Thursday, August 9, 2007
I shudder to think what some sexist economics professor will try to do with this article. That’s right, there is a difference between real science and the absurd pseudo-scientific claims that sexists use to justify the subjugation of women as “natural.” So, according to new fossil evidence, “early female hominids were much smaller than males.” Why do I think that this will be used against us? Well, animals with a significant size difference between males and females tend to form social groups where the males fight for breeding privileges, winner mates all. As Dr. Emma Mbua, on of the team of researchers studying the fossil explains, "This sexual dimorphism is considered a primitive character because it occurs in other apes," and that “this could also mean the sexual behavior of Homo erectus was more like that of apes, where individuals, especially males, mate with several partners, sometimes in a few hours, than that of its more monogamous human successors.” It won’t bother the idiot who tries to use this to justify sexism that modern humans no longer have such a significant size difference between the sexes, nor that a lot of things gorillas do would not be justifiable in human society. Repeat with me now: being descended from apes does not mean you’re allowed to act like a chimp, chum.