Article/Editorial on reading overmuch into gender differences

[moominmuppet]

This reminded me a bit of the article I posted about the other day regarding the speed with which relatively questionable science that reinforces current stereotypes gets adopted and disseminated.

Anthropologists who suggest early humans survived by dint of separate gender roles are grabbing headlines. Caryl Rivers says it shows the media's fondness for evidence--however dubious--of the species being hardwired for male dominance.

It's actually the latter two sections of the commentary that I found most relevant, since those address the connection between these theories and current political and sociological issues.

Comments

[forestfire.livejournal.com]

Which makes logical sense as a good use of adult labor. My question is, so what if they did not? Does the fact (assuming that its even true) that prehistoric peoples subdivided based on a need to protect childbearers truly translate in a moral or natural paradigm. A single male and multiple females can repopulate a tribe. The reverse does not hold true. Assuming that some prehistoric people saw this logic, why should I, living in an over populated society, be in any way bound by it?

Its a real pain in the ass to when research is bound to a political agenda. It means we never get good research.