How long before feminists try to censor this? Last week, Science Daily reported on a study from Northwestern University that proved “that girls have superior language abilities than boys ... and gender differences in language appear biological.” Through MRI scans, the researchers discovered that girls’ brains work harder and use more areas during language tasks than boys’ — leading them to conclude that “boys’ and girls’ brains are different.”
This is bad news for feminists, who insist that men and women are really the same (besides the obvious physical distinctions), and that any differences are the products of socialization, “gender roles” and discrimination—and any scientist who suggests otherwise will be punished. We’ll probably never know how great a role biology plays in gender differences, because feminists try to prevent anyone from researching it.
That’s exactly what happened at Harvard University in 2005. During an academic conference, Harvard’s then-president Larry Summers discussed several theories about why there are fewer female math and science professors. In addition to gender discrimination, Summers floated the possibility of “different availability of aptitude at the high end” — in other words, there are more men than women with the top-notch math and science abilities expected of elite professors. He also noted that more research was needed to explain the gender discrepancy.
But, apparently, more research is the last thing feminists want. At the mere suggestion of innate gender differences, a few feminists in the audience literally ran from the room crying. One professor, Nancy Hopkins, said she had to leave the room “or else I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” (While Hopkins never responded to Summers with a scientific argument, she did manage to reinforce the stereotype that women are too emotional to handle scientific debate and will respond to difficult situations by bursting into tears. Thanks, Nancy!) A few months later, Summers was forced out of his presidency in order to appease the science-averse feminists.
Predictably, scholars who aren’t intimidated by feminists are ridiculed and ostracized. Last year, Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist at the University of California San Francisco, published her book The Female Brain, which is based on more than a thousand studies from the fields of genetics, neuroscience and endocrinology. After decades of research, Brizendine concluded that male and female brains are both structurally and hormonally different. As she wrote, “there is no unisex brain…girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys.”
Feminist book reviewers and columnists — who don’t have degrees in neuroscience, just a faith-based belief that socialization accounts for all gender differences — savagely attacked Brizendine and the book, calling it “garbage” and “scary.” Displaying feminists’ typical open-mindedness to scientific facts, one reviewer claimed that “I found my self slamming the book down and walking out of the room in an aggressive and angry mood.”
With this level of censorship, it’s no wonder that scientists are expected to hide research that suggests men and women are innately different. We can rest assured that a book like The Female Brain will never be assigned reading in a college classroom. Meanwhile, sociology and women’s studies textbooks are filled with laughably false assertions about gender. Legitimate scholarship is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
Of course, not all feminists reject scientific explanations for gender differences — but they’re often out-screamed by the ones who do, allowing the denial to reach absurd new heights. In their book Professing Feminism, women’s studies professors Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge described a confrontation with a fellow feminist. The feminist was angry over suggestions that women should breast-feed babies, because — in her words — “research shows that men can lactate, too.”
Given their current level of anti-science hysteria, I’m looking forward to the day when some feminists start angrily denouncing the idea that women have ovaries and men don’t.
Ashley Herzog is a senior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at ah103304@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
All too often, many from the feminist crowd jump to the conclusion that scientists publish their findings with an agenda in mind. While that might be accurate in some cases, it's not for the lot of them (a common argument from the femmies regarding anything validating their agenda). Nice article, I was wondering what ever became of the whole Summers bit.
K.C.
I consider myself a feminist and find myself worried about the misuse of the term in this article. I think the phrase you're looking for is the more colloquial 'FemiNazi', not feminist. Any intelligent, reasonable feminist that I've ever met does not act like a child and deny things that are clearly facts. Women and men are different, yes, but do you really think that's a good reason for you or I to end up being paid less than our male co-workers?
For what it's worth, I'm just as disgusted by the bra-burning types who depict men as beasts and try to deny the obvious facts (i.e. FemiNazis). However, I'm also going to have to ask you to please stop contributing to the depiction of feminism as a dirty word. Reasonable, intelligent feminism has greatly improved both your and my life--that you cannot deny.
Feminism as a dirty word isn't being furthered by Ashley. She simply tells it like it is. It is the "Feminazis" who have hijacked the use of the word to be associated with their ridiculous claims.
I was careful to note that not *all* feminists engage in this type of behavior. I've met some feminists over the years who were open-minded and willing to take a serious look at gender differences. They know that "different" is not a synonym for "better" or "worse." However, it's usually the loud, obnoxious, censorious bullies like Nancy Hopkins who succeed in getting their way.
I would use my personal favorite--"femifascists"--but I'm not sure that would fly with my editors.
No hard feelings, Ashley. The inaccurate feeling I got from your article is that you're a reactionary to feminism--those are just as bad as femifascists. That said, it's finals week and just about everything is rubbing me the wrong way.
And jpmo13, I agree. But every piece of writing that contributes to the ill repute of the word 'feminism' is still contributing. To be fair, there's no way to really stop the ball from rolling (I always have to explain myself when I say I'm a feminist) but every obstacle we throw in the way helps.
I am going to throw the feminist-definition debate aside for a second to comment on some things. Scientific evidence may in fact show that there are biologically innate difference between the female and male brain, but let’s not take the evidence out of the context of life and of science. The brain is a wonderfully complex organ. I believe we know more about space right now than we do about the human brain. Science is just skimming the surface at this point. This does not mean that the endeavor is pointless or that differences can not be a good thing, that science is misogynistic or that all girls should now throw out their math books and become English majors. The women quoted in this article, I believe, were angered by the mistaken fact that scientific evidence supporting differences between male and female brains equals proof that women can NEVER aspire to or achieve what men also aspire to and achieve intellectually. The evidence simply illustrates an objective difference and anyone who views it emotionally as proof that men are smarter or that women are inferior needs to re-examine their views, and I am speaking to both women who fear this to being true and to the men who say they always knew this to be true.
Do you know that there's a way to impregnate a man? Yep, he would just have a C-section. Ain't too many jumping on it...probably because men don't care to do something they CAN DO because society would find it counter-dominant to norms. That's my problem with gender science: most of the scientists are men. Men will (just as white scientists did in the post-Civil Rights era) use their degree to push a dominant idea. I don't see how any good proving how we are different makes. Everytime there is research between two different (fill in the blanks), there must always be the in-group/out-group mentality.
Scientists need to leave that crap alone and come up with cures for STDs and AIDS. Geez, put the degree to good use.
I'll probably be burned for this one, but I'm going to go with it. You say most scientists are men, but actually it's not that huge of a majority, although it's significantly higher than half. But, also, degrees in sciences and engineering happen to pay more (as a career) than jobs in liberal sciences such as journalism, or psychology, many business jobs, or teaching. So, given the fact that more women go into the later professions than the science/engineering professions, is it truly so big a surprise that when you add up all the average incomes of men and women, men (who have more of a tendency to go into sciences and engineering) make (on average, as a whole) more than women? After all, within a given career field I have never (in my professional life) seen a gender-based earning bias. In fact, many of my female co-workers make more than me, and that's because they've been with the company longer. So, that's it. Let the public thrashing begin. I know, I know, my chauvanism is disgusting.
'Scientists need to leave that crap alone and come up with cures for STDs and AIDS. Geez, put the degree to good use.'
Clearly, you're not majoring in the sciences. Gender science as well as a lot of other biological science is concerned with finding out more about the human body--something we need to know more about before we can slap together some haphazard cure for STDs and AIDS. Unless other haphazard solutions formulated before deeper knowledge of the human body (like bleeding out bad blood, etc.) seems like a viable solution to you.
Interesting comments. Personally, I think anyone interested in gender differences should read Brizendine's book. It explains everything from why women typically have more friends than men to why they prefer to work with people, not things (which might partially explain the math/science discrepancy). It even has an interesting chapter on sexual orientation and how gay women's brains are structurally different from straight women's, and they most likely developed that way in the womb. It's really easy to read too. Give it a look!
One last comment. I'm going to read this book simply because I want to know how this scientist INTERPRETS the evidence. There is no arguing with facts, but the kicker is the interpretation of the evidence against already available evidence. And while I agree that female and male brains definitely show a difference but I am also going to respectfully disagree with Brizendine on one thing. I do not think this issue is as black and white as she and everyone wants it to be. I think with more technology and more time science will discover that not all people are "already wired as girls and already wired as boys". Based on other ways I have read that the brain works, it is never this simple. For instance, handedness is not a simple on/off switch...there are many pathways in the brain that have an affect on a person's left-handedness and right-handedness. And then there are some people who seem to be born ambidextrous...meaning that it doesn't appear that the enviornment always plays a role in ambidexterity. How do we explain that middle ground? I thought it was just left or right? Thats a problem isn't it? How do we explain men who have horrible visual spatial abilities not accounted for by brain damage or whatever and who are extremely social heterosexuals, or female math majors who are both excellent at math and socialable and heterosexual as well? What about bisexuals? And throw the porn debate out the window as well because science is finding out now that just as many women as men are now admiting that they enjoy watching porn? I thought this was only a "male brain". Looks like we need to not interpret just yet and wait for more clues.
In response to OneRodetToAsaBay and Ashley Herzog: I don't think the term "colloquial" is appropriate when using terms like "feminazi" or "femifascist." Those terms are just as unfair and ridiculous as calling Ms. Herzog a "dumb blonde" would be for writing such an inaccurate article. To Ashley: Anti-science hysteria? Get real. Feminists don't claim women ARE men, we claim that women should be treated EQUAL to men. Also, which "sociology and women’s studies textbooks are filled with laughably false assertions about gender?" Last but not least, you are doing nothing but backing up stereotypes by repeatedly using phrases like "screaming" and "angry" in relation with feminists. I know just as many screaming and angry people who are in fact the opposite of feminists....I suggest you stop using words incorrectly and start writing less antiquated pieces.
fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.
As an OU alumna and former Postie, imagine my surprise when I heard about this rather misinformed opinion piece elsewhere on the Web. Are OU journalism students still required to study statistics? If yes, I urge Ms. Herzog to read the original study in its entirety and see what she thinks. Many of the results are not statistically significant, and of those that are, it's difficult to draw a conclusion.
For example, we know for a fact that different areas of the brain are activated in men and women when processing certain tasks. What we don't know is what this difference means, or whether it's tied to the results men and women produce on certain tests. Are OU journalism students still required to take elementary logic? If yes, Ms. Herzog might have heard that correlation does not equal causation. She can find a thoughtful critique of her opinion piece by Mark Liberman, a linguist, at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005472.html.
Science writing is handled extremely poorly in the media. It consists almost entirely of regurgitating press releases, exaggerating small differences into large ones for sensational effect, and interviewing non-scientists for "reactions" to "findings" they are not qualified to understand but which they are quite willing to opine upon based on their personal prejudices. I hope The Post will do more in the future to practice skeptical journalism and real reporting, instead of following the crowd.
Sara Lipowitz
BSJ, '92
I'm not reporting on "science." I'm reporting on the fact that feminazis like Nancy Hopkins will run out of the room crying if someone suggests there are innate differences between men and women. Apparently, a lot of them have no interest in studying science because they "slam[med] the book shut and walked out of the room in an aggressive and angry mood."
At least I actually read books written by feminists (including all the classics, like the Feminine Mystique) without crying or throwing a tantrum. End of story.
Oh, and one more thing: people need to learn the difference between a columnist and a reporter. I'm not supposed to be objective, and I certainly don't have to bore people to death with "on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand" babble. Anyone who's read my columns over the last four years knows exactly what they're getting. If you don't like it, don't read it.
But I still think my sources in this article (Brizendine, researchers at Northwestern) are credible, and I stand by everything I said 100%.
Submit a comment to The Post