Love, sex and the male brain

Good comment! I will need the whole date to read it.

Did you ever read this article?

Misssster Gumby

One article by one woman does not make for truth. It's AN OPINION! The article is posted in the OPINION section! That means it's value as TRUTH is up for interpretation.

At the very least, get a second opinion.

Actually, Denica, for the past 40+ years, research has poured in to try to disprove any psychological difference between men and women, or have you not been paying attention?

What's more, when research does in fact suggest that there are legitimate chemical, anatomical and psychological differences that do actually impact behavioral and intellectual outcomes, they are vehemently attacked without consideration for their merits.

I seem to recall a certain President Summers of Harvard University, who was attacked after he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Note that Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

Summers said he was only putting forward hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own judgments -- in fact, he said, more research needs to be done on these issues.

He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.

The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. ''I said no one really understands why this is, and it's an area of ferment in social science," Summers said in an interview Saturday. ''Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't" due to socialization after all.

This was the point that most angered some of the listeners, several of whom said Summers said that women do not have the same ''innate ability" or ''natural ability" as men in some fields.

Now, these comments, while provacative in today's context where feminists hope to shut up any discussion on the differences between male and female psychology, were based upon research conducted by participants in the university, and in the context of trying to help women succeed in the university.

But as usual, feminists simply want to promote a political agenda and shut down any legitimate discussion around possible differences.

Finally, Denica, what do you know about being inside a male mind? Men DO appreciate female beautify much in the same way women look at flowers, butterflies etc. I find your response very revealing, you seem to have completely adopted the disdain for men who have an innate appreciate for feminine beauty.

That's ok, you'll end up paying the price for that in the end. As my wife said on this issue: "I would never marry a man who does not find women beautiful."

...great post...

I did, and thought it was mundane and not at all scientific.

ARE YOU THE BRAIN SPECIALIST?!

Your opinion on the differences between men and women does not reflect reality or the fact that ALL these experiments are tainted. People can say boys will be boys, because the focus on men is part of our society structure. Again, not scientific, simply societal.

The Butterfly statement was ridiculous at best, not because men look at "beautiful" women - but because it assumed that men are the only ones that look at "beautiful" people of the opposite sex. Let me tell you guys, LOOKS MATTER TO US TOO. The statement was sexist and SILLY> The desire for sex has NOTHING to do with BUTTERFLIES. I think it is very revealing that you are obsessed with protecting the status quo of "boys will be boys.." How about people will be people? Bizarre, truly bizarre. What year is it?

People that blame society's ills with women having rights have NO PLACE in this day and age! Feminism promotes equal rights for women - not keeping men down - and your opinions don't change that. I'm interested to know what you think of women voting, women working outside the home... running for office? Receding into the past is not helpful - learning from it is.

Thank you! I'd +100 if I could.

Are you referring to these Feminists beliefs?

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." (Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto)

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" (Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room”,and advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."(Sharon Stone; Actress)

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."(Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female)

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."(Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.)

I have yet to meet a feminist who actually believes any of that. Stop taking the extreme examples of a movement and applying it to the majority of it. You could do that with any political movement in an attempt to invalidate it.

Where on Earth did you get that conclusion from? As a feminist I actually get kind of pissed when women are given lesser sentences for a crime. It's like saying we're children and somehow can't be held responsible for our crime.

You will believe what you want to believe and you will see only what you want to see. You really do not have to go far to see the truth. Turn on the tv and check out anti-male commercials and shows. Check out the judicial system and family law. Men and fathers are portrayed and treated as the unwanted evil and women are victims.
And let’s not forget Hillary Clinton’s statement “Women are best at everything”.

Oh please, it's not all black and white. If you read what I said earlier I agree that men are at some disadvantages. But that doesn't mean everything is peachy keen for women and that all feminists want to castrate men and reduce them to 10% of the population. I agree men are portrayed stupidly on TV and that courts all to often give women custody of children automatically, etc. And you know what? It's the other feminists I know that point that out. Do you know where I learned about male victims of domestic violence and rape? In my gender studies classes! Do you actually know anyone that identifies as a feminist or do you rely on the caricature of the bra-burning, hairy-legged, testicle-stomping feminists? So please, do not tell me that I'm somehow blind to the truth because I argue that men and women are not as different as Mars and Venus, and that I say that there is no right or wrong way to be a man or woman. How about you actually read and acknowledge what I and other people on here who disagree with write instead of fighting your straw-feminist argument.

I still don't get how you somehow got to that conclusion. Women's rights = no punishment for criminals? Huh?

I meant to say: "How about you read and acknowledge what I and others who disagree with you write on here instead of fighting the straw-feminist argument?"

Dude, I'm really not getting what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but what are you going on about?

I find it terribly ironic to hear so many women today lament their innability to find "a good man" without even considering that the destruction of the nuclear family (which was promoted by feminism and liberals), the near extinction of the good male role model, plus the incessant attempts by women to feminize (castrate) men and allow the blossoming of a homosexual culture, has resulted in a society they thought would be grand, but now they have opened Pandora's box.

Have you ever heard women talk about how they want "sensitive men" but later say they couldnt' go out with X because he cried too much at movies, and just wasn't "mature"?

A reasonable approach. +^d for a pragmatic/engineers approach to the elements of "the problem".

THIS-

"Many, women more often than men, feel that being a warrior means being an oppressor. History, however, does not necessarily bear out this idea. In Sparta, the strongest warrior culture that the Greeks produced, the woman had the most freedom of any Grecian woman of the time. The women, received much the same education as the young men, and shared a life with their men far closer than did the women of Athens.
In sexual matters, the Spartans, true to their nature, seem to have had the highest rate of monogamy in all of Greece. They held their woman in high esteem and Spartan women had greater equality than their Grecian sisters who were treated according to the more Oriental standards towards women of the rest of Greece.
The Spartans were also renowned for their virtue and being the most pious of all Greeks".

THAT,........is a poignant quote. +^d.

...and an honourable man, my friend...Eden...

Did you even watch the first 5 minutes of the video that I posted here.. EmperorThan even reposted it half way in... you're entitled to your 'opinion piece'.. but you're neither an MD or a professor let alone a best selling author...

I did attend graduate school for communication research which is a social science research discipline, the same as what this professor professes, and what I know is that the real researchers who come up with the real hypotheses (validated by their researcher colleagues) are not best selling authors; don't not have shows on CNN, and are not in it for the money, unlike this quack.

True scholastic research is based on decades of studies by many research scientists (and doctors in this case). I don't see any evidence of that here. What I do see is CNN looking to make cash on some pseudo medical professor quack. But I'm open to see your evidence to prove me wrong. Go ahead and show me the decades of collaborative research my friend.

The reason this is bogus is because there is only this one woman presenting this "research". True studies that are accepted as valid in the scholastic communities are never attributed to one individual. They are collaborative not only among numerous scholars but among numerous higher education institutions. Who are the many scholars that agree with this woman? Where are the other institutions that validate her research (as presented here) as legitimate?

Best selling authors are credible as cash cows for publishers. Nothing else, without further evidence to the contrary. I await any trace of said evidence. And if such evidence exists, why would she not present it? It's as if she takes all the credit. There is no honor in that. No credibility.

The video. The one where she talks about I did this, and I did that, and I'm a professor of this and I'm so wonderful. Yeah. Exactly my point.

I don't understand. Whats wrong with the article?

It's bullshit to sell CNN air time, at the expense of people's health. It's the same old story of health care for profit in the USA. Screw the people. Just make the buck. This woman was one of those who championed hormone therapy for menopause which lead to cancer. If you want to listen to a mass murderer's advice, then be my guest.

Its scary how smart you think you are but your lack of common sense makes you laughable.. Its clear that you never have spent anytime with a woman or you would know without years of research that its how men and women interact. Maybe you should get out of the lab more often..

You might want to tell that to my three children and wife of 25 years.

"This woman was one of those who championed hormone therapy for menopause which lead to cancer. If you want to listen to a mass murderer's advice, then be my guest."

That's fine, but I'm asking what you think is factually wrong with the article.

I'm asking what is factually right with the article? Please tell me, and give me some evidence to back it up.

Do you assume that because someone writes a book on psychology that she knows for certain how the human mind works? Am I to believe that one woman knows more than the entire medical and scholastic research community who have yet to publish any such study? Am I wrong? Does such a study exist? Or is this just one woman looking for a few bucks to sell her book. You tell me.

If this woman tells you to jump into a fire would you do it? She championed hormone therapy for menopause, which years later, after people died from it, has been proven to be a cancerous treatment. What will her advice given now lead to years from now?

Doctors and medical experts are not to be taken as all knowing answer people. They may have some theories. They may have done some research. If you know anything at all about scientific research in such areas, you know that it takes decades to come up with something that can be agreed upon by most scholars as a legitimate theory. But even then, nothing is ever considered as conclusive fact. And never ever does any one person lay claim to such knowledge without giving credit to many other colleagues' research.

Andropause? Are you fucking kidding me? How about Snake-oil-pause? That sounds more likely.

Let me guess. You also believe everything you hear on Fox News, right?

But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. Prove it to me. Show me the evidence to back up her bullshit.

Yes, grand conclusion, I'm a fucking idiot. I believe everything I read, I watch Faux news and want Sarah Palin for president in 2012...

Anyway, /sarcasm. I don't understand why you think it's bullshit, it's basic male/female psychology. And no I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you because I really couldn't care less what you think. I just thought you might have a valid reason for doubting the article. Apparently not.

I explained why it's bullshit. Credible research is never presented as a book or "opinion piece" by one doctor. It is always released by a credible school of higher learning in that discipline. What about that do you not understand?

As an ex intellegence analyst it sometimes take one persone to pull alot of information into perspective. After all the father of phyco thearapy also bucked a long standing tradition of reasearch by commitie. and usualay consensus always involve a wrong conclusion just to statify someones hurt feeling that his/her opinion was not considered..

as usual, your big mouth doth runneth over again.

if you are going to call her a quack, try sharing some research that undermines her point, else zip it.

Let's see: jonraymond, with a masters degree in communications.

And here's the bio of the author:

Louann Brizendine, M.D. is a practicing clinician, best-selling author, public speaker and media commentator who specializes in the relationship dynamics that result from the neurobiology of male and female brains.

She completed her degree in Neurobiology at UC Berkeley, graduated from Yale School of Medicine and did her internship and residency at Harvard Medical School. She has also served on both the faculties of Harvard University and University of California at San Francisco. Now at UCSF, Dr. Brizendine pursues active clinical, teaching, writing and research activities, where she founded the Women’s Mood and Hormone Clinic in 1994 and continues to serve as the clnic’s director. Her first book, “The Female Brain,” is being translated into 26 languages and its follow-up, “The Male Brain,” will hit shelves in 2010.

I'd have to say that stacked up next to each other, jonraymond doesn't seem to have any fucking authority to undermine what a practicing MD with a degrees from Berkely, Harvard AND Yale, is writing about!

In other words, Jon, as usual, you have a huge mouth that arrogantly vomits opinion without taking even a moment to think first.

Unless you can prove that she's wrong, just shut the hell up, Jon. I'd have to assume that you are just another one of those sexists who thinks because it's a woman she can't know what she's talking about, and just because you've got a dick (which you seem to be perpetually stroking) you DO.

jon, grumpiness and irritability, which you display in copious quantities, are signs of low testosterone levels, which in turn increases your chance of prostate cancer.

you might reconsider hormone therapy for yourself. maybe the good doctor can help you!

"You might want to tell that to my three children and wife of 25 years."

Poor little blighters!

Jon, as usual, you have it totally ass backwards.

YOU are the one who is saying that "this woman" (who has medical degrees from Berkely, Harvard, and Yale) is wrong, and then tell everyoen they have to PROVE she's right.

How about this: If you have NO idea, no evidence, etc that there is anything wrong with the post...just shut the hell up and go troll somewhere else.

No one here has any obligation to prove one goddamn thing to you, loudmouth.

Jon, brainless twit, the Dr is highly qualified from THREE of the best schools in the USA, and I highly doubt she just sat down and wrote a book based upon bullshit, since she's been closely involved in all that research you demand to see.

Tell y ou what, genius, go to the library, check out her book and look at the bibliography. If you can prove to us that she didn't cite any research, then you'll have an argument.

Meanwhile, stick a sock in it.

There is plenty I don't understand about that. For starters, you've completely missed how the article is structured. She's not presenting new research, she is expressing an opinion based on scientific facts dervied from OLD research (you can look it up if you want, but there is no way Im doing it for you). All of this psychology pertaining to the sexes has been known for ages. That's fine if you don't agree with her opinion, but your arguing with well known facts simply because they were presented in an opinion piece is stupid. Why would you go calling bullshit on a subject you clearly know nothing about?

She's a quack. Just by the fact she has this article out and doesn't cite any collegaues or schools that agree with her incates she's a quack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause
You say "your arguing with well known facts .." Then you say "because they were presented in an opinion piece." Make up your mind. Are they facts or opinions. And while you think about that, understand that this confusion over whether this information is fact or opinion is exactly my point of contention.

The information is presented as fact, as you point out, and yet it is clearly the opinion of just one author, as you also point out. That is why it is bogus, and that is why you too are not credible. You can't distinguish between fact and opinion.

Now go look up andropause on wikipedia and you'll find there is contention there as well about what is fact and what is simply contrived bullshit that people posted for some personal gain. What might that be?

This is all fairy tales for grown ups. But because this woman has some credentilals as a professor and author (not as a researcher obviously) we're supposed to think this article is meanful in some way. Bullshit. It's nothing more than a puff piece to sell cancerous hormone pills and books.

Judgeing by the backlash I get here, I'm even more convinced of this. Why else would you post so vehemently and work so hard to convince everyone this bullshit is legitimate?

So if this woman says the sun revolves around the earth despite no other collegaues coroborating her statements and no other schools officially agreeing with the hypothesis, we are supposed to believe it?

I don't think so. You know nothing about scientific resaech and even less about social science research. It takes decades of study after study by many different scholars who try to prove and disprove each other's hypohteses. That is a fact. Without that coroboration, any release of information to the public is pure conjecture and opinion.

And I think we all agree that this is indeed pure opinion and not at all fact in any way. That's all I'm saying. Don't take this woman's word as fact. it is simply promotional material to sell books and hormone pills.

She's just one person. Where are the collegaues who agree with her hypothesis? Where are the decades of research? Where are the educational institutions that release the results of the studies that make these "opinions" relevant?

I'm not the one who professes to know inconclusively what "andropause" is. I don't need credentials to question "authority". But authority needs much more than credentials to be legitimate. They need corroboration and institutional backing. This woman is backed by CNN, a news media looking for ratings.

That doesn't make it fact. Without coroboration, it is meaningless and premature at best.

.... Has anyone ever told you you're a few fries short of a happy meal? Read an introductory psychology book, then read over your posts, then feel free to kick yourself in the head.

Good comeback. You think that convinced anyone?

You should get a show on CNN.

And I'd think you were hot if I was sure you weren't actually an incontinent 67 year old man with a pot belly and 67 inch waist.

I think you are overanalyzing this article. You miss the big picture.

so you're not into butterflly love?

Goofball, that's the photo of the author, nothing more. and I'd have to say, she's perty.

Excellent

I must admit, I didn't read it at all.

We all here can have a sex talk without any trouble

...pick me, pick me...

Talk is cheap

...that's what my pimp says...

...I can take ya to heaven, honi, just say the word...

well, seeing as you are a woman, how would you know that men can't appreciate a woman's beauty simply for beauty's sake?

I once had a girlfriend who got all bent out of shape because I saw a beautiful woman enter the restaurant and I looked at her because she was stunning. My girlfriend, just like the article said, got really ticked off. She really made me feel bad, even though I told her that men appreciate women's beauty the same way a person might appreciate a beautiful beach scene, mountains, whatever. It's beautiful.

Later, we broke up, and I'm glad.

When I met the woman who could be my wife, we were on a date in Miami and a gorgeous woman walked in...and I was busted looking. I winced and was sure she'd be mad. I told herI was sorry, but I was just admiring her beauty.

Silvia looked at the girl, and said, "She is stunning. Relax. I would never marry any man who didn't appreciate women."

We got married shortly after and I've been a happy man with her ever since.

The author is right, and any of you bitter women who can't handle the fact that men like to enjoy the beauty of women in general, you're in for a miserable life.

By the way: my wife is a Latina. And for what it's worth, I find Latinas are by far more comfortable with being feminine, and they like their men to be masculine. That does NOT mean, as many anglo women think, that they are easily dominated or they are weak. Far from it, Latina women are a powerhouse, don't you doubt it, but they just know how to be a WOMAN and be smart, strong, and sweet all at the same time.

I gave up on the anglo women years ago and I've never regretted it. And I'm not the only one.

I never said it was wrong for men to admire the female body. I just think that the pretty butterfly analogy was silly. I think the praying mantis is much more fun to look at. I tell my man he can look all he wants, just don't touch, gawk, or tell me I need to look more that that.

OK, I understand. I can't argue with most of that. The praying mantis tho...you know that men are extremely interested in watching the aggressive predatory behavior of animals, to the point that my son and I fight with my wife and daughter for control of the TV because we want to watch the lion kill the gazelle and they want to watch "what not to wear", but you can imagine the reaction if the author had said that men like to look at women for the same reason they like watching a praying mantis kill and eat its prey.

Yikes. The average man's attraction to women is not exactly predatory. Serial killers aside, that is.

You're taking my comment there a little too seriously. Besides, didn't I say something about being one of those women who fall outside the norm. ;) I'd prefer the nature shows about the lions. You wouldn't catch me dead watching "What Not To Wear."

My husband tells me to stop being a lesbian when i appreciate the beauty of other women ;). And we're both latinos! I have no idea why I would post this comment because it offers nothing to the conversation. I too like watching preying mantises...

So men DON'T have emotions?

You must be one crappy Anthropologist, if you even qualify as one. As a medical scientist and a man, I can say this article is not utter crap and happens to be very true in most cases. And if you're so scientific, how about you start by pointing out what is factually wrong with the article rather than just calling it pseudo-science. You might also want to take note of who actually wrote the article before you claim that it was written on unscientific grounds. This opinion was written by Louann Brizendine. Here are her credentials:

University of California, Berkeley: B.A., Neurobiology
Yale School of Medicine: M.D.
Harvard Medical School:Residency in Psychiatry, MMHC

Jeez, who to believe, the psychiatrist or the idiot who claims he knows anthropology but doesn't know science when he sees it... Think before you post stupid shit.

in what way is it wrong?

By the way, you must think we're all stupid. PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY is a far cry from psychology, dipshit.

hey, mindcruzer, did you notice that the self-proclaimed "anthropologist" is a PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGIST", NOT EVEN a cultural or social anthropologist?

Jesus, it's a big difference to read scientific journals on physical anthropology and psychology.

And for a guy who claims to be a "scientist", he didn't even bother looking up her credential before slandering the doctor.

what a genius, eh?

you sly little devil! ;)

just out of curiosity, what would YOU personally prefer? to be with a man who exudes strength, self-control, and a cool and collected disposition?
Or an emotional drama queen who is quick to complain, whine, and whimper?

I invite your honest reply.