3 ms·

They probably meant misogyny from today's archeologists rather than from bisons and mammoths. There are known instances of gender stereotypes influencing archeo

They probably meant misogyny from today's archeologists rather than from bisons and mammoths. There are known instances of gender stereotypes influencing archeological discovery. For example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/viking-warrior-woman-archaeology-spd/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/viking-warri... > Since the remains were found alongside swords, arrowheads, a spear, and two sacrificed horses, archaeologists had considered it a warrior’s grave—and, thus, a man’s.

mc32 6y ago
Even with that possibility it’s ridiculous. It would require a conspiracy by archeologists (of both sexes) to only find male specimens (as if there are so many that they’d ignore female specimens just to be misogynistic. How realistic is that? It also primes the reader to think “aha misogyny!” where it isn’t. Just as saying fat free water!
- progval 6y ago
  Read the quote. It doesn't have to be intentional, they may assume some bodies are male when they aren't
  - mc32 6y ago
    Yes that was an _exception_ unless you believe all (or most) of the sex identity assignments of historical human skeletons are suspect.
    - progval 6y ago
      There are other examples of this. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistor... > it revealed that between 30 and 50 percent of big game hunters could have been biologically female. > This new study is the latest twist in a decades-long debate about gender roles among early hunter-gather societies. The common assumption was that prehistoric men hunted while women gathered and reared their young. But for decades, some scholars have argued that these “traditional” roles—documented by anthropologists studying hunter-gatherer groups across the globe since the 19th century—don’t necessarily stretch into our deep past. And that's just looking at the first hits on a search engine. Whether or not there is indeed a systemic bias in archeology, this makes it worth mentioning that in that case, we're sure it's not bias.
- posterboy 6y ago
  > saying fat free water! You keep repeating this as if fatty water were an entirely bizare notio. Suppose you heard of... milk? And militant vegans? And soy-milk? I haven't seen soy-milk claiming to be gluten free, but I have definitely seen many milk products claiming to be lactose free. And I'm bad at drawing analogies, because I don't know what drove the author. For sake of the argument I'd say that any investigation a male bias could be spun into into an investigation of male surpremacy. So your trying to claim male rhinoceros were better at dying, is it?!?
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > Suppose you heard of... milk? If milk was a type of water, this comment would make sense.

mc32 6y ago

Even with that possibility it’s ridiculous. It would require a conspiracy by archeologists (of both sexes) to only find male specimens (as if there are so many that they’d ignore female specimens just to be misogynistic. How realistic is that? It also primes the reader to think “aha misogyny!” where it isn’t. Just as saying fat free water!

progval 6y ago
Read the quote. It doesn't have to be intentional, they may assume some bodies are male when they aren't
- mc32 6y ago
  Yes that was an _exception_ unless you believe all (or most) of the sex identity assignments of historical human skeletons are suspect.
  - progval 6y ago
    There are other examples of this. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistor... > it revealed that between 30 and 50 percent of big game hunters could have been biologically female. > This new study is the latest twist in a decades-long debate about gender roles among early hunter-gather societies. The common assumption was that prehistoric men hunted while women gathered and reared their young. But for decades, some scholars have argued that these “traditional” roles—documented by anthropologists studying hunter-gatherer groups across the globe since the 19th century—don’t necessarily stretch into our deep past. And that's just looking at the first hits on a search engine. Whether or not there is indeed a systemic bias in archeology, this makes it worth mentioning that in that case, we're sure it's not bias.
posterboy 6y ago
> saying fat free water! You keep repeating this as if fatty water were an entirely bizare notio. Suppose you heard of... milk? And militant vegans? And soy-milk? I haven't seen soy-milk claiming to be gluten free, but I have definitely seen many milk products claiming to be lactose free. And I'm bad at drawing analogies, because I don't know what drove the author. For sake of the argument I'd say that any investigation a male bias could be spun into into an investigation of male surpremacy. So your trying to claim male rhinoceros were better at dying, is it?!?
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Suppose you heard of... milk? If milk was a type of water, this comment would make sense.