WELL I NEVER, See I Told You, Morning Commuter Time (NNN) — British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys. “Women are hardwired to like pink,” says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, “because their cavewoman foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees.” Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.
Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from these two bone needles. Being too successful will increase women’s testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness. Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.
IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave. Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, which is why women just can’t take a joke. Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.
Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn. Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.
In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.
“In conclusion,” says Professor Hunt, “all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on. Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa.”
11 thoughts on “Science reveals evolutionary origins of gender stereotypes”
Evolutionary biology = a steaming pile of wank.
“Evolutionary biology = a steaming pile of wank.”
You’re an idiot. Evolutionary biology is demonstrably true.
Very nicely done: I think you got pretty much all the cliches there, but I was too busy laughing to notice much past ‘as proven by lions’.
This is great. Pingback:
Isn’t the pink=girl/blue=boy colour stereotype a relatively new application? Up to the Victorian era and well into the early 20th Century pink was considered a strong colour associated with males and blue a soft colour associated with females. What utter bollocks.
This may help lead you to understanding: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
You people are morons.
1. They’re not “stereotypes”, they’re DIFFERENCES. And yes, men and women are biologically different.
2. Most of the people (if not all) who talk about biological gender differences don’t use moronic arguments like these, they actually have real scientific proof of evolutionary/biological differences between men and women.
I know you liberal retards like to think everyone is the same and everything is a “social construct”, but that just isn’t reality. Idiots.
You need to bask for a moment in the blow you’ve struck for truth, justice and race realism by commenting on a five-year-old post.
lol Yeah, I am late on this one too, but someone linked to it from some place else, as an example of satire of the whole concept. To be clear, for anyone taking this seriously, like both mingtian, and secretlondon, or anyone else stumbling across this – The convention of using pink for girls is recent, as of it being completely backwards from earlier times, when pink was deemed “too passionate a color”, and blue was deemed “chaste”. Also.. Evolutionary biologists.. almost to a member, despise what this post is really referencing, which is “evolutionary psychology”. The former deals with real facts, like how genes work, and, yeah, if there actually was some sort of connection between a trait, and the underlying biology. Evo-psych, on the other hand, as it stands, is some bunch of morons, without genetic evidence of any kind, coming along as saying, “Well, this is how modern society works, and we can’t be bothered to check our facts about whether this was common in the past, or even across all cultures, but here is some made up, absurd, nonsensical story, about how we think it ‘evolved’.” Note the lack of, as I said – actual biological/genetic evidence, the total lack of anthropological research, the total incomprehension of historical data, and the default assumption that, just because a bloody lot of people are socialized into thinking it makes sense now, it must be explainable via biological evolution, not “Socialization”.
A good example of the sort of logic being used by this “field”, and many people refuse, until they clean up their act, and try to deal with facts, instead of, “Story time for the clueless”, would be the sort that a 4 year old might use, when trying to decide why people painted a school a certain color, and saying, “Well, its actually the left overs from all the food in the cafeteria throughout the year, which is why its barf colored!” Not exactly based on facts, or evidence, or anything other than a serious desire on some people to come up with **any** explanation, no matter how information-less, untestable, or unfounded, to explain, “Why are things the way they are.” The only thing going for them is that they try to come up with semi-plausible explanations. But, plausible doesn’t mean correct, especially when most of the facts you are basing it on are not even universal, and *absolutely* not the case, when you have no real facts, **at all** to back them up.
My best advice is, when you see a real, non-satirical, paper on how, “X social behavior evolved”, its highly specific, like color preferences, and there isn’t one scrap of research, like there is for more general things, like empathy and the like, either laugh, or groan at it, but… don’t take anything in it seriously. If they can’t show that, say, a chimp, behaves the same way, and give a clear, and non-BS explanation for how this behavior really does help them as a species, but just shovel a lot of “maybe”, “such and such might be”, “we think its possible that”, etc. in your lap, as explanation of the supposed universal human behavior, its rank nonsense, and meaningless. I.e., anything other than something to wave around like a flag, for someone that thinks it *must be true*, because the possibility that it isn’t, and is instead learned, would make their own prejudices and assumptions about their own, or someone else’s place in the world nothing but garbage.
People don’t want some things to be not “human nature” or “evolved”, it would mean that the world might be other than it is. It might mean that (and I would argue there is plenty of evidence this is the case anyway), that we are doing things wrong, not because its in our nature to be this way, but because we collectively convinced each other it “should be”, without seeing the consequences. Consequences that start mattering when, for example, 50% of the world stop being, “those other people that don’t own things and work”, and get treated as more equal (i.e., women), and so much else that has changed. It is not, imho, at this point in time, and never will be, so long as it insists on making things up, and ignoring contradictions (never mind even bothering to look for them), a “field of study”. Its the alchemy of evolutionary science. Unsatisfied with figuring out what actual genes make your eyes blue, they ramble about how, one day, they will find the “philosopher stone” of genetics, that can make some people prefer blueberries over strawberries.
Its just plain gibberish.