Maistra wrote:Am I overreacting?
SubMor wrote:This is why evo psych has a bad reputation.
joz wrote:Maistra wrote:Am I overreacting?
You must have been a penguin in your past life
I honestly see nothing to be upset about in this article.
Maistra wrote:... blatant promotion of sexist stereotypes.
Blatant though as they might be, all stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth.
Cipher wrote:I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence for this facile bullshit generalization. For some reason, I find it unlikely you'll be able to provide it.
I did not say that the stereotypes are in anyway correct
all stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth
Rhikat wrote:They found a gene that affected the female rodents and made a hypothesis based upon that data. Here are presented some evidence why people might gravitate towards the 'neat' gender division of male and female, because it just might be coded into our genes.
Sylvia Sybil wrote:Female rodents are affected by a certain smell -------> humans divide toys for their children by gender.
And you don't see any gaps in that chain?
Cipher wrote:all stereotypes are rooted in some kind of truth
The characterization of what I posted as "vitriol" is merely amusing to me. I assure you, you haven't met my "vitriol" yet.
Rhikat wrote: And is it really worth to be so hostile, you know what they say about flies and honey (though shit seems to work just fine too)...
Rhikat wrote:Thus the word hypothesis. The science itself wasn't sexist, but the conclusions they drew based on the study are indeed a bit iffy.
Cipher wrote:You said that all stereotypes are rooted in truths, and I asked for evidence that this is the case. So far you have not provided it. If you mean "stereotypes are rooted in what people think is true," rather than "stereotypes are rooted in what is true," then a.) it would be better to say the former than what you said, and b.) I wonder what the point is of saying that.
SubMor wrote:"Stereotypes are rooted in truths?" No. Stereotypes are rooted in cognitive biases and fallacious reasoning.
Mod note: Knock this shit off immediately. Tone policing is against the rules here. Do not do it. Do not even hint at at. Please reread the newbie basket of links, including the forum rules. Contained therein is an article on tone policing. Read it.
Rhikat wrote:I have read them through, but you have a lot of rules, so I beg your pardon if I occasionally forget some of those. Though, I try to keep my opinions in the boundaries set by the staff on this forum, but is it really such a misdemeanor to ask to be treated politely?
Rhikat wrote:For instance, a very typical stereotype is this:
Is it rooted in what women during the 50's looked like and behaved like? Yes.
Sylvia Sybil wrote:Joz, would you care to explain the penguin description, particularly as it relates to "over-reacting"?
Maistra wrote:Sylvia Sybil wrote:Joz, would you care to explain the penguin description, particularly as it relates to "over-reacting"?
I second this. Quite curious what this bizarre insult actually meant.
1st Panel: Event Idea: Festival of Ad Hoc Biological Adaptation Hypotheses
2nd Panel: "Babies are shaped like footballs and have more bendable bones than adults."
3rd Panel: "This is because primitive man would have wanted to spread his genes as far as possible"
4th: "We Believe this was accomplished by punting the child from village to village until it arrived in a different population"
5th:"This also explains why babies have ample fat, which protected their organs during punting. It explains why Babies must be bupred often, because in nature that gas would've been expelled by the dropkick. And it explains their smooth skin and hairlessness, which make for good aerodynamics"
6th: "Thank you." "Bravo! Bravo!"
7th: "Congratulation Professor. First prize. We award you this gold statue of Darwin looking doubtful"
That's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, not XKCD. lrn2webcomic
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests