twenty-page chapter alone, while Mayngoes about the process of endeavoring tonconvince the reader that sex differencesnare real and have a measurable and predictablenimpact upon individuals, societiesnand cultures.nTaking his lead from classical mythology.nMay states that the myth ofnPhaeton, in which a young man endeavorsnto attain the power of the gods andnreaps only destruction, is a typicallynmale fantasy pattern, while the myth ofnDemeter and Persephone, with itsnthemes of emotional attachment andnloss, is “an archetypal myth of women.”nMale fantasy patterns tend to reflectn”basically aggressive urges” and to manifestnwhat May labels “deprivation”—nstories of “soaring strength ending inndestruction” and representing “suchnnegative things as suffering, failure, obscurity,nor disappointment.” Female fantasynpatterns, on the other hand, reflectnwhat May calls “enhancement”—storiesnwhich move “from pain to pleasure,nfrom difficulty, effort; and doubt tonsuccess and reunion” and which representnsuch elements as “success, joy,neminence, and pleasure.” May bases thisnbroad (some would say sweeping) conclusionnupon the fantasy patterns manifestednin stories people made up in responsento one picture—that of a mannand a woman on a trapeze—in thenThematic Apperception Test (TAT).nTen separate studies. May reports, havenshown that stories told by men tend tonmove from enhancement to deprivation,nwhile stories told by women tend tonmove from deprivation to enhancement.nThe evidence seems clear and irrefutable—thatnis, until May begins to add thengeneral caveats and refinements that arenthe researcher’s stock and trade—the resultsndo tend to vary according to thenage, socioeconomic class, ideologyn(feminists scoring differently on deprivation/enhancementnscales than nonfeminists),neducational levels, and sexualnpreferences (homosexuals scoringndifferently than heterosexuals) of thenparticipants. Scores on the deprivation/nenhancement scale were even affectednISMHHHUHMMnChronicles of Culturenby whether a woman was a nursingnmother at the time she took the test.nAfter the smoke has cleared. May isnfound to qualify his once rock-hardnstances into such concluding statementsnas: “On the evidence so far we can comfortablynsay that” . . . “with rather lessnassurance we think that” . . . “so out ofnthese empirical studies there hasnemerged at least an outline of a coherentnpicture . . . but the picture is a complexnone.” To indicate exactly how complexnthe picture is. May moves to a finegrainednlook at the issue by examiningn”the complex interiors of an individualnlife.” What follows is a case-history analysisnof the life of Jonathan W. Langly,nIII and of the life of Janet Lauder. Fromnthe evidence presented in these two livesn—of neurotic individuals with atypicalnbackgrounds—one is supposed to generalizeninto agreeing with May that therenis such a thing as a characteristicallynmale and a characteristically female sexualnfantasy pattern. This, despite thenfact that the “evidence” is skimpy andnhighly subjective and the very obviousndifficulty that two lives do not a theorynmake.nFrom this point on, the book reachesnits zenith or its nadir, depending uponnwhether one was interested in learningnof sex and fantasy or patterns of malenand female development, for the focus ofnthe book dramatically shifts into an investigationnof whether a case can benmade for gender- or sex-based differencesnIn the Mailnin human personalities. May concludesnthat a case most definitely can be madenthat biochemistry, if not anatomy, is destiny,nand that, therefore, “the dream ofnandrogyny” is one of feminism’s mostnillusory and nonsensical fabrications.nPerhaps this part of May’s theorizingnwould be interesting (the 118 pages thatnlead to this conclusion) were it not fornthe fact that it offers nothing new andnreads like a rehash of Freudian and Jungianntheory. The final portions of thenbook represent a compendium of quotationsnfrom other scholars and bits andnchunks of data from a variety of sources.nThe final sections would work well ifnthey were intended to be a digest of researchnon the subject; as presently structured,nthey seem but a tedious and unenlighteningncompilation of informationnfrom a variety of disciplines. Aside, perhaps,nfrom reader convenience, what isnthe purpose, one might wonder, of restatingninformation already available innother places? Were May an insightfulneluddator of data, perhaps the booknwould be more interesting and convincing.nWere May himself an innovativentheorist, perhaps the book would notnseem so heavily laden with minutiae, renstatements and digressions and wou”nprove far more illuminating about thenhuman condition than it does. SincenMay is neither of these, the book isnneither interesting nor illuminating butnseems, instead, poorly organized andninsubstantial.nBrains, Machines & Persons by Donald M. MacKay; Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingnCo.; Grand Rapids, Michigan. An inquiry into the relationship of science, man andnreligion.n”The Soviet Gas Deal and Its Threat to the West” by Dr. Miles Costick and MarcnDean Millot; Institute on Strategic Trade; Washington, D.C. A thorough analysisnof possible Western dependence on Soviet energy sources.n”People & Ideas: Public Opinion About Business”; Institute for Humane Studies;nMenlo Park, California. A booklet describing the public-opinion problems of Americannbusiness and the role of the Institute for Humane Studies in solving that problem.nnn