By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Politically Correct Feminist Neuroscience By Mrs Vera West
A top female neuroscientist has proclaimed that the brains of men and women are the same!
“I’m an international researcher in the field of cognitive neuroscience, based at the Aston Brain Centre at Aston University in Birmingham. My work involves using brain imaging techniques to investigate individual differences in the brain, in particular to understand conditions such as autism and dyslexia. But I’ve also been interested in the fascination scientists have long held in identifying differences between male and female brains. While theories may have come and gone for over two centuries, until recently the basic message has been consistent: there are ‘essential’ differences between men’s and women’s brains, and these will determine their different capacities and places in society. Well, I believe this approach does everyone a disfavour, especially women and girls. It’s surely no coincidence that scientists, who historically were mostly men, favoured theories that supported male superiority. In the 18th and 19th century, it was generally accepted that women were socially, intellectually and emotionally lacking and their inferior brains were at the heart of any explanation as to why they were lower down the scale. Brain size was an early focus and a finding that, on average, women’s brains were five ounces lighter than men’s was eagerly seized upon as proof.
Even now scientists use the difference in brain sizes as an indication of differences between the sexes, but nothing has been found to indicate this has any significance in terms of cognitive ability. The size difference may simply be a reflection of the fact men tend to be physically larger. Later, superiority came to be associated with larger skull capacity. It was a female scientist, Alice Lee, who disproved this theory, by creating a mathematical formula to work out skull capacity, and then demonstrating that an eminent (male) anatomist had one of the smallest heads in her study. Do boys’ and girls’ brains start out the same? The general consensus is that at birth there are actually very few differences. Yet by the time children grow up, it’s clear boys and girls have very different ideas about what is — and isn’t — for them. It’s particularly striking that so many girls don’t see themselves in the world of science, technology, engineering and maths. A UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2018 report shows that in the UK, little more than a third (38.6 per cent) of science researchers are female. In 2016, just 15 per cent of computer science and 17 per cent of engineering and technology first-year undergraduates were female.”
Clearly they won’t be silent until not a single man has any job at all. And so, it goes on. Rippon’s book is The Gendered Brain. However, it is not too hard to find other neuroscientists who disagree and who see basic physiological and neurological differences between men and women’s brains, such as Louann Brizendine, The Female Brain. Who is right? Leaving aside theology and just considering evolution, we are to suppose with Rippon’s feminist equalitarianism, that evolution created men and women’s brains equal, where in the natural world, few things, if any are equal. It is a most unequal world. For equality, that would be a truly miraculous pre-established harmony, one that would require a feminist creator!
As an afterthought, I came across this article which argues that men can judge female faithfulness from just faces, which is not as deep as the neurology, so the equality thesis gets more implausible with more research:
“If you’re a scientist these days, you need to tread very carefully. If this wasn’t already obvious, it became crystal clear a few weeks ago when the full fury of the anti-scientific mob was unleashed on young Cambridge University sociologist Dr. Noah Carl with an Open Letter signed by hundreds of bullying “academics” demanding his dismissal. This means that at worst genuine scientists daren’t even look into areas which challenge Cultural Marxism—and, at best, they disseminate their findings in such a way that they stay safely under the PC radar. Which is just what the Springer-published journal Evolutionary Psychological Science appears recently to have done. The journal published a paper which confirms something that definitely doesn’t fit with CultMarx dogmas: Men can correctly tell how faithful a woman is likely to be just from looking at a photo of her face. (Pictured right, actress Sienna Miller, wife of Jude Law, lover of Daniel Craig.) In other words, you really can judge people by what they look like.
Of course, if you can judge character from a face, then character might be genetic and human beings not blank, socially-engineerable, slates. Also, if an ancient idea—that you can judge by appearances—is accurate, then other ancient ideas might accurate. Cultural Marxism cannot allow that! Had it been a study replicating something that the Left want to hear, such as that religiousness is weakly negatively associated with intelligence, then you can guarantee that Springer would have put out a press release and that that press release would have been lazily regurgitated in Leftist newspapers worldwide, e.g. Atheists are more intelligent than religious people say researchers, By Charlotte England, Independent, May 18, 2018. But despite the fact that there is a “replication crisis” in psychology, with only 36% of studies being confirmed, this clear confirmation of an important scientific fact—that men can correctly judge a woman’s character from her face—has received no Main Stream Media coverage at all.
Similar previous findings did receive some limited media interest, probably because a press release was put out and robotic MSM journalists pretty much cut and pasted it onto their websites. By Sophie Freeman, Mail Online, September 22, 2015 ] But with the current anti-Truth atmosphere being even harsher than just a few years ago, it seems that Springer—and perhaps the authors themselves—have decided that going to the press is not a good idea. After all, press coverage might lead to reporting of the findings on “Alt-Right” websites—and one of the reasons why his detractors insist that Cambridge University shouldn’t have appointed Dr Noah Carl, according to their Open Letter is that “Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets . . .”
In fact, there is an excellent book taking this all much further: Edward Dutton, How to Judge People by What They Look Like. I think Brian or someone here dis a review; can’t remember, it is my female brain, and I don’t care a hoot!