WOMAN: An Intimate Geography
By Natalie Angier
Read: August 2009
Rating: Nifty
W:IG is an interesting blend of science, statistics, theories, and anecdotes. Angier is a journalist and a feminist, who has clearly put in a lot of time studying her subject, both for work and for personal interest. She’s pulled her findings and ideas together in this book, I believe to illustrate to us all the beauty and power of women, as well as alleviate some of the mystery.
I wavered between heightened interest, boredom, and annoyance. Mostly it was good.
The Good
Angier hits nearly every topic to do with the female body and mind you could want. Besides an anatomical tour (including enlightening descriptions of what the ovaries and fallopian tubes actually LOOK like), there’s discussion of hormones, pheromones, and even female aggression and love. There’s also much study of the dynamics between women, and why women continue to live so long beyond menopause. Conception, pregnancy, and motherhood get discussed, too.
Angier is very honest from the beginning, stating in her intro that she is not advocating every idea discussed in the book, only giving them space to be heard.
I toss out ideas and theories … Some of the theories are woolier than others. Some theories I offer up because I stumbled on them in the course of research and found them fascinating, dazzling. … Other theories I pitch for their contrariety, their power to buck the party line of woman’s “nature” while still others I throw out like rice at a bride, for luck, cheer, hope, and anarchy. (xiv)
She can also be quite funny at times, and pokes fun at both patriarchy and feminist shortcomings.
The Boring
The book is 400 pages. By 300 it was feeling like a lot to keep slogging through. There isn’t a lot of variation between chapters, and there’s only so much quoting of research I can take. For the most part, Angier is very good about not just reeling off stats. But when you’re already half asleep, it doesn’t help.
The Annoying
Angier suffers from Creative Epithet-itis. You know what I’m talking about. People who won’t just say “My god!” or even “My goddess!” It’s got to be, “for Thor’s sake” (273)! I appreciate the desire to pay homage to the great feminine whatever, but must we wax rhapsodic about it? It comes out sounding sickly sweet.
The only real detriment I found wasn’t Angier’s fault. My copy was printed in 2000, and so I had to consider all the scientific information to be at least a little out of date. I checked Amazon but don’t see an updated edition.
Glad I read it, for the most part. The ideas included (even off the wall theories) provide food for thought. …and writing.
