Quote of the day: The Pill will make you like "wimps"
If you want a "real" man, don't use birth control!
This is too amazing. Today's stellar quote comes from "abortion doctors eat babies" Jill Stanek.
Basically, a study says that women who use birth control tend to be attracted to men with more boyish features with caring personalities, versus "rugged" men with controlling personalities. The study itself is questionable, and the article detailing it comes from the less-than-reliable Daily Mail. But Stanek jumps on it nonetheless, saying, "Also don't forget estrogen from the Pill is water has been found by several studies to feminize male fish. So women on the Pill may be getting what they're helping create, wimps." (Emphasis mine)
Someone needs to read The Wimp Factor!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quote of the day: The Pill will make you like "wimps".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16567
You heard the lady -- don't take the pill, get your tubes tied!
If I take the pill:
First, I get to have sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Plus, I become more attracted to caring men rather than controlling assholes?
I'm not seeing a downside to taking the pill.
Even if all the conclusions of the study are correct, it doesn't mean much. There have been plenty of studies that suggest hetero women tend to be more attracted to masculine-featured men while ovulating, so I don't automatically object to that idea. But we ovulate for one day each cycle. How much is really being changed by the pill if the type of men we're attracted to is exactly the same except one day every month or so?
Wait, what part of this is bad?
Well, the part about the fish, for one...
I for one am sick of overly-macho fish and look forward to more feminized fish.
They do know some right? That one is on reef fish, but I think I read about freshwater fish doing that as well. So maybe the feminization they are seeing is actually a biological process?
meant to say "...some fish change sex, right?" and end the a tag after that
People laugh about it but an excess amount of birth control hormones really can devastate fish populations.
So can overfishing as a result of overpopulation.
Here is the fresh research part of which is dedicated to how hormonal contraceptives affect women's preferences: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-smell-love
Psychology today is a rag run by quack conservatives-- neo-liberal evolutionary psych types and academic gender-apologists. I'd like to know what rank of journal this was accepted in. Half of the the research that gets published these days violates a dozen rules of proper research design/methodology, but the press can't tell the difference. They jump ahead to the conclusion section of articles because the sections with numbers are too intimidating and they can't be bothered to take a refresher class in statistics. I doubt this study had a large enough sample and probably didn't control for social class (a correlate of birth control use that's also related to partner preferences).
> Half of the the research that gets published these days violates a dozen rules of proper research design/methodology, but the press can't tell the difference
Do you apply the SAME critical approach to ALL articles/researches posts at Feminisiting refer to?
This is my favorite comment ever.
Wow, ignorant. So being a caricature of masculinity is being a "real man?" I guess I like wimps then. It's pretty sad when being caring and considerate of others is seen as a bad thing. And who care about if a man has "boyish features?" I like what I like. Why am I obligated to prefer rugged, controlling men? Yuck. It irritates me how so many people have such narrow views of gender. Why can't we just focus on being people instead of "real" men and women. What makes someone a real man or real woman anyway?
"Rugged" looking men can't have caring personalities?
This is my question. All men are either boyish looking and caring, or rugged looking and controlling? The language in the quote above uses vague descriptions of character traits that don't have any place in scientific writing. How does this "caring" quality manifest itself? (Especially in the context of a short experiment, which wouldn't provide much scope for a woman to evaluate anyone's caring-ness.) Does "controlling" refer to an assertive man who likes to take charge of his surroundings, a man who's obsessed with controlling his mate, or something else? Is someone making the bizarre assertion that unmedicated women tend to be attracted to guys who act controlling in a relationship?
A more informative summary of the study is here -- http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/07/are-you-a-lady-are-you-on-the-pill-about-to-get-married. It seems to involve showing women pics of men's faces that had been doctored to look more or less masculine. In any case, many women and men prefer more "rugged" or traditionally masculine guys; there's nothing wrong with that. The point of the study doesn't seem to be "if you want a real man, don't use birth control," as Jessica's caption summed it up. Rather, it suggests that a woman might find she's less attracted to her partner than she thought she was when she goes off the pills. It would suck to discover that once you're far along in a relationship, so the question is worth looking into.
This made my day. I'm pretty sure that I am going to some version of feminist hell for laughing at something like this, but . . . well, I guess it proves that one should treat supposedly medical evidence with skepticism!
You're all crazy, of course rugged looking men MUST be uncaring, and we should all like manly men. Personally, I won't date a guy unless he's willing to hit me when dinner isn't ready on time. Or maybe when it is, just to keep me in my place.
Ha ha. It's like these people never passed their freshman-level intro to logic or intro to rhetorical writing classes. The logic skills are so hilariously in the toilet.
Also gotta love people supporting a definition of masculinity based on "ruggedness," i.e., violence and unhealthy coping strategies.
Yes. Also, the bullshit "ruggedness" ideal definitely doesn't cause men to have emotional or anger problems or anything like that. There's no problem when boys and men shoot up their schools and fitness clubs and all their family and acquaintances inevitably tell the press, "God, we never saw it coming! He was so NICE and so NORMAL! You never would have known it from looking at him or talking to him." What they mean to say is, "He was so good at HIDING IT."
The logic skills are so hilariously in the toilet.
"ruggedness," i.e., violence and unhealthy coping strategies.
Does. Not. Compute. Hypocrisy much to criticise others' logic and follow up with a non sequitur? Ruggedness =/= violence.
Also since when did masculinity as defined by modern society necessarily lead to boys and men shooting up schools and fitness clubs? I agree that there are many problems associated with the masculine ideal, but the sort of mass murders you're talking about are (a) so rare as to be statistically insignificant when compared to the 99.999% of men who do not commit such crimes and who presumably are "masculine" since they are men; and (b) generally committed by people who are mentally ill or socially dysfunctional (correct me if you believe I'm wrong) and thus not representative of any great mass of people, be they men or women.
Ruggedness =/= violence.
Also since when did masculinity as defined by modern society necessarily lead to boys and men shooting up schools and fitness clubs?
I'm sorry, you're really going to argue that there isn't something intrinsically wrong with masculinity being defined as "rugged" (or the fact that it's usually defined along strict gender roles and a hierarchy in which women and their "emotional," "sensitive," "feminine" traits are worth less)? You really think violence or, say, even, recklessness, risk-taking, being taught to ignore one's own pain, are not associated with "ruggedness"? You're really going to argue that violence is NOT a basic component of "modern masculinity"? I'm not really even sure what to say. Bullying, rape culture, military culture. Jessica just posted a clip from a documentary on masculinity in hip-hop culture a couple posts down; nope, no violence there.
Perhaps go to the movie theater. Or check out the proportion of men who owns guns as opposed to women. Or the proportion of male rape or murder perpetrators. Or homophobic slurs which men use to police each other for not being "rugged" enough.
... (?)
Really cramming all that bigotry in aren't you? No surprisingly many men can have stubble and not be violent. I know, its a shocker, but the majority of men, even those who look "rugged" are decent people.
But I guess acknowledging that men are human beings worthy of being assessed as individuals, is a foreign and hostile notion to you.
LOL. Oh, TD. You sad little attempt at silencing a woman so you don't have to face the awful truth rather reminds me of this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/the_mormon_leadership_demonstr.php
You know, cuz mentioning the direct, observable and provable connection between the artificial construct of "macho" masculinity and violence (particularly violence against women) is BIGOTRY!!
You feminists are the real bigots!
LOL. Hilarious.
Yeah, because clearly if a man has a face full stubble (which as far as I can tell the largest part of society's assumptions about what a 'rugged' face would look like, along with a strong jaw line), he must be violent. In fact the stubble=rugged connection is probably linked to every major war in history.
No wait, that's utterly ridiculous.
You know, cuz mentioning the direct, observable and provable connection between the artificial construct of "macho" masculinity and violence
If society constructed masculinity as violence, why, pray tell has violence been decreasing, why is the result of this exposure to a culture of "macho masculinity" that the vast majority of men are peaceful, decent, human beings? How do you support you argument in the face that this very culture which you blame for violence against women emphasizes above all else that women are more worthy of protection, and that to harm a woman is a far more serious crime than to harm a man?
Provable? Come on. Feminism does not even hold itself to the most rudimentary tenants of falsifiability. It's the only way that it can assert that the actions of a lone criminal who is almost universally reviled by society is somehow indicative of how society supports that criminal's actions.
There are plenty of mentally ill and socially disfunctional women too, but they dont go and shoot up schools, malls, ect like you see with men.
Simply in the interest of accuracy, I know that Jennifer San Marco, Brenda Spencer, Laurie Wasserman Dan, and Sylvia Seegrist did exactly that. Priscilla Joyce Ford ran down a bunch of people instead of shooting them, but it's pretty similar.
It is much, much more rare than male mass/spree murderers (except in the case of mass murdering your children, then it's more common for women), but it does happen.
Most of the ideas in the article are, of course, just wrong or based on a faulty premise or ignore social/cultural impacts on a person or... Well, you get it. However, I want to pay special attention to this little gem:
"Many of the biggest box office draws are boyish in appearance, rather than classically rugged. The top Hollywood earners of last year include Will Smith, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio and Hugh Jackman..."
Given, DiCaprio does have a boyish face, but Will Smith? Not really boyish. Johnny Depp? A bit crazy looking, but hardly a man child. Hugh Jackman? Well... I mean, HUGH JACKMAN? That's your example of overly boyish types replacing the hunky hollywood elites?
Personally, I love Cary Grant and think he's rather dashing. But, honestly, if it came down to a pure battle of the manliness, Hugh Jackman is winning that one.
And what about Gerard Butler in 300? I know that wasn't a big box office draw of the last year, but I think the female reaction to that movie shows that women aren't averse to muscular, "rugged" guys. Women also seem to like Clive Owen, who I think is pretty successful box office wise.
Also, it's not like those actors listed were big box office draws in romantic films seen by women only. Will Smith gets men AND women in seats for his various dramas and action films, reliably - that's why he's a draw and a top star. So there might be something to be said about what males prefer to see in their leading men, too. I know a lot of women who loved Vin Diesel, but all the men I knew scorned everything he did (granted, a lot of what he did sucked).
Hold up!!!! Are you telling me that a lot of women take the pill AND a lot of women don't like controlling men? Wow, this info could be earth shattering. Does that mean that advances in bodily autonomy for women and economic freedom and choices could lead to us being picky about who we want as oppose to settling down with the first ass that can offer economic security,we get pregnant by, etc.? Does it mean that if you were to promise many women a livable income (Nixon) they wouldn't leave there husbands b/c they married out of economic necessity to begin with?
I don't know what this bodily autonomy, economic justice and stuff is but if it turns men into wimples worn by nuns or crosses between wimples and pussies I don't want any. Damnit I want real men!! The kind that want me in before night time, expect me to work a job, have full responsibility for house work, and give sex on demand. You know, the kind that would beat the crap out of me if I went out with male co-workers or smiled at one of his friends or used any form of birth control including natural, but would then impregnate some 15 year old who he'd been playing sugar daddy too. He and her father would then send her "away" and she would be labeld a strumpet,temptress and whore while her father and my husband talked church bussiness. You know, real men. Manly men.
Keep your Obamas and such, I want a man who can not stomach the idea of a woman making reproductive choices or goodness forbid not deferring to his decisions as final simply because he is the male. You chics can keep your feminism and birth control. I'll take marriage to a controlling, jealous asshole who always has to make the final decision, and on whom I am financially dependent and have no pre-nup with. Screw a caring personality (though I am quite certain there's a false dichotomy presented in there, but to heck with it. Who am to even suggest rugged doesn't have to mean ass). If the kind of girls who, given the oppurtunity/access take control of their reproductive and sexual health (incl. those who choose not to use any form of BC as a personal decision not one of shame or deferring control to someone else) are the kind who want these pussy wimple hybrids, I want nothing to do with them or their ideas.
I first heard this news from a tweet from Heeb Magazine, which is a humorous Jewish magazine. They were celebrating it as a chance at being popular with the ladies for Jewish men, who are normally caricatured as being more "wimpy" than gentile men.
Jessica, if you could cite the study itself in your blog entries on academic research, it would help your readers assess the credibility of research that you discuss and track down the journal articles themselves.
Quiche is a "womanly" food? Isn't it just like eggs and cheese with pastry? How is that "womanly"? Chocolate is one thing, as those dumb wimmens can't be trusted to eat foods healthy for them instead of just animalistically indulging random desires, but quiche just doesn't make sense.
Maybe its the name.
Heh. I can't argue with that "logic".
What's wrong with liking more of a boyish looking man? I don't like muscle men myself, they are a huge turn off for me.
Uh, duh! Because whose going to defend/protect/provide for your offspring when you have kids? You know women dont choose based on personality or anything differing from irresistable biological urges! You need a big ape man to protect you while you vaccum the cave and make his meals!
Uh, duh! Because whose going to defend/protect/provide for your offspring when you have kids? You know women dont choose based on personality or anything differing from irresistable biological urges! You need a big ape man to protect you while you vaccum the cave and make his meals!
The feminizing of fish has a lot more to do with with pesticides, heavy metals and actually plastic.
And it is a very serious environmental issue as it interferes with the fish's ability to reproduce. And this pollution affects other animals including humans.
But again, I doubt the urine of women who take birth control pills is much of a factor. Most water is not used for drinking, but industrial use. And our livestock is obviously pumped full of hormones so their urine is also a much larger contributor to the feminizing of fish than human urine.
This isn't just some random study. There are now dozens and dozens of studies showing that women's sexual motivations change during the high fertility phase of their cycle (days 13-19 before menstrual onset). We conduct these studies in our lab as well.
Women report a stronger desire for men with more masculine faces, who are taller, who are more symmetrical, and who display more behaviors associated with dominance. They also wear more revealing clothing. The list goes on. The effects are strongest for women who have partners who are less physically attractive. Women on the pill don't experience these shifts - they display the same preferences throughout the cycle because they don't experience the surges in LH and estrogen around ovulation.
There are also dozens of studies in non-human mammals where females become choosier during estrous (ovulation), generally showing stronger preferences for traits associated with testosterone.
The studies are done many ways. In some studies, women complete a diary measuring their preferences and fantasies each day for two months. In other studies, women come into the lab 3 times over the course of a month. In other studies, they recruit large samples and compare women currently ovulating to women not ovulating. The studies have been done in Western cultures, Non-Western cultures, and non-industrialized settings.
Why should you care? It's part of a line of research by evolutionary psychologists focusing on the ways that evolution has shaped women's sexuality, revealing the ways that women's sexuality is active rather than passive and influenced by hormonal, situational, and cultural factors. It contributes to the study and understanding of women's sexuality.
Then I must be a freak because I go for "feminine" (is there really any such thing?) features in men during my ovulation.
Are you going to bring up the Ovulating Lap Dancers?(eye roll)
GOPHER: """"Then I must be a freak because I go for "feminine" (is there really any such thing?) features in men during my ovulation.""""
Assuming that you have actually systematically tracked your dating preferences across your ovulatory cycle, why would it make you a "freak" if you don't exhibit this shift? That makes absolutely no sense. Many women say they orgasm primarily from clitoral stimulation. Some women say they orgasm primarily from vaginal stimulation. Do you think women who don't orgasm in the more typical way are freaks? Most men are taller than most women. Does this make shorter men freaks? Just because someone doesn't fall in line with a typical biological pattern does not make them a freak. Seriously, WTF kind of point are you trying to make?
Some women do experience these shifts, some women don't. I briefly mentioned above some of the factors that influence whether a woman experiences these shifts. If we want to understand a person's sexual motivations, then we need to look at a wide variety of factors, including hormones tied to ovulation.
GOPHER: """Are you going to bring up the Ovulating Lap Dancers?(eye roll)"""
I assume you are talking about the study where they asked lap dancers to record their tips every night for two months. The women made $400 a night when they were ovulating versus $200 dollars when they were in the less fertile phases of their cycle. That's a rather dramatic difference. I don't see why that causes your eyes to roll - it is an effect that demands explanation. Possible explanations include possible emission of pheromones that affect the men, the women feeling more sexual and this influencing their dancing or motivation to interact with clients, or simply an increase in energy level.
If you don't find the biological factors influencing sexuality interesting, that's not something I understand but to each their own. Your knee-jerk reaction against studies looking at the factors influencing women's sexual motivations is surprising to me, however.
Youre the one claiming all women like_____and all men like_____. I'm pointing out that not everyone is like that and many people divert from that. I'm also pointing out that studies like this are stupid and pointless. I found another study that says being on the pill makes women go for more 'masculine' guys. I'm also pointing out the stupidity and absurdity of your gullibility in buying into these kinds of 'studies.' I mean, it was reported by the Daily Mail. Do you also believe in studies reported on by the Enquirer?
GOPHER: Youre the one claiming all women like_____and all men like_____. I'm pointing out that not everyone is like that and many people divert from that.
Please. Show me. Point to it. Show me where I said all women X and all men X. That's nonsense and you know it.
Science is often about looking for patterns. Finding a pattern does not suggest that all people will conform to the pattern. As I pointed out in my original comment, there are factors that influence whether or not women experiences these shifts.
"I'm also pointing out the stupidity and absurdity of your gullibility in buying into these kinds of 'studies.' I mean, it was reported by the Daily Mail. Do you also believe in studies reported on by the Enquirer?"
Then you have failed in this endeavor. I'm not "buying into" these studies because they were reported in the Daily Mail. I've never even heard of the Daily Mail. I'm buying into the study because I read the actual journal article and the journal articles related to it. They didn't get everything right. For example, they made some claims in the article about the hormonal properties of birth control pills that are not correct. But overall they did a good job summarizing all of the papers looking at whether the pill influences mate choice. On the whole, it does. Why does that possibility offend you so much?
GOPHER: "I'm also pointing out that studies like this are stupid and pointless."
No, you are not pointing that out. You're claiming that is true, a claim I flatly reject. If you don't find studies of women's sexuality as it relates to hormones interesting, then that is your choice of course. I find them quite interesting.
Research has found that men who watch violent pornography are more likely to say they would rape a woman than men who do not use pornography. Individuals who receive abstinence-only education are more likely to get pregnant than those who do not receive them. Cops are more likely to shoot an unarmed black man than an unarmed white man. Taller individuals are more likely to earn a higher income than shorter individuals. These all provide possible insights into the experiences of individuals with these traits. The fact that some individuals do not conform to the pattern does not suggest they are valueless.
"Your knee-jerk reaction against studies looking at the factors influencing women's sexual motivations is surprising to me"
Your knee jerk gullibility is surprising to me. Anyone can twist around results to conclude what they want. Thats what they are clearly doing here. No other factors were explored + the skepticism that women are all biological hormonally impulsive people and not individuals who base their preferences on something more than their monthly phasing is just a stupid premise. You can conclude anything from that 'study.' There arent studies like this being done on men.
GOPHJER "Your knee jerk gullibility is surprising to me. Anyone can twist around results to conclude what they want. Thats what they are clearly doing here. No other factors were explored + the skepticism that women are all biological hormonally impulsive people and not individuals who base their preferences on something more than their monthly phasing is just a stupid premise. You can conclude anything from that 'study.' There arent studies like this being done on men."
I have a thought. Call me crazy, but just go with it for a second. You've invested quite a bit of time and anger in objecting to the study. You've made a lot of claims about what the paper actually says.
But you haven't actually read the paper!!!!
Maybe, you know, possibly, at this point, that might be a good idea? You know, maybe? Does that make sense?
The paper doesn't claim that "women are biological hormonally impulsive people" who only base their preferences on "their monthly phasing". The authors make no such claim. They make the rather straightforward claim that A) Across dozens of studies, many women show a shift in their preferences across the ovulatory cycle including for traits like masculinized faces and B) most women on the pill don't show these shifting preferences.
Your dramatic statements about what I am claiming and what the authors of the paper are claiming bear little resemblance to what we've actually said. Try to read what we've actually written rather than superimposing your dramatic statements.
"who display more behaviors associated with dominance"
oh gawd....(double eye roll)on a feminist page?
"There are also dozens of studies in non-human mammals where females become choosier during estrous (ovulation),... "
Right. Because my red ass starts glowing hot and then the men folk can pick up my scent...at any time...and then commence to start mounting me.
"Women on the pill don't experience these shifts - they display the same preferences throughout the cycle because they don't experience the surges in LH and estrogen around ovulation."
to end in..... AND SO FUCKING WHAT.......? Whats the issue,the problemo? In sum: there is none.
I don't believe EndersGame said that there was a problem. They simply gave a summary of the results of such studies as they see them.
Here's an interesting philosophical question/thought, would it be useful to be able to adjust the type of person you were attracted to?
ENDERS-OP "who display more behaviors associated with dominance"
GOPHER "oh gawd....(double eye roll)on a feminist page?"
Your eyes must be spinning out of your head at this point! It is a simple fact that when women are ovulating, they rate men who are engaging in more dominant behaviors more attractive. Dominance is operationalized both in terms of specific body postures and verbal derogation of other men. This fact somehow doesn't belong on a feminist website? Ironically, it was feminist primatologists (primate researchers) who first brought attention to these shifting sexual motivations across the ovulatory cycle as a way to combat stereotypes of females as somehow being "naturally passive" or "coy". I'm sorry you don't respect their research just because it has a whiff of biology tied to it, because somehow that makes something anti-feminist in your mind.
ENDERS-OP "There are also dozens of studies in non-human mammals where females become choosier during estrous (ovulation),... "
GOPHER: "Right. Because my red ass starts glowing hot and then the men folk can pick up my scent...at any time...and then commence to start mounting me."
Perhaps you missed the point that these shifting sexual motivations during estrous are not simply found among humans, but have been documented in other non-human primates. And that the shifts are similar - towards males with traits associated with testosterone. This provides evidence that this system has been in place for quite a long time.
The fact estrous in humans (and a number of other primates) does not involve sexual swellings is interesting. Contrary to your description of your ass above, either a) evolution has favored concealment of ovulation in humans and some other primate species or b) it has favored that development of a system that signals the presence of ovulation in some species.
ENDERS-OP "Women on the pill don't experience these shifts - they display the same preferences throughout the cycle because they don't experience the surges in LH and estrogen around ovulation."
GOPHER "AND SO FUCKING WHAT.......? Whats the issue,the problemo? In sum: there is none."
The "so fucking what" depends on whether or not you are interested in why people behave the way they do. If you care about this, then you can't ignore the evolved systems we come equipped with, the ways different environments evoke different evolved systems, and the way that the social and physical environment shapes an organisms behavior. In terms of the big picture, if we want to understand the factors that influence women's sexual motivations, then we need to understand the hormones that are part of these motivations.
In terms of the pill, almost nothing is known about the psychological effects of the pill - good, bad, or neutral. There has been lots of research on physical effects, but almost nothing on psychological effects. It appears that one effect is that the pill wipes out these ovulatory shifts (or that women who take the pill were less likely to experience these shifts because of some 3rd factor). Whether that is good or bad or neutral is up to each individual to decide. But at least give them the information rather than putting one's fingers in their ears and pretending it doesn't exist.
On a related note, "cryptic estrus" and "cryptic mate choice" are probably some of the coolest-sounding terms ever. Even though technology sort of blew away that last one.
"dominant "
OMG! There is no such thing. Its not an overarching 'simple fact.' You'd be smart to remind yourself women are individuals and not estrous inclined animals. I've read reviews of this 'study' and the scientific community seems to be more inclined to roll their eyes at it. Also, this type of 'study' focuses on women going for men. Do men find women more attractive at different hormone levels, ie, liking 'dominant' character attributes at a certain phase of their hormone? This only focuses on a one way street that reinforces traditional masculinities and femininities. Over on the amazon forums theres a crazy right wing guy thats referring to this study as well in the same reactionary, traditionalist light youre giving it.
In repeat sum: on a feminist page? Gimme a break.
Gopher: based on the quality of the arguments you present I am not inclined to believe that you have more than a passing acquaintance with science or the scientific community.
You're really not doing yourself any favors by rolling your eyes and stamping your feet and whining "but the conclusions aren't 'feminist' enough!" At least not with anyone who comes to the debate undecided, without already knowing which result they want to arrive at.
Women report a stronger desire for men with more masculine faces, who are taller, who are more symmetrical, and who display more behaviors associated with dominance. They also wear more revealing clothing.>>>
Fabio?
As per Feministe: Why are you focussing on the brief comment that the study was questionable - when everyone else is focussing on the misinterpretation of said study.
Point one: The study itself is questionable
Point two: the article detailing it comes from the less-than-reliable Daily Mail.
Point three: But Stanek jumps on it nonetheless, saying, "Also don't forget estrogen from the Pill is water has been found by several studies to feminize male fish. So women on the Pill may be getting what they're helping create, wimps." (Emphasis mine)
I believe it is clear from that paragraph that the priority placed in the OP's skepticism is directed at the use of studies to further a ridiculous agenda, not that the study could not possibly be valid.
I think we can all agree that alot of media reports on "biological" explanations for behavior end up simplifying the info and twisting it to fit a narrative that paints men and women as categorically different from each other or to fit their own political agenda.
If you read through the comments and the OP (here and on feministe), it is pretty clear that many people are treating the study itself as being questionable, flawed, bunk, etc. Ironically, they clearly haven't read the paper, including the OP who designated the paper as "questionable".
The OP started out highlighting one problem (media coverage of biology tied to gender) and ended up revealing an additional problem through the their post and resulting comments - a knee-jerk reaction against studies tying biology to behavior, even studies attempting to learn more about women's lives and behaviors. Many of the women in the classes I teach find this kind of research fascinating, and helps spur some of them to pursue careers in science.
Here ender game:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125405&page=1
(women prefer 'macho' men when on the Pill)
wisen up. Its all a bunch of crap.
You might want to read things a little more carefully before you post them.
The study we've been talking about looks at whether or not the pill knocks out the SHIFT in preferences that often occurs during ovulation. This study looks at whether there are differences in the pattern of preferences expressed by pill users and non-pill users over the course of the ovulatory cycle. For example, Tony Little has done work in this area.
The study you just posted (also by Tony Little) asks the question "Are there differences between people who choose to take the pill versus those who choose not too?". In the study you posted, pill users report a stronger interest in masculine men overall than do non-pill users.
The two studies are compatible: Women who take the pill might express greater desire for men with certain traits, but they don't experience the shifts across the cycle that non-pill users do. I think that is less likely, however, because the bulk of the research doesn't find that women who take the pill prefer more masculine men overall. Looking at the studies overall, it's more likely that there is no difference between pill and non-pill users in overall preferences, but that non-pill users experience a spike in preferences around ovulation.
I feel like arguing about the study is missing the point. I don't really care if it is proved that women who actually ovulate are more attracted to rugged men. Maybe it is just an evolutionary leftover that has no real bearing on the real world anymore and is off no consequence to me. What pisses me off is the way some people, like Jill Stanek in the pro-life movement are latching onto this in a way to prove that the pill somehow hurts women. It holds up a very gender rigid concept of masculinity as the right one and insults both women and men who don't buy into/fit into that rigid role.
I also love how people on the Christian right have no problem with evolution when it proves a point for them like in these studies.
I completely agree with you - the way commenters on the right have interpreted this study is flawed because it its gender concepts are too rigid.
But another problem is the phenomenon that EndersGames has highlighted in this thread:
"a knee-jerk reaction against studies tying biology to behavior, even studies attempting to learn more about women's lives and behaviors."
I wish that everyone here would realize that if you allow yourself to discount science because you don't like its conclusions, then you are fundamentally no better than the religious right.
Oh noes, not a man with a "CARING PERSONALITY"!!!!! No REAL (TM) woman would ever want her partner to care about her! Gimme a "fuck em and leave em" type any day! And since I stopped taking my Pill to avoid wimps, maybe he'll even leave me with HIS unplanned baby! Which of course I won't abort because abortion doctors eat babies! Right? Right?
/sarcasm