Do you want to read a great article about the feminization of our media as it relates to science?

Question

http://selwynduke.homestead.com/ShesBlindingMeWithScience.html

Excerpt:

"...it was stated that when performing various tasks, many areas of women’s brains would be active whereas only one area of men’s brains would.  The conclusion was, not surprisingly, that the female brain may be able to tackle a problem more effectively because a woman “uses more of her brain.”  It seems like a tenable theory.  Very convincing indeed.
   
But some moons later it just so happened that I was reading another article on the subject and I came upon a very curious analysis.  Its author spoke about fMRI research involving the task of recognizing faces and, lo and behold, it was men’s brains that lit up all over the map.  What struck me, though, was the conclusion: “This may mean that men’s brains have to work harder to perform the task!”  I wonder, pray tell, to what can we attribute such diametrically opposite conclusions when viewing the same pattern of data?  Really, the equation is obvious: same phenomenon + different sex + same agenda  = different conclusion.  Very interesting indeed."

I saw an ABC news special about gender last year. In it... there was seemingly constant mention about the wonderous things that the female brain could do, while at the same time attacking the theories about male brain performance.

They found a "woman" that was a talented mathematician, (who incidentally had a sex change operation into a man) ...& they used this example to "prove" that the male math dominance was a myth.

The took a one-in-a-million trans-gendered person & treated that situation like the "norm" to dispell a supposed myth.

Did they find a "chatty" man (that they could have found in any town, in any state) to disprove the theory about "women as better communicators?"

Why the need to disprove only the theories about innate male abilities?

I agree with both Kendrick & Gnu that the author could have done better to document his findings, but my own anecdotal evidence supports his assertions. The more articles I read, the more I see this to be true.

Answer 1

Sounds like a lot of research was done, but it's sad that he spent all that time and didn't list any sources to get creditability.

Answer 2

LOL... I love the link, and the great examples. I have noticed that, too. It's so important to look at the spin in news articles relating current scientific findings. My favorite is when they find that childcare centers are bad for kids, and they say, "But we will always have to use childcare centers, and women will never again be SAHMs....", as though to question the use of institutions in childrearing is to question an essential part of women's rights.

I have noticed exactly what you're talking about. I mentioned it once a while ago, that the former prestident of the APA was disgusted by the feminist facist-like control of the media, and everyone said, "prove it". So thank you, because I couldn't find any other evidence, other than the pres. of the APA talking about the problem.

Answer 3

The article is of uneven quality in some of its reporting, but don't be surprised to see all sorts of nonsense from people with all sorts of agendas being attached to brain research.

If you want to read a wide-ranging critique of the conceptual confusions plaguing that field (it isn't focused on issues of sex, but gives a general idea of why the research is so readily manipulated to serve various agendas), I highly recommend:


Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience by M. R. Bennett and P. M. S. Hacker

and

Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language by Maxwell Bennett, Daniel Dennett, Peter Hacker, and John Searle

The first is by a philosopher and a neuroscientist, critical of much of the field. The second is a symposium featuring the authers of the first book and a point counterpoint by two philosophers defending some of the philosophical assumptions loaded into neuroscience.

It's challenging reading, but well worth it.

Answer 4

Greber's NT become used each and every now and then **in help** [notice: _not_ as a source] of renderings of Matthew 27:fifty two, fifty 3 and John a million:a million, as given in the recent worldwide Translation and different authoritative Bible variations. yet as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 version[a million] of the recent testomony via Johannes Greber, this translator depended on “God’s Spirit worldwide” [as antagonistic to Bible scholarship] to make clean for him how he ought to translate confusing passages. that's counseled: “His spouse, a medium of God’s Spiritworld become in many cases instrumental in conveying the main superb solutions from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.”[2] The Watchtower has deemed it unsuitable to utilize a translation that has this way of close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that types the muse for the rendering of the above-noted texts in the recent worldwide Translation is sound and subsequently does not count in any respect on Greber’s translation for authority. no longer something is misplaced, as a result, via ceasing to apply his New testomony.[3]

Answer 5

Using science and statistics for sociopolitical ends should be banned as unethical. Most people lack the eductation to see these misuses, and most social scientists are too afraid to speak out about it for fear of the negative impact on their careers. The media and many universities routinely produce material of the kind reported above and its very rare than anyone openly questions it.

Answer 6

What you and the author of that article are citing is commonly known as female supremacy. We do it often ourselves, without thought.

Woman undressing in a window - man walks by & sees her, he is accused of peeping in on her.
Man undressing in a window - woman walks by & sees him, he is accused of lewd behaviour.

Man simply cannot win... ever. Even now, I'm wrong... somehow.

Answer 7

I once come across a medical research that proved doing research on mice causes cancer in them