Recently in 6: Fem Sci Studs: Practice (10/10, 10/12, 10/14) Category

In this past week readings, we discussed and read an article on Anne Fausto-Sterling, "Seving the Brain: How Biologists make a difference." Overall, the article explains using the dead brain and to research on what causes gender roles for men and women. Men were more likely to become firefighters, scientists, and engineers. Fausto-Sterling explains in her article that the brain consists of complex weaves and contributes with feelings and emotions to the human brain and body. Mark Gungor is pastor, motivational speaker, and a very important figure. Mark explains that the there is a difference between the male and female brain. Men's brains are like a bunch of boxes and every box has a certain area of a topic like a box for money, car, family, and many other things. It's like a mailbox for the men's brain. We also have a "Nothing Box," which means we can do nothing for hours and not think about anything. An example would be like fishing. Women's brains are like a ball of connected wire. This causes emotions which leads to energy which leads to remembering everything unlike the male brain. Another important aspect would be that men think highly of themselves while women are the exact opposite. Women think they are too fat, too skinny, and much more. Women look at magazines and wishes to be like the women in the ads, but these women are not perfect, especially with airbrush and computer technologies. This may be a reason why women suffer from depression. Most importantly everyone is different with different backgrounds, races, and culture. Mark described that ¼ college white girls have a eating disorder. Women of color don't have this type of problem; it is a interesting but weird concept. Mark doesn't describe why but says it is a proven fact and I was blown away by this unbelievable fact.
1. What do you think about how the brain works between male and female? Agree or disagree? why?
2. Why are there gender roles and how does it make you feel about it?
3. What are your thoughts on how women portray their looks?

Thomas Jang

As I was reading "Sexing the Brain", I couldn't help but keep thinking, "why does it matter if the corpus callosum points out a gender difference?" There has been so much attention given to the brain to point out differences in size and functioning between genders. I can understand why we would want to know differences in organs that may have different health concerns, but why is it so important to point out a gender difference in the brain? Maybe specialized teaching methods would result, but I think instead an emphasis for science and mathematics would be placed more on males, rather than females; emphasizing their "natural" attributes. I feel that the main reason for concluding a gender difference in the CC would justify negative societal response to women in "male careers". Justifying the disproportionate sex ratios of women in science and mathematics careers; deeming it as biological determinism.

I think many women feel that they're just not good at mathematics or science, I include myself. Is this true, or do we feel like we've made it a self-fulfilling prophecy through societal response?

In your opinion, what do you think would be the result of concluding a gender difference in the corpus callosum? Would a difference benefit or hinder individuals? Do you think it is worth the time, energy, and financing to try to conclude a difference between genders?

The differences in sizes and functions of male and female brains has long been the subject of study of scientists, and more recently, more attention has been paid to anatomy and function of the Corpus Callosum. We can recall primitive science that labeled the male brain superior principally on the observation that it is larger in size, and therefore is capable of producing better and more thoughts. Modern science has largely debunked these assertions, as we know that brain capability is dependent on much more than its size. In a study by Hannah Hoag published in New Scientist in 2008, these differences are studied more in depth. The section of the brain that deals with problem solving, decision making, and regulating emotions is larger in women's brains, while men's brains are larger in the area that regulates space perception and sexual and social behavior. Differences in the amounts of gray matter, which is more numerous in men, and white matter, more in female brains, allow the female brain to work faster.

While the effects of other portions of the brain have measurable effects, the Corpus Callosum remains a mystery. Scientists believe that the source of an individuals sexuality can be found there, which seems a simplistic and implausible idea. Considering that gender and sexuality are socially constructed, the cut and dry idea that sexuality comes from a single source rather than the sum of the structures of the brain is baffling.

How would a socially constructed concept be represented in scientific studies? If the Corpus Callosum is the seat of all sexuality, is it possible for it to be confused?

There are problems with Wilson's text, "The Brain in the Gut" that I struggle to manifest coherently but will attempt to clarify out of a profound curiosity for her diagnosis of the gut's relationship with the central nervous system and the method psychoanalysis.
One of her glaring short comings is either her failure to or purposeful neglect at analyzing the gut's interaction with a subject while under another extreme emotional state, extensive in time and preferably one the human being would consider positive, excessive elation or while induced by the fantastical state of "love." Would the gut, as with Wilson's accounts of depression, suppress hunger or the exact opposite stimulate it's need to consume more rapidly?
Another question arises when Wilson quotes Gershon, "Since the brain in the head affects the second brain [i.e., the ens], it is, of course, conceivable that a disturbed mind may transmit it's problems to the enteric nervous system, thereby upsetting even the fuctions delegated tot he second brain." and subsequently paraphrasing however, there is nothing preventing the gut from demonstrating "enteric misbehavior" working separately from the affects on the brain. Does this "enteric misbehavior" account for the guts refusal to response to the human's dynamic changes of emotion daily? What's more, by using the word "refusal" (my own) and referring back to the texts persuasion of having one think critically of the gut's independence, is it possible the gut is theoretically a anatomical thinker, having the ability to select?
This is all unclear and up in the air but indeed the questions asked are to some extent mentionable. If any are interested in the "unconscious" which is a significant undercurrent in Wilson's essay, one should read Freud's text, "The Interpretation of Dreams."