Dec. 16th, 2009

keryx: (excuse me?)
Man, sometimes entire countries and disciplines just make it too easy to make fun of them.

Case in point: evolutionary psychology. Not only has it recently demystified shopping, but now it's getting in on the OMG GUYS WE HAVE TO TALK MORE ABOUT TIGER WOODS phenomenon.

RAsex makes it even funnier than I would have. To summarize: conjecture has it that Woods's philandering is because
Women seem not to have the evolutionary urge to couple with cheaply dressed strangers. They have a stronger need to mother — to have a child and then raise that child. (To be fair, this conjecture isn't actually from an evo psych professional)

Yeah. Totally. It's all about an evolutionary push towards childrearing, and not that a woman, childrearing or no, is more likely to have her personal and sex life hyperanalyzed by the people near her, that so many people believe in ridiculous stereotypes of women as largely asexual (or, conversely, hysterical, irresponsible, and dirty), or that women do disproportionately more household work & just don't have time for philandering. Nooooo. It's the babies.

That, by the way, isn't the worst of the original post. This next quote gains the original author a rain check for one poke in the eye, from me:
The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. This is the way it is, and this is the way it has always been.

He might as well have said I'm an asshat. This is the way it is, and the way it has always been. What about how it ought to be (even if those statements are true)? It's hard to believe sexism is actually still that alive. "Gosh, women just love babies so much" should really no longer be an explanation for inequality. Or anything.

September 2020

S M T W T F S
  12345
678 9101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags