So? If they did the study on male patients as part of a men's health survey, what's the problem with calling it what it is? When studies are done on women, their findings are typically called women's health studies and nobody complains. And that isn't limited to studies of girlie-bits in particular.
The teaser makes it sound like the mysteries are specific to men's brains, and then you get to the article, and much of the information is applicable to both sexes.
When studies are done on women, their findings are typically called women's health studies and nobody complains.
It took years for studies to take the differences in women's physiology into account. Of course no one is going to complain that someone finally started taking notice.
If the article had 10 mysteries specific to the male brain, then at least the article would have lived up to its billing. Instead, you have an article that uses commonalities and a couple of things that differ. It's claiming commonalities and implying (or leaving open the implication that) they're particular.
It was marketing. Someone thought, "Gee, I have this general-purpose article on wierd trivia about the brain and memory. If I find one testosterone-related brain fact, I can target it toward MSN.com's "men's health" page."
I'd bet you a buck that's how it got titled that and placed there.
*snags your buck* it's from Men's Health magazine. which is why it it targeted as it is. Honestly, Men's Health isn't exactly seeking more female readership. the billing speaks solely to the source of the article, which is why i was confused way up there at the top of the page.
and i agree, but to answer your initial question as to why the particular tease, would you have been as likely to click w/ a longer more detailed tease? Marketing dictates the more words the use, the less clicky, the less bang for the buck. why?
If the article had 10 mysteries specific to the male brain, then at least the article would have lived up to its billing. Instead, you have an article that uses commonalities and a couple of things that differ.
When you see programs on the Discovery Channel about tanning, or weight loss, or who knows what else, even though men do the same thing it's generally women they talk to. They regularly use phrases like "Women's bodies are all different, but..." even though they're talking about things applicable to both men and women. Honestly, who cares? I think you're being way oversensitive about this. There ARE a couple of things there specific to the male brain. Taking into account the source information from other comments, even without those specifics the title would probably remain the same. I don't see why that offends you. SO many things are targeted at women that should be targeted at "people", but again, so what?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsyche![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 12:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 01:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 01:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 02:05 am (UTC)When studies are done on women, their findings are typically called women's health studies and nobody complains.
It took years for studies to take the differences in women's physiology into account. Of course no one is going to complain that someone finally started taking notice.
If the article had 10 mysteries specific to the male brain, then at least the article would have lived up to its billing. Instead, you have an article that uses commonalities and a couple of things that differ. It's claiming commonalities and implying (or leaving open the implication that) they're particular.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 03:00 am (UTC)I'd bet you a buck that's how it got titled that and placed there.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 03:44 am (UTC)it's from Men's Health magazine. which is why it it targeted as it is. Honestly, Men's Health isn't exactly seeking more female readership.
the billing speaks solely to the source of the article, which is why i was confused way up there at the top of the page.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 03:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 03:53 am (UTC)why?
we clicked, didn't we?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 04:20 pm (UTC)I need to read more Susan Bordo. It's been too long.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 05:18 pm (UTC)If the article had 10 mysteries specific to the male brain, then at least the article would have lived up to its billing. Instead, you have an article that uses commonalities and a couple of things that differ.
When you see programs on the Discovery Channel about tanning, or weight loss, or who knows what else, even though men do the same thing it's generally women they talk to. They regularly use phrases like "Women's bodies are all different, but..." even though they're talking about things applicable to both men and women. Honestly, who cares? I think you're being way oversensitive about this. There ARE a couple of things there specific to the male brain. Taking into account the source information from other comments, even without those specifics the title would probably remain the same. I don't see why that offends you. SO many things are targeted at women that should be targeted at "people", but again, so what?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 01:26 am (UTC)which is why [implicit memory is] sometimes called "muscle memory," says Janet Gibson, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Grinnell College, in Iowa
I has her for psycholinguistics, which was an interesting class. Then again, I'm into linguistics, so no surprise there... :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 01:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-06 11:32 am (UTC)