Talk:The Female Brain (book)

Language log
I'd suggest including Mark Liberman's detailed criticisms of this book on Language Log; Should I add a link to the most current entry (which includes links to previous items)? yEvb0 18:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Liberman's criticism of the book seems focused on a single soundbite. He makes a case that the soundbite in question is not well supported by the author's own selected references. You can add that link if you want. I am not sure it addresses enough of a broad based criticism regarding the author's overall thesis. Sympa 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll consider adding it if there is any consensus. Yes, he does deal with a few small parts which are in his purview, but if the author's own references don't support her claim (and several other ones discovered in the book along the lines of the original soundbite), it certainly casts doubt on any larger theses based on those claims. I think Liberman's goal is to look critically at some claims in the book, which few other reviews had done, instead opting to report unsupported soundbites. yEvb0 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

YEvb0, go ahead and make the changes as you see fit. You have made your case convincingly. And, I now agree with you. Sympa 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia. My Amazon review is cited in this article. My book review was mostly negative, so I'm probably not a neutral contributor in your eyes. Here are some comments and suggestions. 1. First off, I think this article was OK the first time I saw it, and it has improved considerably. To be sure, the version from a few months ago tended to take the author's point of view at face value, but it also discussed criticisms of the book. 2. The "fact checking the female brain" link currently links to Liberman's article from the Boston Globe. Liberman has written MUCH more about the book since that article was published. You seem to be aware of this, but it doesn't look like the link to Liberman's Language Log has been included yet. I suggest keeping the Boston Globe link, but add links for Liberman's Language Log. I suggest that you move Liberman's stuff to the top of the discussion of criticisms, and describe his criticisms in more detail. 3. Consider including some of the links that Liberman provides. For instance, he provides links to articles in which Brizendine responded to criticisms. This is fascinating stuff, IMHO. At times, Brizendine skates around scientific issues, suggesting that the criticisms reflect others' biases. 4. You might list some alternative books and articles that discuss sex differences and the brain. I suggested a number of alternative sources in my Amazon review (e.g., Anne Fausto-Sterling's book). 5. You might take a look at the 20 or so comments that follow my Amazon review. In the comments section, I've discussed some recent developments regarding this book. For instance, you'll want to discuss Geoffrey Nunberg's commentary on NPR (Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Jan 3, 2007). You can listen to his commentary at the NPR website. 6. I don't think you'll find any experts on sex differences who have endorsed this book. For that matter, I don't think you'll find any bona fide scientists who endorse this book. In my Amazon review, I pointed out that scientists hadn't endorsed the book. But this issue seems especially important now because the book has received so much positive media attention. Linguist Deborah Tannen published an early review of the book that many perceived as being positive. But what is positive about it? I'll make more suggestions as time permits. DavidPeterzellDavidPeterzell 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems
This article is quite problematic:
 * 1 much of it takes the book's point of view

"At the beginning of the book, the author created a table that depicts in detail such different stages of a woman's life and the dominant related hormonal influences. A summary of this table is depicted below." (Note that the article agrees with the book's thesis. We do not read "the author's table depicts what she sees as the female mental life cycle", or whatnot.)
 * 2 The tone is absolutely terrible for an article purporting deal with neuroscience. e.g.

"This is especially pronounced if the kids are out to college and the husband is retired and expects three meals a day. The terms of the marriage need to be renegotiated if the marriage is to survive."
 * 3 In a related matter, the article has rather serious grammatical problems.
 * 4 Little discussion of Nature's scathing criticism -- and the little that's there is what I added!

So we've got an article that needs pretty much a total rewrite for style, tone, references, and above all else, bias. I'll work on it a bit, but until these problems have been eliminated, not just reduced, please refrain from removing the tags. -- Zantastik  talk  02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking to point 2, my understanding from interviews seen with the author is that this is precisely the intent. Making the subject comprehensive for those interested in a theory about how women's brains alter during different stages of development and lifecycles.ArianaJ (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)ArianaJ

I want to mention a bit more of the Nature article's criticism (doi:10.1038/443634a). For those who are unfamiliar, Nature is one of the most respected scientific journals. I quote: "The book is riddled with scientific errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general...Misrepresentations of scientific details are legion...The text is rife with 'facts' that do not exist in the supporting references." Marshreeds (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whose knowledge?
From the text (love and sex): Brizendine states that 10% of children are fathered by such philanderers without the his knowledge. --Ben T/C 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate entries as to specific books
Is there a guideline for addressing a book as a separate topic in Wikipedia? If one is not going to review a book (which I assume is inappropriate, non-encyclopedic content), then what is the appropriate focus of a stand-alone discussion of it? Are there suggested formats?

These questions arise for me because some of these valuable comments seem out of context with the author's goals for the book and her intended audience. --Dehydrate 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts are facts
It appears to me that the author has indeed made some errors of judgement. However, it seems just as clear that she presents plenty of well documented facts, that are unpopular in some circles.

Are the phases of a woman's life presented in the book really supposed to be some radical biased agenda? Can pregnancy come before puberty? Or puberty after menopause? Look again carefully, the phases are all described by words and usage that is non-technical and have been in lexical stock of languages for millenia.

What would satisfy people? An article that starts with criticisms of the book, without even reporting what it does say? The bias in such an approach to editing is much clearer and more significant than the genuine errors that the book contains.

There is already a sizeable literature on how sexual dimorphism affects behaviour. Editors would be well advised to consult some of it before writing off the basic thesis of the book, which is unoriginal, and sound. Alastair Haines 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious as to what The Migraine Brain might tell us
I am not suggesting changing the article. I am just curious what Neurologist Carolyn Bernstein might have to say on this issue. Bernstein wrote a book called "The Migraine Brain" detailing how Migraine brains differ from "normal" brains. And Bernstein runs a Migraine clinic, but not just any clinic, she runs a Migraine Clinic for Women.

I gather from that, maybe erroneously, that she feels men and women differ in brain structure or brain chemistry, and treating women would differ significantly from treating men.

I have no evidence for this, just say this article, and I'm just speculating. 72.222.193.42 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion
At the risk of not adhering to WP policy for talk pages, a bit of personal opinion:

On the one hand, TFB is poorly written, has many logical flaws, and makes at least some medical statements that are dubious.

On the other, she correctly points out the important fact that men and women are highly different, and seeing that feminist rhetoric has often successfully tried to spread the opposite claim, this alone makes it a highly valuable work. Acknowledging and working with these differences is in the best interest of both men and women. 88.77.130.58 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Entire paragraph describing David Peterzell's take on this book is inappropriate
Disclaimer: I probably agree with most of the views attributed to David Peterzell in the article.

BUT:

First of all, who the $%@*& is David Peterzell that an entire paragraph summarizing his views on the book should belong in a Wikipedia article???

Second, the only reference cited in that paragraph is to his own website. This is not adequate as a reference. (Any Joe Schmo could express their views in a Wikipedia article and refer it to their own website.)  There is a very low standard for Wikipedia references, but one's own website falls below that bar. At minimum, a reference should be to published material.

Finally, I visited Peterzell's website and could not find any reference to Brizendine or "The Female Brain". In particular, Peterzell's numerous publications do not mention the author or her book in their titles.Daqu (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I too found the emphasis on his views bordering on the absurd. (And the article as a whole seems a bit too NPOV against the book.)88.77.180.196 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Next time you find material that doesn't belong and that's cited to a personal web site, just go ahead and delete it. Leadwind  (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Facebook like thumb.png (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)