Cordelia Fine is a feminist critic of the neurosciences and her book Delusions of Gender: The real science behind Sex Differences (2010) takes aim at the “science” that is often used to justify the oppression and discrimination of women. Fine is a Canadian-born British philosopher, psychologist and writer. She is a Full Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at The University of Melbourne, Australia. This book is a refutation of popular titles such as The Female Brain, What Could He Be Thinking? Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and Why Gender Matters, that use neuroscience to claim there are “hard-wired differences”[1] between the binary sexes, male and female. In her introduction, fine states that these texts and others like them, suggest that ‘there are fundamental gender differences, and they start in the very structure of the human brain.’[2] Using MRI’s and other brain studies these texts attempt to demonstrate why women are caring, domestic, interpersonally sensitive and nurturing and why men are powerful, authoritative, analytical, and ambitious, and thus why each sex is better suited to different roles in society. Fine says, ‘If only it were that simple.’ The first half of Delusions of Gender is dedicated to the different ways in which we are socially ‘primed,’ to behave in gendered ways. In the second half of the book, Fine examines the arguments and scientific studies used to defend the sex differences. What may come as little surprise, is that she finds these studies to be poorly performed and riddled with bias. This in turn, supports Fine’s argument that any differences found in the male and female brain do not determine how each sex then behaves in a real-world context. Fine believes we behave in gendered ways due to pervasive social and cultural expectations and stereotypes. In the chapter titled, We think, Therefore We Are, Fine outlines how even if we don’t consciously subscribe to gendered stereotypes, their presence in our psyche is undeniable. ‘Stereotypes, as well as attitudes, goals and identity appear to exist at an implicit level, and operate without the encumbrances of awareness, intention and control.’[3] Fine believes that stereotypes carry a great weight in society, informing peoples’ self-perception. ‘The boundary of the self-concept is permeable to other peoples’ conceptions of you.’[4] Fine quotes from research by Princeton University Psychologist Stacey Sinclair and her colleagues that found through a string of experiments that people ‘socially tune their self-evaluations to blend with the opinion of the self held by others.’[5] This means that in environments where gender stereotypes are more salient, people behave in ways that are more stereotypical. To back up her argument Fine delves into multiple social experiments in which the participants are ‘gender-stereotype-primed'[6] prior to engaging in a test. In one example, a teacher split her class into three groups. To the first group she offhandedly mentions that men usually do better in this test, probably for genetic reasons. To the second group she says nothing, and to the third group she says, women usually do better in this test, probably for genetic reasons. Interestingly, in both the ‘men are better’ and ‘nothing’ group, men out performed women with the usual size of gender difference. However, in the ‘women are better’ group ‘the recipients of the little white lie performed just as well as the men.’[7] But how can changing the way a task is described have such an effect on performance? Fine believes that the ‘social demands of a situation can change how motivated men and women are to perform well.’[8] Furthermore, Fine goes on to say, ‘If gender stereotypes can affect people’s perceptions of their abilities (as we now know that they can), then it would not be surprising to discover that this then has effects on career decisions.’[9] People choose careers that they are talented in, or that a proliferation of stereotypes tells them they are talented in. Fine believes this is why there are industries such as Computing or Nursing where high numbers of one gender make up most of the workforce. Fine’s book is filled with a variety of studies that demonstrate the impact of society and culture on our behaviour as a species. Things that others, such as John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus argue are a result of our neuroendocrinological status. Gray has sold more than 15-million copies of his book, which was the highest selling non-fiction book of the 1990’s. In it, he argues that doing housework is actually beneficial to women, ‘including - if not especially – to those with demanding jobs’ because as a consequence of removing herself from a life of babies and socialising with the neighbours, she now has dangerously low levels of oxytocin, the hormone associated with ‘social-bonding and social-interactions.’[10] Fortunately, however, domestic routines such as vacuuming, mopping and dusting are both oxytocin-producing and in plentiful supply. Furthermore, Gray goes on to say that such chores have a negative effect on men because they are not ‘testosterone producing.’ Or as Fine humorously sums up Gray’s position, ‘without the stimulating rush of that sex hormone, men become little better than limp rags (and not even ones that then wipe themselves along the counter top).’[11] On the surface it may seem that Gray is simply coming up with reasons to get out of doing the housework, but why do successful, well-paid women so often end up carrying the domestic load? Are men really neurally less capable of housework? Fine says that sociologists refer to a curious phenomenon called ‘gender deviance neutralisation.’[12] A process where a couple works together to ‘counteract the discomfort created when a woman breaks a traditional marital role,’[13] such as being the breadwinner. Basically, the sociologists found that in relationships where women were the higher-earners, both partners went to extra lengths to be more conventional in other aspects of the relationship. So, if a woman earned a good wage, which does not fit in the traditional marital hierarchy, she then ended up doing majority of the childrearing and housework as well. When it comes to parenting, assumptions are often made about women when they choose to leave their well-paying jobs to have children. We may assume that this is because of their hormones and that naturally men are more hands-off when it comes to childrearing. However, Fine believes our ‘biology offers us a lot more flexibility than we think.’[14] ‘Hormones are not simply internal drivers that pull us toward particular sorts of environments and behaviour: the influence works in the other direction too.’[15] Fine states that our hormones respond to our lives, breaking down the false divisions between our internal biology and external environments, ‘And so it should be no surprise that it’s not just mother’s hormones that change in the transition to parenthood, but father’s too.’[16] she says. Fine references a study by Professor Francine Deutsch, in which she found that in relationships where both partners share the ‘responsibilities and pleasures of homelife' [17] that fathers were as close to their children as mothers were. And if you need further convincing, Fine continues by quoting a study where male rats (who never normally participate in infant care), are left alone in a cage with baby rats. What was found was that after a few days ‘he will be caring for the baby rat as if he were its mother.’[18] From this Fine concludes, ‘The parenting circuits are there in the male brain, even in a species in which paternal care doesn’t normally exist. If a male rat can be inspired to parent, then I would suggest that the prospects for human fathers are pretty good.’[19] On a more serious note, Fine points out the harmful nature of rigid stereotypes for men in which they are excluded (albeit often by choice) from tasks and environments that are filled with the joys of ‘family, friends and community.’[20] Men are parents too, and they deserve the chance to enjoy their parenthood, and home life. This book is interested in bringing about gender equality by debunking many of the scientific myths that have historically defended gender inequality. Although Fine’s text fails to address the implications of the “scientific studies” she criticises in relation to people who are gender non-binary or trans, her argument that behaviour is shaped more by cultural stereotypes than by anatomical differences in the brain is one that fits well with women, men, trans and gender non-binary people alike. An interesting and informative read, this book gives feminists a wealth of research to reference to anyone who wants to argue the “hard-wired” differences between the binary sexes. By Phoebe Cannard-Higgins [1] Introduction xvii [2] Introduction xvii [3] Delusion of Gender: We Think, Therefore We Are p. 4 [4] Delusions of Gender: We Think, Therefore We Are p. 10 [5] Delusions of Gender: We Think, Therefore We Are p.10 [6] Delusions of Gender: Backwards and In High-Heels p. 28 [7] Delusions of Gender: Backwards and In High-Heels p. 29 [8] Delusions of Gender: Backwards and In High-Heels p.29 [9] Delusions of Gender: I Don’t Belong Here p. 48 [10] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.81 [11] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.81 [12] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p. 82 [13] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.82 [14] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.87 [15] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p. 87 [16] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p. 87 [17] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.87 [18] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.88 [19] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.88 [20] Gender Equality Ends or Begins at Home p.88