![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
meta? no, I think this is rage
I've been reading a lot about Survey!Fail. I have had thoughts on the matter. Long, lengthy thoughts.
I went back and read some of Ogi's comments about why these guys think what they're doing is a superb idea and I can sortakindamaybe see what angle they're coming from. These guys study the brain, the 'hard science' of neurological structures, and it is a fact that male and female brains are structurally different. Not excessively different, but different enough to warrant questions. Thing is, neuroscientists don't really know why certain structures are differently sized, other than the obvious cause of developmental hormones. They're not even 100% positive what certain structures in either of the sexes do. They don't know why the hardware between men and women diverged and they're trying to find out the things they can't explain. Which, hey, good on them, that's what scientists are supposed to do (if, in fact, that's what they're doing and not trying to make a quick buck out of book sales).
Enter the FAIL.
It seems like a logical assumption that form and function are tied to together. Ogi and co. are looking at the structural differences in the human brain and are saying, "Oooo, so if male brains look like this and result in this action, then female brains must cause a different action/response, because male brains and female brains are structurally different! So cool!" (there are so many things wrong with this outlook, i cannot begin to list them all.)
So they looked around and stumbled upon, or were pointed to, an 'underground' mass movement made up primarily of women, something that was so antithetical to their world view, something that was edgy because it involved sex and taboo preferences and things that probably set off hundreds of little bells in their heads that said, "Woah, this is not normal. ...HOLY GRAIL TIME."*
(and let me say? Ogi's statement that what they're doing isn't social research is bullshit, right from the theoretical outset. they used social norms and their own awareness of social and sexual propriety to single out fandom as an aberration. do they really not see that? they used social cues to find their own research topic that supposedly has nothing to do with social implications and, argh argh ARGH)
And I do still see where the root scientific question for them is- are there inherent differences between genetic males and genetic females caused by differing brain structures? The problem, which these guys are NOT GETTING, is that those 'inherent differences' that they're looking for? Would be behavioral differences. And behavior, ladies and gentlemen, is framed and augmented and nourished and derailed and rewarded and punished and CONTROLLED by the social sphere.
I do not understand why there is such a mental road block in some people, where they can't get it through their heads that people do not exist in a bubble. They do not exist in a petri dish. They do not exist in a continuous timeloop in the freaking 1950's. We are all shaped by our environment, whether that environment is in downtown New York, the Gobi desert, at the side of a volcano, at the hell known as middle school in the US; whether we grow up surrounded by family or by people who want us dead; whether we live in a privileged society, have always had enough food to eat, whether we're educated, or whether we are social outcasts. All of these factors plus millions more contribute to the human experience and you cannot you cannot you cannot look at the behavior of any set of people and completely disregard the context that behavior occurs in. Human behavior. Society. They are the same goddamned thing.
Now. That does not mean the scientific question these guys are (supposedly) exploring is invalid, though I personally don't think there's all that much practical significance in the differences between men and women's medulla oblongatas or their lateral ventricles. The only practical difference I can see between the neurological structures of males and females are there to support the different reproductive systems that men and women carry. Granted, this indicates that if you wanted to explore the neurological differences between men and women you would want to focus on sex behaviors, though I have no idea why you would research something so freaking stupid as the differences between the production and enjoyment of thetransexual "shemale" (oh my god, really??) porn industry versus online slash communities. No, really. That's fucking stupid.
And all of this is giving Ogi and company the very generous benefit of doubt, because I really really really don't believe that their motivations are scientifically pure. They're writing a book, a titillating book about sex, a book about a widespread but still 'unknown' taboo practice, a book that is based on the premise that women are inherently different from men and, look, see, we have proof! They hide it on the internet! It's because their brains are funny!
Never mind that what we do has as much to do with integrating sources that we love and making friends who share our interests in entertainment as it does with writing PWPs. Never mind that our half hidden presence and activities have more to do with the shadow of copyright law and fear of societal repercussions as they do with our strange female sex feelings. Never mind that we're just the Girl Corner of much wider spread fannish activities that are almost completely dominated by guys.
I personally think research in the human brain is fascinating, which is why I studied it. I think that this particular field of inquiry could prove to be very fruitful, especially in regards to understanding the human sex drive and in investigating how the human brain works, in general. That said, such research needs to be very freaking careful that it is not being done solely to reinforce preexisting theories and beliefs. It needs to not be done in a vacuum. Understanding the nuts and bolts of the hardware is worth shit if you don't know who writes the program and what it is meant to do.
Comprende?
*please excuse the Sentinel reference, I thought it was fitting. Don't you think it's fitting?
I went back and read some of Ogi's comments about why these guys think what they're doing is a superb idea and I can sortakindamaybe see what angle they're coming from. These guys study the brain, the 'hard science' of neurological structures, and it is a fact that male and female brains are structurally different. Not excessively different, but different enough to warrant questions. Thing is, neuroscientists don't really know why certain structures are differently sized, other than the obvious cause of developmental hormones. They're not even 100% positive what certain structures in either of the sexes do. They don't know why the hardware between men and women diverged and they're trying to find out the things they can't explain. Which, hey, good on them, that's what scientists are supposed to do (if, in fact, that's what they're doing and not trying to make a quick buck out of book sales).
Enter the FAIL.
It seems like a logical assumption that form and function are tied to together. Ogi and co. are looking at the structural differences in the human brain and are saying, "Oooo, so if male brains look like this and result in this action, then female brains must cause a different action/response, because male brains and female brains are structurally different! So cool!" (there are so many things wrong with this outlook, i cannot begin to list them all.)
So they looked around and stumbled upon, or were pointed to, an 'underground' mass movement made up primarily of women, something that was so antithetical to their world view, something that was edgy because it involved sex and taboo preferences and things that probably set off hundreds of little bells in their heads that said, "Woah, this is not normal. ...HOLY GRAIL TIME."*
(and let me say? Ogi's statement that what they're doing isn't social research is bullshit, right from the theoretical outset. they used social norms and their own awareness of social and sexual propriety to single out fandom as an aberration. do they really not see that? they used social cues to find their own research topic that supposedly has nothing to do with social implications and, argh argh ARGH)
And I do still see where the root scientific question for them is- are there inherent differences between genetic males and genetic females caused by differing brain structures? The problem, which these guys are NOT GETTING, is that those 'inherent differences' that they're looking for? Would be behavioral differences. And behavior, ladies and gentlemen, is framed and augmented and nourished and derailed and rewarded and punished and CONTROLLED by the social sphere.
I do not understand why there is such a mental road block in some people, where they can't get it through their heads that people do not exist in a bubble. They do not exist in a petri dish. They do not exist in a continuous timeloop in the freaking 1950's. We are all shaped by our environment, whether that environment is in downtown New York, the Gobi desert, at the side of a volcano, at the hell known as middle school in the US; whether we grow up surrounded by family or by people who want us dead; whether we live in a privileged society, have always had enough food to eat, whether we're educated, or whether we are social outcasts. All of these factors plus millions more contribute to the human experience and you cannot you cannot you cannot look at the behavior of any set of people and completely disregard the context that behavior occurs in. Human behavior. Society. They are the same goddamned thing.
Now. That does not mean the scientific question these guys are (supposedly) exploring is invalid, though I personally don't think there's all that much practical significance in the differences between men and women's medulla oblongatas or their lateral ventricles. The only practical difference I can see between the neurological structures of males and females are there to support the different reproductive systems that men and women carry. Granted, this indicates that if you wanted to explore the neurological differences between men and women you would want to focus on sex behaviors, though I have no idea why you would research something so freaking stupid as the differences between the production and enjoyment of the
And all of this is giving Ogi and company the very generous benefit of doubt, because I really really really don't believe that their motivations are scientifically pure. They're writing a book, a titillating book about sex, a book about a widespread but still 'unknown' taboo practice, a book that is based on the premise that women are inherently different from men and, look, see, we have proof! They hide it on the internet! It's because their brains are funny!
Never mind that what we do has as much to do with integrating sources that we love and making friends who share our interests in entertainment as it does with writing PWPs. Never mind that our half hidden presence and activities have more to do with the shadow of copyright law and fear of societal repercussions as they do with our strange female sex feelings. Never mind that we're just the Girl Corner of much wider spread fannish activities that are almost completely dominated by guys.
I personally think research in the human brain is fascinating, which is why I studied it. I think that this particular field of inquiry could prove to be very fruitful, especially in regards to understanding the human sex drive and in investigating how the human brain works, in general. That said, such research needs to be very freaking careful that it is not being done solely to reinforce preexisting theories and beliefs. It needs to not be done in a vacuum. Understanding the nuts and bolts of the hardware is worth shit if you don't know who writes the program and what it is meant to do.
Comprende?
*please excuse the Sentinel reference, I thought it was fitting. Don't you think it's fitting?