It takes some courage to present Simon Baron-Cohen’s argument today that there are distinct and irrevocable differences between males and females. My difficulty, though, is in recognising much of the gender behaviour he describes as current in the 21^st century developed world; though it remains too clear elsewhere. I felt a time-slip, as though he were describing Blondie and Dagmar of 50s cartoon fame. Indeed, his supporting data is often from Eleanor Maccoby’s American studies of gender differences of that time, spiced with many anecdotes of children and people he has come across, and some famous scientists.

Baron-Cohen writes clearly and smoothly for the intelligent reader, presenting his provocative arguments with a variety of back-up research, explaining carefully that he is describing statistical averages rather then individuals. Men, he says, tend to systemize, that is to regard the order of things, while women tend to empathize. But either sex can have the other’s brain, and some people even have nicely balanced brains. For the two main types, he has devised two quotients, SQ and EQ (different from emotional quotient) on a normal scale so that either can be extreme. The male extreme at best produces computer hackers and at worst autistic spectrum disorders. The latter, the author’s speciality, are beautifully and humanely described. But he flounders badly searching for problems of extreme empathy, such as being “technically disabled”, because for most people, when we need technical help we call an expert. The book provides tests for brain bias, including a friendship quotient (FQ), all of which are reminiscent of those test-yourself quizzes in women’s magazines. No reliability or validity evidence is offered.

Baron-Cohen is snooty about Men are from Mars and Women from Venus, the international best-seller by John Gray, dismissing it as unscientific. But in truth that does say much the same thing, and is more fun to read.

In the UK, girls are outstripping boys in just about all subjects at school, including mathematics and the hard sciences. It is similar in Russia, Australia, Holland and many other countries. Yet Baron-Cohen has joined the retrograde movement, including Steven Pinker (who provides cover praise), which claims that each sex has mental strengths and weaknesses distinguishable by subject achievement. Strangely, it is still true in the USA that there is a “ratio of ten males to every female who performs at the top end of the SAT-M”, the maths test. But obviously American data does not always hold for other cultures, and Baron-Cohen fails to mention girls’ growing examination superiority elsewhere.

Societal influences, such as dressing baby boys in blue and girls in pink, are fully recognised in all their subtleties, but Baron-Cohen claims to have evidence that there are intellectual differences between the sexes at just one day old. The girls favour faces and boys favour a systemized version. The author is also aware of the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from animal behaviour, anthropomorphising, and yet he uses animal examples to support his arguments. Conclusions for the mass of humanity are drawn from people with rare genetic make-up. He describes how hormone injections can change behaviour. Perhaps as bio-science becomes more precise and available, everyone will be able to adopt whatever skills and talents they fancy, maybe even now via the internet.

Girls are not only more empathetic, but also strikingly more mature. At birth they are advanced by four to six weeks, escalating at puberty to two years. Even young girls are capable of genuine discussion, far removed from the boys’ bluster. But rational behaviour neither makes wars nor wins power, and millions of females are subject to male domination, denied education and a voice. The sword is mightier than the word.

I found difficulty with the argument that male brains have evolved to make sure their progeny is their own by commanding their females. Female brains, he says, have evolved to be good at child rearing, sharing this with their friends and protecting their children from male thugs. Yet we know (unmentioned here) that a high proportion of human babies are not actually those of their official fathers. The described male lack of empathy and suggested consequent aggression, puts even his own offspring in danger, and in terms of continuing his seed does not make sense.

Though men’s bodies may be stronger than women’s, their genetic make-up is weaker. In fact, with increasing male infertility, according to Bryan Sykes (Adam’s Curse: a Future Without Men) in about 15,000 years or 5000 generations, fertility is likely to be just 1% of what it is today. This will coincide, he says, with the gradual disappearance of the human male, due to the shrinking of both the X chromosome and the gene that acts as the master switch for maleness (SRY). But the human race will not die out, thanks to cloning, leaving men’s prime function of insemination in limbo.

Until very recently, in almost all scientific studies, as with Francis Galton’s, male behaviour has been taken as the norm, whether Cambridge undergraduates or rats, because females were seen as emotional, irrational and too difficult to measure. The men being steady chaps. But now, when emotions are generally acceptable, at least in the first world, lack of them seems to have become a problem. Yet, if some girls systematize better than some boys, and some boys empathize better than some girls, what should we do? Should the reader feel sorry for strong silent men, or for women who are either not as good at or less interested in fiddling with the car engine? Maybe, to help the boys, we should U-turn schooling back to rote-learning and last-minute cramming. And why is it that men know where everything is on the map, but women know where everything is in the house?

Joan Freeman