While psychologist Susan Pinker’s examination of gender in the workplace should arouse a great deal of interest both inside and outside academia, one thing it oughtn’t to do is stir up controversy. However, as the pendulum of the past few decades continues to move toward ideals of a politically correct utopia, the thesis of The Sexual Paradox will likely ruffle more than a few feathers.

The premise of the book is simple: boys, who statistically lag behind their female counterparts in school, appear to succeed more often in high-earning, prestigious positions later in life, whereas academically gifted girls often end up selecting lower-paying, people-oriented jobs over six-figure salaries and 80-hour work weeks. Furthermore, Pinker points to current research indicating how the employment preferences of men and women can be linked to biological differences – and so begins the real controversy.

Throughout 10 chapters, which incorporate anecdotal evidence and a dizzying number of international studies and statistics, Pinker methodically lays out a logical and compelling argument. Most interesting is the notion that there is no such thing as a “vanilla” gender, wherein men and women are essentially identical, and should therefore value and pursue identical aspirations.

Though the idea is simple, perhaps even self-evident, it challenges a host of dogmatic ideas regarding gender equality. Yet, as Pinker so astutely notes, neutralizing differences between the sexes can actually serve to narrow women’s career options, rather than creating new, more flexible alternatives for women’s natural occupation preferences and their oft-expressed desire to balance work with family life.  

It’s unfortunate that the vast majority of Pinker’s book deals exclusively with proving her argument, rather than with the possibilities that her assertion could entail. As is typically the case, the “solution to the problem” appears as an afterthought in the final chapter. A follow-up book would be welcome, as would perhaps a more profound discussion of her idea of the “fragile male,” which certainly deserves attention.