What do you think?
Rate this book
Gender Mosaic: Beyond the Myth of the Male and Female Brain
With profound implications for our most foundational assumptions about gender, Gender Mosaic explains why there is no such thing as a male or female brain.
For generations, we've been taught that women and men differ in profound and important ways. Women are more sensitive and emotional, whereas men are more aggressive and sexual, because this or that region in the brains of women is smaller or larger than in men, or because they have more or less of this or that hormone. This story seems to provide us with a neat biological explanation for much of what we encounter in day-to-day life. But is it true?
According to neuroscientist Daphna Joel, it's not. And in Gender Mosaic, she sets forth a bold and compelling argument that debunks the notion of female and male brains. Drawing on the latest scientific evidence, including the groundbreaking results of her own studies, Dr. Joel explains that every human brain is a unique mixture -- or mosaic -- of "male" and "female" features, and that these mosaics don't map neatly into two categories.
With urgent practical implications for the way we understand ourselves and the world around us, Gender Mosaic is a fascinating look at the science of gender, sex and the brain, and at how freeing ourselves from the gender binary can help us all reach our full human potential.
For generations, we've been taught that women and men differ in profound and important ways. Women are more sensitive and emotional, whereas men are more aggressive and sexual, because this or that region in the brains of women is smaller or larger than in men, or because they have more or less of this or that hormone. This story seems to provide us with a neat biological explanation for much of what we encounter in day-to-day life. But is it true?
According to neuroscientist Daphna Joel, it's not. And in Gender Mosaic, she sets forth a bold and compelling argument that debunks the notion of female and male brains. Drawing on the latest scientific evidence, including the groundbreaking results of her own studies, Dr. Joel explains that every human brain is a unique mixture -- or mosaic -- of "male" and "female" features, and that these mosaics don't map neatly into two categories.
With urgent practical implications for the way we understand ourselves and the world around us, Gender Mosaic is a fascinating look at the science of gender, sex and the brain, and at how freeing ourselves from the gender binary can help us all reach our full human potential.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published September 17, 2019
122 people are currently reading
2673 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews
September 28, 2019
A big thank-you to NetGalley, the author, and publisher for giving me a copy of this book for an unbiased review.
2 – Interesting, but I am concerned the veracity and objectivity of this book.
This is by far the most difficult review I’ve ever had to write and it took me hours and hours of research to get to a point where I was able to give this book a fair and unbiased critique.
I became interested in neurology while reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave.” Since then, I have been reading anything and everything relating to the function of the human brain, the ways in which our brains impact our behavior, and how society (aka nurture) interacts with our brain function (aka nature) to shape the human experience.
Joel’s “Gender Mosaic” offers the following thesis:
1. The human brain is a mosaic of male/female characteristics
2. Consequently, as no brain is purely “male” or “female,” most brains are “intersex”
3. Our society shapes expectations of men/women to shove them into pre-existing gender constraints, and we would be better off if we eliminated gender altogether
This all sounds reasonable and it certainly appeals to this liberal feminist. But then, as a discerning reader, I must ask myself – but is her analysis correct?
A quick disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor a neurologist. However, based on my very limited understanding of brain function, several questions came up during my reading:
- If brains are neither male nor female, how do we explain brain disfunction? Namely, why is that women have higher rates of Alzheimer’s, while men are more prone to Parkinson’s? How do we explain the fact that scientists have detected key differences in the way that male/female brains synthesize certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin? Why are certain brain dysfunctions, such as ADD and schizophrenia, manifested in predictably distinct ways depending on biological sex?
- If society plays a key role in our binary understanding of female/male brains, how is it that primates (who are not conditioned by our gender roles) still exhibit similar behaviors in terms of aggression, dominance, nurturing, submission, etc.?
- We know that certain hormones cause different reactions in male/female brains (as per Sapolsky’s book). How does this work, if brains are neither consistently male nor female?
- If nature vs. nurture is not significant, why devote such a large portion of the book to society’s impact on gender roles?
With this in mind, I turned to literature which disagreed with Joel’s points of view. As a UCI alumna, I reached out to Larry Cahill. He is cited in Joel’s book as a supporter of the viewpoint that brains are primarily male or female. He directed me to several articles on the topic, which ultimately were quite convincing to me for the following reasons:
1. Joel argues that the viewpoint of an intersex brain is a feminist one and implies that those who disagree belong to the old-school world of measuring skulls to justify intelligence and male superiority. However, even a cursory glance at modern literature on the male/female difference in brains identifies that these scientists seek to benefit both sexes, rather than to stigmatize one or the other. Much of Cahill’s research points to the fact that, when we treat women “the same” as men in medicine, we risk endangering them by ignoring that brain dysfunctions often manifest differently between the sexes or require different types of treatment. In fact, it is more feminist to acknowledge these differences than to refute them. This goes in line with introducing more female test animals into brain research, which has primarily been concerned with the male brain.
2. While Joel’s argument ignores the impact of male/female brains as they pertain to the treatment of brain disfunction, Cahill and his supporters dive deep into the issue. They examine the impacts of sex differences in the brain within subjects like dementia, addiction, chronic stress, and learning. After reading these articles, it is difficult to see how brains can really be grouped as intersex – of course, exceptions to the rule may exist, but even Joel agrees that men and women can be seen as two distinct groups, with individual variations.
3. Cahill argues that Joel’s methodology in several of her tests is flawed and he mentions the 2013 study as an example. Here, Joel and her team use “internal consistency” to justify the existence of a male/female brain. Cahill points out that the methodology used by Joel’s team makes it impossible to attain any result other than the intended conclusion. However, he mentions that when her tests were duplicated, men and women could indeed be easily discerned in up to 77% of the time. He states, “Even higher levels of discriminability between the sexes have been reported by other teams regarding human brain structure and function, and regarding personality.” As such, despite Joel’s criticism of cherrypicking, it seems that she may be guilty of some of this herself.
This being said, I do think that Joel’s book contains two important points:
1. Regardless of whether or not there are sex differences between women/men, individuals should be treated as individuals. A woman visiting a doctor should not be screened for diseases primarily on the basis of her sex, any more than a man should be restricted from participating in traditionally “feminine” activities.
2. A society which is not primarily focused on gender binaries is healthier, as it allows both men and women (as well as individuals who may not fit into a traditional gender binary) to express the best aspects of their individual selves/abilities.
Overall, I think this book is very interesting and am glad to have read it. The reason I could not rate it higher is because I do not think that it is fit for the average reader. Most people will not take the time to look into opposing arguments. This book is meant to be a study of neurology, but in truth it is much more of a political treatise on how we should deal with the topic of gender. However, gender and sex are not the same thing. Perhaps it would be fair to call gender the nurture aspect of our experience, and sex the nature. I am concerned that readers will take this book as invitation to conflate the two, arriving at potentially erroneous conclusions. As such, I would recommend this book, but only to readers who are willing to go deeper into this topic, and to truly form an independent opinion on the gender mosaic of the male/female/(intersex?) brain.
2 – Interesting, but I am concerned the veracity and objectivity of this book.
This is by far the most difficult review I’ve ever had to write and it took me hours and hours of research to get to a point where I was able to give this book a fair and unbiased critique.
I became interested in neurology while reading Robert Sapolsky’s “Behave.” Since then, I have been reading anything and everything relating to the function of the human brain, the ways in which our brains impact our behavior, and how society (aka nurture) interacts with our brain function (aka nature) to shape the human experience.
Joel’s “Gender Mosaic” offers the following thesis:
1. The human brain is a mosaic of male/female characteristics
2. Consequently, as no brain is purely “male” or “female,” most brains are “intersex”
3. Our society shapes expectations of men/women to shove them into pre-existing gender constraints, and we would be better off if we eliminated gender altogether
This all sounds reasonable and it certainly appeals to this liberal feminist. But then, as a discerning reader, I must ask myself – but is her analysis correct?
A quick disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor a neurologist. However, based on my very limited understanding of brain function, several questions came up during my reading:
- If brains are neither male nor female, how do we explain brain disfunction? Namely, why is that women have higher rates of Alzheimer’s, while men are more prone to Parkinson’s? How do we explain the fact that scientists have detected key differences in the way that male/female brains synthesize certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin? Why are certain brain dysfunctions, such as ADD and schizophrenia, manifested in predictably distinct ways depending on biological sex?
- If society plays a key role in our binary understanding of female/male brains, how is it that primates (who are not conditioned by our gender roles) still exhibit similar behaviors in terms of aggression, dominance, nurturing, submission, etc.?
- We know that certain hormones cause different reactions in male/female brains (as per Sapolsky’s book). How does this work, if brains are neither consistently male nor female?
- If nature vs. nurture is not significant, why devote such a large portion of the book to society’s impact on gender roles?
With this in mind, I turned to literature which disagreed with Joel’s points of view. As a UCI alumna, I reached out to Larry Cahill. He is cited in Joel’s book as a supporter of the viewpoint that brains are primarily male or female. He directed me to several articles on the topic, which ultimately were quite convincing to me for the following reasons:
1. Joel argues that the viewpoint of an intersex brain is a feminist one and implies that those who disagree belong to the old-school world of measuring skulls to justify intelligence and male superiority. However, even a cursory glance at modern literature on the male/female difference in brains identifies that these scientists seek to benefit both sexes, rather than to stigmatize one or the other. Much of Cahill’s research points to the fact that, when we treat women “the same” as men in medicine, we risk endangering them by ignoring that brain dysfunctions often manifest differently between the sexes or require different types of treatment. In fact, it is more feminist to acknowledge these differences than to refute them. This goes in line with introducing more female test animals into brain research, which has primarily been concerned with the male brain.
2. While Joel’s argument ignores the impact of male/female brains as they pertain to the treatment of brain disfunction, Cahill and his supporters dive deep into the issue. They examine the impacts of sex differences in the brain within subjects like dementia, addiction, chronic stress, and learning. After reading these articles, it is difficult to see how brains can really be grouped as intersex – of course, exceptions to the rule may exist, but even Joel agrees that men and women can be seen as two distinct groups, with individual variations.
3. Cahill argues that Joel’s methodology in several of her tests is flawed and he mentions the 2013 study as an example. Here, Joel and her team use “internal consistency” to justify the existence of a male/female brain. Cahill points out that the methodology used by Joel’s team makes it impossible to attain any result other than the intended conclusion. However, he mentions that when her tests were duplicated, men and women could indeed be easily discerned in up to 77% of the time. He states, “Even higher levels of discriminability between the sexes have been reported by other teams regarding human brain structure and function, and regarding personality.” As such, despite Joel’s criticism of cherrypicking, it seems that she may be guilty of some of this herself.
This being said, I do think that Joel’s book contains two important points:
1. Regardless of whether or not there are sex differences between women/men, individuals should be treated as individuals. A woman visiting a doctor should not be screened for diseases primarily on the basis of her sex, any more than a man should be restricted from participating in traditionally “feminine” activities.
2. A society which is not primarily focused on gender binaries is healthier, as it allows both men and women (as well as individuals who may not fit into a traditional gender binary) to express the best aspects of their individual selves/abilities.
Overall, I think this book is very interesting and am glad to have read it. The reason I could not rate it higher is because I do not think that it is fit for the average reader. Most people will not take the time to look into opposing arguments. This book is meant to be a study of neurology, but in truth it is much more of a political treatise on how we should deal with the topic of gender. However, gender and sex are not the same thing. Perhaps it would be fair to call gender the nurture aspect of our experience, and sex the nature. I am concerned that readers will take this book as invitation to conflate the two, arriving at potentially erroneous conclusions. As such, I would recommend this book, but only to readers who are willing to go deeper into this topic, and to truly form an independent opinion on the gender mosaic of the male/female/(intersex?) brain.
April 15, 2022
Ciężko mi zrozumieć, że nadal nie każdy jest świadomy, że nie ma czegoś takiego jak mózg typowo męski czy żeński. Każdy mózg jest inny, jest mozaiką, mieszanką cech częściej spotykanych u kobiet czy u mężczyzn. I oczywiście płeć ma wpływ na mózg, ale jest on niepowtarzalny dla każdej z osób.
Jeśli jeszcze nie do końca w to wierzysz (sic!) to chyba odpowiedni moment na Daphne Joel i Lubę Vikhanski. A jeśli już jesteś wystarczająco przekonana/ny to i tak warto dowiedzieć się szczegółów i utrwalić wiedzę.
Od lat wielu badacze (głównie męscy) podkreślają w swoich badaniach różnice pomiędzy mózgami, ale pomijają to jak wiele cech jest dla obu płci wspólnych. Autorki w książce przedstawiają więc swoje badania, potwierdzające tezę różnorodności, ale nie związanej ze zidentyfikowaną przy urodzeniu płcią.
A teraz krótka historia o tym jak mężczyźni chcieli udowodnić, że kobieca biologia powoduje, że muszą być głupsze od mężczyzn - ma mniejszy mózg, więc musi być głupsza! Ale co ze zwierzętami, które mają mózgi większe od facetów? To może trzeba to mierzyć proporcjami wielkości mózgu do reszty ciała? No niestety, wyszło, że to kobiety wygrywają w tej konkurencji. Hmm, no to mam! Przecież niemowlaki mają stosunkowo duże głowy do swoich małych ciałek, więc kobiety to takie dorosłe niemowlaki mniej rozwinięte niż faceci! I tak o to panowie wymyślali swoje niczym niepoparte dyrdymały, które oczywiście prawdziwa nauka szybko obaliła.
Nie zgadzam się ze wszystkimi teoriami autorek (i nie muszę), a konkretnie z tą dotyczącą ujednolicenia języka, który według nich nie powinien być nacechowany płciowo. Co oznacza neutralność płciową np. w określaniu tytułów zawodowych - dla polskiej feministki walczącej właśnie o feminatywy to temat trudny do zaakceptowania. I choć jak najbardziej jestem za tym by była opcja mówienia w języku polskim w sposób neutralny płciowo dla osób, które tego potrzebują i nie chcą się identyfikować z żadną płcią, to nie chce jednocześnie wymazywać mojej potrzeby wyrażania swojej płci również przez język.
Książkę polecam, a jeśli zapytacie, którą polecam bardziej - tę czy czytane niedawno „Gorsze”, to odpowiem, że warto poznać obie.
Jeśli jeszcze nie do końca w to wierzysz (sic!) to chyba odpowiedni moment na Daphne Joel i Lubę Vikhanski. A jeśli już jesteś wystarczająco przekonana/ny to i tak warto dowiedzieć się szczegółów i utrwalić wiedzę.
Od lat wielu badacze (głównie męscy) podkreślają w swoich badaniach różnice pomiędzy mózgami, ale pomijają to jak wiele cech jest dla obu płci wspólnych. Autorki w książce przedstawiają więc swoje badania, potwierdzające tezę różnorodności, ale nie związanej ze zidentyfikowaną przy urodzeniu płcią.
A teraz krótka historia o tym jak mężczyźni chcieli udowodnić, że kobieca biologia powoduje, że muszą być głupsze od mężczyzn - ma mniejszy mózg, więc musi być głupsza! Ale co ze zwierzętami, które mają mózgi większe od facetów? To może trzeba to mierzyć proporcjami wielkości mózgu do reszty ciała? No niestety, wyszło, że to kobiety wygrywają w tej konkurencji. Hmm, no to mam! Przecież niemowlaki mają stosunkowo duże głowy do swoich małych ciałek, więc kobiety to takie dorosłe niemowlaki mniej rozwinięte niż faceci! I tak o to panowie wymyślali swoje niczym niepoparte dyrdymały, które oczywiście prawdziwa nauka szybko obaliła.
Nie zgadzam się ze wszystkimi teoriami autorek (i nie muszę), a konkretnie z tą dotyczącą ujednolicenia języka, który według nich nie powinien być nacechowany płciowo. Co oznacza neutralność płciową np. w określaniu tytułów zawodowych - dla polskiej feministki walczącej właśnie o feminatywy to temat trudny do zaakceptowania. I choć jak najbardziej jestem za tym by była opcja mówienia w języku polskim w sposób neutralny płciowo dla osób, które tego potrzebują i nie chcą się identyfikować z żadną płcią, to nie chce jednocześnie wymazywać mojej potrzeby wyrażania swojej płci również przez język.
Książkę polecam, a jeśli zapytacie, którą polecam bardziej - tę czy czytane niedawno „Gorsze”, to odpowiem, że warto poznać obie.
April 15, 2025
el futuro es por acá
June 21, 2023
książka sama w sobie dobra, ale strasznie powtarzalna.
dnf
April 2, 2024DNF - Felt very repetitive and like it was hammering home the same point without any actual impact
July 16, 2020
Did you know that J.K. Rowling chose to sign Harry Potter with her initials, anticipating the possibility of the target audience of young boys not wanting to read a book written by a woman?
I think this is the coolest fact I learned with this book. Which is not even that cool... So, there you go.
Read the following quotes:
1. "The human brain is neither female nor male. Rather, it is a unique mosaic of features that continues to change throughout our life"
2. "The fact that gender is a myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It certainly does - not as an intrinsic set of qualities but as a social system that attributes meaning to sex, assigning different roles, status and power to males and females"
Are these two quotes pretty obvious for you? Then you don't need to read this book. It's a long repetition of these two ideas...
The ideas are valid and unfortunately, we still don't live in a world where this is obvious for everyone (not even close...), but if gender is not an entirely new topic for you, this book is not for you.
The last chapters were quite entertaining, although I must admit the first ones bored me to death (too much science and math for my female brain). IM JOKING! SORRY!
I think this is the coolest fact I learned with this book. Which is not even that cool... So, there you go.
Read the following quotes:
1. "The human brain is neither female nor male. Rather, it is a unique mosaic of features that continues to change throughout our life"
2. "The fact that gender is a myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It certainly does - not as an intrinsic set of qualities but as a social system that attributes meaning to sex, assigning different roles, status and power to males and females"
Are these two quotes pretty obvious for you? Then you don't need to read this book. It's a long repetition of these two ideas...
The ideas are valid and unfortunately, we still don't live in a world where this is obvious for everyone (not even close...), but if gender is not an entirely new topic for you, this book is not for you.
The last chapters were quite entertaining, although I must admit the first ones bored me to death (too much science and math for my female brain). IM JOKING! SORRY!
March 20, 2022
Jakieś ponad dwadzieścia lat temu przeczytałam, modną wówczas, książkę Davida Jessela i Annie Moir "Płeć mózgu. O prawdziwej różnicy między mężczyzną, a kobietą". Pewne treści przyjęłam i zaakceptowałam, choć nie bez refleksj i przekonania, że zbyt dużo tam generalizowania.
Znacznie bardziej przemówiła do mnie koncepcja płci mózgu zaprezentowana w książce Daphny Joel "Płeć i mózg" Historia przekręconych faktów."
Autorka jest profesorem psychologii i neurobiologii i na podstawie badań neguje istnienie mózgu typowo "kobiecego" lub "męskiego".
Zaprzecza temu jakoby "mężczyźni są z Marsa, a kobiety z Wenus". Okazuje się, że ludzie, gdy myślą nad istotą płci mózgu, tak naprawdę myślą o narządach płciowych.
Dla niej mózg to swoista mozaika obu cech "żeńskich" i "męskich" w różnych proporciach, indywidualnych dla każdego człowieka.
Nie zaprzecza różnicom w budowie i funkcjonowaniu mózgu kobiet i mężczyzn, ale są to niewielkie różnice, ok. 1-8%.
Rozbieżności tworzą unikatową mozaikę cech zmieniających się przez całe życie,
większość mózgów nie jest ani "męskich", ani "kobiecych"- są interpłciowe.
"Są przeciętne różnice między płciami, a czasem nawet wpisują się w stereotypy. Ale nie jest łatwo znaleźć przeciętne kobiety i przeciętnych mężczyzn."
Autorka posuwa się o krok dalej, tworząc wizję neutralnego płciowo społeczeństwa, bez określania i oceniania człowieka na podstawie płci. Dość ciekawa teoria, choć w moim przekonaniu utopijna.
"Sugeruję, żebyśmy dokonali świadomego wysiłku, by pozbyć się etykiet płciowych. To sprawi, że dzieci będą mogły wyrosnąć na pełnoprawnych ludzi, a nie będą wpychane do męskich lub damskich szufladek."
"Płeć i mózg" napisana jest bardzo przystępnym, zrozumiałym językiem i powinna spodobać się tym, którzy choć trochę interesują się tym tematem. Polecam.
Znacznie bardziej przemówiła do mnie koncepcja płci mózgu zaprezentowana w książce Daphny Joel "Płeć i mózg" Historia przekręconych faktów."
Autorka jest profesorem psychologii i neurobiologii i na podstawie badań neguje istnienie mózgu typowo "kobiecego" lub "męskiego".
Zaprzecza temu jakoby "mężczyźni są z Marsa, a kobiety z Wenus". Okazuje się, że ludzie, gdy myślą nad istotą płci mózgu, tak naprawdę myślą o narządach płciowych.
Dla niej mózg to swoista mozaika obu cech "żeńskich" i "męskich" w różnych proporciach, indywidualnych dla każdego człowieka.
Nie zaprzecza różnicom w budowie i funkcjonowaniu mózgu kobiet i mężczyzn, ale są to niewielkie różnice, ok. 1-8%.
Rozbieżności tworzą unikatową mozaikę cech zmieniających się przez całe życie,
większość mózgów nie jest ani "męskich", ani "kobiecych"- są interpłciowe.
"Są przeciętne różnice między płciami, a czasem nawet wpisują się w stereotypy. Ale nie jest łatwo znaleźć przeciętne kobiety i przeciętnych mężczyzn."
Autorka posuwa się o krok dalej, tworząc wizję neutralnego płciowo społeczeństwa, bez określania i oceniania człowieka na podstawie płci. Dość ciekawa teoria, choć w moim przekonaniu utopijna.
"Sugeruję, żebyśmy dokonali świadomego wysiłku, by pozbyć się etykiet płciowych. To sprawi, że dzieci będą mogły wyrosnąć na pełnoprawnych ludzi, a nie będą wpychane do męskich lub damskich szufladek."
"Płeć i mózg" napisana jest bardzo przystępnym, zrozumiałym językiem i powinna spodobać się tym, którzy choć trochę interesują się tym tematem. Polecam.
April 11, 2022
Interesujące założenie o zlikwidowaniu płci jako rozróżniania ludzi. Bardzo spodobało mi się określenie mózg mozaikowaty.
Książka może być trudna w odbiorze dla osoby niezwiązanej z naukami medycznymi :(
Książka może być trudna w odbiorze dla osoby niezwiązanej z naukami medycznymi :(
November 12, 2019
This was a very interesting little book. I have never felt I fit terribly well into gender categories myself. I'm not a special class or anything . . . I'm just not . . . girly. Giggling girls talking about makeup and hair and nail polish always seemed like aliens. Or, really, since there were lots of them and only one of me, clearly I was the alien. But I certainly didn't want to be a boy either--I'm not athletic and I don't like to play in the dirt. So . . . I'm an alien there too. I also get annoyed when I hear all the stuff people say . . . "Women will never be equal in tech jobs because their brains are different. Women will never be the top earners because they are not cutthroat enough." Bleh. That's so dumb. This is a good book for that. Joel argues there certainly ARE differences in males and females--it's just that those differences are a patchwork, many different traits, some of whom a given man or woman may be "female" in and some in which they may be "male" so the idea that there is a "female brain" and a "male brain" is really just not correct at all. This was plenty freeing to me, a female who like to read and bake but not do nail polish or makeup. This was very enlightening and I enjoyed all but the last chapter . .. . when the author says the right thing to do is to get rid of gender as a concept entirely. I'm pretty sure that's not going to work. I'd be pretty happy with enough room in the categories that I . . . don't feel like an alien anymore. I'm against aggressively gendering everyone from prebirth, I think. (Enough with the crazy insane gender reveal parties, everyone.) But I don't know that we'll ever get to a nongendered society.
July 26, 2021
"Note-se que não estou a dizer que não existem diferenças entre o cérebro feminino e o masculino; pelo contrário, a minha equipa documentou muitas dessas diferenças, tal como outros cientistas. O que estou a argumentar é que tais diferenças se misturam em cada cérebro para criar um mosaico único de características, algumas das quais são mais comuns nas mulheres e outras mais comuns nos homens. Essa ideia anda de mãos dadas com aquilo que muitas pessoas já sabem, estou certa disso: que somos uma manta de retalhos de traços «femininos» e «masculinos». Contudo vai mais longe: sugere que um cérebro «masculino» ou «feminino» - ou uma natureza «masculina» ou «feminina» - é algo que não existe."
Página 14
Página 14
August 15, 2019
Thank you to Little, Brown and Company and NetGalley for providing an advance copy of this book in exchange for my honest review. The book will be published on September 17th, 2019.
This book was fantastic — one of the few I’ve read that managed to completely shift the way I thought about something because the clear evidence-based ideas made so much sense in an area that has been utterly confusing to me for a long time.
Beginning with scientific studies on the structure and function of brain components and their correlation with sex, the book proceeded to question our concepts of sex and gender and ended with a discussion of what the world would be like without gender at all. The main message: get rid of the gender binary — it’s artificial and not linked (on a group level) to anything biological. Or as the authors put it — “stop dividing people by their genitals.”
Quick definitions: sex is what you are born with: XX chromosomes (female), XY chromosomes (male), and less than 1% born intersex (a mix). Gender is a social construct — socially acceptable options used to be man and woman, but the latest number of options on Facebook is 58!
Some of the main points (each illustrated with anecdotes and substantiated with solid research findings):
• There is no such thing as a male brain or a female brain — each human brain is a unique mixture — or mosaic — of features traditionally thought of as “male” or “female.”
• While there are some structures and functions in the brain (and hormonal systems) that are on average different for males and females (for example, males on average are better at spatial rotation), individually people fall on a spectrum of values for that aspect of brain function. For example, many females will be better at spatial rotation than the average for a male and the overlap for potential spatial rotation capabilities between males and females may be quite large. Very few individuals have an “all male” or “all female” brain based on those averages.
• Brain systems are not static — many influences such as stress, competition, or even spending time with an infant can shift the level of hormones in the system — including the “big 3”: testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone.
• Bias -- often unintentional — exists. Most people do not want to be biased, and when it is pointed out to them in a non-confrontational and private way, they may even take steps to correct it.
The text is calm, measured, based on copious (and referenced) research and not political (thank you!). The examples and results from various research projects are absolutely fascinating. It is just technical enough to be interesting and sensical, but not overburdened by technical jargon that can muddy the point. The authors present a balanced view, explaining how gender norms can be problematic for both males and females, and they address many common questions and concerns that have been brought up during lectures. I really appreciated the non-confrontational approach to explaining bias and privilege.
On a personal level, I would be so much happier to get rid of thinking about gender at all rather than take on the cognitive load of trying to remember exactly which category each individual person wants to be part of for that particular day and having to use all the correct pronouns, names, and other associated gender paraphernalia. Wouldn’t it be easier to treat each person as an individual, complete with his or her (or some new pronoun) own preferences, habits, and interests? I know I was born female and never thought twice about it, but I never felt I was a “typical” woman — I hate shopping, don’t wear makeup, always paid my own way, and worked very comfortably in a male dominated field (computer science). I’m lucky that societal pressures never had much of an effect on me, but obviously it could have been much harder.
I underlined just about everything in this book, but here are some good quotes that I think get to the heart of their messages:
“Sex does affect the brain, and there are average differences between females and males in many brain features. But because of the interactions between sex and so many other factors, the effects of sex — that is, of being female or male — mix up in a unique way in the brain of each individual.”
“Even when they don’t find themselves in a shipwreck, men often get a raw deal by virtue of belonging to the group empowered by the patriarchal order. It is mostly men who die in droves in wars, are injured in work-related accidents, and feel compelled to become providers, often at the expense of following their hearts to a career in the arts or other non-bread-winning fields.”
“I hope that in the not-too-distant future, this idea will be taken for granted; that gender studies will be a history course; and that when the topic of gender comes up, children will need to ask their parents (or grandparents) to explain why on earth someone had once thought people had to be grouped by their genitals.”
“On the other hand, many people are happy to discover their own and others’ implicit biases, especially if you point these out to them in private and in a nonjudgemental manner (nasty comments on their Facebook wall are less likely to be welcomed). And if in the course of these revelations you become aware of the power or privileges granted to you by the gender system, why not use this power and these privileges to try to eliminate this system from our lives?”
“One objection that’s been raised at a lecture of mine is that even without gender, women and men would still behave differently because they differ biologically. I see no problem with that. On the contrary, if we believe that biology would drive the behavior of females and males apart, there’s surely no reason to introduce all those gender conventions to achieve the same end.”
“Gender is one of the prisons within which we live. It divides the world into things for males and things for females. And if we want things that are not on “our” side, we are punished by society.”
This book was fantastic — one of the few I’ve read that managed to completely shift the way I thought about something because the clear evidence-based ideas made so much sense in an area that has been utterly confusing to me for a long time.
Beginning with scientific studies on the structure and function of brain components and their correlation with sex, the book proceeded to question our concepts of sex and gender and ended with a discussion of what the world would be like without gender at all. The main message: get rid of the gender binary — it’s artificial and not linked (on a group level) to anything biological. Or as the authors put it — “stop dividing people by their genitals.”
Quick definitions: sex is what you are born with: XX chromosomes (female), XY chromosomes (male), and less than 1% born intersex (a mix). Gender is a social construct — socially acceptable options used to be man and woman, but the latest number of options on Facebook is 58!
Some of the main points (each illustrated with anecdotes and substantiated with solid research findings):
• There is no such thing as a male brain or a female brain — each human brain is a unique mixture — or mosaic — of features traditionally thought of as “male” or “female.”
• While there are some structures and functions in the brain (and hormonal systems) that are on average different for males and females (for example, males on average are better at spatial rotation), individually people fall on a spectrum of values for that aspect of brain function. For example, many females will be better at spatial rotation than the average for a male and the overlap for potential spatial rotation capabilities between males and females may be quite large. Very few individuals have an “all male” or “all female” brain based on those averages.
• Brain systems are not static — many influences such as stress, competition, or even spending time with an infant can shift the level of hormones in the system — including the “big 3”: testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone.
• Bias -- often unintentional — exists. Most people do not want to be biased, and when it is pointed out to them in a non-confrontational and private way, they may even take steps to correct it.
The text is calm, measured, based on copious (and referenced) research and not political (thank you!). The examples and results from various research projects are absolutely fascinating. It is just technical enough to be interesting and sensical, but not overburdened by technical jargon that can muddy the point. The authors present a balanced view, explaining how gender norms can be problematic for both males and females, and they address many common questions and concerns that have been brought up during lectures. I really appreciated the non-confrontational approach to explaining bias and privilege.
On a personal level, I would be so much happier to get rid of thinking about gender at all rather than take on the cognitive load of trying to remember exactly which category each individual person wants to be part of for that particular day and having to use all the correct pronouns, names, and other associated gender paraphernalia. Wouldn’t it be easier to treat each person as an individual, complete with his or her (or some new pronoun) own preferences, habits, and interests? I know I was born female and never thought twice about it, but I never felt I was a “typical” woman — I hate shopping, don’t wear makeup, always paid my own way, and worked very comfortably in a male dominated field (computer science). I’m lucky that societal pressures never had much of an effect on me, but obviously it could have been much harder.
I underlined just about everything in this book, but here are some good quotes that I think get to the heart of their messages:
“Sex does affect the brain, and there are average differences between females and males in many brain features. But because of the interactions between sex and so many other factors, the effects of sex — that is, of being female or male — mix up in a unique way in the brain of each individual.”
“Even when they don’t find themselves in a shipwreck, men often get a raw deal by virtue of belonging to the group empowered by the patriarchal order. It is mostly men who die in droves in wars, are injured in work-related accidents, and feel compelled to become providers, often at the expense of following their hearts to a career in the arts or other non-bread-winning fields.”
“I hope that in the not-too-distant future, this idea will be taken for granted; that gender studies will be a history course; and that when the topic of gender comes up, children will need to ask their parents (or grandparents) to explain why on earth someone had once thought people had to be grouped by their genitals.”
“On the other hand, many people are happy to discover their own and others’ implicit biases, especially if you point these out to them in private and in a nonjudgemental manner (nasty comments on their Facebook wall are less likely to be welcomed). And if in the course of these revelations you become aware of the power or privileges granted to you by the gender system, why not use this power and these privileges to try to eliminate this system from our lives?”
“One objection that’s been raised at a lecture of mine is that even without gender, women and men would still behave differently because they differ biologically. I see no problem with that. On the contrary, if we believe that biology would drive the behavior of females and males apart, there’s surely no reason to introduce all those gender conventions to achieve the same end.”
“Gender is one of the prisons within which we live. It divides the world into things for males and things for females. And if we want things that are not on “our” side, we are punished by society.”
January 1, 2023
Ciekawa, porusza dużo aspektów życia w społeczeństwie związanych z różnicą płci, bardzo feministyczna (ale w nienachalny sposób).Warto przed przeczytaniem przypomnieć sobie jak zbudowany jest mózg (chociaż autorki dość zrozumiale wszystko tłumaczą). Podoba mi się sformułowanie że każdy z nas ma mozaikowe cechy, ale nie do końca zgadzam się (a bardziej sobie tego nie wyobrażam) z wizją usunięcia płci ( na poziomie kulturowo-społecznym). Raczej książka nie dla każdego, ale ogólnie polecanko.
February 1, 2021
This is a perfectly fine book IF you skip the last few chapters.
Joel spends the first 3/4ths of this light and accessible book pointing to studies that debunk the myth of 'brain sex'. This is a much needed discussion these days; brain sex, never fully defeated in conservative circles, is being resurrected by the transgender movement to bolster the move into women's spaces and the silencing of women's voices.
But after doing all this work to disprove brain sex, Joel wraps up by informing us that she wants to throw out sexual dimorphism, too. In her own words, she wants to erase men and women, an idiotic idea if you think about it for more than two seconds. Men and women's physical differences (and the social inequality they face) mean they have very different needs and failing to acknowledge that does no one any favors (see also: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men). Indeed, if she wants to do away with all markers of sex, one wonders why she still refers to her family members with terms like 'son' and 'daughter.' After all, aren't terms like that forcing her children into boxes and depriving them of their freedom to...whatever? I'm being silly, of course, but she isn't.
The difference between sex and gender need to be discussed at length, and this is a nice discussion, if you stick to the science and ignore the author's hope and dreams.
Joel spends the first 3/4ths of this light and accessible book pointing to studies that debunk the myth of 'brain sex'. This is a much needed discussion these days; brain sex, never fully defeated in conservative circles, is being resurrected by the transgender movement to bolster the move into women's spaces and the silencing of women's voices.
But after doing all this work to disprove brain sex, Joel wraps up by informing us that she wants to throw out sexual dimorphism, too. In her own words, she wants to erase men and women, an idiotic idea if you think about it for more than two seconds. Men and women's physical differences (and the social inequality they face) mean they have very different needs and failing to acknowledge that does no one any favors (see also: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men). Indeed, if she wants to do away with all markers of sex, one wonders why she still refers to her family members with terms like 'son' and 'daughter.' After all, aren't terms like that forcing her children into boxes and depriving them of their freedom to...whatever? I'm being silly, of course, but she isn't.
The difference between sex and gender need to be discussed at length, and this is a nice discussion, if you stick to the science and ignore the author's hope and dreams.
July 20, 2022
polecam mysle
May 27, 2024
Trochę nie tego się spodziewałem, ale wciąż fajnie podejmuje temat
June 1, 2025
To było naprawdę ciekawe.
Na początku trochę mnie przytłoczyła liczbą neurobiologicznych faktów oraz tym, ile wymagała ode mnie skupienia (ale to też kwestia tego, że dawno nie czytałam książek popularnonaukowych). Jednak gdy już przyzwyczaiłam się do formy, byłam naprawdę zaintrygowana tym, co Daphna Joel ma mi do powiedzenia na temat płci. Badaczka prezentuje tu swoją autorską teorię odnośnie różnic międzypłciowych na poziomie mózgu - pojmowanie mózgu jako mozaiki różnych cech, stereotypowo męskich i stereotypowo żeńskich. Nie zaprzecza temu, że faktycznie część cech może występować częściej u mężczyzn albo u kobiet, jednak równie prawdopodobne jest to, że np. na poziomie jednostkowym dana cecha męska będzie wyraźniejsza u kobiety niż u mężczyzny w tym samym badaniu. Joel konfrontuje swoje wnioski z wieloma badaniami z dziedziny neurobiologii oraz psychologii rodzaju i przekonująco argumentuje, przekonuje czytelnika do swojej tezy, zachowując jednocześnie tyle obiektywizmu, na ile jest to możliwe w tej formie. Oczywiście, „Płeć i mózg” jest tendencyjną pozycją, bo ma być poparciem teorii naukowej autorki, jednak Joel zachowuje naukowe podejście i skupia się na faktach. Zdarzają się historyjki z jej życia albo anegdotki o znajomych, jednak one nie zaburzają lektury, tylko ciekawie przenoszą hipotezy naukowe na prozaiczne, codzienne życie.
Trochę zabrakło mi jeszcze pięćdziesięciu stron na temat mózgu i neurobiologii, bo jak na książkę o takim tytule, autorka poświęca temu tematowi dość mało miejsce. Druga połowa skupia się na płci w kategorii rodzaju, konstruktu społecznego, co również jest bardzo ciekawe (skończyłam właśnie przedmiot na studiach o tych zagadnieniach hah), jednak czułam niedosyt faktów na poziomie biologii. Część społeczna również napisana jest błyskotliwie, łatwiejszym stylem niż ta pierwsza i kilka razy zdołała wytrącić mnie z równowagi i skłonić do przemyśleń, a taki był cel. Bardzo to doceniam. Joel znowu skupia się na badaniach i obnażeniu mechanizmów, które sprawiają, że na podstawowym, codziennym poziomie stereotypy płciowe decydują o naszym podejściu do ludzi.
Warto zwrócić uwagę na to, że (oczywiście moim zdaniem) brakuje tu perspektywy międzykulturowej. Autorka przywołuje głównie badania z kręgu amerykańskiego, izraelskiego i zachodnioeuropejskiego (weird? weird hah), co zdecydowanie nie oddaje pełnego obrazu postrzegania płci na całym świecie. Rzuciło mi się to w oczy chociażby na przykładzie zwracania się do grup - Joel pisze o tym, że najczęściej spotyka się z formą „panowie i panie”, „koledzy i koleżanki”, a mam wrażenie (znowu, to moje myślenie może być skrzywione przez subiektywizm), że w Polsce częściej słyszy się „panie i panowie”, „koleżanki i koledzy”, co wynika z życzliwego seksizmu, przekonania, że kobietom należy się większa uprzejmość, szacunek, rzucanie kwiatków pod nogi.
Zabrakło mi spojrzenia na problem z perspektywy kolektywistycznej czy seksizmu ambiwalentnego, ale może w tej pozycji nie znalazło się na to miejsce (jest ona jednak dość krótka).
Bardzo doceniam i na pewno poczytam więcej o mozaice mózgowej, bo ta teoria wydaje się przekonująca. :3
Na początku trochę mnie przytłoczyła liczbą neurobiologicznych faktów oraz tym, ile wymagała ode mnie skupienia (ale to też kwestia tego, że dawno nie czytałam książek popularnonaukowych). Jednak gdy już przyzwyczaiłam się do formy, byłam naprawdę zaintrygowana tym, co Daphna Joel ma mi do powiedzenia na temat płci. Badaczka prezentuje tu swoją autorską teorię odnośnie różnic międzypłciowych na poziomie mózgu - pojmowanie mózgu jako mozaiki różnych cech, stereotypowo męskich i stereotypowo żeńskich. Nie zaprzecza temu, że faktycznie część cech może występować częściej u mężczyzn albo u kobiet, jednak równie prawdopodobne jest to, że np. na poziomie jednostkowym dana cecha męska będzie wyraźniejsza u kobiety niż u mężczyzny w tym samym badaniu. Joel konfrontuje swoje wnioski z wieloma badaniami z dziedziny neurobiologii oraz psychologii rodzaju i przekonująco argumentuje, przekonuje czytelnika do swojej tezy, zachowując jednocześnie tyle obiektywizmu, na ile jest to możliwe w tej formie. Oczywiście, „Płeć i mózg” jest tendencyjną pozycją, bo ma być poparciem teorii naukowej autorki, jednak Joel zachowuje naukowe podejście i skupia się na faktach. Zdarzają się historyjki z jej życia albo anegdotki o znajomych, jednak one nie zaburzają lektury, tylko ciekawie przenoszą hipotezy naukowe na prozaiczne, codzienne życie.
Trochę zabrakło mi jeszcze pięćdziesięciu stron na temat mózgu i neurobiologii, bo jak na książkę o takim tytule, autorka poświęca temu tematowi dość mało miejsce. Druga połowa skupia się na płci w kategorii rodzaju, konstruktu społecznego, co również jest bardzo ciekawe (skończyłam właśnie przedmiot na studiach o tych zagadnieniach hah), jednak czułam niedosyt faktów na poziomie biologii. Część społeczna również napisana jest błyskotliwie, łatwiejszym stylem niż ta pierwsza i kilka razy zdołała wytrącić mnie z równowagi i skłonić do przemyśleń, a taki był cel. Bardzo to doceniam. Joel znowu skupia się na badaniach i obnażeniu mechanizmów, które sprawiają, że na podstawowym, codziennym poziomie stereotypy płciowe decydują o naszym podejściu do ludzi.
Warto zwrócić uwagę na to, że (oczywiście moim zdaniem) brakuje tu perspektywy międzykulturowej. Autorka przywołuje głównie badania z kręgu amerykańskiego, izraelskiego i zachodnioeuropejskiego (weird? weird hah), co zdecydowanie nie oddaje pełnego obrazu postrzegania płci na całym świecie. Rzuciło mi się to w oczy chociażby na przykładzie zwracania się do grup - Joel pisze o tym, że najczęściej spotyka się z formą „panowie i panie”, „koledzy i koleżanki”, a mam wrażenie (znowu, to moje myślenie może być skrzywione przez subiektywizm), że w Polsce częściej słyszy się „panie i panowie”, „koleżanki i koledzy”, co wynika z życzliwego seksizmu, przekonania, że kobietom należy się większa uprzejmość, szacunek, rzucanie kwiatków pod nogi.
Zabrakło mi spojrzenia na problem z perspektywy kolektywistycznej czy seksizmu ambiwalentnego, ale może w tej pozycji nie znalazło się na to miejsce (jest ona jednak dość krótka).
Bardzo doceniam i na pewno poczytam więcej o mozaice mózgowej, bo ta teoria wydaje się przekonująca. :3
Read
September 18, 2019What a fascinating book! I really enjoyed this look at how everyone is made up of "feminine" and "masculine" components and that there truly is not "male brain" and "female brain." I especially loved how instead of just presenting this data, the author goes further and dissects the implications of this information on our society and how we raise/ talk to children. It's short, interesting, and definitely worth checking out!
October 15, 2019
This book is ok. The first half is a fairly convincing argument for the idea that there aren’t “male” or “female” brains, but brains with a mosaic of traits. I guess the gist is that there ARE differences between male and female brains but they don’t add up to a MALE and FEMALE brain. The second half of the book consists of citation-free musings of gender and how we should be working towards a future in which “genitals are unimportant.” Meh. Unconvinced.
September 2, 2024
Este livro tem uma parte de sustentação científica da abolição do género binário, que é boa. E uma parte (metade do livro) que é basicamente um manifesto, algo que já não gostei tanto - as mudanças de paradigma devem trazer argumentos associados, e não apenas uma vontade de mudança.
Provavelmente teria gostado mais se não passasse dias inteiros a ler artigos científicos. A espaços achei que a autora andava em círculos constantes e numa repetição desnecessária de argumentos.
Já agora, este livro traduz o nome da cidade Utrecht para Utreque.
Provavelmente teria gostado mais se não passasse dias inteiros a ler artigos científicos. A espaços achei que a autora andava em círculos constantes e numa repetição desnecessária de argumentos.
Já agora, este livro traduz o nome da cidade Utrecht para Utreque.
August 30, 2023
zdecydowanie za krótka!
October 7, 2019
[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]
That was pretty much preaching to the choir here, so I’ll admit my bias from the beginning—I’m absolutely not convinced, science or no science, that gender has very legitimate foundations, and that your genitals determine how you behave, what you like, who you are, and so on. It doesn’t make sense to me that so many people insist putting everybody in a tidy little “man OR woman” box (and when you stand out of the box, you’d think it threatens the very foundations of -their- identity, which makes me think that there’s something fishy here anyway). So, I was definitely interested in reading more about this concept of gender mosaic, and… well, -this-, on the other hand, makes sense to me.
“Gender Mosaic” explores the binary perception of gender, how people in general tend to ascribe this behaviour as “masculine” and that behaviour as “feminine”, but also how we’re actually very, very seldom made of only masculine or only feminine traits. Most people have a bit of both, but due to the importance placed on gender (re: the little boxes I mentioned), what is seen as “deviations from the perceived norm” is usually also seen as something to stamp out, to hide, to reject (another of these things that make no sense to me: what does it matter that a little boy likes playing with dolls? What’s so frightening about it? That this kid will become a good father later?). Our genitals are part of our biology, sure, but they’re not the only factor that plays a part in how our brains develop: it’s not only about hormones, it’s also about external influences, social ones, stress, etc. Especially stress: this isn’t something I would have researched in relation to gender, not at first sight, and yet, in hindsight, studies that focus on this don’t look out of place.
Which begs the question: what truly affects us? Does a man behave “like a man “because he was born with a penis, or because external (social) pressures exerted on him since birth have affected him? If “boys don’t cry”, is it because they can’t (beats me why they have tear ducts, then), or because they are repeatedly told almost since birth that “real men don’t cry” (and shunned accordingly if they dare cry)? Are girls naturally better at cooking because they have a vagina, or because they’ve been traditionally stuck into staying at home and cooking? Are such differences between genders valid, or are they here in the first place because social expectations have increased them? And what of people whose traits don't lean enough towards one gender—too often, they're dismissed and conflated into the gender other people think is theirs, and this is harmful. A mosaic is a much healthier approach to this, to understanding what makes us human first and foremost.
Having a look at the various studies referenced throughout the book, I don’t think I’m an exception in leaning towards the latter explanations rather than the former ones. Said studies are also quoted in understandable, laypeople terms, and I found their relevance easy to grasp. Finally, I liked that “Gender Mosaic” discusses the scientific side, but also goes further in exploring what it means from a societal point of view: how we raise children, especially, and how so many pervasive behaviours that look “innocent” are actually deeply biased.
While I enjoyed these aspects, though, I’d also have liked seeing more clarity in terms of actual differences. “Men are like this and women are like that” arguments are all too easily used to claim that “men are superior to women” or “women make better parents”. However, science has also shown that there are physiological differences (not necessarily in brains—for instance, the way symptoms announcing impending cardiac arrest aren’t exactly the same in women as in men, causing too many of the former to be misdiagnosed, just like “male” is still too often used as the default template for “human” in many medical studies). It’s not that “Gender Mosaic” doesn’t mention it at all, but I found the line a little blurred here. For me, the problem is with gender (= the social & formative aspect, what it imposes on human beings, how it shapes them through peer pressure), which doesn’t mean that sex (the biological/genetical aspect) should be downplayed. I think the book wasn’t too clear on that, or perhaps went a little too quickly about it, and as a result, it would be easy to misunderstand it in parts.
This said, when it comes to genders, behaviours perceived as associated to genders—then, yes, my own perception of it, my own experience, definitely point me towards “this is indeed blurry, because we’re not made of all or nothing, and that blurriness is expected”.
That was pretty much preaching to the choir here, so I’ll admit my bias from the beginning—I’m absolutely not convinced, science or no science, that gender has very legitimate foundations, and that your genitals determine how you behave, what you like, who you are, and so on. It doesn’t make sense to me that so many people insist putting everybody in a tidy little “man OR woman” box (and when you stand out of the box, you’d think it threatens the very foundations of -their- identity, which makes me think that there’s something fishy here anyway). So, I was definitely interested in reading more about this concept of gender mosaic, and… well, -this-, on the other hand, makes sense to me.
“Gender Mosaic” explores the binary perception of gender, how people in general tend to ascribe this behaviour as “masculine” and that behaviour as “feminine”, but also how we’re actually very, very seldom made of only masculine or only feminine traits. Most people have a bit of both, but due to the importance placed on gender (re: the little boxes I mentioned), what is seen as “deviations from the perceived norm” is usually also seen as something to stamp out, to hide, to reject (another of these things that make no sense to me: what does it matter that a little boy likes playing with dolls? What’s so frightening about it? That this kid will become a good father later?). Our genitals are part of our biology, sure, but they’re not the only factor that plays a part in how our brains develop: it’s not only about hormones, it’s also about external influences, social ones, stress, etc. Especially stress: this isn’t something I would have researched in relation to gender, not at first sight, and yet, in hindsight, studies that focus on this don’t look out of place.
Which begs the question: what truly affects us? Does a man behave “like a man “because he was born with a penis, or because external (social) pressures exerted on him since birth have affected him? If “boys don’t cry”, is it because they can’t (beats me why they have tear ducts, then), or because they are repeatedly told almost since birth that “real men don’t cry” (and shunned accordingly if they dare cry)? Are girls naturally better at cooking because they have a vagina, or because they’ve been traditionally stuck into staying at home and cooking? Are such differences between genders valid, or are they here in the first place because social expectations have increased them? And what of people whose traits don't lean enough towards one gender—too often, they're dismissed and conflated into the gender other people think is theirs, and this is harmful. A mosaic is a much healthier approach to this, to understanding what makes us human first and foremost.
Having a look at the various studies referenced throughout the book, I don’t think I’m an exception in leaning towards the latter explanations rather than the former ones. Said studies are also quoted in understandable, laypeople terms, and I found their relevance easy to grasp. Finally, I liked that “Gender Mosaic” discusses the scientific side, but also goes further in exploring what it means from a societal point of view: how we raise children, especially, and how so many pervasive behaviours that look “innocent” are actually deeply biased.
While I enjoyed these aspects, though, I’d also have liked seeing more clarity in terms of actual differences. “Men are like this and women are like that” arguments are all too easily used to claim that “men are superior to women” or “women make better parents”. However, science has also shown that there are physiological differences (not necessarily in brains—for instance, the way symptoms announcing impending cardiac arrest aren’t exactly the same in women as in men, causing too many of the former to be misdiagnosed, just like “male” is still too often used as the default template for “human” in many medical studies). It’s not that “Gender Mosaic” doesn’t mention it at all, but I found the line a little blurred here. For me, the problem is with gender (= the social & formative aspect, what it imposes on human beings, how it shapes them through peer pressure), which doesn’t mean that sex (the biological/genetical aspect) should be downplayed. I think the book wasn’t too clear on that, or perhaps went a little too quickly about it, and as a result, it would be easy to misunderstand it in parts.
This said, when it comes to genders, behaviours perceived as associated to genders—then, yes, my own perception of it, my own experience, definitely point me towards “this is indeed blurry, because we’re not made of all or nothing, and that blurriness is expected”.
December 6, 2021
I am conflicted about this book. I buy the argument that we are all mosaics of skills, attributes, aptitudes, predilections, and inclinations. That there is a greater range within a gender than there is a difference between genders. But my experience of my gender is more about how I relate to other people, and how I want them to relate to me. This author has spent her career testing whether the are gender based differences in societal roles and has not found a difference that has a distinctive sex-based difference. She would like to elimiate the notion of gender-based differences and biases.
March 26, 2025
I borrowed this from a B&N when I was 17 and read it on a flight and gave up on gender immediately and forever
July 3, 2020
This work highlights the many biases and stereotypes of gender, and how gender inequity is still being touted utilizing brain science. The author argues that there is no such thing as a male or female brain. Mosaic features in every brain allow for a unique mixture of masculine and feminine traits. This work highlights how science has been manipulated and used to serve a social and political agenda of men being the superior sex. I think this work is interesting and discusses gender with the gender binary, but recognizes a future wherein gender is seen as outside of a binary understanding and also recognized gender non-binary community. This work often challenges the notion of innate gender traits based on sex, and in fact notes how stress can alter how traits present themselves. Overall this is a short and engaging read that o would recommend particularly to folks who may be trying to understand neurological traits.
June 2, 2022
Estava com boas expetativas para este livro mas fiquei um bocado desiludido.
Sinto que o tópico é muito interessante e atual mas que não foi explorado da melhor forma.
Ainda assim recomendo para quem quer saber mais sobre as diferenças entre os géneros.
Sinto que o tópico é muito interessante e atual mas que não foi explorado da melhor forma.
Ainda assim recomendo para quem quer saber mais sobre as diferenças entre os géneros.
September 4, 2023
nie sądzę że kiedykolwiek to skończę, bo mimo że temat bardzo ciekawy, to mam wrażenie że przez cały czas czytałam dokładnie te same informacje tylko ujęte innymi słowami
January 4, 2025
"A los argumentos que afirman que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales o diferentes, siempre respondo: ni lo uno ni lo otro. Todos somos diferentes."
Aunque es algo en lo que suelo reflexionar a menudo, pocas veces profundizo tanto en el significado de dividir a los seres humanos por género y su impacto diario.
Sin ir más lejos, ayer fui con mi hermana a una tienda de ropa, evidentemente dividida en zona de hombre y zona de mujer, y ambos acabamos comprando en la zona de hombre. ¿Quiere decir esto que ella compró en la zona equivocada? Citando este libro: "Todo lo que ames y hagas, si es apropiado para los seres humanos, es apropiado para ti."
Las conclusiones que saco de este libro son:
1. Que el cerebro humano es un mosaico de características, tanto las socialmente conocidas como «masculinas» y «femeninas», por lo que podemos considerar que la mayoría de los cerebros son «intersexuales».
2. "A veces, poco importa la naturaleza de los descubrimientos científicos, ya que pocas veces se interpretan de forma que puedan ser contrarios a los estereotipos de género dominantes."
3. En consecuencia, la sociedad ha moldeado las expectativas de hombres y mujeres para imponerles restricciones de género preexistentes, y nos iría mejor si elimináramos el género por completo.
4. "El planteamiento binario impide el progreso de la investigación científica precisamente porque desvía nuestra atención hacia categorías de sexo y género y nos aleja de lo que realmente sucede en el cuerpo humano."
Tal vez mi nota esté condicionada por mi conocimiento previo sobre estos temas, ya que me ha faltado más impacto en la lectura y en los temas abordados. A veces he sentido que era un poco repetitivo y que profundizaba en temas que no tenían que ver con la premisa inicial.
No obstante, me ha encantado saber más sobre conceptos como la "amenaza de estereotipo" o los resultados de investigaciones que no tienen en cuenta el género como una variable.
Se trata de una lectura bastante instructiva que se lee en un suspiro y tiene enfoques terapéutico, social y feminista.
Aunque es algo en lo que suelo reflexionar a menudo, pocas veces profundizo tanto en el significado de dividir a los seres humanos por género y su impacto diario.
Sin ir más lejos, ayer fui con mi hermana a una tienda de ropa, evidentemente dividida en zona de hombre y zona de mujer, y ambos acabamos comprando en la zona de hombre. ¿Quiere decir esto que ella compró en la zona equivocada? Citando este libro: "Todo lo que ames y hagas, si es apropiado para los seres humanos, es apropiado para ti."
Las conclusiones que saco de este libro son:
1. Que el cerebro humano es un mosaico de características, tanto las socialmente conocidas como «masculinas» y «femeninas», por lo que podemos considerar que la mayoría de los cerebros son «intersexuales».
2. "A veces, poco importa la naturaleza de los descubrimientos científicos, ya que pocas veces se interpretan de forma que puedan ser contrarios a los estereotipos de género dominantes."
3. En consecuencia, la sociedad ha moldeado las expectativas de hombres y mujeres para imponerles restricciones de género preexistentes, y nos iría mejor si elimináramos el género por completo.
4. "El planteamiento binario impide el progreso de la investigación científica precisamente porque desvía nuestra atención hacia categorías de sexo y género y nos aleja de lo que realmente sucede en el cuerpo humano."
Tal vez mi nota esté condicionada por mi conocimiento previo sobre estos temas, ya que me ha faltado más impacto en la lectura y en los temas abordados. A veces he sentido que era un poco repetitivo y que profundizaba en temas que no tenían que ver con la premisa inicial.
No obstante, me ha encantado saber más sobre conceptos como la "amenaza de estereotipo" o los resultados de investigaciones que no tienen en cuenta el género como una variable.
Se trata de una lectura bastante instructiva que se lee en un suspiro y tiene enfoques terapéutico, social y feminista.
March 19, 2022
Od razu ostrzegam, że jeśli ktoś nastawił się na historię o wielkim naukowcu, który odkrył Amerykę, będzie nieco zawiedziony. Odkryć będzie tutaj co nie miara, jednak nie ma tutaj miejsca na jakąkolwiek fabułę.
Odważyłabym się napisać, że "Płeć i mózg. Historia przekręconych faktów", której autorkami są Daphna Joel i Luba Vikhanski, jest pozycją przeznaczoną dla osób, które faktycznie interesują się działaniem mózgu i jego specyfikacją.
Książka ta jest napisana bardzo przystępnym językiem, jednak jeśli kogoś nie interesuje temat płci biologiczne, kulturowo-społecznej oraz mozaikowego mózgu, a także płci człowieka, to raczej nie przypadnie mu do gustu ta lektura.
Jest tutaj sporo naukowych materiałów, do których sami będziecie mogli sięgnąć. Lista przypisów liczy sobie dziewiętnaście stron, a jeśli dodać do tego podziękowania, publikacje autorek, indeks oraz listę lektur wartych przeczytania, to liczba ta wzrasta do czterdziestu czterech stron!
"Płeć i mózg. Historia przekręconych faktów", której autorkami są Daphna Joel i Luba Vikhanski to książka, o której ciężko cokolwiek napisać. Zauważyłam, że duży nacisk kładło się tutaj na to, by przestać określać i oceniać człowieka na podstawie płci. Od zarania dziejów jest to coś, co jedynie utrudnia, a nie ułatwia życie społeczeństwu.
"Jedna z nauczycielek zdała sobie sprawę z tego, że pomaga zakładać kurtki chłopcom, nim wyjdą na zewnątrz, ale oczekiwała, że dziewczynki ubiorą się same."
Ciężko jest odbiec od stereotypu, że pewne zawody powinny wykonywać jedynie kobiety, a inne mężczyźni. Gdzie w tym wszystkim znajdują się osoby homoseksualne, biseksualne, te, które nie czują potrzeby określenia własnej płci itd.?
KONTYNUACJA RECENZJI AN BLOGU:
https://oxfordka.blogspot.com/2022/03...
Odważyłabym się napisać, że "Płeć i mózg. Historia przekręconych faktów", której autorkami są Daphna Joel i Luba Vikhanski, jest pozycją przeznaczoną dla osób, które faktycznie interesują się działaniem mózgu i jego specyfikacją.
Książka ta jest napisana bardzo przystępnym językiem, jednak jeśli kogoś nie interesuje temat płci biologiczne, kulturowo-społecznej oraz mozaikowego mózgu, a także płci człowieka, to raczej nie przypadnie mu do gustu ta lektura.
Jest tutaj sporo naukowych materiałów, do których sami będziecie mogli sięgnąć. Lista przypisów liczy sobie dziewiętnaście stron, a jeśli dodać do tego podziękowania, publikacje autorek, indeks oraz listę lektur wartych przeczytania, to liczba ta wzrasta do czterdziestu czterech stron!
"Płeć i mózg. Historia przekręconych faktów", której autorkami są Daphna Joel i Luba Vikhanski to książka, o której ciężko cokolwiek napisać. Zauważyłam, że duży nacisk kładło się tutaj na to, by przestać określać i oceniać człowieka na podstawie płci. Od zarania dziejów jest to coś, co jedynie utrudnia, a nie ułatwia życie społeczeństwu.
"Jedna z nauczycielek zdała sobie sprawę z tego, że pomaga zakładać kurtki chłopcom, nim wyjdą na zewnątrz, ale oczekiwała, że dziewczynki ubiorą się same."
Ciężko jest odbiec od stereotypu, że pewne zawody powinny wykonywać jedynie kobiety, a inne mężczyźni. Gdzie w tym wszystkim znajdują się osoby homoseksualne, biseksualne, te, które nie czują potrzeby określenia własnej płci itd.?
KONTYNUACJA RECENZJI AN BLOGU:
https://oxfordka.blogspot.com/2022/03...
November 7, 2019
This is Nonfiction Science. I enjoy books in these particular genres. I just didn't enjoy this particular book. It was dry and even when I got to the end, I didn't feel like I had gained anything useful. I listened to the audio and that could have contributed to me being bored. It was simply read. So 2 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews