Book recommendation: Delusions of Gender

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, not about autism at all, but I post it here because it's pretty much a book about how NTs think. Specifically on the subject of gender.

One of the basic ideas is that people adapt who they are to environmental clues, social clues. And thus, women adjust who they are, how they think of themselves, to expectations of what women are supposed to be like. And men to what men are supposed to be like. And this is subject to environmental influences.

Now doesn't that pretty much sound like NTs?

I read the book because I'm interested in gender issues. But it also helped me understand the NT mind. The book doesn't talk about autism, doesn't note that there are people who are less adaptable to environmental influences. But it's talking about things that aren't obvious to the NT mind, things they aren't aware they are doing. So, come to think of it, probably good for NTs who are aware of autism to read to understand their own thinking, and then apply that to what they know about autism to understand the differences better. And same for us on the spectrum, I think.

The book is Delusions of Gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference (link to book at author's website).

Also, one chapter near the end I think would be a good read for people on the spectrum, quite apart from understanding NTs. It talks about how the idea of being hardwired (in the brain) doesn't fit how the brain works.

I think I also read her book A Mind of It's Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, which, as I recall, some of it was a fascinating look about how brains work, including mind, and some of it was (for me) and explanation of how the NT brain works. Interesting in both cases.

Now if someone with this kind of insight would write something on autism, and on the differences (which I think lie on a continuum) between autistics and NTs.

That sounds interesting. I should get to the library and look for it. I could use the fresh air and exercise and something to read.

I read a book once called "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps: How We're Different and What to Do About It". It was interesting but much of it didn't apply to me and the test in the book rated me as more masculine than feminine.

That sounds a lot like NTs to me. That's my biggest issue with NTs is that they think that way and there's a member at my clubhouse who tries to convert me into that type of thinking. That woman pisses me off.

Anyways, I see a person as a person and not as a gender.

I read this book too. I think it stereotypes genders to some extent. I'm a male and most of the descriptions of men apply to me, but not all. However, female aspies tend to have masculine characteristics regarding how their brains work, so they fit in with the feminine stereotype less in comparison.

I've wanted to get my hands on this book for awhile now

I used to think like that, but had to break myself out of it a few years ago. As a male bodied person, it was entirely my privilege to turn a blind eye towards gender issues, whereas a female bodied person has them forced upon her on a near constant basis.

Just because I am perhaps not very susceptible to gender issues does not mean that the person I'm talking to will benefit from my ignorance. Quite the reverse, actually.

There are differences in the behavior of each gender throughout the animal kingdom. Do savannah lions have some "repressive patriarchal culture" that cause differences in the behavior of male and female lions?

No, the answer is genetic.

Just as genetic differences between male and female cause differences in genital development, it also causes differences in brain devlopment.

We of all people should know how genetic changes can cause alternative wiring of brains.

I started to actually feel I belong to my gender (i.e. I'm a man) only a couple of years ago (literally), and I'm 38. Also, I'm far from the macho stereotype, the description on that picture fits me much better.

Yes it does however what these differences exactly are is not for us to say.
There are quite a few studies suggesting that these differences are insignificant and most attributes we assign to genders are merely cultural stereotypes. I think there is a much greater difference between NTs and us than males vs females.

Under what authority do you have to tell me what I can and cannot say?

Your attempt to censor the discussion reveals the intellectual fascism that permeates every aspect of feminism.

Science does why would I. Now I shall censor your unreasonable hostility which I find impossible to process.

You should read Cordelia Fine's book on Neurosexism.

Also, feminism isn't a monolith formed of women who all think exactly the same way with exactly the same ideology and exactly the same opinions. A label like "intellectual fascism" cannot be honestly applied to "every aspect of feminism."

This sounds like an interesting book. I do wonder if she acknowledges that "male" and "female" are not objective biological categories to which everyone can be assigned, though. It's incredibly rare for science to acknowledge that (even if we are talking strictly about physical characteristics, intersex people are generally ignored unless they are specifically being studied).

Or even a monolith of women. I know I'm not the only feminist out there who isn't a woman!

interesting information from the book says something different:



looks like at least one scholar says the exact opposite to what you are saying.

i don't believe there was anything feminist in mar00's response, so your response to that member was quite peculiar. also, there was no censoring going on - just a different opinion.

Given the commonality of gendered behavioural differences in essentially EVERY animal, it would be simply arrogant to assume humans are THE exception to what is a biological norm.

Many aspects are surely cultural, taught, socialised, etc, there's little doubt about that.
But to assume there are no major differences in brain biology is just wishful thinking IMO.

There's certainly no concrete differences that make someone act in an exact way, but there's good evidence to suggest that biology affects predispositions and that those can affect which skills, socialisations, and activities someone is more likely (but not guaranteed) to acquire.

Gendered behaviour is statistical, no one fits the standard. But you can say x% of y gender are likely to engage in z behaviour.

The real mistake is assuming you can use population level analysis on an individual level.
Like when people use BMI's to assess individual weight. Of course it's wrong, it's NOT designed for individuals, it's a population level statistic.

All this talk about nature versus nurture tends to ignore the fact it's a combination of both, and attempt to apply the psychological equivalents of BMI to individual people, as though you are your gender. You're not, it's just one facet of you.

I suggest read the book. The book brings up that idea, and shows that, for the most part, gender differences are learned. There's no pink princess gene. To use one example from the book. That is, there's no gene that makes girls like pink and princesses.

The book doesn't argue that there are no innate behavioral differences between males and females. It doesn't make that sort of absolute case. Nor does the title suggest anything that black and white.