I have mixed feelings about this book. I'm thrilled that the author wrote it - I think hormones and reproductive health and birth control are all massively understudied subjects, and ones that the public tends to massively misunderstand. It's nice to see this type of work laid out in fairly simple (if sometimes a bit condescending) language. Hill takes a feminist approach to her concerns about birth control, and her acknowledgement of the importance of the pill for many young folks who are trying not to get pregnant is a huge point in her favour. She notes that the pill has allowed financial, educational, and relationship freedom for many people who would otherwise not have it, and she's absolutely right. I think she's also absolutely right in her main stance: that taking the pill is a much more significant choice than most of us realize and that the powerful hormonal changes induced by the pill are not to be taken lightly.
But the devil's in the details. I have the same degrees and similar research training as Hill, and I've read most of the work she cites in the first half of the book. My understanding of that material, and of psychology research in general, makes me seriously question the way the author makes her case.
And she is, indeed, making a case. Many of my issues with this book stem from the fact that Hill is just too invested in her hypothesis to tell a balanced story. She starts the book by comparing cultural vs. evolutionary explanations for behaviour, suggesting that, "The 'women as a cultural construction' perspective describes women as passive receptacle [sic] of social roles imposed on us by men. The evolutionary biological perspective describes women as being the benefactors of millions of years of inherited wisdom from our female ancestors." Ugh, stop. Literally all we're talking about is what things influence behaviour, and we know from decades of research that the answer is almost certainly "both", so let's stop twisting words around to make one sound more appealing or politically correct.
Similarly, Hill will spend three pages talking about a study that found significant differences in women's behaviour based on their pill usage, and then throw in a one-line footnote saying that several other studies haven't found this effect at all. Um, what? Maybe tell us about those too?? As if to illustrate her perspective on this, late in the book, Hill tells us that "research has a high failure rate", and that experiments that don't find significant effects are worth "doodly-squat". Listen, academia certainly has a file-drawer problem, but this attitude of non-significant findings being viewed as "failure" is EXACTLY why that problem persists.
Hill also does a lot of speculating in this book, and some of it based on pretty shaky theoretical ground. She does at least acknowledge that it's all speculation, but still - it seems borderline irresponsible to publish a book intended for the less-educated masses to consume, establish yourself as an authority that they should trust, and then start wildly conjecturing about things you think might be true but which no one has any data to support.
And finally, Hill doesn't acknowledge until 70% of the way through that most of the science in this book is pseudo-experimental. After 179 pages, she finally notes that most studies on the pill do not involve random assignment, and therefore, we can't conclusively say that birth control "causes" much of anything. (Of course, carefully controlled studies and thoughtful research design can be the next best thing in establishing causality, but as far as I can tell most of these studies did not address 3rd variable problems in a satisfactory way). I cannot imagine why Hill would have waited so long to discuss this, when it is crucial to understanding the studies presented throughout the book.
Like I said: I actually agree with Hill's main point here. I think that behind all the conjecturing and cherry picking, there's some real cause for concern regarding the long-term and wide-ranging effects of birth control pills. So why hide your message behind all of that? Why spend all this time and energy twisting the message to sound more convincing when it was already pretty convincing in the first place?
(Also, other reviewers have noted that this book is heteronormative and cisnormative as hell, and they are not wrong. I'll leave it to folks more well-versed in that area to cover this, since this review is already long, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of gender essentialism going on and only a meek 1-page conciliatory note for people who "colour outside the lines" to counteract that.)