What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Can't a Man Be More Like a Woman?: The Evolution of Sex and Gender
How different are men and women, really? Controversy surrounds the question and makes uncovering the answers—based in evolution, genetics, and biology—increasingly difficult. Still, significant differences between the sexes are apparent everyday to both men and women. Whether it’s a boyfriend’s infidelity or a wife’s inability to orgasm during sex, the differences between the sexes affect how we act, interact, and think about one another. Developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert has devoted years of research on sex and gender and aims to dispel the myths and further scientific understanding of the Xs and Ys that make us all who we are.
Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? is an exercise in critical and unbiased thinking. From fertilization and evolution to aggressive men and emotional women, Wolpert explores the whole gamut of sexual development and gender differentiation. With some surprising discoveries along the way, he explains how men are fundamentally “modified females,” as well as takes a close look at evolution’s effect on our differing brain chemistry—giving women an advantage in verbal tasks and episodic memory, men the advantage in spatial perception and orientation, and couples virtually no chance at understanding one another.
Ladies and gentleman, if you’ve ever questioned whether men were truly better at math; imagined that women ruled the world and ended all wars; or asked, “Why can’t a man be more like a woman?” (or vice versa!), this book offers the answers and insight needed to have an informed conversation about sex and gender with your partner or friends . . . political correctness be damned.
Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? is an exercise in critical and unbiased thinking. From fertilization and evolution to aggressive men and emotional women, Wolpert explores the whole gamut of sexual development and gender differentiation. With some surprising discoveries along the way, he explains how men are fundamentally “modified females,” as well as takes a close look at evolution’s effect on our differing brain chemistry—giving women an advantage in verbal tasks and episodic memory, men the advantage in spatial perception and orientation, and couples virtually no chance at understanding one another.
Ladies and gentleman, if you’ve ever questioned whether men were truly better at math; imagined that women ruled the world and ended all wars; or asked, “Why can’t a man be more like a woman?” (or vice versa!), this book offers the answers and insight needed to have an informed conversation about sex and gender with your partner or friends . . . political correctness be damned.
204 pages, Hardcover
First published May 14, 2013
7 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
About the author
Lewis Wolpert
34 books108 followersLewis Wolpert CBE FRS FRSL (born October 19, 1929) is a developmental biologist, author, and broadcaster.
Career
He was educated at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College London, and at King's College London. He is presently Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London.
He is well known in his field for elaborating and championing the ideas of positional information and positional value: molecular signals and internal cellular responses to them that enable cells to do the right thing in the right place during embryonic development. The essence of these concepts is that there is a dedicated set of molecules for spatial coordination of cells that is the same across many species and across different developmental stages and tissues. The discovery of Hox gene codes in flies and vertebrates has largely vindicated Wolpert's positional value concept, while identification of growth factor morphogens in many species has supported the concept of positional information.
In addition to his scientific and research publications, he has written about his own experience of clinical depression in Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression. This was turned into three television programmes entitled 'A Living Hell' which he presented on BBC2.
He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999.
He is a Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.
Theories
Wolpert is regarded as a rationalist. In an April 7, 2005 article entitled "Spiked", The Guardian asked a series of scientists "What is the one thing everyone should learn about science?" Wolpert responded, "I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry."
In a lecture entitled "Is Science Dangerous?", he expanded on this: "I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world."
On May 25, 1994, Wolpert conducted an hour-long interview with Dr. Francis Crick called "How the Brain 'sees' " for The Times Dillon Science Forum; a video of the interview was produced by Just Results Video Productions for The Times.
On January 15, 2004, Wolpert and biologist/ parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake engaged in a live debate regarding the evidence for telepathy. It took place at the Royal Society of Arts in London.
In the late 1960s Wolpert proposed the illustrative French flag model, which explains how signalling between cells early in morphogenesis could be used to inform cells with the same Genetic regulatory network of their position and role.
He is credited with the famous quote: "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life."
An early book was The Unnatural Nature of Science. His most recent book is Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.
In May 2008, he gave one of four plenary lectures at the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology in Sigtuna, Sweden. His talk was reported as follows:
Lewis Wolpert's plenary address entitled "The Origins of Science and Religion" was provocative, amusing and from a totally materialist perspective. In his view, religion arose from the uniquely human need for causal explanations, and neither religion nor philosophy contributed anything of importance to scientific undersanding. ... ESSSAT is to be congratulated for offering its platform to a strong-minded materialist, but in the end Wolpert proved unable to enter serious debate with the conference theme or its participants.
-
Career
He was educated at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College London, and at King's College London. He is presently Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London.
He is well known in his field for elaborating and championing the ideas of positional information and positional value: molecular signals and internal cellular responses to them that enable cells to do the right thing in the right place during embryonic development. The essence of these concepts is that there is a dedicated set of molecules for spatial coordination of cells that is the same across many species and across different developmental stages and tissues. The discovery of Hox gene codes in flies and vertebrates has largely vindicated Wolpert's positional value concept, while identification of growth factor morphogens in many species has supported the concept of positional information.
In addition to his scientific and research publications, he has written about his own experience of clinical depression in Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression. This was turned into three television programmes entitled 'A Living Hell' which he presented on BBC2.
He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999.
He is a Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.
Theories
Wolpert is regarded as a rationalist. In an April 7, 2005 article entitled "Spiked", The Guardian asked a series of scientists "What is the one thing everyone should learn about science?" Wolpert responded, "I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry."
In a lecture entitled "Is Science Dangerous?", he expanded on this: "I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world."
On May 25, 1994, Wolpert conducted an hour-long interview with Dr. Francis Crick called "How the Brain 'sees' " for The Times Dillon Science Forum; a video of the interview was produced by Just Results Video Productions for The Times.
On January 15, 2004, Wolpert and biologist/ parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake engaged in a live debate regarding the evidence for telepathy. It took place at the Royal Society of Arts in London.
In the late 1960s Wolpert proposed the illustrative French flag model, which explains how signalling between cells early in morphogenesis could be used to inform cells with the same Genetic regulatory network of their position and role.
He is credited with the famous quote: "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life."
An early book was The Unnatural Nature of Science. His most recent book is Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.
In May 2008, he gave one of four plenary lectures at the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology in Sigtuna, Sweden. His talk was reported as follows:
Lewis Wolpert's plenary address entitled "The Origins of Science and Religion" was provocative, amusing and from a totally materialist perspective. In his view, religion arose from the uniquely human need for causal explanations, and neither religion nor philosophy contributed anything of importance to scientific undersanding. ... ESSSAT is to be congratulated for offering its platform to a strong-minded materialist, but in the end Wolpert proved unable to enter serious debate with the conference theme or its participants.
-
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 14, 2019
In the start I enjoyed reading some parts, but as I proceded the book became more and more dull and repetitive. I would not recommend.
July 15, 2016
I read this book after it was recommended to me and must admit that I wasn't convinced when I picked it up, but surprised myself by enjoying it more than I thought I would.
'Why can't a woman be more like a man' focuses on the two main questions of "Why are there two sexes?" and "How are they different and why?" I really liked the way that Wolpert approached these questions, objectively and from the perspective of a developmental biologist. The book is short and very readable, with the scientific explanations given concisely and clearly, and broken up into chapters on topics such as "Brain", "Sex", and "Health". It also has a short summarising chapter at the very end of the book.
I found this book highly interesting and informative, and Wolpert takes care to address the key myths about differences between the two sexes, with some of my favourite findings being:
- "There are no major intellectual differences between men and women."
- "In men the second digit tends to be shorter than the fourth, while in woman the second tends to be the same size or slightly longer than the fourth."
- "surveillance of British car parks has shown that while women may take longer to park, they are more likely to leave their vehicles correctly in the middle of a bay."
This book is ideal if you are looking for an objective examination of the differences between the two sexes, largely from a biological rather than social perspective (although social factors are taken into consideration). It also reads as an overview or introduction into this highly engaging and controversial topic, which can then be followed up by more detailed and specific reading.
I am glad that I followed the recommendation.
'Why can't a woman be more like a man' focuses on the two main questions of "Why are there two sexes?" and "How are they different and why?" I really liked the way that Wolpert approached these questions, objectively and from the perspective of a developmental biologist. The book is short and very readable, with the scientific explanations given concisely and clearly, and broken up into chapters on topics such as "Brain", "Sex", and "Health". It also has a short summarising chapter at the very end of the book.
I found this book highly interesting and informative, and Wolpert takes care to address the key myths about differences between the two sexes, with some of my favourite findings being:
- "There are no major intellectual differences between men and women."
- "In men the second digit tends to be shorter than the fourth, while in woman the second tends to be the same size or slightly longer than the fourth."
- "surveillance of British car parks has shown that while women may take longer to park, they are more likely to leave their vehicles correctly in the middle of a bay."
This book is ideal if you are looking for an objective examination of the differences between the two sexes, largely from a biological rather than social perspective (although social factors are taken into consideration). It also reads as an overview or introduction into this highly engaging and controversial topic, which can then be followed up by more detailed and specific reading.
I am glad that I followed the recommendation.
January 10, 2016
I wanted to read a book about men and women, the social differences and how they have developed, how men and women are different, how men and women are similar and wether the biologically differences carries the same relevance today as they did before. This book wasn't about that.
This book's focus is mainly on the biologically differences, and it's more of a collection of different statistics, surveys and research. The research methods are not questioned to a satisfying level - if you do a research saying that 4/5 women loves children, and you have asked 5 women about this, the answers obviously won't be reliable. But the research methods weren't discussed enough when most of the book is a summary of earlier research.
I also think the author should've put more effort into the social aspect of gender roles. I'm not a big fan of "women are this way and behave like this, men are this way and behave like this"-thinking. And that's because I'm convinced that the social aspects and how the different sexes are supposed to act according to the society they live in are more important than the biological when discussing different behavioral patterns. This view is probably rooted in my personal experiences and upbringing. Are there biological differences? Absolutely. Are they as important to behavior as this book says? I don't think so.
But there were some interesting fun facts I didn't know in this book. That pink was a color most used by boys 100 years ago, for example. And I liked how the author divided his book into chapters such as 'brain', 'language', 'health' and 'emotions'. These were interesting topics, and made this a neatly organized read. And the name of the book is good - controversial and interesting. Really captured my attention when I was book shopping.
The sources weren't organized in an easy way. Instead of footnotes, the author has collected all the studies he's referring to in the very back of the book, and it would take time to link the different studies to the text. "According to research this and that happened" isn't acceptable source information if you want me to believe the research in question. I would rather see some footnotes or "According to Zigg and Zugg (2012)", so I can check for myself wether I believe the earlier research is reliable or not.
This book could've been better and easier to understand if it had some illustrations. When discussing the biological differences in the brain, the author introduced me to many words I'd never heard before. A couple of drawings or pictures could better illustrate the author's points.
This book's focus is mainly on the biologically differences, and it's more of a collection of different statistics, surveys and research. The research methods are not questioned to a satisfying level - if you do a research saying that 4/5 women loves children, and you have asked 5 women about this, the answers obviously won't be reliable. But the research methods weren't discussed enough when most of the book is a summary of earlier research.
I also think the author should've put more effort into the social aspect of gender roles. I'm not a big fan of "women are this way and behave like this, men are this way and behave like this"-thinking. And that's because I'm convinced that the social aspects and how the different sexes are supposed to act according to the society they live in are more important than the biological when discussing different behavioral patterns. This view is probably rooted in my personal experiences and upbringing. Are there biological differences? Absolutely. Are they as important to behavior as this book says? I don't think so.
But there were some interesting fun facts I didn't know in this book. That pink was a color most used by boys 100 years ago, for example. And I liked how the author divided his book into chapters such as 'brain', 'language', 'health' and 'emotions'. These were interesting topics, and made this a neatly organized read. And the name of the book is good - controversial and interesting. Really captured my attention when I was book shopping.
The sources weren't organized in an easy way. Instead of footnotes, the author has collected all the studies he's referring to in the very back of the book, and it would take time to link the different studies to the text. "According to research this and that happened" isn't acceptable source information if you want me to believe the research in question. I would rather see some footnotes or "According to Zigg and Zugg (2012)", so I can check for myself wether I believe the earlier research is reliable or not.
This book could've been better and easier to understand if it had some illustrations. When discussing the biological differences in the brain, the author introduced me to many words I'd never heard before. A couple of drawings or pictures could better illustrate the author's points.
January 22, 2024
Good book, rather short, but the apologetic style is a bit annoying. A good starting point in a very ideologically charged subject.
January 26, 2021
The science explanation for gender and sex differences. This reading keeps you amazed about how science can explain the brain rooted differences between man and women. I loved to hear from Lewis default chromosomes are female and then, changed to a male. So, it all starts with women.:-)
March 31, 2020
Informative book but I felt like it was just A LOT. Every sentence was a fact. Important read, though!
April 18, 2016
Lewis Wolpert isn't afraid to tackle controversial issues surrounding differences between the sexes. His approach, as a professional biologist is is objective, and this is clearly the right approach - the only alternative to not thinking evolutionarily is not thinking at all. However, the issues are complex and our scientific tools for understanding them crude and somewhat hampered by left-wing academics (especially those trained in the social sciences) who employ the is/ought fallacy for ideological reasons and/or choose to ignore the biology. Wolpert's popular science summary is short and just scratches the surface of a complex issues but one that affects us all.
July 22, 2015
The writing is dull and the book seems to have been rushed. The author has assimilated some good research and the topic is interesting in the world of Bruce Jenner etc. I wanted it to be so much more exciting as a popular science book.
Read
January 22, 2015bobbins
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews