Any explanation of pink preference that is handed to children by the society they live in and only looks at the last hundred years, and calls itself “evolutionary psychology”, is blatantly misunderstanding both words in its title.
[Evolutionary psychology hardly covers] the evolution of morality, the evolution of politics, of cuture, of the artistic sense, etc … There is instead an obsessive focus on gender roles.
Every few months I read about some turds dropped by this evolutionary psychologist and his penchant for spectacularly prejudiced Just So stories. This week he let us know that he’s absolutely sure that the whole world agrees with him that black women are “objectively” uglier than other women.
Do you think he’s about to discuss female physiology here? Call me a cynical spotter-of-pseudo-evospych-from-a-mile-off, but I don’t.
Instead of what, you ask? Instead of the latest trollery from an evpsych twonk I won’t bother linking to because he’s successfully managed to get plenty of feminist blogs to link to him already, that’s what.
This Shakesville thread, “For the Discerning Gentleman: You, Too, Can Decorate Your Life With Disembodied Boobs “ has been a laff riot. The thread devolved into a circle with several men at the centre, the men shouting about how they… Read More ›
It seems silly to waste time on artificial techniques to trick a woman into having sex when she quite possibly wanted to have sex anyway as long as the man seems likeable.