Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist

by Frans de Waal

New York Times best-selling author and world-renowned primatologist Frans de Waal explores sex and gender in both humans and other animals.

Though many scholars now argue that gender differences are purely a product of socialization, primatologist Frans de Waal illustrates in Different the scientific, evolutionary basis for gender differences in humans, drawing on his decades of experience working with our closest ape relatives: chimpanzees and bonobos. De Waal illuminates their behavioral and biological differences, and compares and contrasts them with human behavior: male domination and territoriality in chimpanzees and the female-led pacific society of bonobos.

In his classic conversational style and a narrative rich in anecdotes and wry observations, de Waal tackles topics including gender identity, sexuality, gender-based violence, same-sex rivalry, homosexuality, friendship, and nurturance. He reveals how evolutionary biology can inform a more nuanced—and equitable—cultural understanding of gender. Ultimately, he argues, our two nearest primate relatives are equally close to us, and equally relevant. Considering all available evidence, we can learn much about ourselves and embrace our similarities as well as our differences.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology, Biology, Gender, Anthropology, Animals

408 pages, Hardcover

First published April 5, 2022

About the author

Frans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

Reviews

[Petra - itchy feet bored with the Caribbean island · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. If this wasn't an ebook I'd compost it. The author, a misogynist who justifies that as biological, says in the introduction, "My discussion of human gender relations will overlook some important issues. Since primatological observations are my starting point, I will consider only related human behavior, thus leaving aside areas for which we have no animal parallels, such as economic disparities, household labor, access to education, and cultural rules for attire. My expertise is unable to shed light on those issues."

So the first chapter is all about sex differences in toys and pink and blue clothes. How does this relate to his study of Chimps and Bonobos (the two primate groups he is using in this book)?

I do believe that gender is a spectrum, female to male or vice versa. But unlike most spectrums, I think most of us cluster towards one end or the other. We are different, but have many similiarities and those similarities are not universal, there is a different mix in each individual. But the author doesn't think that way at all. He thinks men have a potential for excellence, but women, well they can have babies if they want to feel accomplished. So the next thing is a sexist rant backed up, not by studies of those primates but by 'surveys'.

Men, to feel fulfilled and successful need to excel at something - to be better at it than other men and better than women.

Every civilization needs to offer men opportunities to realize their potential. A recent survey of seventy different countries confirmed this difference. Universally, men put more vale on independence, self-enhancement, and status, whereas women emphasize the well-being and security of their inner circle as well as people in general.

To feel accomplished, women always have their biological potential to give birth. It's the one thing they can do men can't.

A lot of the books I read have quoted Frans de Waal. I read one book of his I liked Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. Then I read The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections of a Primatologist which had de Waal contorting his words in every possible way to excuse Konrad Lorenz providing the "scientific" justification for Hitler's murdering of the Jewish people. When two groups that can breed are together, the interloper should be exterminated. I wrote a review on this one, not the Bonobos though. I hated the author. Lorenz was his hero.

And now undercover of de Waal saying women get a rough deal and he's a feminist, he writes nothing but women are great at breeding and nurturing their social circle, success and achievement in the world, these are for men.

This is what happens if you don't read the introduction until well into the first chapter. But introductions are usually so boring....
__________

Notes on reading. Toys. Chimps. My little boy who was a naughty little chimp and ruined Barbie dolls.

Toys and gender. To find out if choice of toys is sex-based or culturally-induced, chimps were given both wheeled toys and plush ones. The males chose the wheeled toys and were uninterested in the plush ones. The females, they liked both. So, maybe it is not boys being indoctrinated to like that sort of toy, but females being told those are boys' toys not for pretty little girls.

When my son was born, I decided to raise him without gender as much as possible, let him choose toys, clothes, whatever. Well, the clothes thing didn't work. He preferred to be naked around the house and the rest of the time he couldn't care less. But toys, he always had at least one doll, but 27,000 cars, planes and boats. At least it felt that many stepping on them. Lots of them were hidden until I was padding about barefoot in the dark. Worse than Lego!

We went to Toys R Us to pick out a gift for his namesake, my bff's daughter, and I said he could have a present too. He wanted a Barbie, it had to be a swimming Barbie. I got it for him. He and D played with it in the bathtub, washed it's hair and combed it, and then took it part, limb from limb to see how it worked. D was a bit upset as she'd hoped to add it to her extensive collection of Barbies. I don't believe that the all gender differences are social constructs.

The author is keen to prove just that, that Chimpanzees and Bonobos, have different gender characteristics, and how that applies, or might apply to humans too. It's very scientific and non-judgemental. The author is very, very insistent not to take what he says about primates and go applying it to the present gender identity issues. But I ask myself, else what is the book for?

[Dan Cassino · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was more than a little disappointed in this book. De Waal, who has written numerous books on primate behavior, comes to this one with a simple thesis: that there are stable differences in behavior between male and female primates. Therefore, to the extent that we observe similar differences between male and female humans, they cannot be explained fully through learned behavior or culture, but rather must be at least partially intrinsic.
The good part of this book is his review, peppered with anecdotes from his own observations of primates, of the social worlds inhabited by other primates. He obviously knows the literature and the researchers in this area well, and reading these is like watching a first rate nature documentary.
The problems arise when his trying to draw comparisons to human behavior.
Speaking as a social scientist who studies gender, it's clear that de Waal doesn't have the same command of sociology that he does of primatology, which would be fine if his argument didn't rely on it.
Much of the argument is driven by his apparent belief that gender scholars think that all gendered behavior is learned. We don't believe in a tabula rasa, I don't know any gender researchers who do, and to spend a book responding to a straw man is a waste of everyone’s time.
Perhaps more importantly, the fact that primates and people have similar behaviors doesn’t mean that they’re not learned- it’s also entirely possible that they’re just responding to similar environments and social structures. People all over the world use IKEA bags for laundry: that doesn’t make it an intrinsic human behavior or something all cultures teach their young. It’s just a reasonable response to a problem that’s common across environments in which humans find themselves.
I like de Waal’s work, but he really should stick to primates, or perhaps engage more thoughtfully with modern social science regarding gender. He reminds me a great deal of the economists who waltz into journals with papers on sociology or political science, certain that their approaches mean that they’re solving problems no one has ever approached, but only demonstrating their ignorance at what their perceived lessers have already done.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this review, I’ll make the case that this is the ideal book to learn about the controversial topic of gender differences. But before we get to this, it’s necessary to spell out the crucial distinction between sex and gender.

Let’s start with sex. Sex is more straightforward and is driven by biology. With few exceptions, all of us are born as one sex or the other, with noncontroversial and well-established anatomical, physiological, and hormonal differences between the sexes.

Gender, on the other hand, is more complex, and is both psychological and social. Gender can refer both to the subjective experience of identifying with one sex or the other (which may or may not match one’s biological sex), or to the social roles and behaviors each sex is expected to adopt in society.

The interesting question is to what degree gender roles and experiences are shaped by biology versus culture (genetics versus environment). This is where the controversy resides, and teasing out the relative influence of one or the other is more complex than most people suppose.

What we probably know for sure is that those who adopt extreme positions in either direction are almost assuredly wrong. Our behaviors are clearly not entirely driven by biology, despite what some right-wing authors want us to think, who largely use biology to legitimize favorable (in their minds) social dynamics. Likewise, our behaviors are not entirely socially constructed, either, as there appears to be clear differences in the innate preferences of each sex.

What are these innate differences, and how do we know they are driven by biology and not by culture?

Essentially, there are three ways to determine what behaviors might be innate and driven by biology (and therefore unwise to ignore). The first is by comparing a variety of different human cultures to look for behavioral universals (cultural anthropology) ; the second is to study the behavior of infants and children not yet acculturated (developmental psychology); and the third is to compare human behavior with our closest evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos (primatology). By exploring these three methods of assessing behavior, we can see which elements seem to be more resistant to cultural modification.

Frans de Waal, a primatologist by training and profession, obviously favors the latter approach, but in this book he utilizes all three methods to some degree (interweaving fascinating stories in his typical captivating writing style). In doing so, he demonstrates, quite convincingly, that there are, in fact, some clear differences between the genders that are driven by biology. But here’s what I appreciate about the book and about de Waal’s approach in general.

First, de Waal does not use biology to justify our current political and moral failings or to engage in self-congratulatory misogyny. He informs us that we can, and often should, override our biological tendencies or preferences when those tendencies create unfair disadvantages for certain segments of society. We are not prisoners to our biology, and therefore, in most cases, we cannot and should not use biology to justify our philosophical differences, especially when it comes to the subjugation of one sex over the other.

Second, he notes that the latest understanding of primate behavior shows a more prominent role for females, particularly in bonobos, and that our conception of human culture as male-dominated is largely a social construction. While it’s true that chimpanzees have a male-domniated hierarchy, there’s no special reason to use this group as a template for human behavior when we’re just as closely related to bonobos, who are female-dominant, peaceful, and sexually liberal.

Third, de Waal describes himself as a feminist, but one of a particular nature. He reminds us that it is not necessary to practice misandry to not be a misogynist. I’m in agreement with him; women can do most any job a man can (and some jobs better), and should be given equal opportunity and pay, but that does not mean that men are inherently evil, inferior, or deserve to be lower on the hierarchy, like some radical feminists might suppose. Like de Waal, I’m not worried about white men losing their position or status in society, but I also have no patience for the position that one sex is inherently superior than the other, whether male or female. We’re far better off adopting a position of mutual respect and tolerance and appreciating the differences between the genders that make life interesting.

One point of criticism that may be directed at the book overall is the overemphasis on primate behavior, on the grounds that the behavior of chimps and bonobos have no bearing whatsoever on a human species that can use language and higher-level thinking to set its own behavioral agenda. In my opinion, this is a rather conceited position to take. Biologically, we are unequivocally apes, and even though we’d like to think otherwise—that we’ve entirely transcended our lowly bodies and ascended to a higher plane of existence—our behavior, which is at times embarrassingly similar to our chimp cousins, suggests otherwise.

As de Waal explains throughout the book, while we can modify some of our behaviors via culture, other behaviors are more stubbornly fixed. Gender identity and sexual orientation are cases in point. Individuals that identify with a certain gender (whether it matches their biological sex or not) cannot be “socialized” into the opposite gender or sexual orientation. This is why the medical community has labeled any of these interventions as pseudoscience. Homosexual and transgender rights in large part hinge on our acceptance that it is not a choice, but rather a biologically fixed preference. It’s ironic, then, that some liberally-minded individuals want to deny our biology altogether and claim that everything is a social construction.

Overall, this book provides a refreshing perspective that walks the middle ground in the nature/nurture debate. There are aspects of our biology that make the sexes different, and this should be celebrated, not suppressed. On the other hand, our higher-level cognition provides us with greater behavioral flexibility to create cultures that promote the common good—for both genders. And while we don’t have unlimited flexibility—we are constrained by some behavioral universals—we do have a greater landscape of possibilities than was previously supposed, as our bonobo cousins should remind us.

[Allie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was very disappointed in this book after reading de Waal’s “Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?” That one was very thoughtful, seemed very well researched, and I was impressed with de Waal and looked forward to this one, but this one was a letdown.

It is, like the other book, full of fascinating stories from the primate world (though a few of the most interesting primate stories were repeats of ones in "Are We Smart Enough..?”.) It is definitely interesting to see how sex and gender play out in our primate relatives and to consider what that means for ourselves. But de Waal’s interpretation on the human front is a mess, and his commentary throughout the book is more distracting than thought-provoking.

For someone who claims to care deeply about evidence, he’ll pull out overreaching, sometimes absurd statements like “male privilege has been most pronounced in the upper echelons of society. In the lower classes, men and women are equally exploited, mistreated, and impoverished” (what??? are you serious???) or primatology is “truly equal opportunity today” (sure, there may be a large proportion of women in the field, but that's not exactly the same thing). Many conclusions seem to be backed up with anecdotes moreso than with published research, or are not backed up at all. And according to reviews in the NYT and the Lancet, at least one of the studies he cites (about children and faces) has been largely discredited--which makes me wonder about everything else he cites. If you are going to write about a controversial topic like sex and gender, I would think a scientist would take extra care to back everything up, describe the evidence in some detail, and make sure it is rock solid, or else describe its limits/any criticisms. De Waal does not do this. Most of the studies cited seem to be taken at their word that the findings are true and generalizable, except for some of the survey-based ones.

He takes great pains to distinguish between sex and gender at the beginning of the book, then proceeds to use the terms interchangeably for the entire rest of the book and almost never addresses the difference again (to be fair, he does warn us that he might do that).

He often repeats himself, most notably with part of the nurturing chapter repeating statements from the toy chapter with no acknowledgement of the repetition.

He acknowledges here and there that behavior is more flexible than we might think--the examples he uses to illustrate this are among the most interesting ones in the book, and the chapter on same-sex sex is good--but the vast, vast majority of the book is "males do this” and "females do this.” At one point, he suggests that we not describe nurturing behavior in girls as "stereotypical" because it is rooted in biology (the dictionary says stereotypical ideas are widely held and fixed/oversimplified, not that they can’t be rooted in something real). Didn't de Waal tell us that behavior was flexible and on a spectrum? Despite his insistence in telling us this at the beginning and end of the book, there is very little time in the middle spent on such variation in behavior within a sex, or in non-conforming behavior (the same-sex chapter notwithstanding).

But don’t worry, he says he's a feminist. He says he’s definitely not sexist. He just wants to make us see that gendered behaviors are rooted in biology. But saying this and railing on feminist writers and academics is definitely not sexist at all, he insists. Over and over.

Look, I agree that biology shapes much of our behavior and that it is not inherently sexist to recognize this. But all of his statements to this effect feel shallow and defensive. In fact, it feels like the entire book has been engineered as a defense against someone who called him sexist, and he is here to tell us he is certainly not. All of that really distracts from the fascinating primate research, which raises interesting questions and demonstrates the role of biology all on its own, no commentary needed.

De Waal himself mentions several times that he values observation over self-reporting when it comes to human behavior. I do, too. Let's just say his self-reported statements may say one thing but his overall behavior as a writer says something else.

[Andrea McDowell · Rating 3 out of 5]

In general I enjoyed this book and appreciated de Waal's expertise and perspective. However, while his knowledge about sex and gender differences among many animals (mostly primates) is unquestionable, his background on the socialization side is much weaker, and it leads him into making mistakes he could have avoided.

For example, on p. 49, he writes "Note, however, that only one of the two works in gender inequality refers to a problem, and it's not gender. No one would propose to fight racism by urging people of different races to try to look more alike." But in fact they have done so, persistently and with great harm, including such things as skin bleaching and chemical processing of "unprofessional" hair for black people (mostly women).

He also spends a fair amount of time decrying feminist complaints about "toxic masculinity," either pretending to or genuinely misunderstanding that this concept describes how boys and men are socialized to behave in ways that are damaging, and not a claim that all masculinity is toxic. Again, this could have been avoided.

I'm thoroughly on board when he is describing the many similarities between humans and other animals, and railing against how persistently human exceptionalism claims that "evolution stopped at the human neck." But in putting forth many shaky claims about biological differences while spending comparatively little time on the similarities, I think he sells his thesis short -- and misses opportunities to share (IMO) his most fascinating material. Many of the animals in these pages defy the sex and gender divisions the book is ostensibly about, which was intentional, but the full potential of these were never explored to my satisfaction.

Worth reading, better with complementary works by Hrdy and Roughgarden among others to round the picture out.

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is always a pleasure to read Frans de Waal. He is ever entertaining while being rigorous, thorough and neutral. If there is any ulterior motive or bias, it is to be fair. So with the timely Different, his new book on the differences between the sexes. Neurologically, biologically, and culturally, there are differences in the sexes that explain a lot and also nothing, but that should give humans guidance in the ever more difficult battle of the ever more numerous sexes. The primates show the sexes to be different and equal, with direct lines to Man. De Waal says: "While our species is equipped with language and a few other intellectual advantages, socio-emotionally we are primates through and through."

De Waal is a primatologist. He has spent his life working with colonies of apes, monkeys - and humans. In addition to his own studies, he is constantly visiting other primatologists and learning what they have discovered in their lifelong examinations of various colonies around the world. He has built personal relationships with all kinds of primates, earned their respect, merited their love, and discovered their personalities, capabilities, activities, weaknesses, and cultures. They are not so different from humans, he says, and people can learn a lot by studying them - or just reading this book. De Waal says primatology suffers from misinformation and fake news, just like so much else. He is here to display some truths.

The first thing to learn is that nature, as in evolution, is not wrong. The way things are are the way things are. Humans have to accept that animals adapt to their environs and their colonies according to their current abilities and gifts. Criticizing them for their differences is pointless. (Scientists love to come down hard on chimps and scoff at bonobos, for example). This also applies to humans.

There is no doubt in his mind that nature assigns differences according to sex. "These tendencies manifest themselves early in life, such as in the high energy level and roughhousing of young males, and in the attraction to dolls, infants, and baby-sitting of young females. This archetypal sex difference marks most mammals, from rats to dogs and from elephants to whales...Yet not even this pronounced sex difference is absolute."

Gender is a kind of cultural overlay to sex, at least among humans: "Gender identity in general and sexual orientation in general are inalienable, inalterable aspects of every person," he says. Gender roles are culturally assigned, while sex is bi-modal. They are not choices, they are not irrational, and they cannot be undone by therapy. Coming to grips with discovering that the real you is in the wrong body is difficult enough, without all the external pressure to overcome it or be subjected to meds and surgery. About six-tenths of one percent of the population goes through this trauma. In the USA, that means 1-2 million people. But it is not predictable: "A person's genome cannot tell us their sexual orientation."

He spends a lot of time on experiments with toys, and how male infants always go for the wheeled toys they can shove and drag, while females go for the doll shapes they can carry, cuddle and care for, even if it is just a baby-sized piece of wood. He also has seen young apes invent and play with invisible toys when so moved. It is not aberrant behavior for them or for humans.

He wants to make it clear that human babies are not blank slates that can be molded into whatever sex the parents desire. That does not work, despite constant training, deprogramming and hormone therapies, and he has proof from cases of those who believed otherwise. He says forcing children into gender-specific toys, and cross-gender toys "is arrogant". He would like to see the gendered sectioning of toy stores disappear, and that adults respect the choices made by their children themselves.

Apes are no less instinctive than humans. But instincts need to be learned. Primates have the same long learning processes, the same need to evaluate others, make assumptions about personalities, and to manipulate others as needed. They are as calculating and political as humans.

All the complex and difficult aspects of motherhood aren't innate; they are learned. Females train the young to be competent mothers. The community helps one and all. De Waal has examples of chimps that had been isolated and were not automatically competent caregivers. Even the process of giving birth needs instruction, and it is willingly shared.

As for father chimps, the birth of a child increases their levels oxytocin and decreases testosterone, making them more amenable to dealing with infants. Experiments show that when a female is in the room, males will leave caregiving to them, but alone with an infant, males take over nurturing duties automatically. "It is part and parcel of our species' biology," De Waal says.

The chimpanzee is Man's closest relative, and it is striking to follow their daily machinations. There is daily drama: jealousies, power plays, training, nurturing, positioning, and sex. Not necessarily in that order. Their cousins the bonobos, basically across the river in DR Congo, have managed to evolve a different, far less bellicose society. Where chimps fight, bonobos have sex. But they are comparably attentive, responsible, nurturing and hierarchical. Just a whole lot more flirtatious and sex-driven.

Where an alpha male leads chimp colonies, an alpha female leads bonobos. Where he is young, strong and imperious, she is older, wiser and popular. Where he rules by threat and will soon be overthrown, she has the total respect of both sexes, and will be number one for life. He instills fear. She builds alliances.

Alphas have mastered the fine art of splitting their offices. In daily life they will favor family and allies. But in their leadership role, they will demonstrate neutrality and be above the fray. They will break up fights, physically, themselves, keep the antagonists separated, and mete out punishment later. Females in particular are politically activist, grooming each other - even to bald excess - to keep alliances active. When an alpha female must control an angry male, she can literally line up a row of other females behind her, and stare down the transgressor until he backs off.

Females will take the children and gather available food, while males will hunt and bring back meat that they decide how to share. Females will take in an orphan and nurture it. Males might kill it.

Males will fight bitterly but kiss and make up immediately, go together to break up another fight, or have sex with each other. But when overthrowing the alpha male, it can mean ugly death.

As for the real function of sex among mammals, De Waal says Man is the only one who knows what it is for. None of the apes, cats, whales or rodents understand that it transfers sperm which fertilizes eggs, which leads to pregnancy and a newborn. Sex is a drive. If an animal has that drive, it will strive to have sex. It has no greater purpose that they know of.

Taking the example he knows best, the bonobos, sex is for everyone, any time. Homosexual sex, lesbian sex, informal sex, masturbation - anything goes, and any time is a good time. For females, a swollen behind is an all but glowing invitation to sex from males, as that is when they are most fertile. But bonobos are most famous for having sex every which way, numerous times per day, whether consummated or not. It is only human religion that attempts to curtail all sexual activity outside of purposeful reproduction. It is difficult to make sense of it. De Waal says "Sexuality is a forbidden fruit that we guard with a devotion and indignation that would be ridiculous in any other domain."

Despite all the possessiveness of alpha males, females have numerous partners. When the baby is born, numerous males feel they might be the father, having been close with the female in recent months. This has the advantage of preventing males from killing the baby, and calming the males in its presence. For the females, it is good strategy, but also very risky, as getting caught with another male can lead to the same consequences seen everywhere.

The act of rape among humans also comes under the magnifying glass. De Waal says it originated with research into scorpion flies, whose clamps help males force copulation. But in human societies, the "species is far too loosely programmed for highly specific behavior, such as rape, to be heritable." In other words, rape is an outcome of circumstances, not something innate in human males. Men are not (normally) rapists.

He says for natural selection to favor rape, there are two conditions to meet: Men should have genetic coding that makes them sexual predators (and they do not). Plus, rapists would seek to spread their genes (and they do not). Rape is now generally assessed as an act of violence, not of procreation. And needless to add, homosexual rape is clearly outside the bounds of procreation.

In trying to determine whether things originate biologically or culturally, De Waal cites Hans Kummer, who said asking if something is due to nature or nurture is like "asking whether the percussion sounds in the distance are produced by a drummer or a drum. It's a silly question, because on their own, neither one makes any noise."

Obviously, there must come divergence at some point. De Waal says he must leave aside things like economic disparities, household labor, access to education and cultural rules for attire, where there are no animal parallels. (But female apes will adorn themselves in garlands of vines, and put moss or leaves on their heads as if they could be hats. Males, do not.) But for everything else, from nurturing to fighting, there is a chapter in Different.

Different is a global adventure, and a time machine. In it, readers will visit their ancestors to see where it all came from, and learn a trick or two that the mirror does not tell them. But regardless, the sexes are different. Different and equal. They have specific roles to play in life. With very limited flexibility or overlap. Trying to turn one into the other is a fool's errand. Man can't alter that, only mess with it.

David Wineberg

[Ula Tardigrade · Rating 4 out of 5]

It may be a surprise that in this era of political correctness someone dares to point out that men and women are different. Worse still if this someone is an older white male. But Frans de Waal is used to confronting the popular illusions and he has his lifetime achievements in tow.

And despite the premise, this book isn’t even as controversial. De Waal approaches the subject as a scientist - a biologist and a primatologist, not as an ideologist, and thanks to his experience with other ape species he has the necessary degree of detachment.

The book is very well written and engaging. De Waal blends the theoretical arguments with recollections of his colorful career and dives into the history of science and changing attitudes about sex and gender. Recommended to everyone interested in nature and psychology.

Thanks to the publisher, W. W. Norton and Company, and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.

[Rossdavidh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frans de Waal is walking right into the middle of a big ol' cultural conflict here, and in typical style, is doing so with opinions which are likely to upset all sides, but also doing so in the nicest, most gentlemanly way imaginable. Plus, there are his illustrations; he makes line drawings of bonobos and zebras and humans and such.

The topic here, is as the subtitle says, "Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist". His take on it is best illustrated by a couple stories he tells. One is of a chimpanzee he knew, who was a dyke. He doesn't call her this; I am summarizing. She behaved in typically masculine ways, she was not particularly interested in motherhood, she hung out with the males and behaved in many stereotypically male ways. The other chimps presumably noticed she was a female acting like a male (chimpanzee genitals are on display, so it doesn't much matter what hairstyle you choose), but did not seem to care.

On the other hand, he tells the story of two male chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York, who together raised a chick from a fertile egg that caretakers had placed in their nest (after seeing the two try to hatch a rock as if it were an egg). Apparently, some (not all) gay New Yorkers identified with the penguins, and there was a children's book ("And Tango Makes Three") made about it. Imagine the awkwardness, then, when six years later one of the two left his "mate" for a female penguin (with whom he could, you know, mate). As de Waal points out (in exhaustive and voluminous detail that might make you feel a bit awkward about reading page after page of descriptions of sex acts, albeit non-human ones), same-gender sex acts are not all that uncommon in the natural world, but that doesn't mean that males and females don't usually end up pairing off to have offspring. There doesn't seem to be all that much evidence for homosexuality, if by that you mean exclusively having intercourse only with the same sex. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any great effort, or any effort at all really, even among social species, to prevent it (whereas for example there are often quite strenuous and aggressive attempts to prevent infidelity between opposite sex partners).

Whatever you think about gender, and sex, you probably have gotten most of your opinions from conversations with, and observations of, other humans. de Waal has probably (I don't know his personal life) witnessed a lot more courtship and copulation among other species, than among humans, and he brings all that to bear on the topic in this book. Perhaps inevitably, he finds that there is a great deal of nonsense on both right and left (although I have no doubt de Waal himself is rather far to the left of center, he has no trouble finding ridiculousness to point out on both sides).

de Waal's own position, if I am able to summarize it fairly, is that differences between the sexes are natural, have deep evolutionary roots, and we need to understand that in order to get over them. He has little positive to say about the idea that it is all concocted by modern human society, but rather to see a lot of evidence across many mammalian species for differences in behavior between the sexes. Nonetheless, he also does not seem to believe that we are fated never to have fairness and equality between the sexes.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with de Waal's conclusions, it is refreshing to read a discussion of the topic that brings more light than heat to the topic.

[Marta Demianiuk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ludzie bardzo chcieliby zapomnieć, że są zwierzętami, ale nie da się tego wyprzeć. I de Waal, jako prymatolog, w swojej książce nam o tym przypomina, podrzucając doskonałe przykłady. Dużo tu o życiu szympansów czy bonobo, najbliższych nam genetycznie naczelnych, ale pojawiają się też wzmianki o innych zwierzętach. Bardzo ciekawa książka, świetnie napisana i mimo że ze dwa czy trzy razy miałam mały zgrzyt, to w większości zgadzam się z uwagami autora (plus niektóre dały mi do myślenia), a jego wiedza jako prymatologa zrobiła na mnie ogromne wrażenie. Polecanko!

[lindsi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such a fun read! In addition to a plethora of aww-inducing animal anecdotes, it was genuinely thought-provoking. As someone who considers myself a gender abolitionist, I was confronted with a lot of evidence that challenged the viability of such a worldview. As de Waal says throughout the book, people do not have to be the same to be treated equally, and it is the way in which we organize our economies that oppresses women, not the fact that women exist.

As a Marxist, when analyzing capitalist society I consider gender in the same way I consider race: a technology devised in order to use physical markers to determine a person’s appropriate relationship to capital. However, this work reminded me that there are aspects to gender that precede and supersede capitalism and large-scale socioeconomic organization in general — and so hopefully one day, when our society is no longer built upon exploitation, gender will simply become a value-neutral attribute rather than a pretense for such exploitation.

I especially enjoyed the final chapter, “The Trouble with Dualism: Mind, Brain, and Body Are One.” It dovetailed perfectly with my recent reading of The Myth of Normal and even some themes from Caliban and the Witch, such as the Enlightenment’s attempt to separate the masculine body and mind coinciding with the degradation of the feminine body and suppression of the feminine mind. I’m really looking forward to discussing these things with my Caliban reading group!

[Stetson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Different by Frans de Waal is an accessible, lay-oriented primer on what the study of primates can tell us about the realities of sex and gender in humans and human society. This is another entry in the sex and gender wars, and de Waal, an eminent primatologist, is able to deftly parry the ideological thrusts of radical social constructionists and simplistic biological determinists. Subsequently, de Waal appears as an insightful and reasonable defender of the lofty ideals of science and truth instead of motivated ideologue. This is exactly the type of sanity and clarity that is needed in this discourse.

As the title suggests, de Waal's thesis is that the sexes differ morphologically and behaviorally for reasons ultimately rooted in biology, yet there are other important variables that shape sexual dimorphism and gender expression too. He clearly and persuasively details the scientific findings concerning these issues, noting when he introduces his own theories or idiosyncratic perspective. While relying heavily on the context of evolution theory without discussing it in much detail, he covers gendered play, the phenomenon of gender, prior misrepresentation of primate patriarchy, the neglected study of bonobos, sexual signaling, the mating game, violence, female ape hierarchies, parenting, and same-sex sex. On several of these topics, including the extension of ape patriarchy and mating strategies to human society, de Waal is often much more generous than necessary to critics of biological explanations of gender. He definitely selects from the empirical findings so as to provide a softer perspective that may be more persuasive to those with progressive political commitments. Nonetheless he convincingly illustrates the existence of the sex binary in primates (this includes humans) and how significant portions of the "learned overlays" of sex, i.e. gender, are adaptive or inherited behavioral patterns that are also present in our nearest extant ancestors, chimps and bonobos. This suggests that these aspects of sexual dimorphism are conserved across all primates.

Despite the implications of the substantial biological influence over gendered behavior, de Waal's regular refrain is that he is providing description not prescription. He cautions readers to not let these findings discourage them from the pursuit of social equality and argues that activism done without an appropriate understanding of biology will do more harm than good ultimately. Intriguingly, de Waal also takes time to make a strong case against mind-body dualism to finish of the book, which he correctly identifies as the philosophical foundation of a lot of radical social constructionist/environmentalist thought concerning sex and gender.

Despite some of the repetitive portions of the work, I strongly recommend this book, especially to young people in secondary school or college and avowed social constructionists. Moreover, it is a great accompaniment to Carole Hooven's T: The Story of Testosterone, which covers the behavioral endocrinology underlying gendered behavior.

*Disclosure: I received this work as an ARC through NetGalley

Interesting Excerpts
"We live in a time when some people systematically hype sex differences as if they were everywhere, while others try to erase them by depicting them as meaningless"

"One of the early advocates of the latter position is the American philosopher Judith Butler, who considers "male" and "female" to be mere constructs. In a seminal 1988 article, she stated, 'Because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all.' Hers is an extreme position with which I can't agree."

"If the gallons of ink spilled on the biological basis of altruism, warfare, homosexuality, and intelligence have taught us anything, it's that every human trait reflects an interplay between genes and environment."

"Nevertheless, the dominant hypothesis remains that we carry the mark of Cain."

"On nearly a dozen measures, without exception, men showed the stronger [sex] drive"

"It harks back to the most fundamental sex difference of all, the one that biologists use to define the sexes. Our criterion is neither the look of an organism nor the shape of its genitals but the size of its reproductive cells, known as gametes. Gametes come in two varieties. Large ones are known as eggs, and individuals who produce them are known as females. Small, often motile gametes are called sperm, and the individuals who make them are known as males. In humans, eggs are one hundred thousand times larger than sperm, which is why scientists call sperm cheap and eggs expensive."

"Differential investment still drives more hypergamous and monogamous mating strategies in women. There are a number of variables that makes this more true for humans: reduced size differences between men and women, smaller testes, greater information like knowing paternity and social networks, increase parental requirement due to long maturation."

"The mosaic of differences among these three hominids can't hide a few universal traits, though. Males are more status-oriented, and females are more oriented toward vulnerable young. Males are physically (if not always socially) dominant and more inclined to over confrontation and violence, whereas females are more nurturant and dedicated to progeny. These tendencies manifest themselves early in life, such as in the high energy level and roughhousing of young males and in the attraction to dolls, infants, and baby-sitting of young females. This archetypical sex difference marks most mammals, from rats to dogs and from elephants to whales. It evolved thanks to the distinct ways the sex transmit genes to the next generation."

"Mind-body dualism is out of touch with everything we have learned from modern psychology and neuroscience. The body, which includes the brain, is central to who and what we are. By running away from our bodies, we only run away from ourselves."

[Abby · Rating 2 out of 5]

tl;dr fair argument for his point that male and female exist due to nature (as well as nurture). it was a slog to get through & i disagree with him

I just didn’t jibe with this book. It felt like, each page, my brain was in a scuffle with the words. It felt like they were churning in circles, treading water, not quite saying much.

Frans de Waal takes on a tricky topic: gender. Although he distinguishes between sex and gender at the beginning, the distinction blurs quite rapidly. He makes the argument that gender is ingrained in our nature; in primates, after all, there are clear behavioral distinction between (most) females and (most) males. This evolutionary evidence leads him to conclude that the categories of female and male are not only natural, but necessary.

I don’t want to disparage him personally. He knows that this topic is tricky, especially for him as an old white cis dude. He is almost too aware, keen to point out at every possibility that he is a feminist, almost defensively.

I think he made his argument as fairly and without prejudice as possible. I just think his argument is wrong.

His argument is bolstered by his telling of the facts. He makes generalization after generalization about the two sexes, occasionally mentioning there are outliers. If you frame it that way, of course there are naturally two categories. But the categories don’t exist in the binary, discrete form outside of the human mind deciding it is so.

He bristles at the notion of gender being completely fluid and a social construct. He says, “we can’t act as if biology were irrelevant. Sons aren’t daughters.” My qualm here is that we have the labels male & female, sons & daughters because of language. And language, more than anything else, is a social construct.

I just think he doesn’t quite understand the bias inherent in science. When we label, when we categorize, we simplify. These labels often work. But sometimes they don’t. The majority rule here shouldn’t determine the a priori existence of the categories. That’s a faulty leap of logic.

Categories are hallucinations. I don’t get why people get so butthurt and refuse to realize that.

“We say that nature acts as a mirror, yet we rarely use it to see anything new.” - de Waal (unknowingly) critiquing his own book from within that same book.

[Kale · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was excited to read this book, given that it was billed as a primatologist refuting gender stereotypes. I got to page 12 and then I gave up. The author seems confident that he understands and disagrees with Judith butler, then offers a two sentence summary of one of her works that is completely, astoundingly, wrong. He then proceeds to spend the next two paragraphs using “sex role” and “gender” interchangeably. Then, he uses trans people as a counter example, but only to highlight that we are the exception to the rule- that sex and gender are “congruent”. This is, at its core, an entirely tautalogical argument that is only possible because of ciscentrism. You label two separate things as “congruent” because they relate to each other in (broadly) similar ways for most people, then argue for its naturalness by saying that they are congruent. It’s all made up. I’m a biologist. I believe that gender and sex are both complicated messes of biology and culture. I at least have the good sense not to try to tackle Judith butler in a paragraph and, as a cis person, presume to understand the relationship between sex and gender. I almost never put a book down. This one is not worth the time. Also disappointed that he would base so much of the argument of his book off of work from the humanities that he clearly does not even have a basic grasp of. Classic dunning-Kruger effect.

[Dries Boudewijns · Rating 5 out of 5]

Done! Eigenlijk echt een super interessant boek met veel persoonlijke insteken van Frans de Waal. Ik heb best wel wat geleerd en sommigen van mijn vrienden hebben al wel wat weetjes mogen aanhoren. Toch blijf ik soms wel met enkele vragen zitten omdat hij sommige onderzoeken echt maar heel kort aanraakt om een punt te maken. Sommige wetenschappelijke bewijzen mochten iets specifieker verklaard worden. Mijn tweede puntje van kritiek zit hem in de binariteit van het boek. Frans de Waal blijft heel hard steken in het man-vrouw denken van gender zonder echt de verschillende andere manieren van genderidentiteit aan te kaarten (wat ergens logisch is aangezien apen volgens de wetenschap geen gender hebben). Ook stel ik me de vraag of sommige uitspraken over genderspecifieke handelingen ook bestudeerd zijn vanuit non-conforme blik (is de handeling hetzelfde bij iemand die zich niet volgens hun gender conformeert?). Ik blijf dus nog met vragen zitten, maar ik heb wel heel wat interessante zaken bijgeleerd en ben benieuwd naar meer boeken van Frans de Waal.

[luna]

I couldn't make it through this book. I made it to Chapter 3 until I had enough. There are a lot of unnecessary sentences in the text that frankly come off the wrong way, and don't really add to the author's argument. Instead, it adds to the opinions of the author (not facts/evidence), particularly through statements exemplified in the 3rd Chapter, such as "On the surface, the power dynamic is real, which is why you should never insult or provoke a man for no reason," and "I am not sure that men can even become friends without at least some verbal pushing and shoving." I wanted to see the actual argument strongly explored. Maybe this just wasn't the book for me.

[Noelia F.R · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este libro no va a gustar ni a los constructivistas radicales ni a los biologicistas contumaces. La tesis del autor es que el ser humano es un ser bio-social, y por tanto la cultura y la biología interactúan. Ni todos nuestros comportamientos se pueden explicar a través de la biología, ni somos una pizarra en blanco. Hombres y mujeres tenemos diferencias anatómicas, hormonales, etc., que no podemos pasar por alto. Tampoco nuestro entorno ni la flexibilidad biológica, ni la neuroplasticidad.

Para esta obra, Frans De Waal ha puesto el foco en la primatología, que es su campo. Valiéndose del comportamiento diferenciado de nuestros primates más cercanos, como los chimpancés y los bonobos, arroja luz sobre nuestros parecidos y nuestras diferencias con ellos. La psicología comparada es relevante a la hora de comprender el comportamiento animal y el comportamiento humano (que también es comportamiento animal, aunque a algunos no quieran admitirlo).

La importancia de este libro reside en la revisión de antiguos estudios e investigaciones sobre diferentes mitos del comportamiento de otros primates. Señala el machismo de la primatología en sus comienzos, la exageración del "patriarcado" a través de un experimento con papiones o el comportamiento de los chimpancés macho, o el intento de eliminación de la comparativa con los bonobos debido al poder femenino de esta especie y a su comportamiento erótico, que parece resultar molesto. Incide también en el mito de la hembra recatada no dada a las aventuras sexuales, la gestión del conflicto (diferente en machos y hembras y también en hombres y mujeres) o la idea muy errónea de que un alfa es agresivo. También ofrece explicaciones científicas y evolutivas de la homosexualidad, la bisexualidad y lo trans, recalcando el hecho de que no se trata de una elección. El mito de que el macho no puede ser un buen padre o no existe el instinto paternal queda descartado, no solo porque los primates lo posean, sino porque nuestra organización social y la evolución ha capacitado a los hombres para la crianza.

Todo esto aderezado con numerosas anécdotas y estudios de primates y otros mamíferos.

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ahhh Frans de Waal. One of my favorites. Never boring.

Frans de Waal boldly takes on his views on gender based on his observations of bonobo and chimpanzee societies. It's bold in the time of cancer culture tbh.

Frans explores his views on the differences between the sexes and examples of homosexuality in the context of bonobos and chimpanzees. No, human behaviors and ape behaviors are not exactly alike. But it's foolish to think we are so removed from nature and our closest ancestors that his behavioral studies have no bearing whatsoever on human nature.

The most intriguing section to me was on consent and rape. He hypothesizes that rape is more common in human societies because of the living situation where couples isolate. In ape society, other members of the community monitor against aberrant, forceful behaviors by male chimps.

I found myself consenting with many, but not all of his views. They sometimes came off as a bit reductive. As an example, he briefly disabuses the notion of single mothers with a single statistic and note about the role of fathers. But there is certainly a spectrum of single mothers in different circumstances so I feel he was rather harsh here.

Along that thread, he has some perceptions of men and their attributes that also seem antiquated or not properly filtered through the lens of evolving culture. I agree that men and women have some biological differences, but he sometimes draws heavily on his own childhood, which is a bit anecdotal.

Still, his divergences into his own relationships are part of what makes de Waal such a fun writer. He always knows how to hook his audience and I enjoy his stories (even if I have read so many of his books that they overlap at times!). I'll always recommend de Waal. He's been one of my favorite authors for years and he is very prolific. This book is very timely right now so worth reading, even if you don't agree with everything he writes.

[Maisy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, an interesting and thought provoking read. I have my issues with it, as does every single person who reads it — that’s the nature of publishing on such a contentious topic, and I appreciate his attempt at an even handed, scientific, and inclusive approach. Some of my issues included: his seeming misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is, a couple oblivious statements about race/class struggles, and his emphasis on the peaks of the bimodal distribution that represent gender differences. Though I take his point that the differences between genders are often minimized and erased (or exaggerated and stereotyped) to fit narratives, I think he missed opportunities to talk more about “overlapping areas,” outliers, and the spectrum of gender more generally rather than primarily discussing its dichotomy (which was accompanied by lots of generalizations) . But on the flip side, he also had me rethinking ideas about gender as an entirely social construct, forced me to think about my own tendencies to fit my idea of gender into a narrative, and provided a nice reminder that masculinity is not inherently toxic

[Viral · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5, rounded up to 3 for Goodreads. I have mixed feelings about this book.

Frans de Waal did a good job of outlining a lot of where the field currently is on sex differences observed in nonhuman primate behavior, notably chimpanzee and bonobos. Where I really dislike this book is his repeated interjections to give his own commentary and his own subjective opinions about what this means for humans, while also repeatedly saying this book isn't trying to pass judgement on what sex differences mean for humans. It really feels like de Waal is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Does he think we can draw conclusions from nonhuman primate behavior about the nature of human behavior or not? If so, what conclusions? It feels very messy and I didn't really enjoy it, but there was some useful science in here and he does make a point to be clear that he is not saying we should reify sex-based and gender-based hierarchies.

[Jorge Zuluaga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bastante iluminador, con algunos puntos cuestionables, pero muy buena intención. Definitivamente el problema de la relación entre el género y el sexo es mucho más compleja de lo que imaginamos.

Les confieso que empecé a leer este libro básicamente porque era escrito por Frans de Waal, un reconocido etólogo y primatólogo que es autor de varios libros de divulgación sobre la inteligencia y las sociedades de los animales, incluyendo los humanos.

Como me pasa a veces, antes de empezar un libro trato de evitar las descripciones o las reseñas del texto para no arruinarme la "trama" -incluso si el libro es un ensayo como este-; a veces, ni siquiera leo la contraportada y me meto de cabeza en el texto, jugándomela por el contenido.

Naturalmente, por el subtítulo entendía de qué podía ir el libro. Pero no pensé en el tema espinoso en el que me estaba metiendo. Cuando terminé la introducción ya era demasiado tarde: tenía que terminar el libro -es una manía mía- aunque sabía que iba a ser bastante duro y me explico.

"Diferentes" es un libro que aborda la pregunta de si las diferencias que observamos en las sociedades humanas entre el comportamiento de personas que se identifican como hombres (incluyendo personas que cromosómicamente lo son -varones o machos para usar el término biológico- y personas las que no lo son pero que viven una vida interior de hombres, los hombres transexuales) o como mujeres (cromosómicas y transexuales), son, como proponen muchas filósofas, antropólogas y sociólogas del feminismo y la teoría queer (y lo pongo en femenino porque son mayoría) únicamente el resultado de procesos sociales y culturales, o si hay una importante componente biológica. Es decir, si hay diferencias "esenciales" en los comportamientos que se asocian hoy con el género, que son siempre determinadas por el sexo de nuestros cuerpos o de nuestros cerebros.

Sabía que iba a sufrir con el texto porque desde hace un par de años vengo leyendo mucha literatura feminista y esta pregunta recibe en ese contexto, con abundantes argumentos desde la filosofía, la antropología, la sociología y la historia, una respuesta bastante clara: si bien nuestros cuerpos son importantes, el género esta determinado casi exclusivamente por la socialización, por la cultura. A cualquier otra posición, especialmente las más extremas, se la llama en el contexto del feminismo, "esencialismo". De acuerdo con las teorías feministas, los esencialismos refuerzan y favorecen estereotipos que dañan a las personas y dan un sustento "científico" (o cientifista) a la estructura de poder y exclusión que llamamos Patriarcado.

Como ven, la discusión esta servida. Mi experiencia previa que me decía que iba a tener que enfrentar a la disonancia cognitiva de leer un texto de un autor muy autorizado, respaldado por su experiencia de campo y que posiblemente defendería una posición esencialista, contraria a la posición que ahora comparto con las teorías feministas.

¿Y qué paso?

Efectivamente descubrí que de Waal es un esencialista. Pero no cualquier esencialista. El autor parece estar ampliamente informado de las posiciones teóricas que existen en el seno de la comunidad feminista y naturalmente cuenta con el increíble peso de la experiencia y las evidencias científicas obtenidas después de pasar una vida entendiendo la mente y las sociedades de los simios antropoides, especialmente Chimpancés y Bonobos.

Sus conclusiones, a muy grandes rasgos, son presentadas de forma clara en el texto: la idea (muy extrema para el autor) de que la biología es irrelevante para determinar las preferencias y comportamientos que asociamos con el género es absurda. Según los argumentos de de Waal, en todos los simios antropoides, pero aún más, en la mayoría de los primates, incluso en algún aparte lo señala, entre los mamíferos, las diferencias de comportamiento entre individuos de ambos sexos es clara.

Pero esto no debe sorprendernos, las diferencias biológicas entre machos y hembras están ahí, nadie las niega. Lo más controversial es que actitudes como el cuidado de las crías, la violencia y la tendencia a la dominación social, una mayor actividad física en la infancia, según de Vaal, pueden asociarse claramente con ambos sexos en animales no humanos. Para no darle más vueltas, para de Waal las hembras primates cuidan, los machos saltan y pelean. Bueno, con algunos matices interesantes.

Después de leer todo el libro, es difícil no reconocer los patrones que señala de Vaals en los experimentos y en la literatura que cita. Al fin y al cabo es él quién tiene la experiencia y el conocimiento de primera mano sobre otros animales.

Sin embargo hay una falla que atraviesa toda su argumentación, y que creo puede dejar un espacio para la duda.

La conclusión de que los comportamientos típicamente femeninos y típicamente masculinos son comunes a todas las especies de nuestra rama del árbol de la vida, surge de la observación justamente de científicos y científicas humanas que han estado expuestas desde pequeñas a estas diferencias y en culturas donde se consideran esenciales. Primer problema.

En segundo lugar, y esto me sorprendió, de Vaals parece desconocer que todos los ejemplos que presenta en su libro son de animales sociales. Es decir, no se puede asegurar definitivamente si esos comportamientos "típicamente" femeninos y masculinos, no son también el producto de sus propias sociedades.

Otro punto en contra de la conclusión (esencialista en toda regla) de de Vaal, es que, como el mismo señala con muchos ejemplos, cada sociedad de primate es diferente. Las jerarquías (que son un fenómeno universal y definitivamente de base biológica), la relación con las crías, la responsabilidad de la búsqueda de alimento, varía a veces sustancialmente de una especie a otra. Incluso, grupos de animales de la misma especie que ocupan territorios diferentes, tienen sociedades con distintas reglas. Si es así ¿cómo podríamos usar a otros simios antropoides para juzgar un fenómeno tan complejo como el binomio género/sexo en nuestra propia especie? ¿no es acaso valida la pregunta de si tal vez una de las claves de la singularidad humana es precisamente que en nuestra especie el género es casi exclusivamente un fenómeno social? en otras palabras ¿no podría ser que la especie humana fuera la primera real y esencialmente igualitaria?.

Al margen de la discusión y de si ustedes están de acuerdo o no con las posiciones de de Waal, el libro deja muchas enseñanzas interesantes que, sea uno esencialista o no, permiten entender la determinación biológica o social del género.

Así por ejemplo, la increíble capacidad de los primates desde la más temprana edad para reconocer a individuos de su propio sexo; el papel de la imitación, que se manifiesta desde la más temprana edad, de individuos de tu propio sexo y que determina tus preferencias y comportamientos; la universalidad de la homosexualidad y más general, de la libertad de elección y de preferencia o de su movilidad (hoy me gusta macho, mañana hembra); el placer por el placer como un mecanismo profundamente biológico con una función que trasciende la reproducción; las relaciones de atracción sexual entre especies, con historias como las de chimpancés machos que sufren erecciones cuando ven hembras humanas y orangutanes que han intentado violar a mujeres. Y un largo etcétera.

En fin. La discusión es tan interesante, los datos tan ricos y Frans de Vaal escribe tan bien, que sea que quieras encontrar una confirmación para tus creencias esencialistas o sea que quieras poner a prueba tu convencimiento de una de las suposiciones más importantes de la teoría feminista, este libro es una verdadera joya y debería ser leído con cuidado.

[esztereszterdora · Rating 2 out of 5]

A főemlősökkel foglalkozó részek érdekesek, és tudományosan kritikusan lettek megírva. Ugyanez sajnos nem mondható el, amikor szociológia/ pszichológia kerül szóba, itt kellett volna egy témában járatos társszerző/ lektor.

Valójában nem is értem, miért kellett idehozni az emberi gendert (tudom, slágertéma), sokkal érdekesebb lett volna csak a főemlősökről olvasni, és még csak sóhajtoznom sem kellett volna, hogy má' megin' kritika nélkül csipogjuk az evo pszichót, rögtön azután, hogy a szociológiának beolvastunk, hogy nem kísérleti eredményei vannak.

Szerencsére nem rosszindulatú munka, de de Waal borzasztóan elmérte a saját kompetenciáját a társadalmi nem témájában.

[Massimo Pigliucci · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frans de Waal is always a pleasure to read. And to get acquainted with in person, if one has a chance. (I did several years ago, when I invited him to give a Darwin Day talk at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.) With this book he is taking his chances, given the delicate subject matter. Predictably, I heard that he has been criticized by overzealous leftists who either didn't like or, more likely, misunderstood, some of the things he says in the book. To be sure, as both an evolutionary biologist and a philosopher of science I do have the occasional bone to pick with Frans' treatment, but this is an excellent book that ought to be read by anyone interested in human and primate evolution, as well as anyone who cares about sex, genders, and their interplay.

[Jonathan Vidales · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely important book.

[The Inquisitive Biologist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbeholden to ideology, Different draws on De Waal's knowledge of chimpanzees and bonobos to reveal the primate roots of human behaviour, cutting across heated gender debates with nuance. Read my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2022...

[Sabrina de Leon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enlightening. “Humans don’t need to be the same to be equal.” Humans are not born as blank slates, and acknowledging our gendered biology is not an attack on gender equality.

[Cody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, I loved this book. De Waal is a great author and scientist, and I have to give him major kudos for wading in to a very difficult and socially influential subject. Below I include tons of notes of things that caught my attention, but here are three biggies:
(1) Apes are not "led by males;" females hold immense sway. Power is held by males and females in different ways; males are big and strong, females are politically influential. Careful quantitative analysis has demonstrated the extreme influence of powerful females in ape societies.
(2) Alpha males are not the biggest, strongest, and meanest. In fact, the traits that (statistically) set apart alpha males are their generosity (e.g., sharing food a lot) and impartiality (e.g., not favoring their friends and relatives).
(3) Pop-science accounts of our "ape ancestors" look at chimp societies (which are aggressive and feature large, loud males) and ignore (peaceful, female-led) bonobo societies-- even though we are equally closely related to both. This is one of many fallacies that has led us to have a flawed understanding of what evolution says about human nature.

How do other primates think and learn about reproduction?

Primates are not innately aware of how to be a mother or what pregnancy is. But they certainly seem to understand reproduction!! For example, de Waal writes that he once ”saw a young male capuchin monkey, Vincent, walk up to his best female friend, Bias, and deliberately place an ear on her belly. He kept it there for perhaps ten seconds. In the following days, I saw him do this several times. At the time, I didn't know that Bias was pregnant (which is hard to detect in these monkeys), but a few weeks later she had a tiny newborn on her shoulder. It's unlikely that Vincent had recognized her pregnancy by smell (like us, monkeys rely mostly on vision), but he could have felt the fetus moving around while huddling with his friend. I guess he wanted to hear the fetus's heartbeat.”

Apes have to learn how to nurse their babies! In fact, many zoos invite nursing human mothers to come to the zoo and (from behind the glass pane) demonstrate to apes how to nurse. Apes can also be taught to bottle-feed their babies! Kuif had lost some of her infants due to insufficient lactation. Every time she had gone into a depression marked by withdrawal, heart-breaking screams, and loss of appetite. With bars between us, I trained Kuif to handle a bottle and feed a baby chimp named Roosje, whom I kept on my side. The most challenging part was not to teach Kuif how to handle the bottle, which for a tool-using ape isn't that hard, but to make clear that the milk was not for her but for Roosje. Kuif was so extremely interested in the infant that she did everything I wanted and was a quick learner. After her transfer, Roosje clung permanently to Kuif, who raised her successfully… Kuif was eternally grateful to me. Every time I visited the zoo, sometimes after several years, she'd welcome me like a long-lost family member, groom me, and whimper if I made signs to leave. Later, the training also helped her raise her biological young.”

Male primates are not sex-crazed. In fact, in capuchins, ”males seem more interested in food than in sex in many cases, and we have even seen alpha males slap females who are pestering them for sex. One frustrated adolescent female, desperate for attention from the alpha male, bit him on the tail and pushed him out of the tree when he persisted in eating instead of responding positively to her advances.”


Female bonds are critical in ape societies.

Bonobo society is built around intense bonds between females. Sometimes even male humans have trouble working with bonobos because they do not see males as potential friends / equals! De Waal writes: ”I know several men scientists who tried to work with bonobos in captivity and ran into trouble because of uncooperative females. Bonobo females work better with female experimenters or observers. When Amy Parish studied the San Diego Zoo bonobos, the females embraced her as one of their own, something they'd never done with me. True, Loretta often solicited me from across the moat (turning her genitals to me while peeking between her legs and waving a hand at me), but this was purely sexual… .Amy, in contrast, once got food tossed at her from across the moat. “. Bonobo females also seem to coordinate to keep violent or harassing males in check. Sometimes, ”When groups mingle in the forest, females from different groups may band together against aggressive males.”

Many primates love to adorn themselves, not only with visual ornaments (like blades of grass hanging out of their ear like an earring) but even scent: some chimps crush oranges or other aromatic fruits to rub on their shoulders.

Primate females are very interested in infants and offspring. For example, when a keeper named Amy had a baby and then visited her old bonobo friends, “The bonobos recognized her right away. The oldest female briefly glanced at Amy's baby from across the moat but then ran indoors. She quickly returned with her own baby, whom she held so that the two infants could look into each other's eyes.”

False claim: humans are aggressive and selfish: just look at our primate relatives!
Evolutionary psychologists and public intellectuals regularly refer to chimpanzees as our closest relatives and build models of our ancestral behavior (and innate drives) based on this. Chimps are relatively aggressive and males hold lots of power in their societies, which conveniently fits into stereotypical thoughts about humans. But these public thinkers completely ignore that we are EQUALLY CLOSELY related to bonobos, who are peaceful and female-dominated! De Waal calls this “The inconvenience of bonobos in our family tree.”

Another deep flaw with how evolutionary psychologists and public thinkers rely on primates to understand humans is based on an infamous study on baboons from many years ago—the “Monkey Hill” study by Solly Zuckerman. It’s hard to overstate how intensely annoying it is that this single research study is so often cited. He chose the highly atypical primates hamadryas baboons, who are unusual because males are twice as big as females,males herd females, and males seem to be controlling. Even worse, he threw a huge amount of males into a rock enclosure with only a few females and presumed by doing so he could study their natural behavior. What could go wrong? The males fought fiercely over the handful of females, accidentally killing some females in the process, and it all stabilized only when about 2/3 of all the baboons died. Ergo, Zuckerman says, males are naturally superior and violent and females have no say at all. Does this seem like a good way to learn about primates and, indeed, humans to you?

It was not even a good study to learn about BABOONS. In the wild, baboons DO NOT fight intensely over females. But in this study, a bunch of males and just a few females were thrown together with no social order. In mountains of follow-up work, we see that this artificial situation does not describe baboon behavior! De Waal writes: “The weaponry of these baboons is so nasty that they are reluctant to resort to it. Kummer reported that if you threw a peanut in front of a single male baboon walking by, he would invariably pick it up and eat it. If you did the same to two males walking side by side, they would appear not to notice the peanut. Both of them would walk straight past it as if it didn't exist. A peanut was not worth a fight. Kummer also observed that males wouldn't even try to assert dominance if their respective families entered a fruit tree too small for all of them. Both males would exit the tree in a hurry with their families in tow, leaving the fruit unpicked. This deep aversion to conflict makes clear what had gone wrong at Monkey Hill. By throwing individuals of both sexes together without any preexisting bonds or established order among the males, the finely tuned mechanisms that generally keep them from fighting had broken down.”

Nonetheless, the false idea that primates are ruled by males and are viciously violent has persisted in pop culture (although it is widely discredited and in fact ignored by primatologists).

Power is not just held by the biggest and strongest (and male-est).

There is a difference between dominance and power. In many primates, males are indeed bigger and stronger than females—and they can push females around. But who is actually leading the group? De Waal shows that females wield immense amounts of power and leadership in primate groups, including in our closest relatives the chimps and bonobos. When a brand-new alpha male named Nikkie was acting too heavy-handed, the rest of the colony trapped him in a tree screaming and barking. The alpha female, Mama, Slowly climbed into the tree, touched and kissed Nikkie, and brought him down. The others stopped barking and yelling, now that she was wielding her influence, and Nikkie nervously made up with the rest of the group. Sometimes two full grown males would get in a fight and be too angry to make up with one another. They would run up to Mama and sit at either side of her screaming, and she would defuse the situation. On other occasions, Mama would guide two feuding males toward a reconciliation. When youngsters would get too rowdy and younger females couldn’t stop them, they’d wake up mama, who with a few grunts could stop the fuss.

One reason we focus on male leadership in primates is that male dominance struggles are loud, full of cockiness, violent, and rambunctious- they catch our attention! But careful studies show that females wield as much if not more influence in the group.

The smaller a chimpanzee alpha is, the more time he spends grooming his peers.

Chimps are altruistic.

Chimps are altruistic. For example, an arthritic old female named Peony could not easily trek to the water faucet., Younger females would rush ahead of her, gulp a mouthful of water, and spit it into Peony’s mouth. Similarly, when a beloved alpha male chimp named Amos grew very ill, his friends would come checkon him and even stuff soft straw behind his back where he was sitting against a wall—in a manner totally identical to a human propping pillows up behind their loved ones.
When a mother chimp has a miscarriage, her peers showered her with affection (far above the norm).

“Alpha male” leaders often are not the biggest and meanest—but rather, are the most generous and impartial.

We think of "alpha male" types as big, boisterous, bullies. But de Waal finds that the two most important characteristics of an alpha male are generosity. and impartiality. De Waals says he has observed two kinds of alpha males. One is the bully who seems to live by the Machiavellian credo that “if it better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” These alpha males are bullies who are feared and indeed, not loved by the group- they often meet a violent end at the hands of their disgruntled peers. The second type of alpha are the ”true leaders”. He “protects the underdog, keeps peace in the community, and reassures those who are in pain or distress.” In fact, careful studies counting chimp behaviors show that females console others far more often than males—but the huge exception to this rule is alpha males, who comfort others in agony more than anyone else. These policing alpha males do not favor their relatives over others (as do most chimps); they place themselves above the fray and seek peace. Sometimes, alphas are not that socially adept at consoling and the beta male is the one who is exceptional and comforts others far more than most males.

As a sidenote, this means that trophy hunters who take out alpha males are doing PARTICULAR damage. The group loses their arbitrator and peacekeeper. Indeed, among bull elephants, males raised without an older male around can basically go crazy (e.g., killing rhinos). Only by introducing old elephants to these young bulls’ ranges were scientists able to stop the killing sprees. They called it the Big Brother program.

Women and men are equally emotional.

There is no scientific evidence that humans, or indeed other primates, differ at all in the degree to which they follow emotions.
” One only needs to watch men during a crucial sports game to recognize their highly emotional nature. … Gender differences mostly concern the triggers and strengths of specific emotions and the cultural display rules surrounding them, which tell us when it's appropriate to laugh, cry, smile, and so on. Display rules permit women to express more tender sentiments, such as sadness and empathy, and men more power-enhancing ones, such as anger. When a man raises his voice—as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his tantrum may be hailed as rightful indignation. Women, by contrast, often bite their tongues because they know that anger doesn't make them look good. In an actual experiment on this contrast, subjects in an imaginary jury were asked to come up with a verdict. The deliberations were done by text in a chatroom …[when] angry language came from a person with a male name, it amplified his point of view. But if the same words seemed to come from a woman, they undermined her credibility.”


Is gender completely a social construct? Or do some features of gender spring from within?

About 0.6% of people identify as transgender. What about gender-nonconforming individuals in the primate world? De Waal writes that science doesn’t have the right tools to document such cases, because there are outliers, but nonetheless: ”Over decades of working with apes, I have known quite a few whose behavior was hard to classify as either masculine or feminine. Even though they form a minority, nearly every group seems to have one. There are always males, for example, who do not play the status game. They may be muscular giants yet retreat from confrontations. These males never reach the top, but they also don't sink to the bottom because they're perfectly capable of defending themselves. They are ignored by other males, who have given up recruiting them as allies for their political machinations. A male who is unwilling to take risks is no help in challenging the higher-ups. Females, too, have less interest in these males as they are unlikely to stand up for them whenever they are bothered by males or other females. For this reason, males without a dominance drive lead relatively quiet but isolated lives.”

He also described a female chimpanzee named Donna as a gender-nonconforming largely asexual chimp who did not show typical signs of sexual interest, had heavy menses, and ”acted more masculine than other females. She had the large head with the roughhewn facial features typical of males, including bluff-displaying like a male.

Human gender roles are … not necessarily biological, certainly not in all their details. They are culturally acquired, but with a speed, eagerness, and thoroughness that's astonishing. The ease with which children adopt them hints at a biologically driven process. They imprint, as it were, on their gender the way ducklings imprint on their species.

Apes are smart!

Several fun anecdotes in the book demonstrate that our ape relatives are exceptionally smart and have a great grasp on what is going on inside our minds (and inside the minds of their peers).

One bonobo showed that he cared a lot about protecting his young bonobo peers, in the process demonstrating that he knew exactly what the keepers had planned. “The keepers had drained the moat for scrubbing, then went to the kitchen to turn on the water valve to fill it up. Before they could do so, however, they were rudely interrupted by Kakowet, the alpha male. He appeared in front of their kitchen window, screaming and waving his arms. As it turned out, several young bonobos had jumped into the dry moat to play but were unable to get out. If the water flow had not been halted, they would have drowned. Kakowet's anxious intervention demonstrated his ability to take another's perspective and recognize their circumstances. But more practically- it also showed that he knew who controlled the water supply.”

Once, de Waal asked a mother chimp to see her baby by pointing at the baby. In response, the mother chimp ”took its right hand in her right hand and its left hand in her left hand. This sounds simple, but to do so, she had to cross her arms because the baby was clinging to her belly while facing her. … [she] slowly lifted the baby into the air while turning it around its axis, unfolding it in front of me. Suspended from its mother's hands, the baby now faced me instead of her. With this elegant motion, [the mother] demonstrated that she understood that I would find the front of her newborn more interesting than its back.”

There was an alpha male chimp named Nikkie who was (unusually for alphas) somewhat impulsive and aggressive. When a new baby was born to a female named Kuif, all the keepers were extremely nervous he would hurt or kill it. When it came time to introduce the newborn, with Nikkie being the last chimp to be let out into the shared space, here is what happened: “Outdoors, most colony members greeted Kuif with an embrace, stealing glances at the baby. Everyone seemed to be keeping a nervous eye on the door behind which Nikkie waited for his release. Chimpanzees know much better than we human observers do what to expect from each other. In the melee. we noticed that the oldest two males never left Kuif’s side. When we let Nikkie onto the island, about an hour later, these two males positioned themselves about halfway between Kuif and the approaching Nikkie, with their arms draped around each other's shoulders. This was a sight to behold, given that these two had been arch enemies for years. Here they were, standing united against the young leader, who approached in a most intimidating manner with all his hair on end. Nikkie broke down when he saw that the other two were not going to budge. Kuif’s defense team must have looked incredibly determined^ staring down the boss, because Nikkie fled. Much later, he approached Kuif under the watchful eyes of the other two males. He was nothing but gentle.”

[Marein Zwama · Rating 3 out of 5]

Het is een mooi boek die de blik verruimd, maar aan de sterren die ik heb gegeven kan je zien dat ik wat heb op te merken. Zo valt het op dat De Waal niet de laatste sociologie kent op het gebied van gender, hij refereert naar Butler en het is dan ook niet gek dat hij het idee heeft dat sommige sociologen het idee hebben dat gender/genderidentiteit compleet maakbaar is. Dat valt meteen in mijn tweede punt: De Waal maakt namelijk geen onderscheid tussen gender (maatschappelijk en sociale rollen en normen) en genderidentiteit (persoonlijke ervaring van het man/vrouw/x zijn). Deze fout is veelvoorkomend, maar heeft grote effecten, aangezien veel sociologen die denken dat gender compleet maakbaar is, dit absoluut niet denken over de genderidentiteit. Hierdoor geeft De Waal ook kritiek op een positie van sociologie (maar ook van de maatschappij) die in werkelijkheid weinig voorkomt.

Daarnaast geeft de Waal kritiek op personen die gender en sekse door elkaar halen, maar hijzelf doet hetzelfde. Zie bijvoorbeeld p. 158, waarbij hij gelaatsverschillen (kaaklijn, lippen etc) toebedeeld aan genderverschillen, terwijl dit juist natuurlijk in grote mate over sekseverschillen gaat die voortkomen uit hormoonverandering in de puberteit. Genderverschillen zou gaan over hoe men expressie geeft aan hun gender, hoe zij hun sekseverschillen aankleden, benadrukken of juist niet.

In het hoofdstuk over speelgoed en genderverschillen maakt De Waal ook veel gebruik van anekdotes van zijn jeugd. Op zich is het kleurig, maar het is nietszeggend. Hij ervaart dat jongens niet van poppen houden en deze al snel het hoofd eraf trekken. Ik zou net zo goed een stuk kunnen schrijven over hoe vaak ik jongetjes bij mijn speelgoed heb zien staan op de rommelmarkt, een babypop in hun armen nemen en er liefkozend naar kijken, totdat hun moeder het afkeurend afpakt en zegt ‘nee, dat is voor meisjes!’

Ook het laatste hoofdstuk valt wat tegen, omdat er enorm veel nieuw onderzoek is gedaan naar de rol van hormonen en genderervaringen, de biologische oorsprong van genderidentiteit, maar deze komen niet aan bod.

Laatstens heb ik wel enorm genoten van de beschrijvingen van de primaten die De Waal maakt en kleurig beschrijft. Het is zeer goed dat mensen uit andere disciplines oog hebben voor gender, en ook voor mensen zoals ik om meer te leren over primatologie. De volgende keer zou iets meer kennis over de nieuwste wetenschap op dit gebied wel gepast zijn.

[Davia Finch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like other reviewers, I have some reservations about some of de Waal's takes. I think the "social construction = gender differences are purely a product of socialization" is a strawman. (I don't know anyone who still holds a "nurture is everything" position.) De Waal is certainly stronger in his own field; the parts on primatology are fascinating and well worth reading. Where he struggles is in applying these observations to human behavior, where he relies more heavily on personal anecdote. A little more time spent on the sociology side of things would have made the book stronger.

Although I don't believe de Waal anywhere argues for a rigid gender binary (he makes a point of describing individual apes, like Donna, who fail to conform to such a binary), nor does he argue that human behavior is rigid and inflexible, his language does come across as being a bit too generalizing at times, and he does seem a little defensive. I can understand why that's turning off some his readers, but I'd hate for people interested in the subject to give this book a pass on that account. I do think de Wall is making some important observations.

As a trans person, I'm primarily interested in what de Waal has to say about gender identity. This is an area I've been actively researching for some time now, and I was pleased to see him lay out a theory that parallels, more or less, at least part of one I've been advocating for since around 2016. Using our innate predisposition to acquire language as a springboard, he says (pp. 44-5):

Human gender roles are subject to similar learning predispositions. These roles themselves are not necessarily biological, certainly not in all their details. They are culturally acquired, but with a speed, eagerness, and thoroughness that’s astonishing. The ease with which children adopt them hints at a biologically driven process. They imprint, as it were, on their gender the way ducklings imprint on their species. Children typically love to emulate adults of their gender whether they are real or fictional. Affected by the media, girls dress up like fairy-tale princesses, and boys slay dragons with swords. Children thoroughly enjoy these reenactments. Neuroimaging studies indicate that imitating people of one’s own gender activates reward centers in the brain, whereas imitating people of the opposite gender does not. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the brain is in charge, because it too reacts to the environment. But it does suggest that evolution has equipped our young with a feel-good bias to conform to their gender. [Losin et al., 2012]

In one early study, toddlers watched a short film in which a man and woman performed simple activities, such as playing an instrument or building a fire. The actors did so at the same time but on opposite ends of the screen. The children zoomed in on the actor of their gender: the woman was watched more by the girls than by the boys, who focused more on the man. The investigators interpreted this own-gender preference as follows: "It becomes increasingly relevant for them to learn and to adopt the social rules concerning male-appropriate and female-appropriate behaviors." [Slaby and Frey, 1975]

We tend to view socialization as a one-way street in which parents teach their children how to behave, but self-socialization is at least as important. Children themselves seek and enact it. Fascination with persons of their own gender makes them pay attention to the behavior they wish to emulate. Here is how the American anthropologist Carolyn Edwards, inspired by her observations of boys and girls in a wide range of cultures, defined self-socialization: "The process whereby children influence the direction and outcomes of their development through selective attention, imitation, and participation in particular activities and modalities of interaction that function as key contexts of socialization." [Edwards, 1993]

As a gender role is, ultimately, in my opinion, a behavioral language, it would be no surprise to discover that the critical learning period for acquiring language proficiency in a gender role overlaps with verbal language proficiency. This would explain why children begin to adopt gender norms at such an early age (by the time they are 2 or 3); it would also explain the degree of fluency with which boys acquire proficiency in the male behavioral language and girls the female behavioral language.

Assuming that, as an innate disposition, this orientation towards one gender or the other is biological, and therefore subject to natural variation, the etiology of trans children is very straightforward. Binary trans children are oriented inversely to cis children; nonbinary trans children either lack any specific orientation (agender), or are oriented toward both genders to one degree or another (paralleling bisexuality in sexual orientation). A person's gender identity is a consequence of the interaction between a person's innate, biological gender orientation and their environment.

Trans children who are allowed to express themselves freely will develop the same level of behavioral proficiency with their own, self-identified gender as cis children [Gülgöz, 2019]. Conversely, on this basis, it is reasonable to assume that trans children who are not allowed to express themselves in accordance with their self-identified gender may never acquire the same degree of behavioral proficiency. Even after they come out as adults, trans men and women may always "speak" their own-gender behavioral language with a more or less distinct "accent". This helps to explain the frequent accusations most often directed at trans women that their behavior is "artificial" or "too masculine". In general, the more time a trans person has had to master the behavioral language, the less of an "accent" they will have in performing their gender role.

All speculations aside, overall, despite certain weaknesses, I would say that de Waal's book is well worth a read.

[Bas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eerste boek dat ik lees van Frans de Waal en ik snap waarom het zo populair is: fijn toegankelijk geschreven met veel aansprekende voorbeelden van allerlei verschillende apensoorten (maar vooral chimpansees en bonobo’s).
Veel geleerd over de manier waarop genetische achtergrond en culturele opvoeding samenhangen (nature vs. nurture). Bij het lezen heb ik steeds onbewust de neiging om de apensituaties een-op-een op mensen toe te passen, maar De Waal weet dat goed te nuanceren.
Apen hebben wel een cultuur, een manier waarop ze met elkaar omgaan, maar kunnen deze zelf niet bewust bijsturen. Daarin zijn mensen uniek. Wij zijn constant bezig om onze culturele gewoonten (bijv. hoe voed je een kind op) aan te passen. Ik zou daarom ter aanvulling op dit boek nog wel wat meer willen lezen over deze culturele ontwikkelingen en hun geschiedenis.

[Alvaro Francisco Hidalgo Rodriguez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book about a topic I have studied in the past, and, therefore, perhaps not as eye opening as it might be for those new to the field of primatology and sex/gender differences. I had a few quibbles with some of his conclusions and interpretations, but all in all, a rewarding read.