This book was polarizing. For me. Personally. I was polarized.
One camp of my consciousness was thrilled by the actual physiological science he rolled out early on. The chapter about iron was fantastic, and I am still reeling from how nutritionally efficient meat is. All those amino acids! That sweet, non-chealated iron. Mmm, girl!
And then, the animus and anima. Wheeling out Jung! A bold move, since he was sort of a quack, brought fake-astrology (the Myers-Briggs) and the whole "collective unconscious" to the table, but I'll sit it out. Okay, everyone's got male and female mental traits. A little divisive, a little dated, kind of... sexist... but you're an elderly white evolutionary shrink! Grain of salt applied, chapter ultimately enjoyed.
The other camp spoke up at this point, as Shlain became progressively more paternal and presumptuous. By "spoke up", I mean emitted a high-pitched keening for the latter half of the book.
The Adam and Eve narrative was ludicrous. I know it was metaphorical, I know it was supposed to represent the presumed twists and turns that took us from anarchoprimativist utopia to patriarchal feudalism, but it was just... so... fuckin'... silly. Most of what I take issue with is the supposition that Adam just "FELT IN HIS GUTS" that he shouldn't fuck his daughter.
Mr. Shlain, have you ever seen a sexual abuse statistic in your life? Even a single chart? Because I got some real bad news about our allegedly innate taboo, buddy.
It doesn't make sense for a hunter-gatherer tribe to start trading women like chattel because one furry Einstein figured out that incest makes mutants and Joffreys. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to expect that the phantom menstruation, being tied to the cycles of the moon, taught women to tell time, which led to men understanding mortality and becoming existentialists. You are making some serious logical leaps here, and the "evidence" (by which I mean conjecture) just doesn't hold up.
I went from profound excitement to embarrassed discomfort with about a quarter of the book left, when he started throwing around "patriarchy"... but even that, I isolated. I might just be desensitized to the word, because of tumblr!
No, I felt I played ball with a remarkable degree of patience. It wasn't until the epilogue I became legitimately angry. This ballsy motherfucker actually suggested that the reason we stopped worshiping goddesses is because of the development of an alphabet. He thinks it caused the parts of our brain responsible for written language processing to develop more than the parts attached to verbal processing (biology isn't a fan of that hypothesis, either), and since those parts of the brain were "more male", this led to the development of Christianity and it's surly father-gods.
What the fuck? Dude, you mentioned the Athena cult as an example of goddess worship. I promise you, the Greeks had a fairly sophisticated alphabet. Stories were written down, believe it or not! Have you ever heard of... well, it's obscure, kind of underground, you probably never heard of it... "Homer"? He wrote a couple of pretty popular stories, utilizing -- remain seated, please -- an alphabet.
And even from the implied defense of "structural changes to bodies and brains take a longer time to evolve", you are NOT getting enough time in for that significant a change. It's not gonna happen.
So, friends and neighbors, if you decide to read this book, you'd be best served by stopping at the chapter entitled "Fathers/Mothers". After that, everything gets insultingly bad.
Still, not a total wash, I learned a lot about nutrition and menstruation. And you can, too! In the first half of this book.