Response to “Why do women cry?”

Why do women cry? I’ve been thinking about the reason since i was a kid. When i was young, my answer was that girls try to get what they want through such strategy. But as i grow up, such thought started fading away and that question remains in my brain. Fortunately, Christie Wilcox，who is a freelance science writer, author of Science Sushi for Discover Blogs, and PhD student in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Hawaii, gives me a another quite well-organized perspective way to see it. In her essay, she adrress the debate of the reason why women cry from a article written by Brian Alexander who, in his essay, argues that women’s tears make then less sexually sttractive to men, and suggest women stop behaving this way. However, through researches and experiments intreduced by Wilcox, it proves that the reason women cry has nothig to do with sexual appeal, they are simply reaching for help. In the end of her essay, Wilcox reveals her inner perpose of writing this essay. What she wants is more than merely discussing the origin of crying, but spread true, accurate and good science, which is weakened by some writer like Brian Alexander, who try to get the public’s attention by introducing inaccurate or fake science.

Wilcox’s such intention is surprisingly similar to Carl Sagan’s in his essay “Why we need to understand science”. In his essay, Sagan addreees his deep concern about whether American’s public truly understand science or what they are interested are nothing more than psudo-science. It seems that public’s science literacy has become a series issue and base on Wilcox’s opinion, media is the one of those should be blamed for. I agree with her since people nowadays are more and more intented to acquire information， analysis and results from other people, not goingt through their own brain, which makes public media more and more influencial and important. It is time for public media to take more responsible for correct and accurate science popularization.

Christie Wilcox (Narrow-Minded Research)

Christie Wilcox took it upon herself to give her opinion to a rather one-sided article written by Brian Alexander. Briefly mentioning his article, Brian talks about how women’s tears are not sexually appealing to men. Annoyed by this pathetic excuse for a science article, Wilcox aims to redeem the research shamed by Alexander’s article. The question is if tears don’t benefit the “reproduction” of the human race, then what are they for? Well that is just it. Wilcox points out that sexual appeal is not their intended function and should not be viewed from that perspective; doing that renders the function utterly useless. But now if you take this and view it in a different light, perhaps “why” tears seem to have this affect on male arousal, then you can see another reason that could aid in survival. As mentioned in Wilcox’s response, ” Ed Young brings up the hypothesis that tears might be used to downplay aggression.” This in itself has potential means as a survival mechanism, such as reducing hostilities of men onto women. But the point of this response is not so much to establish research on this topic to the reader. Instead it was written to show how skewed the interest and reality of research could become simply by the results are displayed to the public.

Normally I would have never seen the other side of “women’s tears” if I actually read Alexander’s article. Sometimes people tend to believe what they read and never really delve any deeper than what is stated. But if articles like this exist, then many naive readers will remain one sided on the view. I agree with Wilcox’s view. This article was simply written this way to attract readers, with no intent to preserve the true nature of the results. I mean if I was reading results like, “Bottom line, ladies? If you’re looking for arousal, don’t turn on the waterworks.” I may just lose it too.

Response to “Why do women cry?”

Christie Wilcox, writer and scientist, writes a response to one of Brian Alexander’s articles in his “Sexploration” column for MSNBC. She finds it inflammatory and uses sarcasm and logic to analyze the article to death. She points out how Brian Alexander, intentionally or not, took the purpose of the scientific article out of it’s scientific context and into a sensationalist piece for his column. She describes the study and angrily chastises Brian Alexander and “the rest of the sensationalists” for undermining good science by writing “inaccurate” news articles and potentially leading readers into thinking that the study done was “misogynistic” or “frivolous”.

Response to “Why do women cry?”

Freelance writer and evolutionary biologist, Christie Wilcox, is absolutely livid with  writer of the MSNBC Sexploration column, Brian Alexander. Throughout the article, Wilcox vents her frustration towards Alexander’s article “Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy” where he clearly states that crying isn’t going to make the guys want to get it on with the ladies. He claims if ladies want to get aroused, then they should not “turn on the waterworks.” Wilcox goes all out in attacking every sexist aspect of Alexander’s article sparing not one offensive detail. Wilcox claims Alexander’s work was supposed to focus on the importance of science stating “if that was truly the aim of this paper, I’d be concerned, too!” In order to rectify the injustice Alexander served, Wilcox takes a proper scientific approach by mentioning Noma Sobel’s research on the psychological affects tears have on males. Wilcox attacks Alexander’s article for being scientifically inaccurate and pointless which she finds offensive, stating “as a scientist and a writer, it’s a double insult.”

Wilcox writes this article with the sole purpose of telling the reader what is what when it comes to science articles. Throughout her article, she expresses her frustration at the way Alexander portrays women without substantial proof as to why males lose their drive in the presence of tears. Alexander works off a common stereotype claiming that women cry for the purpose of getting what they want and getting out of arousal. Wilcox points out that Alexander has missed the focus of his column by providing little scientific reasoning as to why he believes his view is justified. Wilcox goes the extra mile to examine Sobel’s research where he concluded “the chemical in women’s emotional tears reduce male sex drive.” Wilcox directs her article to every person who has read article such as Alexander’s along with all groups of people who may fall victim to false scientific articles. The overall tone of Wilcox is sarcastic and irritated due to the lack of commonsense of Alexander for writing a scientifically irrelevant article. Wilcox uses biting words such as “burning hatred,” “gag,” “bitch,” “insulting,” “frivolous,” and “dumbasses” to convey her thoughts on this article.

Wilcox wants to reader wary the next time he or she decides to read an article related to science because there are plenty of fakes out there. She ends her article by stating she is insulted as a writer and scientist because of those out there who “undermine good science for the sake of attention grabbing headlines.”

http://www.christiewilcox.com

Why Do Women Cry?

Christie Wilcox, a freelance writer and PhD student in Cell and Molecular Biology, wrote an article entitled “Why Do Women Cry? Obviously, It’s So They Don’t Get Laid,” to criticize the falsified report given in MSNBC’s “Sexploration” column by Brian Alexander.  Brian Alexander’s piece called “Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy,” emphasized the concept that men aren’t attracted to crying women, without any real concrete evidence. Wilcox believes that Alexander’s headline and their method and “interpretation of [the] research” presented is wrong. She stresses that Alexander’s article “undermines good science” for the sole purpose of grabbing the reader’s attention with their shocking headlines. Although Wilcox doesn’t think that Alexander has a hatred of women, she calls him a “dumb ass” for the incorrect presentation of the experiments he reported on. To rectify Alexander’s falsified article, Wilcox reports on the experiments correctly.The main hypothesis of the three experiments was to determine if women’s tears acted as chemosignals for men. What the three experiments found was that the chemicals associated with women’s tears do decrease male libido. However, Wilcox believes that occurs because of a different reason than previously stated by Alexander. Wilcox attributes the decrease in male sex drive, with the increase in prolactin levels, the hormone responsible for nurturing characteristics; a finding that Alexander did not include within his article. Wilcox infers that the tears streaming down a woman’s face isn’t meant to turn a male off, but rather to calm their aggression, or ask for their protection.

Wilcox’s unprofessional tone and word choice throughout the essay left me feeling uncomfortable and off-put. Her unsophisticated phrases such as “…for making a guy cool his jets after he gets off,” and “…a women’s how-to guide for getting laid,” essentially destroys her credibility for her argument. Throughout the whole piece, she sounds like a catty high school girl, just begging for drama and confrontation, which makes the article not enjoyable to read. Although she was critiquing someone else’s “bad” report, she could have done it in a more professional and civil manner.

Respone to “Why Do Women Cry?”

Christie Wilcox, freelance science writer and evolutionary biologist, writes the blog–“Why Do Women Cry? Obviously, its so they don’t get laid”. She uses the sarcastic tone through the whole article such as”THANK YOU Brian”. She writes this blog in order to response Brian Alexander’s “Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy”. She finds that Alexander just stands at one side that discusses women tears and sexual attractiveness. Wilcox uses 2 experiments to verify Alexander’s view. The first experiment is that”men with a tear-soaked pad nder their nose were asked to rate the sexual attractiveness and mood of females faces”. The second experiment is “men sniffed thears before watching a sad movie”. Both of these two experiments men will get less sexual arousal when they see women’s tears. Then Wilcox shows her view that this conclusion is only suitable for sexual situation. For women, crying can help them express their sad feeling and let them become healthier and happier.  She also mentions that despite women’s tears decrease men’s sexual arousal, they can also help decrease men’s aggressive behaviors and sxual corecion in order to help women to survive. Wilcox critisizes that Brain Alexander use the inaccurrate headline to attrative readers to reader and this headline may let ordinary people misunderand and define “studies like this one are either misogynistic orfrivolus”.

I find this article interesting because it explore the new explanation to explain women’s tears. Nevertheless, I think that Wilcox puts too much negative feeling in her article to against Alexander. Wilcox claims that Alexander just stands on one side to discuss about women’s tears and easily misleads ordinary people. She gives too many criticisms to Alexander’s article although I agree with her that Alexander’s headline is loose and exaggerate. I find wilcox also just stand at one side to define women’s tears. She explains from the evolutionary perspective. I guess women’s tears need to be define by combining these two sides and that may be stronger and more persuasive.

Click to access smuts.pdf

response to “Why Do Women Cry?”

Christie Wilcox, who is a science writer and PHD student at university of Hawaii, write an essay called “Why Do Women Cry”. It is a response to Brian Alexander’s “report on a recent study published in Science about men’s physiological responses to the chemicals present in women’s tears”. The essay first negates Alexander’s ides, and then Wilcox shows her own opinion. Why do women cry? “Women aren’t saying ‘back off’ — they’re saying ‘help me’”.
The tone is unfriendly, Wilcox writes “gag”, “I didn’t even want to read the rest of the article”, and “sarcastic bitch”. The essay used a great amount of ironies. She expressed “THANK YOU Brian!” in fact she thanks Alexander for providing a misleading report. And in the introduction, although she demonstrates several times that Brian does not have hatred for women, it seems to imply that Brian does treat women with prejudice. Readers can feel her anger towards Alexander, and her extreme emotion may make them a little uncomfortable. But she also explains why she is so angry, so I can understand her “rudeness”. She posts her reasons in the conclusion: Alexander gives readers an inaccurate scientific report, while he labeled it true science. She doesn’t want the public to be fooled.
In the main, at first, Wilcox points out the shortcomings of Alexander’s essay in brief, and then she analysis it in detail. Her main argument is mainly about chemosignals. Alexander thinks that tears alone acted as chemosignals, and tears alone acted as chemosignals. However Wilcox believes it is too simple and too quick to conclude chemosginals to sex only, because she finds out it is also a way to reduce men’s aggression. What is interesting, Wilcox proves Alexander’s wrong idea by using his own evidences. She cites two biased experiments which Alexander used, and does further research based on Alexander’s evidence. Wilcox’s more convinced explanations of testosterone and prolactin negate Alexander’s idea. They are well-rounded. While reading her main body, readers can realize that Alexander uses part to result in his whole conclusion.

“Why Do Women Cry?”

A freelance science writer and blogger, Christie Wilcox writes a heated blog response to a report that she finds reprehensible and degrading to women. Written by Brian Alexander, a writer for NBC’s Sexploration Column, the report discusses the unappealing effects by women’s tears on men. Wilcox is infuriated when Alexander stated that “women’s tears were manipulative devices” (1) and their sorrow and sobbing are sexually unattractive. She attacks Alexander’s article not because she feels offended by his perspective, but because he interpreted the topic on the effect of women’s tears in a subjective manner with little hard scientific evidence and reasoning. However, Wilcox finds the topic intriguing and proceeds to present the studies and experiments that test the effects of women’s tears on men.

Wilcox first starts off her blog with a criticism towards Alexander’s weak argument against women’s tears to help introduce the topic of how effective female tears are on men. She illustrates a well-conducted experiment that proved that there were chemicals in women’s tears that “reduce male sex drive” (1). Wilcox intends to show the real scientific side of the story. She points out the researches that show a “connection between reduced testosterone and nurturing/bonding behaviors” (1). She deduces that there is an instinct planted in a man’s brain that causes him to lower his guard and display caring and affectionate characteristics towards the ones he love.

After reading Alexander’s article, I can understand where Wilcox is coming from. In the very beginning of his article, Alexander exhibits his contempt against crying women because he sees them as people who are dying for attention. He based that claim on a scientific experiment that tested the testosterone level when men sniffed the tears. It is true that their levels drops after a sniff, but that does not necessary mean that women are attempting to utilize these tears to appeal to their men. Wilcox is responding to how Alexander poorly interpreted the experiment to make a irrational, but eye-catching article.

Response to “Why do Women Cry? Obviously, it’s so they don’t get laid.”

Christie Wilcox means business when writing this article in response to one that she saw on MSNBC.  She goes about analyzing the conclusion drawn by the MSNBC reporter, Brian Alexander, that the tears that women produce while crying or in a state of disjointedness are designed to turn guys off and push them away.  She feels as if there is a better explanation to this study, and, as a woman, knows personally that the the production of tears are not always there to turn a guy off.  While discussing the two tests that were done in the study, in which, men had to “…sniff the solutions with a tear soaked pad under their nose…” and then watch a movie, she feels there’s a more reasonable explanation for their drop in sex drive and human interest, and would like to see the same test done to women with “men and children’s tears” (1).  That perhaps these results aren’t limited only to men and that women could feel the same effects if given the opportunity.  While discussing the findings that there is an increase in the levels of prolactin and decrease in testosterone levels in male’s brains while seeing a woman in distress, Wilcox offers the solution that perhaps these chemicals are “…activating the nurturing pathway in men’s brains.” because “Being taken care of or protected when in emotional or physical pain would definitely benefit an individual’s survival” (2).  That evolution involves more than simply sex, and survival is enhanced when someone is there to care for you.  Really, the point that she is portraying in this whole piece is that too often we read or see an article similar to that of Alexander’s and take it to be science and factual.  But really there’s always more to the story than what meets the eye and these stories too often “undermine science.”

Wilcox’s post had a lot of validity to it and made some serious arguments when discussing the MSNBC article that she read.  However, she too was perhaps looking at the results in a one-sided manner.  Although, I did not read the article that Brain Alexander wrote, from the title and some of the sections of it that she cites in her post, it sounds as if the whole thing isn’t dealing directly with woman’s tears and how they affect the male’s sex drive.  That he probably makes additional points within it, but she chose to run with this one in particular because it hit a sour note within her, and she knew it would draw readers in.  Additionally, the language that Wilcox uses throughout her post is rather offensive and unprofessional.  Using curses and swear words is a rather odd approach, it definitely invokes a mood in the reader when they come across these sections, but may additionally look at the piece in a less professional way.  I know I sure viewed her differently due to these words, than I would’ve if she used more sophisticated language.  Plus, when she draws the conclusion that men create these differences in hormone levels in the brain when viewing female tears because they may want to help their female counterparts, she takes a rather narrow minded approach at that one portion of the study.  Offering her own explanation for these chemical changes, similarly to how Alexander did in his story.   Maybe we’ll never know why men are affected by the production of tears in women, but no matter how you look at it, if you’re offering an explanation to this dilemma, then you’re probably inserting some of your own beliefs into the theory too.

response to “Welcome to Cancerland”

Almost everyone is familiar with pink ribbon, or even some of them have already donated money to foundations. Barbara Ehrenreich a columnist, feminist and breast cancer patient, who published the essay “Welcome to Cancerland” talking her personal experience after being informed “Unfortunately, there is a cancer”. It is a true personal story, and Ehrenreich uses personal narrative to start the essay. She used imagery to describe her inner thoughts, which visualized her deep depression. The word “death” is mentioned several times during the essay, so it is not difficult to catch her pain. Eventually she found that others are supporting, comforting the person with breast cancer, like some big brands and celebrities. The sisterhood was a great inspiration. Pink ribbons, teddy bears all symbolize breast cancer.
But it is not only a personal essay; she uses quotes, accurate statistics and logical reasoning to analyze and argue. Is the sisterhood really a sisterhood? No, it is not. Ehrenreich are angry about that because she said “for me at least, breast cancer will never be a source of identity or pride.” I can feel the writer’s anger. The cruel fact is that these supporters are actually use breast cancer for profit. One of the most obvious writing techniques is irony. Once the lovely pink ribbons and teddy bears relate to commercial, they become ugly. In contemporary society, some business can do everything only for money. The action appeals to the public’s emotion, but what they say and what they really mean to do are opposite. At the time they make money, they hurt a part of people. So I think people should at least be humane while facing vulnerable groups.