Through shrewdly selected examples and engaging interviews with researchers, science journalist Pool (Science, Discover, Nature, etc.) assembles a convincing argument to explain the biological basis of sexual differences. Wisely limiting himself, Pool considers the role of hormones in prenatal development: While all fetuses begin as female, the male is differentiated by an infusion of testosterone that alters both the structure of the brain and its function. For biological reasons, then, he claims, boys really do prefer trucks and girls dolls. Boys have a better spatial sense, stronger competitive instincts, and a preference for objects, whereas girls demonstrate greater verbal ability, a more cooperative nature, and an interest in people. Moreover, faced with the same problems, boys and girls use different parts of the brain to solve them and at different speeds: While both can get out of a maze, girls look for landmarks but boys prefer maps. Physiologically, while the male brain is larger, it is not necessarily superior. Of course, there are variations: girls with excess testosterone; boys with excess estrogen; chemicals such as DES that effect pregnancies; and changes in the hormone levels throughout life. All of these biological events, according to Pool, influence behavior far more than the socialization process to which feminists especially have attributed the sexual stereotypes that they want to overturn. Ironically, it was women, often feminists, who made the discoveries about the biological bases of sexual differences. In a speculative chapter, Pool concludes that these differences evolved to suit a more primitive culture and are no longer relevant or useful. A convincing and optimistic study promoting the advantages of difference, the futility of influencing the environment of young children to produce people who are the same but not necessarily equal. Pool captures the resourcefulness of the researchers, the voices of those who made the discoveries and tested them in their own lives.
Pub Date: April 27, 1994
ISBN: 0-517-59298-3
Page Count: 320
Publisher: Crown
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: March 1, 1994
BOOK REVIEW
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2025 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
