Why don’t these women understand science?

The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon review – demolition of a sexist myth
A neuroscientist’s brilliant debunking of the notion of a ‘female brain’ could do more for gender equality than any number of feminist manifestos

OK, super. So:

For me, though, perhaps the most thought-provoking part of her book has to do with hormones. According to Rippon, recent work has shown that, far from a woman’s period having an effect on her ability to concentrate, there may be a link between the ovulatory and post-ovulatory phases in her menstrual cycle and positive behavioural changes such as improved cognitive processing.

Positive is an effect.

She’s not really disproving the notions about women and science, is she?

17 thoughts on “Why don’t these women understand science?”

  1. Yeah after a delay it finally parsed into…’far from [negatively] effecting her ability to concentrate it improves her cognitive processing’. Could easily just be filed under pendantism.

    The hormone link reminded of the recent and very weird story of the Champion Bridge player caught doping. Over the limit for testosterone and a Female fertility drug.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47420065

  2. far from a woman’s period having an effect on her ability to concentrate

    Hey, didn’t she get the memo? There’s a whole movement on the Left demanding women get time off every month over this. Now she says it’s a benefit?

  3. Yeah, but it doesn’t specify ability to concentrate on what. Shopping mainly, in my experience. That & shouting.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    The interesting thing about this debate is that its mostly women arguing with women.

    I’m going with Dr Deborah Soh:

    I believe the public deserves to know the truth when it comes to topics like human sexuality and gender. These discussions should not be informed by political agendas or ideology, but this is the reality we face with mainstream media today.

    I made the decision to leave academia so that I could write and speak uncensored about these issues.

    My recent work defends the science around biological sex differences (including a column I wrote that went viral, defending the Google memo). I am also critical of the “early transitioning” approach in gender dysphoric children; feminism; racial quotas; and misinformation about paraphilias (atypical sexual interests).

    I’d like to say that it was solely because I’ve followed some of her work and listened to her on a couple of podcasts, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it was also because she’s hot.

  5. “A neuroscientist’s brilliant debunking of the notion of a ‘female brain’ could do more for gender equality than any number of feminist manifestos”
    Not according to our resident expert on geezers-in-frocks it won’t.

  6. ‘could do more for gender equality than any number of feminist manifestos’

    She’s a little behind. The feminists are realizing ‘gender equality’ is their enemy, too.

    Ask Martina Navratilova.

    “Martina Navratilova has apologized for her controversial remarks about the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sport.”

    She got beat down. The pioneers take the arrows.

    In the end, the article is just another political statement from the Guardian. Not about science. Not about women.

  7. “Why don’t these women understand science?”

    For the same reason men don’t. Because they’re people. Most people don’t understand science.

    “Here’s a thread explaining why the idea that there’s no such thing as male/ female brains is bullshit”

    Amusing! In that thread he cites some of the same science I cited. People here described it as “phrenology” and dismissed it.

    Most people don’t understand science.

  8. The idea that men and women are identical, except for some minor plumbing differences, is one of those ideas that are so dumb only an intellectual could believe it.

  9. “I’d like to say that it was solely because I’ve followed some of her work and listened to her on a couple of podcasts, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it was also because she’s hot.”

    Smoking hot.

  10. Surreptitious Evil

    People here described it as “phrenology” and dismissed it.

    That’s because you didn’t just claim that there were differences between male and female brains. You claimed that some men had distinctly female brains and vice versa, and that this was a proximate cause of trans conditions.

  11. “That’s because you didn’t just claim that there were differences between male and female brains. You claimed that some men had distinctly female brains and vice versa, and that this was a proximate cause of trans conditions.”

    Exactly! If you quote science to prove a feminist wrong about differences between men and women, that’s standing up for rationality and reason. If you quote exactly the same science to prove a transphobe wrong about the transgender, that’s ridiculous politically-correct nonsense! Whether science is considered true and valid or not depends on whether people like the conclusion.

    The ideology-filtered selection of science is remarkably common. Like I said: Most people don’t understand science.

  12. The lovely Dr Soh. Thanks for the intro, chaps.

    Anyone got any bikini pics? Asking for a friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *