I must say that I was startled to read this recent post by my friend and terrific blogger Miffedy Plaster, who pointed out something interesting:
I was perusing the oeuvre of one Richard Dawkins the other day, and it wasn’t long before I noticed that all of his books were written by men. Now I had heard rumors of this before, but I was bowled over to discover that among all ten of his books, none were written by women. Not one! Nada! To put it in mathematical terms, that is precisely zero percent. Since women are roughly half of the population, I think this says something statistically—and socially—significant.
Now among all the people who could have written his books, would it have been too much trouble to find somebody with two X chromosomes? I mean, it’s not as if there aren’t women writing science books. And talk about your patriarchy: just look at the titles! The Extended Phenotype? Give me a break. It’s not too hard to guess what part of Dawkins’ “phenotype” is “extended” here! Along the same lines, River Out of Eden conjures up images too graphic to discuss. I detect more than a touch of the phallocentric here.
Now while I’ve never actually read any of Dawkins’s books (I’ve heard some people praise The Selfish Gene), I did check Amazon and found, indeed, that Miffedy is on to something. We clearly have some work to do.
What do readers think?