Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier, Little Brown, 拢19.99, ISBN 1860496857
A SURGEON 鈥渢rims鈥� a little girl鈥檚 clitoris, cutting away flesh and nerves. In Egypt? West Africa? No, this is an American doctor denying a woman a lifetime鈥檚 orgasms because as a child her clitoris is too big.
But exactly how big or small should a clitoris be? We have so little information about this: can any surgeon justify this action? The judgment here is aesthetic. It doesn鈥檛 look right that a clitoris is visible above the labia, what鈥檚 wanted for a little girl is a Barbie-doll tidiness. The anger and revulsion felt by a woman to whom this was done as a child shows that it was mutilation, not cosmetic surgery.
Advertisement
This is just one of the stories in Woman, Natalie Angier鈥檚 exploration of what we know about women. Curiously, we have masses of information about the sick, the abnormal, the unhealthy woman, on the risks of missing a smear test and the perils of brittle bones after the menopause. An enormous amount of money now flows into research about women鈥檚 problems. But what of the healthy woman? New York writer Angier has set out to right the record in Woman, discovering and celebrating this almost unknown terrain.
A Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for the New York Times, Angier鈥檚 previous books include Natural Obsessions (about cancer) and The Beauty of the Beastly on attitudes to the nature of life. She has been writing about biology and women for years, but her latest book has had a mixed reception. I asked her why so little is known about the whole woman. She explains that the funding success has a downside: 鈥淭here鈥檚 this perception now that women have a lot more health problems than men.鈥� She mentioned her book to her endocrinologist, who asked if she was writing about women and autoimmune diseases. 鈥淚 said, no. He said, then you鈥檙e missing a very big part of the picture because you know women have a particular problem with autoimmune diseases. I said, yes, but this isn鈥檛 a book about what goes wrong, it鈥檚 about what goes right.鈥�
Angier looks at the accounts we have of women鈥檚 biology and finds the flaws in the 鈥渟tandard model鈥�. She begins her exploration with the corporeal: the vagina, the egg, the womb, the clitoris, muscles; then tackles aggression, evolutionary psychology and sexuality. There have been a number of conferences lately on the theme of feminism and evolutionary biology and whether the two have anything to say to each other or should keep their distance. 鈥淏ut what does it mean to take a feminist perspective?鈥� she says, 鈥淚t only means that you feel somehow dissatisfied by the `standard model鈥�. Now why would you feel dissatisfied by it? Well, maybe there鈥檚 something that just doesn鈥檛 quite ring true to you. That could mean that you鈥檙e just in complete error or it could mean that there鈥檚 something missing from the standard model.鈥�
For Angier, it鈥檚 clear that something is missing. Take, for example, the case of female sexuality. Evolutionary psychologists appear to be satisfied with a thin soup of assumptions: that men are promiscuous, women not; that men seek youth, women powerful older men, and so on. At times, it seems that researchers are merely picking the patterns that fit their theories, or, where there is some evidence, failing to consider alternatives.
鈥淚 think that that鈥檚 what a lot of the good scientists I know are complaining about,鈥� says Angier. 鈥淲hat is the job of science? You get the result, you have a hypothesis and you want alternative explanations to be raised because that鈥檚 part of science. You can鈥檛 just look at the results and say, 鈥楢ha, OK, now we know, that鈥檚 it鈥�. There could be many different explanations for it.鈥�
鈥淪o I don鈥檛 think that it鈥檚 necessarily damaging to science. It鈥檚 not as though we are denying data. Are we denying that there鈥檚 a difference in reproductive potential between men and women? Men sire X thousands of children, a woman has a few. But what does that mean in reality? That鈥檚 the question 鈥� what it means in reality and what all the constraining variables are. What is evolutionary fitness in a world where the fewer children you have the more fit each child is?鈥�
Angier also opposes the broad brush that鈥檚 used to sweep all females (not just women) into one generic female in search of the alpha male 鈥� the idea that 鈥渢hey want a male that displays `big鈥� genes鈥�. Each female obviously brings her own different genetic complement to the relationship. The interesting point is: what is best for your own mix of genes? As she says, 鈥淪trategies, desires and needs are going to vary, and that鈥檚 something that you just try to emphasise throughout鈥�.
What Angier is keen on is a 鈥減ermanent revolution鈥� in the way we consider evolutionary and other questions, a real effort to keep our minds open. This approach is woven into the book. There are also questions that biologists and behaviourists haven鈥檛 considered, she says, for example, how factors such as physical safety could dramatically alter a woman鈥檚 sexual behaviour.
As a science writer, she has to resist the urge to look for the simple explanation, to put forward a single solution or to fall prey to the power of a stunning metaphor. The problem is that this leads to endless qualification. 鈥淎s a writer,鈥� she explains, 鈥測ou can report yourself into nothing. The more we know, the shakier we feel.鈥�
Hormones are a great example. 鈥淥n the one hand, we鈥檝e been getting the lesson that we鈥檙e exposed to too many hormone cycles in our lifetime because, after all, our ancestors maybe had 100 or 150. Now a woman can expect to have 400 to 450 periods, so that sounds like, `Well, gee, it鈥檚 bad鈥�. Yet at the same time we鈥檙e told we don鈥檛 have enough hormones. And that鈥檚 good.鈥� The truth is somewhere in between. Perhaps the long run of cycles isn鈥檛 good, but replacement oestrogen is useful. Her conclusion? After weighing up the research, hormone replacement therapy is probably a good idea for older women rather than starting right after the menopause in the forties and fifties. 鈥淚 think 70 seems like a good idea. I think that there鈥檚 an argument to be made for that as a reasonable strategy.鈥�
Woman will make you question your assumptions 鈥� and fuel some wholesome arguments. Great food for the brain, and essential reading for not only women, but all those alpha and not so alpha males out there.
