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.