What do you think?
Rate this book
Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex from Animals
Scientific discoveries about the animal kingdom fuel ideological battles on many fronts, especially battles about sex and gender. We now know that male marmosets help take care of their offspring. Is this heartening news for today's stay-at-home dads? Recent studies show that many female birds once thought to be monogamous actually have chicks that are fathered outside the primary breeding pair. Does this information spell doom for traditional marriages? And bonobo apes take part in female-female sexual encounters. Does this mean that human homosexuality is natural? This highly provocative book clearly shows that these are the wrong kinds of questions to ask about animal behavior. Marlene Zuk, a respected biologist and a feminist, gives an eye-opening tour of some of the latest developments in our knowledge of animal sexuality and evolutionary biology. Sexual Selections exposes the anthropomorphism and gender politics that have colored our understanding of the natural world and shows how feminism can help move us away from our ideological biases.
As she tells many amazing stories about animal behavior--whether of birds and apes or of rats and cockroaches--Zuk takes us to the places where our ideas about nature, gender, and culture collide. Writing in an engaging, conversational style, she discusses such politically charged topics as motherhood, the genetic basis for adultery, the female orgasm, menstruation, and homosexuality. She shows how feminism can give us the tools to examine sensitive issues such as these and to enhance our understanding of the natural world if we avoid using research to champion a feminist agenda and avoid using animals as ideological weapons.
Zuk passionately asks us to learn to see the animal world on its own terms, with its splendid array of diversity and variation. This knowledge will give us a better understanding of animals and can ultimately change our assumptions about what is natural, normal, and even possible.
As she tells many amazing stories about animal behavior--whether of birds and apes or of rats and cockroaches--Zuk takes us to the places where our ideas about nature, gender, and culture collide. Writing in an engaging, conversational style, she discusses such politically charged topics as motherhood, the genetic basis for adultery, the female orgasm, menstruation, and homosexuality. She shows how feminism can give us the tools to examine sensitive issues such as these and to enhance our understanding of the natural world if we avoid using research to champion a feminist agenda and avoid using animals as ideological weapons.
Zuk passionately asks us to learn to see the animal world on its own terms, with its splendid array of diversity and variation. This knowledge will give us a better understanding of animals and can ultimately change our assumptions about what is natural, normal, and even possible.
251 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
7 people are currently reading
234 people want to read
About the author
Marlene Zuk
18 books58 followersMarlene Zuk is an American evolutionary biologist and behavioral ecologist. She worked as professor of biology at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) until she transferred to the University of Minnesota in 2012. Her studies involve sexual selection and parasites.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 19, 2022
all of us, scientists, social scientists, and the general public, cannot seem to help relating animal behavior to human behavior. The lens of our own self-interest not only distorts what we see when we look at other animals, it also in important ways determines what we do not see, what we are blind to.
...
the natural world is much more interesting and varied than we are often willing to recognize... if we try to use animal behavior in a simplistic manner to reflect on human behavior, we will, in myriad ways, misperceive both. One way we do this is to interpret animal behavior in terms of stereotypical idas about human society.
One example: Darwin identified the role of female choice in natural selection, but his conclusions were rejected at the time because Victorians couldn't accept the idea of female sexual desire and choice. They also rejected the idea that animals could make the sort of aesthetic distinction Darwin claimed they did, arguing that even among humans only the upper classes were advanced enough to have aesthetic taste.
This a very interesting and readable book, balancing general principles and suppositions with biological observations (of humans as well as other animals).
...
the natural world is much more interesting and varied than we are often willing to recognize... if we try to use animal behavior in a simplistic manner to reflect on human behavior, we will, in myriad ways, misperceive both. One way we do this is to interpret animal behavior in terms of stereotypical idas about human society.
One example: Darwin identified the role of female choice in natural selection, but his conclusions were rejected at the time because Victorians couldn't accept the idea of female sexual desire and choice. They also rejected the idea that animals could make the sort of aesthetic distinction Darwin claimed they did, arguing that even among humans only the upper classes were advanced enough to have aesthetic taste.
This a very interesting and readable book, balancing general principles and suppositions with biological observations (of humans as well as other animals).
May 8, 2019
Marlene Zuk - a self-labeled feminist biologist - does a very good job in describing sexual behaviours in both humans and animals, and draws reasonable conclusions about similarities and differences. A great summary is written on the very last page:
"Men and women are not the same, from the standpoint of either physiology or evolution. Neither are male and female goldfish, or fruit flies, or weasels. But this does not mean that men and women do not deserve to be treated equally. At the same time, we can achieve equality without becoming sexual separatists."
Sexual Selections brings up a lot of interesting topics. One of my favorite quotes:
"...that some species of snakes form writhing balls of mating individuals must imply that - what? Orgies are natural? Sexually voracious females are to be applauded? There is not a moral to every story in animal behavior."
This is actually a reoccurring topic in the book - whether it's reasonable or not to claim that a behaviour is natural for us humans just because it exists in some animals. The writer thinks the answer most of the time is no. Or to be more precise, it is not accurate to draw moral conclusions for humanity based on observations of the animal kingdom. I personally find that to be very reasonable.
However, there's one part in the book in which the author makes an interesting claim when talking about the complexity of different sciences:
"We say, "It's not rocket science" to mean that something is not difficult, the assumption being that rocket science requires a lot of mathematical reasoning, which by definition means it must be hard. We don't say, "It's not sonnet writing," even though most people would have at least as hard a time writing a decent sonnet as sending a space shuttle into the sky."
This was quite the trigger for me, and I'm only saying it in a half-jokingly fashion. Writing beautiful poetry might not be something I'm an expert on, but actually, I'm not too good at sending rockets to space either - so hence I should come from a pretty unbiased point of view. So let's be frank. Rocket science is harder, it's way more complex to send an object into space than to scribble a few words on paper - no matter how beautiful they may be. There, I said it. The points being made in the chapter still stands, but I just couldn't let such a sacrilege go unmentioned.
Jokes aside, I really enjoyed this book and learned a lot reading it.
"Men and women are not the same, from the standpoint of either physiology or evolution. Neither are male and female goldfish, or fruit flies, or weasels. But this does not mean that men and women do not deserve to be treated equally. At the same time, we can achieve equality without becoming sexual separatists."
Sexual Selections brings up a lot of interesting topics. One of my favorite quotes:
"...that some species of snakes form writhing balls of mating individuals must imply that - what? Orgies are natural? Sexually voracious females are to be applauded? There is not a moral to every story in animal behavior."
This is actually a reoccurring topic in the book - whether it's reasonable or not to claim that a behaviour is natural for us humans just because it exists in some animals. The writer thinks the answer most of the time is no. Or to be more precise, it is not accurate to draw moral conclusions for humanity based on observations of the animal kingdom. I personally find that to be very reasonable.
However, there's one part in the book in which the author makes an interesting claim when talking about the complexity of different sciences:
"We say, "It's not rocket science" to mean that something is not difficult, the assumption being that rocket science requires a lot of mathematical reasoning, which by definition means it must be hard. We don't say, "It's not sonnet writing," even though most people would have at least as hard a time writing a decent sonnet as sending a space shuttle into the sky."
This was quite the trigger for me, and I'm only saying it in a half-jokingly fashion. Writing beautiful poetry might not be something I'm an expert on, but actually, I'm not too good at sending rockets to space either - so hence I should come from a pretty unbiased point of view. So let's be frank. Rocket science is harder, it's way more complex to send an object into space than to scribble a few words on paper - no matter how beautiful they may be. There, I said it. The points being made in the chapter still stands, but I just couldn't let such a sacrilege go unmentioned.
Jokes aside, I really enjoyed this book and learned a lot reading it.
September 3, 2019
Reconciling feminism and evolutionary biology
University of California, Riverside biology professor Marlene Zuk, whose specialty is insects, especially crickets, makes two main points in this modest volume. One, what is "natural" as observed in nature is not necessary right and should not be used as a guide for human society; and two, how we interpret the behavior of animals is colored by our biases, both anthropomorphic and male-gendered.
Professor Zuk writes from the avowed position of a feminist, although she makes it clear that she is not an "ecofeminist" nor does she agree with those feminists who believe that the exercise of science and "attempts to study the world are just culturally derived exercises relevant only in a certain social context." (p. 16)
In other words, Zuk wants to reconcile the ways of science, especially evolutionary biology, to feminists while pointing out to biologists that many of their preconceptions contain a male bias. She recalls a poem from A.E. Housman that includes the phrase "witless nature" which she takes as a cornerstone for her position. Nature "is not kind, not cruel, not red in tooth and claw, nor benign in its ministrations. It is utterly, absolutely impartial." (p. 15)
From this it follows (for most of us anyway) that we should not draw moral conclusions about how people should behave, nor should we form notions of what is "right" or "wrong" from observations of nature. This is a position that most professionals in evolutionary biology today appreciate, although this was not always the case, as Zuk is quick to remind us. She sees the antiquated notion of scala naturae (from Aristotle) which puts humans at the pinnacle of evolution as part of the reason for the errors of the past. Humans were seen as the positive norm, and to the extent that the behavior of other animals deviated from that they were inferior. Zuk also points to a "male model in biology" assumed by biologists (consciously or unconsciously), as an addition source of bias. She points to the idea that males are more aggressive than females as an example of an unwarranted preconception.
My experience (for what it's worth--I coached girl's basketball some years ago, and believe me the girls were very aggressive), and from what I know of aggressiveness theoretically, suggests that females are indeed just as aggressive as males in going after what they want. The reason that women use violence (a kind of aggressiveness) less than men do has to do with social conditioning of course, but also with the fact that a woman's reproductive capability is seldom if ever enhanced by the use of physical force while a male may use force to his reproductive advantage. In the case of non-human animals I am thinking especially of male lions killing the cubs of another male to bring the female into estrus. In the case of humans I am thinking of human males using the spoils of war to gain access to females and to nurture their offspring. (I am not thinking of rape since that sort of unsocial, high-risk behavior seldom leads to successful reproduction; more often it leads to ostracization and an early demise for the rapist, a state of affairs that is not adaptive, not to mention infanticide and abortion.)
Zuk writes in a witty style that is easy to read. Her target readership is the non-specialist; indeed one gets the sense that she is addressing her undergraduate students. Politically speaking, she steers a middle course between the extremes of the sociobiological right and the socialist left, a fact underscored by the appearance on the cover of endorsements from Matt Ridley on the right, Patricia Adair Gowaty from the left, and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy from somewhere in the middle.
I would give a more ringing endorsement of this book were it not for the fact that there is virtually nothing new in Zuk's very agreeable presentation, and my lingering sense that a person who identifies herself as "feminist" biologist (instead of merely a biologist) is not entirely objective any more than the old guys from the patriarchy were. However, to be fair, at no place in the book does Zuk espouse anything close to a preference for the politically correct at the expense of scientific inquiry, as feminists sometimes do when the conclusions are not what they want. Zuk knows that to make science subordinate to what is politically and socially agreeable is to sacrifice science completely. Indeed, I see this as the profound central message of her book, and a reason to hope this book receives a wide readership.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
University of California, Riverside biology professor Marlene Zuk, whose specialty is insects, especially crickets, makes two main points in this modest volume. One, what is "natural" as observed in nature is not necessary right and should not be used as a guide for human society; and two, how we interpret the behavior of animals is colored by our biases, both anthropomorphic and male-gendered.
Professor Zuk writes from the avowed position of a feminist, although she makes it clear that she is not an "ecofeminist" nor does she agree with those feminists who believe that the exercise of science and "attempts to study the world are just culturally derived exercises relevant only in a certain social context." (p. 16)
In other words, Zuk wants to reconcile the ways of science, especially evolutionary biology, to feminists while pointing out to biologists that many of their preconceptions contain a male bias. She recalls a poem from A.E. Housman that includes the phrase "witless nature" which she takes as a cornerstone for her position. Nature "is not kind, not cruel, not red in tooth and claw, nor benign in its ministrations. It is utterly, absolutely impartial." (p. 15)
From this it follows (for most of us anyway) that we should not draw moral conclusions about how people should behave, nor should we form notions of what is "right" or "wrong" from observations of nature. This is a position that most professionals in evolutionary biology today appreciate, although this was not always the case, as Zuk is quick to remind us. She sees the antiquated notion of scala naturae (from Aristotle) which puts humans at the pinnacle of evolution as part of the reason for the errors of the past. Humans were seen as the positive norm, and to the extent that the behavior of other animals deviated from that they were inferior. Zuk also points to a "male model in biology" assumed by biologists (consciously or unconsciously), as an addition source of bias. She points to the idea that males are more aggressive than females as an example of an unwarranted preconception.
My experience (for what it's worth--I coached girl's basketball some years ago, and believe me the girls were very aggressive), and from what I know of aggressiveness theoretically, suggests that females are indeed just as aggressive as males in going after what they want. The reason that women use violence (a kind of aggressiveness) less than men do has to do with social conditioning of course, but also with the fact that a woman's reproductive capability is seldom if ever enhanced by the use of physical force while a male may use force to his reproductive advantage. In the case of non-human animals I am thinking especially of male lions killing the cubs of another male to bring the female into estrus. In the case of humans I am thinking of human males using the spoils of war to gain access to females and to nurture their offspring. (I am not thinking of rape since that sort of unsocial, high-risk behavior seldom leads to successful reproduction; more often it leads to ostracization and an early demise for the rapist, a state of affairs that is not adaptive, not to mention infanticide and abortion.)
Zuk writes in a witty style that is easy to read. Her target readership is the non-specialist; indeed one gets the sense that she is addressing her undergraduate students. Politically speaking, she steers a middle course between the extremes of the sociobiological right and the socialist left, a fact underscored by the appearance on the cover of endorsements from Matt Ridley on the right, Patricia Adair Gowaty from the left, and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy from somewhere in the middle.
I would give a more ringing endorsement of this book were it not for the fact that there is virtually nothing new in Zuk's very agreeable presentation, and my lingering sense that a person who identifies herself as "feminist" biologist (instead of merely a biologist) is not entirely objective any more than the old guys from the patriarchy were. However, to be fair, at no place in the book does Zuk espouse anything close to a preference for the politically correct at the expense of scientific inquiry, as feminists sometimes do when the conclusions are not what they want. Zuk knows that to make science subordinate to what is politically and socially agreeable is to sacrifice science completely. Indeed, I see this as the profound central message of her book, and a reason to hope this book receives a wide readership.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
May 12, 2019
An excellent analysis of biology using a feminist lens. Evolutionary biological explanations appeal to me, so confronting their inherent biases proved very interesting. I also enjoyed Zuk's insistence that animal sexual behavior only applies to animals. Yes, we're animals, but we also have reason and can choose our behavior. Worth reading for Zuk's linguistic analysis alone. For example, males can be polygamous, but when a female is polyandrous scientists refer to the behavior as "mate sharing" from the male's perspective.
"In what has to be one of the most amusing uses of 'man' as a false generic, Colin Finn begins a 1987 article on the function of menstruation with, 'The phenomenon of menstruation must have puzzled man since time immemorial.' Just nine years later, mere puzzlement seems to have escalated; the first sentence of a paper Finn published in 1996 declares, 'The significance of menstruation cannot be overstated and questions about its function have worried man since early times.' Of course man -- or men -- may be concerned about menstruation, but it is women who actually do it, as Finn makes clear later in the third paragraph: 'The uniqueness of menstruation to woman (and a few other primates) may not have been very apparent to early man.' So there we have it: women have been getting their periods forever, but it takes a man to show the curiosity that will tell us what it means." (p.153)
"In what has to be one of the most amusing uses of 'man' as a false generic, Colin Finn begins a 1987 article on the function of menstruation with, 'The phenomenon of menstruation must have puzzled man since time immemorial.' Just nine years later, mere puzzlement seems to have escalated; the first sentence of a paper Finn published in 1996 declares, 'The significance of menstruation cannot be overstated and questions about its function have worried man since early times.' Of course man -- or men -- may be concerned about menstruation, but it is women who actually do it, as Finn makes clear later in the third paragraph: 'The uniqueness of menstruation to woman (and a few other primates) may not have been very apparent to early man.' So there we have it: women have been getting their periods forever, but it takes a man to show the curiosity that will tell us what it means." (p.153)
June 5, 2018
An interesting read that blends both behavioral & evolutionary sciences, in the context of gender studies. I am particularly taken by Ms. Zuk's take on the scala naturae i.e. Great Chain of Being, a concept that presupposes that there is a hierarchy linking lesser creatures to higher creatures, with God and/or a Human at its apex. Why do some animals deserve a greater degree of circumspection whilst others are blithely ignored? Filmed while feeding a puppy or a kitten to a snake, you are guaranteed opprobrium & notoriety within minutes in the social media. But feed the snake with rat pups or live eels, the reaction would be muted or more likely a Simpson 'meh'. Where do we draw the line between pest, food, and pet? #Goodreads
May 13, 2020
Given to me after I went on a bend of reading about animal sex. It was an excellent blend of feminism and ecology, with many examples of why we shouldn't use animals as examples of how to live our lives, and neither should we project our own human philosophies onto how animals live theirs.
July 9, 2017
I enjoyed Zuk's Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live very much, so was inspired to pick this up as a result. I didn't resonate as much: partly because so much of the science has been outstripped by discoveries driven by DNA analysis (quaintly referred to in this 2004 book as 'DNA fingerprinting') and partly because Zuk is a strong adherent to the primacy of individual gene competition, and tends to underemphasise the role of interspecies competition, particularly when discussing the development on non-reproducing individuals in a species.
Zuk's intense irritation - so amusing in Paleofantasy - also perhaps wears a bit thin when directed at ecofeminism (which certainly deserves it, but has failed to become a major force in society) and the poor hippie from the 70s, whose "Farewell Brother Loon" clearly annoyed her beyond belief, and keeps reappearing.
But the book is thought provoking, and interesting, and I generally agree with Zuk's insistence that other animals do not exist to contrast with, or provide the basis for, our understanding of ourselves. She uses plenty of examples to show that the variety of sex and parenting arrangements in the animal world is dizzying, and that understanding that, shouldn't change our own moral universes. This thinking is better refined in Paleofantasy, however, which feels like a much stronger and clearer version of her argument.
Zuk's intense irritation - so amusing in Paleofantasy - also perhaps wears a bit thin when directed at ecofeminism (which certainly deserves it, but has failed to become a major force in society) and the poor hippie from the 70s, whose "Farewell Brother Loon" clearly annoyed her beyond belief, and keeps reappearing.
But the book is thought provoking, and interesting, and I generally agree with Zuk's insistence that other animals do not exist to contrast with, or provide the basis for, our understanding of ourselves. She uses plenty of examples to show that the variety of sex and parenting arrangements in the animal world is dizzying, and that understanding that, shouldn't change our own moral universes. This thinking is better refined in Paleofantasy, however, which feels like a much stronger and clearer version of her argument.
Want to read
May 14, 2011from the library
from the library computer
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Note On Species Names xi
Introduction: An Ode to Witlessness 1 (20)
Part One SEXUAL STEREOTYPES AND THE BIASES THAT BIND
Sex and The Death of a Loon
21 (26)
Substitute Stereotypes
The Myth of the Ecofeminist Animal
34 (13)
Selfless Motherhood and Other Unnatural Acts
47 (14)
DNA and the Meaning of Marriage
61 (15)
The Care and Management of Sperm
76 (17)
Part Two UNNATURAL MYTHS
Sex and the Scala Naturae (or, Worms in the Gutter)
93 (28)
Bonobos
Dolphins of the New Millennium
107 (14)
The Alpha Chicken
121 (18)
Part Three HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES
Soccer, Adaptation, and Orgasms
139 (29)
Sacred or Cellular
The Meaning of Menstruation
153 (15)
That's Not Sex, They're Just Glad to See Each Other
168 (16)
Can Voles do Math?
184 (16)
Conclusions: Unnatural Boundaries 200 (13)
Selected Readings 213 (6)
References 219 (10)
Index 229
from the library computer
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Note On Species Names xi
Introduction: An Ode to Witlessness 1 (20)
Part One SEXUAL STEREOTYPES AND THE BIASES THAT BIND
Sex and The Death of a Loon
21 (26)
Substitute Stereotypes
The Myth of the Ecofeminist Animal
34 (13)
Selfless Motherhood and Other Unnatural Acts
47 (14)
DNA and the Meaning of Marriage
61 (15)
The Care and Management of Sperm
76 (17)
Part Two UNNATURAL MYTHS
Sex and the Scala Naturae (or, Worms in the Gutter)
93 (28)
Bonobos
Dolphins of the New Millennium
107 (14)
The Alpha Chicken
121 (18)
Part Three HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES
Soccer, Adaptation, and Orgasms
139 (29)
Sacred or Cellular
The Meaning of Menstruation
153 (15)
That's Not Sex, They're Just Glad to See Each Other
168 (16)
Can Voles do Math?
184 (16)
Conclusions: Unnatural Boundaries 200 (13)
Selected Readings 213 (6)
References 219 (10)
Index 229
February 9, 2009
What I learned from this book is best summed up by this paragraph from its conclusion:
There is not a moral to every story in animal behavior. Sometimes a snake is just a snake, and sometimes snake sex is only about sex in snakes, or sex in egg-laying reptiles. Although a biologist’s job in part is to interpret what organisms do in a broader context, that context does not, and should not, need to include a lesson for human beings. This is true regardless of whether the lesson is something we would like to teach, which means that using animals as vehicles for nonsexist thinking is just as out of bounds as using them to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
It's a wonderful, readable book that I think everyone should read before we let them loose on all the animal behavior (especially sexual behavior) articles in the paper.
There is not a moral to every story in animal behavior. Sometimes a snake is just a snake, and sometimes snake sex is only about sex in snakes, or sex in egg-laying reptiles. Although a biologist’s job in part is to interpret what organisms do in a broader context, that context does not, and should not, need to include a lesson for human beings. This is true regardless of whether the lesson is something we would like to teach, which means that using animals as vehicles for nonsexist thinking is just as out of bounds as using them to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
It's a wonderful, readable book that I think everyone should read before we let them loose on all the animal behavior (especially sexual behavior) articles in the paper.
July 29, 2008
A very interesting book about gender biases in humans, and how they affect scientific studies on animal behavior, as well as the reverse - the tendency to see things that occur in nature, particularly in cute, fuzzy animals, and assume that if it's natural for animals, it's natural for us. I learned some things that were a bit disconcerting: for example, that women were not used in medical studies until relatively recently because their cycles were assumed to cause confusing side effects, and that no scientist thought to study why menstruation would in evolve until the 1990s. At times the book is redundant in driving its point home, but otherwise it is very well written and interesting.
August 29, 2015
One of the best books on modern science I have read. In balancing her positionality and objectivity on the subject of science, gender, and sexuality, Dr. Zuk manages to bring to light the trouble with using bias to further research and vice versa. The book touches on subject which many evolutionary biologists in today's world struggle with. From the commonness of homosexuality in nature, to the natural tendency for humans to find commonalities in groups. Highly recommend for anyone, but especially biologists becoming aware of caveats in research related to cultural biases.
October 10, 2014
This is one of the best popular science books I've read in a long time. I loved that the goal was to integrate animal behavior and feminism, and I think that Dr. Zuk did a fantastic job of doing so. It was a really enjoyable non-fiction book, and I can recommend it to anyone at all interested in discrimination and feminism in science, as well as cool animal behaviors.
September 26, 2016
This is an excellent read. It offers a fresh perspective on how we can learn from animal behaviour, sexual selection and the common mistakes of extrapolating to humans. I found every section gripping and the list of references is very handy. A highly recommended book.
Want to read
March 27, 2008 Marlene Zuk wrote an excellent entry on the NYTimes' health blog.
June 14, 2016
"Finding out that some animals kill their young says no more about the ethics of infanticide than finding out that some animals are yellow says about fashion trends."
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews