Is the woman who wrote this book about the female brain being different brainwashed by patriarchal science?

Question

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20481754-32522,00.html

"Here's a snap brain quiz. Which sex uses, on average, about 20,000 words a day, in contrast to the 7000 uttered by the other sex? Who has two-and-a-half times the amount of brain space devoted to sexual drive, meaning they think about sex, on average, every 52 seconds? When their feelings are hurt by someone they love, which sex reacts by assuming the relationship is over? Who has larger sections of the brain for action and aggression? If you answered, in order, women, men, women, men, you've been watching too many Woody Allen movies. Now, science is confirming that Woody was right all along."

"Brizendine points to a study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing."

The book is at:

http://www.louannbrizendine.com/

"Hormones and Phases of a Female's Life"

Where she says that our entire brain changes depending on which week of our period we are in!!

So come on, we know the brains are exactly equal, why listen to the hundreds of studies cited in the book? Is this just the latest manifestation of patriarchal logic and science oppressing women?!

Here are some other obviously false quotes despite being "proven" by dozens of scientific studies:

Equality [Supremacy] feminists will be even more disturbed by science that confirms what most of us already know: women are more emotional than men. Cutting to the chase, that means girls are more prone to over-reaction than boys. Were we to map the female brain, Brizendine says the connecting routes for emotion look more like super-highways, compared with the country roads you'd find inside the male brain. In a Stanford University study, when volunteers were shown emotional images while having their brains scanned, nine different areas lit up in women. In men, two areas lit up.

Last year, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, told an academic conference that his young daughter, when given two trucks in another effort of gender-neutral parenting, treated them like dolls, calling one "daddy truck" and the other "baby truck".

blabablababa: Which one cites hundreds of PhD peer reviewed studies, which one is a single one?

Obviously the patriarchal scientific and logical ideals have set out to oppress us Babbabalaber and we should in fact look to the single study.

Blabbababa: Pls stop editing your post to backtrack or you'll have to take back the wonderfully accurate things you keep saying on the matter, like:

"Now that we have dealt with that, you seem to think that women are inherently more emotional than men."

"I will take this opportunity to furnish you with evidence that de-bunks the myth that females are more emotionally labile, and that this is innate."

I don't like the sound of "women are more emotional than men to a lesser degree than the media portrays", even though emotionality was not one of the small amount of traits examined in your study, so the media may portray that and many other differences accurately. Ho Hum.

Answer 1

Ooh. Baba Yaga won't like that one.

For anybody who cares about the TRUTH, a sample size of 10,000 is pretty significant. Er... yeah, I guess this certainly says SOMETHING about the differences, as opposed to similarities, between men and women.

What that British feminist (there are a LOT of those that have terrible times controlling their tempers from what I've read) doesn't seem to understand is that there ARE innate differences between men and women. If there weren't, why do so many thousands upon millions of individuals swear that there are, based upon their experiences and science? That's called SEXUAL DIMORPHISM and it's observed in every single human across the face of the Earth. (Yeah, you have people with Klinefelter's syndrome and the like, but I'm talking about the overwhelming super-majority.) Differences are why species SURVIVE. Similarities are why they die out.

Whatever, I could drone on for hours. I'll cut it at:

Well done, Bird Baba Yaga.

Answer 2

Wait!!!!!!!! But the author of this book is a WOMAN, so how can it possibly be true?? /sarcasm

No, I know, you tolerate women who have the same twisted agenda as you do. How lucky for them to have your seal of approval.

There have been many studies that show that brain differences between women and men are insignificant to nonexistent, so I wouldn't believe this right away, just because it's what you want to hear.

I also wouldn't underestimate the invisible but powerful force of socialization.

Re: "study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing." WHAT cultures? It's simple logic that when a woman has a low economic standing, she'll want a man with a lot of money - it's a matter of survival. I'm curious to know what 37 different cultures they surveyed, because I guarantee you that a well-off Western woman would value men for something other than his wallet first and foremost, whereas a woman in, say, UAE, would value a man for his wallet.

And besides, if every woman started saying they valued men for looks, then you'd just start bitching about that instead.

Can you please just admit that you hate women, and stop pretending that it's for an actual reason. Stop trying to sound smart. Do every woman a favour and admit that you hate them, and stop trying to prove anything.

Answer 3

We are different, some of it is nature and lot of it is learned. The problem is we tend to focus on our "disabilities" rather than abilities. Humans are very capable of adapting to many situations regardless of gender. This is why we have come this far in our evolution. A man may not be set up with a maternal instinct, but when the mother of his child dies he can raise that child just fine. A woman may not be set up to hunt and kill but if her child is hungry she will do what she has to. All of this measurement ultimately adds up to nothing. Our world is changing and we are evolving, and doing the best we can to bring up the next generation. Stereotypes are made to be broken.

Answer 4

Actually, anyone who claims there are no differences between men and women (that it's a social construct) has been brainwashed by the feminists' junk science.

Answer 5

I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS ALL ALONG, Christ you can be very trying on one's patience. The problem is entirely YOURS: you see the world in GOOD/BAD, BLACK /WHITE - ABSOLUTES. This is called 'binary thinking' and suggests you are lacking in creative thinking skills; novel approaches to old problems; thinking 'outside the box'. I see the world in TECHNICOLOUR, in 'shades of grey', if you will. I have been saying that YES, the scientific literature suggests that there are physiological 'differences', but that these 'differences', and their effect on individual BEHAVIOR, have been EXAGGERATED by the POPULAR MEDIA.

RE-READ MY RESPONSE TO YOUR 'MALLARD RAPE' QUESTION:
"What's wrong with Mallards who rape? Is it about power?”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnB.2sg6PTvGQeAqfbN1mTPsy6IX?qid=20070206211806AAe6ohk

“…In the 1990s, the pendulum swung again: A steady flow of books about evolutionary biology explained nearly every aspect of human behavior as a result of the organism's urge to get its genes into the next generation -- the female by ensuring her offspring's survival, the male by spreading his sperm far and wide. And books such as Ann Moir and David Jessel's Brain Sex , Deborah Blum's Sex on the Brain and Melissa Hines's Brain Gender provided accounts of gender differences based on brain structure and hormonal chemistry [YES, LIKE 'TESTOSTERONE STORM' to which I alluded earlier tonight].
Now Louann Brizendine joins this trend. Her book The Female Brain…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800429.html
******************************************************************
COMPARE THE "HEADLINES":

1. “Feminism begs to differ, but unisex brain is a fantasy”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20481754-32522,00.html

2. “MEN AND WOMEN FOUND MORE SIMILAR THAN PORTRAYED IN POPULAR MEDIA, ACCORDING TO RESEARCH ON GENDER DIFFERENCES”
http://www.apa.org/releases/gendersim0905.html

Which is headline is sensationalist - even alarmist, and which is NOT? Which was the product of professional PhD. research psychologists, and which was written by a newspaper reporter? Which one strives for balance and objectivity? Yes, that's right: THE CREDIBLE, AUTHORITATIVE ONE stating that men and women were found to be:

"...MORE SIMILAR THAN PORTRAYED IN POPULAR MEDIA..."

The first one is a newpaper headline: newspapers have a vested interest in making a profit. They need to draw attention to themselves in order to sell. The first headline is, in effect, a marketing 'tool'. The second is objective, succinct and truthful. Why? The APA has no need or vested interest to sell anything. The newspaper story is intended for consumption by 'pop culture', the APA press release isn't. The first headline makes erroneous assumptions: "Feminism begs to differ...". "Who' is 'feminism' precisely, and how are 'feminists' defined?

I am a feminist yet I acknowledge that there are indeed differences, HOWEVER I also see that these differences have been greatly exaggerated by the popular culture media.

Have you read the book being discussed in the Australian news story? NO? So you are reviewing a book you haven't read???Where can I apply for this same job???

Answer 6

Actually, (Mr. Impostor) I agree with everything this book teaches. Believe it or not, I thank you for sharing this.