Say It With Me, NYTimes: Embodiment. Very Good!

Not surprisingly, I have a problem with an article in today's New York Times. Really, what else is new? Actually, I have many problems wtih today's Times, or TT as I will refer to it from here on out. I have problems with yesterday's Times and last week's, last year's, last summer's (do you remember that article about the bisexual male study? WTF?!), and forever and ever Amen.

A glimpse at TT with commentary:
1. Seems to me this newspaper thinks it's a blog. I don't read the paper-paper edition, but the article about TMZ.com is sure to be in there. Fascinating. Straphangers from Morningside Heights to Wall Street must be thoroughly enamored by the wondrous Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt coverage this paper shoves into about three to five precious articles each week. Garrison Keillor would be proud!
2. Oh yes. If I have to see one more A Prairie Home Companion ad on this Web site, I'll write about it on my blog. Wow. See how severe the situation is? I think someone at their Web site is sweet on Ms. Lohan, or Fire Crotch, as the breaker of news might name her about a month after that was cool (though it was never cool).
3. "For Some, Online Persona Undermines a Resume" is a really brilliant title. So brilliant, in fact, you don't even need to read the article to understand what it's about. Hey, I never thought that my future employers might have gone to college. Or might be recent graduates even. Hey, they might have Facebook accounts! And even if they didn't go to high school, I bet they still have MySpace if they've got their trusty Library Card and 15 minutes to cyberstalk while at the Public Library computer kiosks! THANKS FOR ILLUMINATING THAT NYTIMES.COM!
4. OK. There are many others - Hell! I could write about TT for hours! This next article is the one that helped me decide what to write about today. Thank you TT for so clearly articulating my disgust with such an "esteemed" publication.

Found in the Mental Health and Behavior section (or Health, online), it is called "Men are Better at Ferreting Out that Angry Face in the Crowd." I love the title, don't you? "Ferreting out" is a phrase I use all the time! Especially about situations such as this one, where someone is forced to determine, who, at their cocktail party, is angry or terrified. Again, thanks for keeping us on our toes TT!


I'll give you a brief brief synopsis, but, as usual, the article doesn't explain in enough detail the point/motivation for the study nor any particulars (are these men and women American? Yes, we assume they are. But they don't say it). Bear with me. Don't get angry, either. If I were a man, I'd be able to tell you were angry from a mile away! It's a survival strategy! Hey, that's a good enough synopsis for me. And you can read the article online, my friends.

This article is going to be in Current Biology, which just blows me away since it seems the article fails to explain connections between the psychology and how this is grounded in some tried and true biological difference(s) between men and women. In OTHER WORDS, if this study were in a psychology journal, that is one thing - the audience is filled with people who believe this bullshit. In a biological journal, on the other hand, the audience is geared toward reading articles with the assumption in mind that what they are reading is somehow biologically linked. That may sound simplistic, but it isn't. Maybe they should put the article in Hello! or JANE and see how people interpret it. Just think about that for a moment - but not too long, I have more to say.

When I first began reading this artlcle, I thought it was about picking out angry/terrified faces in a crowd. But no. It's really about the so-called cognitive differences between men and women, and pointing that out for the millionth time. At the end, they say that it's an evolutionary development that men and women respond at different rates to threatening faces. I guess, that's pretty duh, and I'm not sure why a study needs to be done about that. Oh, right, to remind us that women aren't good at directions, and that - duh - women need men.


See her? She's looking for Cherry Tree Rd., where her dying grandmother lives. She's trying really really hard to read a map. A few moments after this picture was taken, a nice, masculine man came along and helped her find her way. She asked the nice man if he could direct her to a CVS in the neighborhood, and he shrugged, and then walked away to help another confused young woman. She has her period and needs tampons. Do you know why he didn't know where CVS was? Because women only know where they are based on landmarks, whereas men actually know the roads. All this boils down to men having the abstract cognitive ability to envision context, location, and direction, whereas women just know where they are by the CVS and Wawas they might have stumbled across.

This is what the article suggests. I don't believe that. Hello? I am a woman (I'm checking right now) and I can follow directions and know where I'm going based on road maps and signs. I can also do MATH AND SCIENCE. If you take the logic of this article one step further, their arguments reinforce that age-old MYTH that men are better at math and science than women. Nowadays, in a quasi-feminist world, women excel at math and science. Forty years ago, only little boys would answer math questions in class, while the girls knew everything about pot roast. How did this change?

Well! Someone started this trend where they decided maybe girls should try math and science, and that maybe they could be good at it if they were given the opportunity. A kind of embodiment - women are using their cognitive abilities differently now, is that affecting their brain structure and neuronal pathways? Can we exceed the limits of other people's expectations when we take minority status? I cannot feasibly believe this study in TT actually has anything to do with real biology or biological evolution. It sounds like social evolution, or, more specifically, a cheap attempt to essentialize men and women's cognitive abilities. Yet again.

What do you think?