Feminist gaming blog with a heaping dash of science and politics
We know sexism exists, even if we aren’t willing to admit to its presence in our own lives, and the evidence of it is in nearly every nook and cranny of our collective civilization. But how did that whole sexism thing get started? Are humans just inherently sexist?
Well if you ask most evolutionary psychologists, they’ll tell you the answer to the last question is yes, because men are bigger and stronger than women and so, bam just like that, sexism is a fact of life for humans and has been in existence since before humans were human. Which is why you should never ask a evo psychologist that question, because their answer is seriously misogynist, cis-sexist, and a completely revisionist view of our species’ history. Read more of this post
According to the Daily Mail (these guys again?), ‘females are drawn to pink and men to blues and greens’ and they have science (Science!) to back it up. Bloody effin’ hell, there is so much wrong with everything about this whole damn article. But first, I have a quibble about that sentence (which is a quote from the lede) females and men are not equivalent and should not be used as analogous words in a sentence. It’s bad grammar and hugely dehumanizing to women. If you’re going to be science-y use female and male consistently throughout the whole article. If not, then you use men and women. Not men and girls, not men and females, but men and women. We’re all human here, so lets leave the dehumanizing and debasing language at the door.
So, now that the failtastic grammar-sexism is out of the way, lets look at the failtastic science-sexism! I’m going to break this down, quick and dirty, because otherwise I’d just end up rambling about how mush of Evo-Psyc is utter bull crap, which should totally be saved for it’s own post.
Science!
In a recent article over at the Daily Mail, a certain Professor of Psychology, Richard Lynn, argues that men are naturally, genetically even, more intelligent than women and that, and that alone, explains why there is such a dearth of women in the top echelons of the sciences (and corporations, and politics, and everything). You can read his article here, although I warn you, it is exceedingly long winded.
Now, I could probably write a term paper on the amount of fail in Professor Lynn’s paper, but this is a blog, not a practice session for a thesis, so I will just point out a few things that really stood out to me as mindbogglingly inaccurate. Read more of this post
