Feminists and Evolutionary Psychology Volume 1

To internet feminist activists anything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking must be part of some patriarchal sexist system. That's where the discipline of evolutionary psychology comes in, which aims to explain human behaviour through evolutionary mechanisms. Not surprisingly explaining behaviour using biological reasoning comes into contact with the feminist ideas that oppressive behaviour is inherently sociological. To illustrate how this irrational hatred in a single discipline is ingrained throughout the whole feminist sphere we'll split this conflict into three parts. This edition will showcase some moronic journalist who clearly doesn't comprehend scientific reasoning. The second article will be from a blog on the internet that at least attempts a rational counterargument. And the third and final piece will be from an academic paper.

This particular article comes from the hub of all scientific knowledge 'Jezebel', and is written by a lady called Lindy West, whose catalogue gives me the utmost faith that she knows fuck all about evolutionary theory. Still maybe click-baiting morons can produce a valid argument every once in a while, so here's her take on evolutionary psychology:
______________________________________________________________________________
http://jezebel.com/5941433/you-can-tell-evolutionary-psychology-isnt-true-because-its-not-true
______________________________________________________________________________

Now this is confusing. Here we have a title that would have us believe this is an article focusing on the truth of a subject, yet we have an opening line that outlines a clear subjective bias. But sure, hating something because it's manipulated into some political crusade is a fair enough reason for wanting to discredit it altogether. That's why I hate this article so much. In the intro it becomes instantly clear this isn't a serious piece of opinion journalism. Really all we get is an opinion that doesn't support the title, and some hilarious jokes, although when I say hilarious jokes I can feel my nose slowly starting to grow. I hate to be this person but no evolutionary psychologist is claiming women are attracted towards people who stomp animals to death, especially when that animal existed tens of millions of years before humans ever evolved. Still, just because this author disagrees with some psychological studies they are therefore invalidated, because remember, anecdotal evidence easily trumps any study in a scientific journal. I'm not calling you stupid because you're a woman, I'm calling you stupid because of your piss poor argument. I don't need to be an 'evo-psych dude' to figure that one out.

The good news is that instead of using scientific studies to discredit a scientific discipline, like maybe you would do if you claimed something wasn't true, this writer decides linking to other journalistic sources is a good idea. Why wouldn't you when they provide the reader with such a trove of evidence to back up the arguments in this piece? Well the only real source in this article supplies us with a survey, which I would argue is not a good way to determine inherent sexual desires. I find it simply inadequate to disprove inherent biological behaviours with a basic survey considering just how diverse and discreet sexual desires express themselves in human behvaiour. Even if we do use this study as evidence, there's still nowhere near enough information to discredit the whole of evolutionary psychology. this particular survey found an apparent cultural difference in desirable traits, which still doesn't disprove the role of genetics in attraction. You simply can't reject a biological explanation of something if you never even bother testing for it in the first place. All you've prove here is that different cultures value different sociological traits. That's not biology in any form, and cannot hope to answer this broad question from an evolutionary perspective.

Oh dear, here's a big evolutionary faux pas. How do you measure progress in evolution? That assumes there's an end goal of evolution, which there isn't considering its a constant process merely revolving around reproductive success. I know feminists love to go on about progressive ideas, but evolutionary processes have no notion of these terms, and so are entirely irrelevant in this discussion. Wouldn't be twisting this study towards your political ideology would we now? No I'm sure there's nothing hypocritical about this article whatsoever.

Again, where's the evidence that genes have no role in these behavioural trends? What is cultural evolution if not genes interacting with their environment? I hate this assumption that just because a behaviour is prehistoric it instantly means it's suddenly bad. How dare the majority of women select mates based on archaic traits. Why don't they conform to my progressive desires? Restricting female choice is absolutely what progressive ideals are all about. I don't know what the fuck evolutionary psychology has got to do with opposing freedom and equality, and there's certainly no evidence presented for this outrageous claim, so like everything else in this piece we can simply dismiss this slanderous comment as unqualified rhetoric.

I can't imagine why evolutionary psychologists would discuss things in the past tense considering evolution is literally allele frequency change over a period of time. You have to look back in time to observe the effects of evolution. The process itself doesn't change, it's a constant, and just because evolution may cause unexpected changes doesn't mean we can't snapshot a given area of natural history and describe how this applies to modern human behaviour. The only person claiming that evolution has an end goal is you with your progressive ideals. And anyway, just because evolution is a process happening all the time doesn't mean we're going to be seeing the huge radical shifts in sexual desires that you claim are happening within the brief timeline of modern society. That sort of change takes millions of years to observe, which is why we have to look way back in time to find evidence of these changes. You even say yourself that evolution is always changing desirable traits, yet in the previous paragraph we were outlining a set progress that funnily enough followed your political ideology. That's your second huge faux pas, and yet more proof you have absolutely no idea what you're rambling about
.
Then there's the big reveal. Turns out this whole article is based merely on feelings, and not facts like the title made us stupidly assume. I for one am completely shocked. In the face of this individual's feelings there is simply no point in rationally explaining a scientific debate, because the way she feels is far more important. For some reason modern life separates humans from natural processes, and subsequently cancels out the roles of evolution, despite this writer claiming in the previous fucking paragraph that evolution is still happening. The rest of biology, well that's also irrelevant, because obviously the mind would never play tricks on an individual. Well here's a dose of reality, your experiences do not effect something that is biologically true. I'm not calling you a liar, as I do truly believe you've experienced the things you describe. What I am calling you is a moron who thinks their useless anecdotes somehow trump the wealth of evidence. Currently that's the only attitude in this debate that should be called out for bullshit.

Wouldn't science be easier if we could just throw away all that peer reviewed empirical nonsense in the bin and instead decide the validity of a scientific theory through some moronic test? The moral of this story is that evolution cannot be applied to human behaviour because people have different tastes. Fucking useless conclusion that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, nor is it even valid. I'm not quite sure who this article is aimed at. The majority of people that advocate for evolutionary psychology in serious debates are scientific professors, and I'm sure they aren't going to be swayed by this reductionist nonsense. Maybe I might be willing to take your stance more seriously if you provided factual information instead of self-centered garbage.

This is possibly the lowest form of scientific journalism possible. There is zero evidence provided for such radical claims, and the only argument is essentially some woman putting her fingers in her ears and screaming how she doesn't agree with something when faced with evidence. That's not scientific reasoning darling, just pure ignorance, and ignorance alone is not a good enough excuse to simply dismiss a serious academic field of study.

The Christoforge Rant Reviews: Ecuador

I was recently given the opportunity to visit the country of Ecuador for two weeks of study within the cloud forest system; at least that's what the aim of the course was, whereas I took it as an exotic excuse to get drunk. I'm sure any pretentious travel blogger would make a meal out of this scenario to try and make up for their shallow personalities, but I resent this low grade journalism, and so in the spirit of this blog we'll plump for a good old review. This isn't a holiday programme, and so I won't be deliberating over whether the country was great or fantastic. This is the uncensored truth that will rely on my personal opinions rather than some manufactured Instagram snaps. During my travels I tactically avoided the dodgy border with Colombia, and instead settled on a weekend in Quito, followed by some research in a cloud forest reserve just a few hours north, where it was unlikely I would end up pleading my parents for ransom money. Despite the fact I've explored an approximate 0.001% of a whole country I still thought I'd fall into the old travel blogger fallacy of generalising an entire country based on the most attractive areas to visit. So here's your definitive travel guide to Ecuador that's in no way definitive, a guide, or an accurate representation of the country.

Just getting the holiday snaps out the way. To be fair that is a fucking brilliant view.

We'll begin by including possibly the only fact in this whole piece. Ecuador literally means 'equator' in Spanish, so easily I equate equators to equidistant equatorial environments. I was in for a surprise, as in fact Ecuador has one of the most bizarre climates I've come across. As a man from Britain I'm used to miserable weather every day of the year, so I wasn't prepared for the weather to vary from boiling to freezing within the course of a single day. Planning a day out anywhere in Ecuador requires a whole fucking wardrobe to be considered. I'm not sure the locals can be bothered with the random weather changes, and so you get an odd mix of citizens with thick jumpers on coexisting with those still in flimsy T-shirts. I on the other hand ended up completely sunburnt and drenched every single day, and most of the time gave up with the wardrobe changes and instead darted into any shop that would allow me to fill up on my new addiction to homemade fruit juice.

Speaking of fruit juice, I feel this is the right moment to complement the locals on their ability to make a glass of fruit juice. Seriously, they're fucking great, and only cost about 0.1 cent for a full glass. The rest of Ecuadorian cuisine is hit and miss, and that's coming from someone who has lived on British cuisine all his life. In Ecuador you can easily find some manly meat and potatoes for next to nothing in a back street cafe, or even meat and potatoes on a stick from a food vendor for not much more. Pretty much everything has meat and potatoes in it, which gets no complaints from me, especially considering the price. In restaurants I saw whole chickens for sale that were less expensive than a basic meal at McDonald's, yet alone a cheeky Nando's back home. I don't want to even think about where that chicken was slaughtered, but I didn't get the shits, so it probably doesn't violate that many human rights. I will admit I stuck well clear of the national delicacy. That's known as cuy, which is roasted guinea pig. I saw some classic roasting spots, and was even recommended it by a native, but was slightly put off by the appearance. They could have at least made the dish look presentable instead of simply shoving a skewer up the ass of a guinea pig and whacking it in the oven. Maybe I would have had a bite after a few beers, but Ecuadorian beer is unremarkable in every aspect. You have the choice of a few generic lagers with the most generic names possible. The only way to get drunk is through the ridiculously cheap rum, but even that wasn't enough for me to bite the head off a skewered rodent.

I can only imagine the four letter words Gordon Ramsay would use to describe that mess.

Another radical difference from back home was transportation. Transit around Ecuador was surprisingly fine and reliable, and to my shock it was the labyrinth that is Madrid Airport that pissed me off the most. Airports just stress me out in general, but customs were surprisingly fine upon entering the country despite me looking dodgy as fuck, and about as out of place as a talking bear. Taxis are almost a necessity for any travelers, so it's a good job they're also dirt cheap and driven by cheerful blokes. However it must be said that any person traveling on the Ecuadorian road system should take out a life insurance policy. I complain about drivers back in Britain that don't indicate to fellow drivers, but at least motorists in Britain follow basic traffic laws. In Ecuador it's a free for all, with drivers overtaking out of lane, or around corners on dual carriageways, and darting down hilly country lanes in the middle of the night, only narrowly avoiding the poorly lit lorry also hurtling down the mountain at similar breakneck speeds. It also seems to be law to honk your horn every two seconds, even for the slightest annoyance, which works well in a country where everyone drives like a lunatic. This also makes crossing the road a marathon task. My preferred strategy was to follow locals as they slowly ambled across huge avenues without a care in the world.

The only other traffic law I could possibly deduce is that any vehicle must be hellbent on destroying the ozone layer. The traffic fumes in central Quito are absolutely appalling, and I'm honestly surprised I didn't catch consumption during just a few days stay. I'm particularly aiming this observation at the buses, which actually resembled recreations of the Hillsborough disaster rather than an efficient transport system. In all honesty the combination of fumes and altitude can fuck right off. Never in my life have I gotten so out of breath from walking up a mild incline. There's not just mild inclines to navigate either, as I visited the Andean highlands, so there are a lot of hills that go beyond just being mild inclines. Nobody should be building cities at that elevation on that rough terrain, it's just poor planning. That's probably not the worst crime the Spanish committed in the New World, but it's damn close.

That hill can fuck off. That traffic can fuck off. Those drivers can fuck off. It's a major miracle I wasn't scraped off the pavement after being shunted by an impatient local.

Quito was a strange capital city. It's a mishmash of different cultures that don't seem to fit together. It's not an inherently bizarre place, but it's one where you can't quite put your finger on what feels so strange. It's a city where an undesirable area can be located next to a shiny government building, a colonial monument from the past, and a branch of a Western fast food chain. I admittedly didn't get a chance to visit the outskirts of the city, but then those areas are notoriously hostile towards clueless tourists such as myself. I was repeatedly told by locals whilst getting outrageously drunk that you've got to watch your back during the evenings, and I'm sure that's true if you take a wrong turn, but the central touristy area seemed perfectly normal. There was only the one druggie screaming his head off whilst being boarded into an ambulance that left a stain on the area. Well, that and the constant playing of 'Despacito' from the convoy of party buses that passed through town every fucking evening. I have nothing against the song, but nobody needs to be blaring it out at max volume every two seconds.

As far as tourist attractions go there's not a whole variety on offer, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. There's some nice views from the top of hills, and a ton of colonial buildings to look at. The churches are also nice to look around, and there's not exactly a shortage of attractive ones either. There's also a monument to the equator nearby, although not only is this attraction extremely underwhelming, but it's also not even on the bloody equator. Thankfully the majority of hotspots in Quito are not ruined by the presence of tourists, although as with anywhere you'll always find a group of loud American tourists that will happily ruin the relaxed atmosphere for you. A personal highlight for me was the city centre market, in which every stall seemed to sell exactly the same thing, which actually worked in my favour considering I pissed off almost every vendor with my abrasive haggling technique. I probably wouldn't be the best candidate on 'The Apprentice' considering I could barely bargain for bags of cocaine or pens that depicted couples having sex. Both the markets and the historical monuments are fantastically interesting places to visit, and although I wouldn't rank Quito as one of the greatest tourist areas on the planet, it's still an exciting place to visit for any traveler.

Here's a perfect snapshot of Quito. Churches surrounded by dodgy areas.

The real draw of Ecuador is its natural beauty. I'm not aware of a single nation on Earth that can boast such a broad diversity in its natural landscapes, but then not many nations on Earth have nature written into the constitution. The diverse landscapes lead to an extraordinary abundance of life, and really Ecuador is best for nature lovers such as myself. You don't even need a trip to the famed Galapagos Islands to appreciate just how diverse the ecosystems in this country are, and just a quick trip outside any urban area will have you gasping in awe at the beautiful landscapes. Whether you want to go bear hunting in the cloud forests or be irritated by millions of animals that can easily kill you in the lowland forests, there is an endless scope of possibilities for anyone who loves wildlife. Sure, the majority of wildlife you'll see is there to make your life as miserable as possible, and a quick trip into a rainforest will have you inundated with scorpions, velvet ants, those vicious parasitic wasps, or even the hordes of moths and rhinoceros beetles that decide to attack you every evening. Nothing however is quite as feared as the chiggers. You can forget spectacled bears and pumas because these minuscule bastards will put you in the hospital in no time. You wouldn't imagine a tiny red arachnid will have you rushing into the shower after merely walking through long grass, but these assholes put the fear of god into you.

Not every species of animal in Ecuador is a dick, in fact many are as harmless as the countless different species of plant, or even the beautiful orchids that seem to grow everywhere. Hummingbirds were my personal favorites to watch, and aren't particularly difficult to locate. Even if you don't spot one you'll probably hear what sounds like a strafing run from a World War 2 bomber about two inches from your head. That would be a hummingbird, and it scared the shit out of me the first time I heard one. As with anything in Ecuador you can only revel in nature for half the day, as the other half will be spent waiting for the rain to stop pouring down. You don't even need to be outside to know when it's raining because the sound of a billion frog calls will fill the air. Even if you don't mind the pouring rain, and I mean pouring rain, you still might fall victim to the odd earthquake. This is quite a shock considering the only dangers in Britain are from strong gales and the possibility of getting diseases from some harmless animals. I didn't even go during the wet season and still got completely soaked almost every fucking day, and having some highly venomous insect on my fucking doorstep. I'm not actually sure that's a complaint, as although I moan I thought the whole rainforest experience was fucking fantastic. It is a place I recommend every person to visit in their lifetime. It may well be a complete asshole of a place to live with every living thing making your life hell on Earth, but for brief periods of time it's one of the most beautiful places you could ever visit. I loved every second of it like the sadomasochist I am, and would happily catch dengue fever for another experience.

The rainforest may be pleasant during the day, but when night descends you have these huge bastards flying at you. Oh, and for an added bonus beetles are shit at flying and have powerful jaws that can easily pierce through skin.

To summarise Ecuador is a beautiful and intriguing country that I recommend any traveler gives a visit. And no, I do not own shares in an Ecuadorian travel agent, and I'm not just saying this to gloat about my holiday. Quito, although not the nicest place in the world, was rich in culture and liveliness, and the natural landscape is unrivaled anywhere else on the planet. Would I like to live there? No, not in a million years, but I would travel there again in a heartbeat. I'd also like to show my appreciation for the people of Ecuador who were polite and cheerful towards this particular moronic tourist who could barely speak a word of Spanish. I can only apologise for the amount of times I butchered your language. I was told that Ecuadorian Spanish is easy to understand, but I must be deaf, as I couldn't understand any of it. Cheers anyway Ecuadorians, you have one beautiful country.

Final score: 8/10

Gender and Socialisation Messages in Zoos

On this blog I must have displayed examples of gender studies trying to shit on everything I love. Well now it's the turn of this zoology student to come face to face with a paper that criticises zoos from a gender based perspective. Even the title alone is enough to royally trigger me, but just wait till you see the findings of these prestigious academics. You really have to wonder if the sole purpose of gender studies is to claim everything I love in this world is sexist.
________________________________________________________________
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0190272516656620?etoc=
________________________________________________________________

Oh no, we're only a few lines in and already we're inundated with sweeping statements backed up with zero evidence. I must say I'm completely shocked to find this sort of poor argument in a social studies paper. In case you haven't worked it out yet this paper is attempting to explain how gender stereotypes manifest themselves in society through the use of observed behaviour in zoological parks. The central theme here is that gender cannot be explained through natural processes, and bigoted parents use animals displayed in zoos to indoctrinate children into thinking patriarchal gender norms are universal. I just can't imagine why gender would be associated with biological sex. Is it possibly to do with the vast majority of the world's population identifying as the biological sex they were born with. Jesus that's an alarming level of correlation isn't it. It's almost like these hegemonic ideas of masculinity and femininity are based off of biology. But don't trouble yourself by supplying biological sources to discuss this gender association nonsense, because I'm sure using sociological studies is far more reliable when referring to anatomical sex differences.

We can easily highlight the flaws in using sociology to understand biological sex differences. Take the Carrigan, Connell and Lee study sourced by this paper. Their paper is complete nonsense and has no bearing in modern science. After all the paper is from 1985, but even scientists at that time were aware that clear cut categories between sexes are universally found in sexually reproducing organisms. Sexual dimorphism isn't precautionary, and in fact aids in describing these clear cut differences that these sociological studies blatantly ignore. You can claim human sociality transcends biological determinism, but what is human society if not a product of biology in the first place? You can't cheat the system of nature when you're playing by its very rules. These models of masculinity and femininity are based in nature, and are not a facade, representing the natural division between the sexes. I'm sorry if these people don't agree with that idea, but it's the fucking truth, and no amount of denying biology is going to change that.

What these researchers don't clock on to is the idea that these differing attitudes to gender exist for a reason. It's not some institutionalised conspiracy that aims to suppress certain characteristics, but rather a reflection of human biology. Furthermore there is no evidence presented that socialising children to standard gender norms is actually damaging. You can easily socialise a child to behave in the way these virtuous souls would want, but why would this be beneficial over traditional gender norms? I would argue suppressing the truth from these kids is far more harmful than merely offending a few gender studies professors.

You can argue all you want that socialisation messages are more pronounced in zoos, but you have no fucking evidence that this is in any way true, which is quite a major flaw in your study. Actually 'zoos' plural is an overstatement, considering this survey took place at ONE zoo. How fucking unreliable is your conclusion going to be if your trying to represent the data from one institution as a global generalisation? There's so many critical fucking variables you can't control here. You can't identify differences in culture, which is a fucking huge variable in this study. You can't control for the changes in these nature inspired environments, which again is a fucking huge element of your study. And of course being as this is such a pitifully small study you can't control for anomalous results. Quite honestly this hopeless study has zero chance of producing anything meaningful thanks to your idiotic methods. Still, I'm sure you can hide these humongous flaws with pages of tedious bullshit.

Somehow they did manage to draw up some conclusions, but as you would expect they're not exactly profound. The paper concludes with three big generalisations, which I'm sure accurately portrays the range of behaviours sampled by their pitiful methods. It's not as if these three scenarios are any good either. It's not exactly revolutionary to declare that humans anthropomorphise animals. However this fact doesn't automatically validate the next two conclusions, which all revolve around the idea that adults are purposely forcing gender roles to be ruthlessly impounded on children when observing animals. Anthropomorphism and forcing gender roles on children are two separate things entirely, and one cannot be used to prove the existence of the other. This is circular reasoning at its very worst.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there was such a profound distinction between the parenting of different genders. I'm not denying that parents tend to differ their attitudes towards different genders, but the way this study makes it sound is as if all girls are universally oppressed by the behaviour of their parents. In my personal opinion I feel these individuals are demonising common sense in favour of promoting ideological rhetoric. In other words this is building up to be a shameful study. We still haven't even delved into the explanations of how zoos allegedly naturalise these gender differences.

This section of the paper presents the idea that the world of media reinforces stereotypes relating to animals, with these stereotypes being considered unanimously negative without qualification. It's here the study relates these supposed issues to zoological institutes, or institutes of patriarchal oppression as these researchers would have you believe. For some reason zoos are said to be significant because they're artificial simulations of the natural world, although I really don't understand how they can reflect the whole global biosphere. I'm also confused as to how the ecological relationship between differing organisms causes socialisation, as the only explanation this paper can give is that zoos give out 'symbolic power', which is something I would expect charlatans to say. Zoos house animals from all over the planet, often faithfully recreating their natural environment for both immersion and the benefit of the animal on display, but under no circumstances does this equate to an accurate representation of the global biosphere. Under this logic you could have just observed how people interact with pigeons in the street. You just wanted a day out at the zoo and had to come up with some excuse to get funding for your excursions.

I'm honestly intrigued by this mystical symbolic power that humans can draw on to reinforce gender stereotypes. I think they're just confusing witchcraft and wizardry with animals behaving naturally. It certainly seems there's this overarching tone condemning animals for daring to follow gender stereotypes, with their sexist powers allowing parents to oppress their kids. I thought it would be perfectly logical to assume that humans try and relate to the vastly different animals on display in zoos by giving them stereotypical personalities. I'm sorry that most parents don't come up with a story surrounding Timmy the transgender tortoise, but that doesn't mean these stereotypical characters are indoctrinating these children into becoming patriarchal monsters. Why is creating stereotypical characters a bad thing? More importantly how is this a behaviour that can be prevented? The majority of people who visit zoos aren't experts on sexual morphology or the cognitive output of these animals, such as yourselves, so why wouldn't parents try and relate to the exhibits by adhering to stereotypes? This isn't mythmaking, it's trying to relay educational information to children. You try giving one of your bullshit gender studies lectures to a child and they'll be bored solid, but show it a chimp that looks like daddy and you've made a memorable encounter.

I hate the tone this study takes that being an average parent is inherently evil. How dare you try and educate your children, or try and allow them to show some interest. No, instead you must forcefully digest this gender fluid bullshit, because that's going to be truly beneficial. The kid might grow up scientifically illiterate, but hey at least they won't be a transphobic pig. The study then goes on to explain why zoos exemplify these alleged issues, coming up with some questionable conclusions.

It says a lot about the intelligence of these researchers when they have to be trained in observing families. What do you have to learn? How to not look like a nonce? Honestly this methodology is fucking terrible. It's like the level of experimentation I would expect from a high school student, not an academic paper. Funnily enough this shit study produced some amazingly insightful findings. Any single comment any parent made in relation to the sex of the animal is instantly demonised as if it's some sort of curse word. If you dare to compare sex differences in humans to that of other animals you're instantly branded a vile sexist believing in false ideologies. To any individual not versed in zoology sexing animals without comparing to humans is a difficult task, so I think it's incredibly harsh to criticise these said adults for trying to educate their children in relation to terms they would understand. I'm someone whose studied sexual selection at a world leading institution, which doesn't sound arrogant at all, so it makes perfect sense to me that male peafowls exhibit brighter patterns than the opposite sex, but I would never try and deter someone from simplifying this advanced biology to their children. Peafowls actually follow a trend found in a vast number of species where the males tend to exhibit brighter colouration, although the individual mechanisms behind these ornamental features are still heavily debated. All you've brought to this debate is a huge pile of manure that aims to silence any serious biological enquiry. Male ornamentation has nothing to do with gender roles, so doesn't at all prove any rule relating to these gender stereotypes. Ignorance I can tolerate from children, but it's fucking insulting from so called academics.

These idiots expect any guest of a zoo to be instant experts, and before making a comment towards their child any parent must know everything about the sex of animals and their relatedness. I actually thought the observations made by guests were pretty good, considering that otters live in social groups formed around relatedness, and male gorillas are far larger than female gorillas. What you're proving here is that socialisation messages lead to accurate stereotypes forming. I find it insultingly hypocritical that a paper of this low quality has the audacity to criticise others for making assumptions when the only arguments they can produce are littered with them. I can assure you that these uneducated guests make far more accurate assumptions than these supposed academics. Maybe it would be beneficial to these researchers if they assigned nice little back stories to help them understand biological concepts, because it's clear they haven't grasped the purpose of zoological institutes or the role of sex in animals.

Later on these morons criticise an innocent joke, a mother making an accurate comparison between her parenting and that of an orangutan, and an innocent story. I get the impression these researchers haven't got their heads around the idea that people go to the zoo for fun, not a fucking gender studies lecture. That's not the only crime these transphobic adults have committed. Oh no, just look what other heinous crimes these astute researchers intelligently discovered.

Jesus Christ we need to ban all zoos. Not only are kids being indoctrinated, but animals are now being appropriated by these vile places. I doubt animals give a shit about being appropriated, and may have larger issues to care about, such as being globally massacred in levels never seen before in the history of the planet. Maybe if appropriating was such a big issue you could have at least bothered to find a source to back up these monstrous generalisations.

The only evidence presented in these segments is more harmless stories from caring parents. I just can't comprehend how a woman commenting on how she finds a bird attractive is transmitting gender norms. Maybe she likes the bird because it's fucking attractive, and has nothing to do with the fact she's also a woman. If anyone is guilty of stereotyping gender it's these researchers. Just because one woman said something in a random zoo doesn't mean its a global trend. I get that zoos are supposed to be this representation of a whole planet, but I get the feeling you only claim this so your results are given some false significance. At its foundations this study is purely supported through anecdotal evidence, which even for a social studies paper is fucking pathetic. 35 instances is a shockingly poor sample number to make this radical conclusion. That's also 35 instances over many surveyed hours, which indicates this behaviour is stochastic and not fucking ingrained. I get the feeling you're purposely manipulating the results by eliminating the context to try and artificially force significance into your meaningless survey. What still confuses me with this study is how they can conclude that gender is some complicated mess that doesn't follow a binary by literally collecting evidence that shows a dichotomy in attitudes towards animals. I'm sure these researchers would claim this is solely because of social manipulation, and not the more sensible conclusion that biological differences are at play.

Hang on, you're now providing anecdotal evidence that men aren't bound by toxic masculinity and an internal desire for violence, which is funny as I'm sure you claimed sensitivity was inherently feminine about a minute ago. That's not following these gender stereotypes that are, you know, the only weak foundation holding this argument in place. I'm still shocked that they can determine all this information with such a shockingly poor sample. Surely if only 17 men applauded strength then countless other men didn't. Why then wouldn't you accept the null hypothesis that all of this is completely trivial? Oh yes, the null hypothesis doesn't pander to your agenda.

In absence of any real statistical analysis we're repetitively subjected to these pointless anecdotes that don't serve to prove anything. They're just waffle that clogs up the study. However that story with the tiger is particularly amusing to read. The conclusion these idiots actually suggest is that the mother forced the child away from the scene to transmit gender norms onto the child, and not the idea that the child is reveling over a bird's carcass being torn to shreds. She's not transmitting stereotypes, she's being a fucking parent. All throughout this study I was waiting for the penny to drop and for these researchers to realise they're just being judgmental assholes. I can't imagine why all these parents would teach their children that gender differences are based in nature. How dare they teach these children factual information? I'd say adhering to stereotypes is nowhere near as bad as twisting this fucking narrative. Stop spurting out this weird conspiracy shit that you can't back up with evidence.

The next section is about the difference between disciplining boys and girls, which is apparently possible to determine within the confines of a fucking zoo. I honesty can't be assed to analyse it all because it's just the same rhetoric repeated over and over again, with some ridiculous generalisations thrown in for good measure. What a shame these academics haven't learnt the critical skill of making scientific papers succinct. Let's just move swiftly on to the 'discussion'.

Yes you read that correctly, animals interacting with their artificial environment literally naturalises gender ideologies. The word 'literally' there being misused in probably the most offensive way I can possibly imagine. Maybe if animals interacting with their environment causes gender norms then that would suggest these norms are natural, which is contrary to what's claimed in this study. The only evidence you have against this is from these three instances, which as I've already explained are completely meaningless.

The researchers do at least have the brainpower to identify that someone with any common sense might have an issue with the conclusions presented by this study, and they've countered this with yet more anecdotal evidence with no sources for backup. Unfortunately extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be in any way valid, and whatever ethnographic observations you've found does not constitute as solid evidence in any way. What are ethnographic observations for that matter? My vote would be on some totally trivial and subjective.

The researchers decided that because some observed individuals went against the norm, which is completely expected as we're discussing human behaviour, biology cannot be used to explain what was observed and that we should believe in the power of socialisation instead. So in other words because some girls like violence and some boys like attractive and cute animals it's not conceivable that gender roles are determined by nature. We'll suddenly ignore the trends we've been banging on about constantly, because apparently biologically determined behaviour cannot possibly show any form of variation. I literally cannot see any flaws in this watertight conclusion. Just a stunning and insightful piece in every aspect, and we're not even finished. Fantastic.

Can't imagine why there's an appeal towards natural explanations of gender expression, and not the surrendering of logic to your alternative nonsense. Surprisingly it turns out that it's not biologists who can explain the role of biology in gender expression, but sociologists instead. How am I supposed to follow this logic when these said sociologists make scientifically illiterate points such as the one found in that 2007 Jackson and Rees study? Here's a direct quote from that equally shit study: 'We genuinely do not know whether human behaviour and culture are the products of evolutionary selective pressure, although we find it unlikely.' I'm sorry to say we absolutely do know whether behaviour is effected by selection pressures, as not only is behaviour heritable, but it's determined by biological systems comprised of genomes, and has a direct effect on the likelihood of reproduction. Are you seriously telling me that an inherent fear of tigers or lions is fucking socialised? You don't even need to be an evolutionary biology professor to work this one out, and all you need to do is observe how human behaviour has diverged from other apes. If you find a biological explanation unlikely then you're a science denier, it's that straight forward. It baffles me that these sociologists count complete bullshit as credible evidence.

Nature is not a social construct full stop. Human's are merely a component of nature, and must abide by its principles. That's why nature has this collective meaning, and not whatever horseshit you lot are proclaiming. This study has provided nothing to support the idea that zoos are this magical wonderland that hold the keys to understanding gender norms, simply because they artificially blur boundaries between nature and urban life. Of course urban life is also part of nature, but in all honesty that's the least of the shortcomings displayed here. The study even admits to having little evidence that these transmitted gender norms are of any significance, although really that sentence should incorporate the term 'zero evidence'. Quite frankly that whole paragraph could just be rephrased as 'we're fucking shit and should stop wasting academic funding on trips to the zoo.' The final line essentially amounts to 'we shouldn't be making generalisations like we have been throughout the whole study because we can't even find significance in individual scenarios.'

Eleven pages of complete shit and we finally arrive at some sort of conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all actually and strangely doesn't describe how this paper fits into the academic sphere, or how it puts their findings into any sort of context. I mean it doesn't actually fit into any academic sphere, but you would of thought they would bullshit their way out of that like they have for everything else. This paragraph however is more a biased literature review, which indicates very poor focus. What I cannot stand is this assumption that gendered behaviour is inherently the biggest evil on the planet. Please tell me what fucking harm these parents are doing by stereotyping animals they see to make them interesting to their children. There just isn't some global conspiracy where adults are trying to turn their children into clones, and there is certainly no fucking evidence that zoos have this sudden hypnotic effect on parents to become patriarchal scum. This is simply case studies of parents trying to teach their progeny, or at least try and allow their children to enjoy themselves.

I love the comment that the behaviour of children may be different in opera houses and libraries. No fucking shit. That doesn't take a fucking academic paper to work out. I think it's becoming clear that these researchers do not have kids, which makes sense, as who would want to procreate with a social scientist that comes out with shit like this? Maybe, and here's a fucking wild suggestion, zoos are a good place to observe adults discussing natural roles of sex because that's what's displayed in these animals. You can't make the argument that animals are in on this global conspiracy, as they have no concept of what gender is. And no, you absolutely cannot hold animals accountable for their natural sex roles.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse THIS PAPER WON AN AWARD. I imagine it's not a prestigious one if this pile of shit was anywhere close to winning, but it's still an indication that people think this pile of manure deserves credit. It doesn't deserve a shred of credit, and the author of this paper appears to be about twelve in that photo, which I suppose makes sense when she writes like a fucking twelve year old. This is a personal message to social scientists: Please stop promoting shit like this. Not only does it discredit your discipline, but it clogs up the sciences with ideological bullshit. Please quit it with the idea that gender has no basis in nature, and the idea that everyone who disagrees with this statement is an offensive bigot. I personally refuse to be called a transphobic liar by this idiotic study, and the quicker people call this kind of shit out as pseudoscience the better for academia.