While a lot of folks talk about (Which I’d agree with) how the greatest failure of journalism in reporting science is how they’ve covered global warming, allowing deniers to gain “equal footing” and spread doubt about a scientific consensus I’d say that another significant failure is how they’ve uncritically spouted evo-psych just-so-stories about the “differences” between men and women.
Like, I always hated that bullshit, but I ended up the most fed the fuck up with it after a person I used to trust, but now trust a whole fucking lot less:
Said that he voted for Drumpf because Hillary was pro-choice and he thought abortion was “unnatural,” taking a life into one’s own hands like murder.
That Drumpf’s comments to Billy Bush didn’t bother him because he thought women were naturally submissive and thus wanted to be “grabbed by the p***y” (Tho, he tried to justify it by saying that submission meant consent and he was “worried” abut that part, but I call bullshit)
Said that he thought transgender women could clal themselves women all they wanted but they weren’t “really” women because “you can’t argue with biology.”
The reason for his whole issues with activists and SJ-ers is because “We’re still the same cavemen at heart, changing ourselves and denying that would make us less human/like robots” (He technically used the word “cyborg society” to describe it, but fucking still)
And, I think to myself, this is the sort of mindset produced by uncritical parroting by the media of evolutionary/neurological/biological/”Scientific” justifications for the way things are regarding gender in society rather than sociological justifications*.
Thusly, we need to start calling out that sort of bullshit, answer it with a “This is why you’re wrong and furthermore fuck you...”
*Which also perhaps has to do with the shitty gendered-dismissal of the social sciences as “soft” sciences, and only talking about it in the language of the “hard” sciences is seen as valid, but that’s for another rant...
