduction, then all of our modern traits are compared against these primitive needs.
This, she says, is why many modern women define a large part of their personal value on their ability to sustain a relationship. The idea of loosing an emotional bond is often much more dramatic for females than males, and there are many books written to women who "feel like nothing without a man". Books like this are rarely written for men. This is supposedly due to the survival needs of our caveman ancestors.
The basic mechanism for these traits, the author argues, is hormones. All of the nuances of female behavior are supposedly driven by a given hormone passing through a given part of the brain. Womens' behaviors are generally more complex and nuanced than men because womens' brains are being constantly bombarded with hormones, which men are exposed to a much lesser degree. Complex hormones creates complex behavior, she says.
But that leads to what I think is the book's weakness. I don't understand why science loves explanations that rely on a single theme. Modern biology sees all of animal behavior as one giant effort to reproduce. From peacocks displaying feathers, to monkeys beating their chests, to fruit flies flying in certain patterns, to lizards' colorful skin, every action of every animal is geared towards the single goal of reproduction. Thus, in humans, everything we do is supposedly also focused on this same goal to make copies of ourselves. Every possible human endeavor is said to be simply an effort to improve our reproductive opportunities.
This desire for a single, simple answer to complex questions reminds me of Freud arguing that everything we do is guided by our subconscious desire for sex. Or Karl Marx arguing that all of human history is guided by "Class Struggle". Or Social Darwinists arguing that all of human culture is defined by a lust for power. Single answers to complex questions. This book's single answer to complex questions is hormones.
Obviously, hormones are important. But the author mentions many of her patients who want to get married, or get divorced, or go to school, or drop out of school, or who are good at forming emotional bonds, or are bad at this, and she explains all of it via hormones.
Why does a 54 year-old woman want to divorce her husband of 30 years? Because she has gone through menopause and her hormone levels are different. Why does another woman say she enjoys sex? Because of hormones. The book seems to reduce all behavior to chemicals. If a woman commits a crime, does this mean that hormones can be used as a defense in court? If she loves her husband, is this her making a choice or just her hormones talking?
I had mixed feelings when I finished the book. I liked her explanations of how male and female brains differentiate in the womb, and how 4 times as many neurons fire in female brains during emotional thoughts as in men. But it always comes down to hormones. Her explanations are a bit too mechanical.
Her chapter on sex and female orgasm is a good example of this. She says that "We now know there is no such thing as a vaginal orgasm, as Freud thought". Freud had clients who claimed to have experienced more than one kind of orgasm, but modern medicine sees the tissue of the clitoris concentrated only around the outside of a woman's vagina. Thus, there is no biological way for an orgasm to be triggered from the brain to any other part of a woman's body. So Freud must have been mistaken.
My objection to this is the assumption that structure-equals-function. A given structure in the body is triggered by hormones in the brain, like a machine. But this doesn't explain the behavior of the person who owns this "machine". The human mind often operates distinctly from structures. Such as, I may feel hungry, due to hunger-chemicals flooding my brain, but I can choose to not eat. Chemicals in my brain trigger some structure to produce hunger pangs, but I may not necessarily react to it. My mind is distinct from my brain, operating on its own rules.
Regarding her comments on orgasm in women, according to Evolutionary theory, the female orgasm has no biological "purpose", unlike in a male where it is required to propagate the species. From the perspective of Evolution, the purpose of the clitoris in females is a bit of a mystery. If every part of biology has been favored by Natural Selection as a survival advantage. why does the clitoris exist, if it is not needed to survive or to reproduce?
I saw a documentary once about a paraplegic man, who was paralyzed from the neck down. In one scene of the film, his girlfriend is sitting next to him, gently stroking his neck with her finger, as she is whispering in his ear. She was apparently describing a very erotic scenario to him, telling him to imagine experiencing the story with her, as she lightly stroked the skin on his neck. Her description became increasingly erotic, until he eventually experienced an orgasm. He had no sensation below his neck, and his normal erogenous zones were cut off from his brain. Yet, due to the brain's ability to transfer sensation to any part of the body, an orgasm still occurred. Function operated totally independent of structure.
I don't think Freud was wrong. I think some of his clients did experience true vaginal orgasms, in a manner similar to the paraplegic man's "neck orgasm". Orgasm is similar to the mental state created by hypnosis. In the right context, a hypnotist can create a framework of trust and a willingness to be led, and he/she can create a mental reality in the subject that feels every bit as real as "real" reality.
Such as, if a person is experiencing chronic pain, a hypnotist can help transfer the perception of the pain to something else, like an itch. The mind can be made open to suggestion, and one sensation can be transferred to another, totally independent of hormones. The mind can operate totally independent of structure or chemicals.
As in hypnosis, this same effect can be created sexually. If a lover creates the right "framework" he can give his lover an orgasm by touching any part of her body. The brain is very flexible, and the structure (in this case, the clitoris) is not required to create the function. Hormones are not needed for cause and effect to occur.
She goes on to mention that men who are faithful to their wives have more of a certain hormone in their brain, and men who are unfaithful have less of this hormone. Thus, unfaithful men are simply driven by their internal chemistry. This kind of reasoning is clearly wrong. People make choices despite their inclinations, so structure (or chemistry) doesn't equal function.
But, despite these objections, I learned a lot about physical and chemical differences between male and female brains. These details are clear, but the interpretation of how they affect our behavior was a bit iffy at times.
I give the book 3.5 out of 5 stars.