BREAKING SCIENCE: Women's tears shrink men's boners
This article in the NYT, which reports on the findings of a study of the effect of women's tears on men's arousal levels, is a steaming pile of heterocentrist and gender essentialist claptrap.
The NYT is not alone; this oh-so-exciting story has been picked up on by just about every major news outlet, because it makes for GREAT HEADLINES. Here's a blog post which rounds up some of these headlines:
This is what passes for science reporting in our society. I would weep in despair, but that might turn off teh menz, and we can't have that.
I would also like to point out that while the popular media are definitely capable of ruining a story all by themselves, all too often, they receive help from the researchers' own interpretations of the results. From the NYT article: "Chemical signaling is a form of language," said one of the researchers, Dr. Noam Sobel, a professor of neurobiology at the Weizmann Institute in Israel. "Basically what we've found is the chemo-signaling word for 'no' - or at least 'not now.'"
[...]
Another thought, he said, is that the effect of tears evolved in part to coincide with menstrual cycles.
Isn't it funny how "thoughts" like this, which fit neatly into dominant cultural narratives about gendered behavior, are so often presented without the slightest shred of evidence? The only slight, refreshing whiff of common sense in the midst of this festering dung heap comes from Dr. Martha McClintock, who herself has studied pheromones and behavior:"Oh, please," she said. "Do we know that women cry more often during menstruation?"
She said it was "premature to speculate about the evolutionary function" of chemo-signaling in tears, adding: "I have no doubt that it affected sexuality as they report, but I would be very surprised if it doesn’t turn out to affect other emotions in other contexts. Maybe it's affecting some deeper, more fundamental psychological process that drives the effect that they're reporting."
How refreshing! How reasonable! How--oh, I don't know--SCIENTIFIC. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good news. Get back to your crying, woman, let the men talk about gendered behavior:[Dr. Robert Provine, psychologist/neuroscientist at UMD:] "That tears are de-arousing would not be a surprise to most men. I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than go see a tear-jerker."
Because he's a MAN, get it? Ha. Ha. Ha. Why aren't you laughing??
A thought: If this is the best we can expect from our scientists, is it really any surprise we don't expect more from our science reporting?
View original entry |
comment(s) | Leave a comment
The NYT is not alone; this oh-so-exciting story has been picked up on by just about every major news outlet, because it makes for GREAT HEADLINES. Here's a blog post which rounds up some of these headlines:
- Women’s tears are a real turn off for men, new research claims
- Women’s tears tank men’s libido
- In Women’s Tears, a Chemical That Says, ‘Not Tonight, Dear’
- Tears in Her Eyes: A Turnoff for Guys?
- A woman’s tears can cripple the male libido, new study finds
This is what passes for science reporting in our society. I would weep in despair, but that might turn off teh menz, and we can't have that.
I would also like to point out that while the popular media are definitely capable of ruining a story all by themselves, all too often, they receive help from the researchers' own interpretations of the results. From the NYT article: "Chemical signaling is a form of language," said one of the researchers, Dr. Noam Sobel, a professor of neurobiology at the Weizmann Institute in Israel. "Basically what we've found is the chemo-signaling word for 'no' - or at least 'not now.'"
[...]
Another thought, he said, is that the effect of tears evolved in part to coincide with menstrual cycles.
Isn't it funny how "thoughts" like this, which fit neatly into dominant cultural narratives about gendered behavior, are so often presented without the slightest shred of evidence? The only slight, refreshing whiff of common sense in the midst of this festering dung heap comes from Dr. Martha McClintock, who herself has studied pheromones and behavior:"Oh, please," she said. "Do we know that women cry more often during menstruation?"
She said it was "premature to speculate about the evolutionary function" of chemo-signaling in tears, adding: "I have no doubt that it affected sexuality as they report, but I would be very surprised if it doesn’t turn out to affect other emotions in other contexts. Maybe it's affecting some deeper, more fundamental psychological process that drives the effect that they're reporting."
How refreshing! How reasonable! How--oh, I don't know--SCIENTIFIC. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good news. Get back to your crying, woman, let the men talk about gendered behavior:[Dr. Robert Provine, psychologist/neuroscientist at UMD:] "That tears are de-arousing would not be a surprise to most men. I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than go see a tear-jerker."
Because he's a MAN, get it? Ha. Ha. Ha. Why aren't you laughing??
A thought: If this is the best we can expect from our scientists, is it really any surprise we don't expect more from our science reporting?
View original entry |
comment(s) | Leave a comment