But reading this article, something just struck me as off. I quote:
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
Maybe it's that this is the second paragraph, and it's already giving men more options and more agency than women. The article, to be fair, does seem to back toward the end of page one, although I was a bit confused to the very end. Maybe I'm just tired from grading, teaching, and writing. Maybe I've been reading too much of the mystics. Or maybe I've been reading too much feminist criticism.
I know, intellectually, that grammar shouldn't matter -- the ideas are important, and often the manner of their transmittal is a secondary issue, including the phrasing and language. But -- still -- it just seems off, and as I have neither the time nor the energy to pursue it, I thought I'd float it out to the blogosphere. Does the phrasing of "scientific fact" matter? I'm curious what the rest of the world thinks of the article -- all I have is confusion.
And I'm off to a meeting, which appropriately enough -- is about mystics.