Talk:The Female Brain (book)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language log 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whose knowledge? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate entries as to specific books 

message: 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)
thread_title: Facts are facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just curious as to what The Migraine Brain might tell us 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire paragraph describing David Peterzell's take on this book is inappropriate