"You're pretty smart for a girl."

I just tipped a mostly-empty can of Diet Coke into an open clothes drawer. There is now a stain on a pair of pale blue running shorts. And the stain looks like pee. Sweet.

I am continuing to read Bitchfest, and it just gets better and better with each new essay. Two particular essays that have really caught my attention are as follows:

One is "Unnatural Selection: Questioning Science's Gender Bias", written by Keely Savoie for the Spring 2004 issue of Bitch. Savoie holds graduate degrees in both journalism and biology, and it's very clear that she knows her business. Her main thesis is that sexism and patriarchy permeate science as a discipline, and our culture is affected by those biases. In American schools, at least the ones that don't teach creationism exclusively [yeesh], Darwinian evolution is a major tenet in biology class. The coy female and the profligate male-- the cocktease girl and the player guy-- are products of biology. Female ova are in shorter supply than male sperm, so females have to be discerning and protective with their choice of sexual mates. Males are driven by the desire to continue their own genetic code, so they benefit from spreading their seed whenever and wherever possible.

Or so we're told. Studies that refute these basic truths are silenced. Research that demonstrates non-human species that engage in non-reproductive sex, homesexual activity, and female promiscuity is ignored. The science I know is based on biology classes I've taken in school, and then what I hear from my med schooling friends, or from my lady-scientist friend, Laura. But, reading this essay made me really angry and indignant. Aside from the content of research, science is supposed to be by its very nature objective, and is driven by the desire for a greater understanding of the natural world. Who the fuck agreed to let sexual politics dictate the trajectory of that bettered understanding?

Savoie also touches upon the media's complicity in this bias. She gives a great example: a Dr. Schmitt conducted studies on sexual behavior, perhaps piggybacking on Kinsey, Hite, and Masters and Johnson. His findings were fairly predictable because he was gathering data in written surveys. Participants had no reason to be completely honest, and his test population was 13,000 college students-- possibly the most peer-pressured group in terms of sexual behavior. The respondents contributed what they figured would be acceptable answers about their given demographic group. Two female scientists, Drs. Fisher and Alexander paid attention to the idea of peer influence on responses, and did a similar study except they controlled the peer-pressure element. (It was pretty genius how they did it-- a cocky frat-boy would easily inflate his number of sexual partners, but not if he was hooked up to what he thought was a lie-detection device. Heeheehee. Although, many girls would deflate their magic numbers unless they were compelled to be honest.) Their studies found that men and women had very similar sexual histories in terms of initiation, number of partners, and level of desire. The most compelling element to the story was that there was a marked difference between the two studies because of the peer-influence element. In Savoie's words:

"Fisher's research is a powerful rebuttal to scientists whose work fails to dig below the surface and instead uncritically reflects and reinforces social stereotypes. Perhaps predictably, Fisher's study received press attention, but the media managed to twist her findings to fit yet another gendered stereotype: 'Fake Lie-Detector Reveals Women's Sex Lies,' squawked NewScientist.com. The article opened with what read like a warning to guileless men: 'Women are more likely than men to lie about their sex lives, reveals a new study.'"

That is just ridiculous. I mean, it's expected that Maxim and Cosmopolitan will take flagrant liberties with science to make research congruent with their respective messages, but a site called "New Scientist"? Come on. Really? Is it that harmful to tell the truth? Anyway, I checked out a few more pieces that Savoie has written about science, feminism, and media, and it is fascinating stuff. It's worth exploring: http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?author=41

Another essay that got my attention was one about women and humor. I'll get into that tomorrow. I'm calling it an early night. (My Pandora station just played a song from the original cast recording of Spring Awakening-- "Mama Who Bore Me", I think-- and DAMN! Lea Michele has some pipes. Wow. I'm very glad that the producers of Glee cast her as Rachel because my life got better when I started hearing her sing on a regular basis. I call this the Sam Cooke Effect.)

By the by, today is my sister Carrie and her husband Dave's 5th wedding anniversary. So, I guess they're pretty serious.