Quickies

Skepchick Quickies 1.26

Amanda

Amanda is a science grad student in Boston whose favorite pastimes are having friendly debates and running amok.

Related Articles

75 Comments

  1. Has “evolutionary psychology” ever come up with any conclusion that didn’t seem to start with a 1950s cultural stereotype and end with a claim that it is an immutable genetic trait that has been passed down across tens of thousands of years and thousands of cultural permutations without major change?

    1. I remember someplace that used evolutionary psychology to explain why people think mountains are pretty (because they make good navigational aids for hunter-gatherers). Guess that doesn’t count as a 1950’s cultural stereotype. It’s also completely trivial.

  2. The guy I’m seeing doesn’t fall asleep after sex. In fact, he tends to get a rush of energy. I tend to just want to lay there for a few minutes, without cuddling.

    WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT US, Evo Psych?

  3. Ugh. That Times thing gives me sharp stabbing pains in my frontal lobe.

    Also: neither me nor the man beast fall asleep after sex – clearly I must be primitively hopeless at berry picking! Which is true. I can never find the damned things in the produce section. :/

    1. What time of day do you have sex? I think the people that fall asleep after sex are just really tired to begin with and they forget about that while aroused. Same with the people that get hungry afterwards.

  4. Of course women on average do more chores than men. Men on average work more hours. One does not have to be very intelligent to figure out that those facts are, at least, partially connected.

        1. No one is debating otherwise. However, the fact that women spend 20 minutes more on chores, is supported by the fact that men work about the same amount more every day.

          1. Even if you weren’t full of shit here, that still wouldn’t explain why women should be doing all the unpaid labour. Working or not, men can pick up after themselves.

          2. “…that still wouldn’t explain why women should be doing all the unpaid labour.”

            No one mentioned, or even hinted that women are, or should be doing all the unpaid labour. The only thing suggested by this absurd article; is that when chores are taken into account, women ‘supposedly’ do 20 more minutes of work a day, than men.

            “Working or not, men can pick up after themselves.”

            No one is saying they can’t. No one is saying they shouldn’t. Where exactly are you coming from?

          1. Yes, but how exactly do they measure unpaid work? As a skeptic website, one would think that would be THE CENTER OF DISCUSSION. There is no way to accurately gauge unpaid work. There are no forms, timecards, pay stubs or managers to keep track of how much work is actually put in. It seems to be up to the women to interpret their own standards of work. This study means nothing, and proves nothing.

          2. How is taking care of a home — a place where we live, and a place that affects our stress or comfort levels tremendously if it’s out of order — and, most importantly generally being the primary care-giver (whether both parents are working or not) to their children, who will one day be adults and running this world, not as important (if not more so) than working in an office?

            I don’t believe that, just because there isn’t a paycheck or reviews, that it’s somehow less-than, like you seem to be implying. You seem to think that a paycheck makes the job more important, which is quite certainly, not the case.

          3. No actually. I think both jobs are equally necessary and important. It’s feminist, and people like Oprah, who get on my nerves when they say, “Being a mom is the hardest job in the world.”

            If you take anything away from what I’ve said on this matter. I hope it’s the fact that this article is shit. Men and women both contribute equally. Yes, with certain individuals, you will find some who contribute more than others. But as a whole, evaluating which gender is superior in the hours they put in, is quite ridiculous. I expected better from a skeptic website.

      1. How exactly does one objectively determine this? It is a fact that men work 24 minutes more than women each day when we are talking about paid jobs.

        However, it is next to impossible to accurately determine housework. How many women count their whole day as work? Do they count the one hour breaks throughout the day to watch T.V. or relax? Do they have punch cards or stop watches to accurately determine how much time they’re putting in?

        It’s quite humourous to watch skepticism thrown out the window when women are involved. The whole study is a pile of dung. It’s useless, and does not determine anything.

        1. ‘However, it is next to impossible to accurately determine housework. How many women count their whole day as work? Do they count the one hour breaks throughout the day to watch T.V. or relax? Do they have punch cards or stop watches to accurately determine how much time they’re putting in?

          It’s quite humourous to watch skepticism thrown out the window when women are involved.’

          What are you talking with that one hour break business? I am totally getting messed out of my TV time! That last sentence you said (in the quote) pretty much says it huh. Why don’t you just stop.

          1. “That last sentence you said (in the quote) pretty much says it huh. Why don’t you just stop.”

            I’m not saying that when women who are involved in the community they throw skepticism out the window. I’m saying that when women are the Subject of skepticism. When you hear things like, women do more work than men, or women are paid less; skepticism here seems to be thrown out the window. However, if you dare imply that men do more work? Misogyny.

          2. I totally disagree with you Mike, bring your facts, links, even personal antidotes (just know they may be put up to scrutiny). I am not calling you a misogynist. That is your word.

          3. LOL, wow. No one, not one person, called you a misogynistic. But good job trying to bait us!

            You know what? Just fuck off. You’re a troll and you’re just getting terrible at this. You clearly couldn’t even bother to read the article! You’re starting to become mighty rusty, Trolly Mc Trolly Pants.

        2. Also, how do we know that, just because someone punches in a time card, they are utilizing their time wisely? We have the internet now … and a lot of people waste their time on it. Not to mention that I know a lot of lazy ass people (men and women) who still keep their jobs because of terrible management.

          But you know, nice try (except not really).

          1. Exactly, a great point. So why are people agreeing with this article? It is impossible (and rather arbitrary) to determine which gender does more work. It is quite sad to see skeptics accept some ‘fact’ that women work 20 more minutes a day, and feel justified whining that women do more work than men.

            I’m actually curious if anyone here truly believes that women work more than men.

        3. “Of course women on average do more chores than men. Men on average work more hours. One does not have to be very intelligent to figure out that those facts are, at least, partially connected.”

          It’s quite humourous to watch skepticism thrown out the window when women are involved. Your whole post is a pile of dung. It’s useless, and does not determine anything.

          I’d comment further, but you so blatantly advertise your residence as “under a bridge” I can’t be bothered.

          1. To be fair here, that is actually the argument the article makes. In order for women to be doing more combined labour while still working fewer hours at paid positions, the remainder has to come from unpaid labour. Based on the numbers given in the article it amounts to 28 minutes total (20 mins extra labour vs. 8 fewer paid minutes).

        4. Ok, your main beef seems to be around how they quantify the time spent on work/chores/down-time? So why don’t you actually apply that broad bush to both genders and work types (paid vs unpaid)? You’re willing to dissect how a parent may spend their time at home looking after kids (and ask any parent if they’re getting downtime in the same sense as someone gets at work, and they’ll laugh you out of the joint), but not how a worker might be spending their time in terms of actual productivity? I have a word for you, mister. Starts with ‘H’ and rhymes with ‘-ypocrite.’.

          1. But, has MikeFromCanada said that women do less than men overall? I haven’t seen that. What I glean is that he’s figuring they equal out, when you take into account the extra time men spend at work, vs the extra time women spend doing home chores. There is a post above where he even agrees with the point that it’s hard to quantify what people do on paid jobs, because there is “down time” there just as there is at home.

            I wouldn’t say that men do more work than women, but I also don’t see convincing evidence that women are doing more than men overall. The article above discusses a slight difference, but there seems to be plenty of room in the methodology for error and subjectivity, and Mike may be right that the study is “shit.”

      1. Yes, I do. People throw around grouping terms like “women”, “men”, “atheists”, “Americans” etc, all the time, and of course they “know” they mean “on average”, but that subtlety is often unconsciously dropped by some and the non-average case is envisioned to be some sort of myth or aberration.

  5. I had read the cover story about the ‘Chore Wars’ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2084582,00.html
    It opens with the author, Ruth Konigsberg, ‘When our children were young and I was working from home, I would relieve our babysitter at 5 p.m. and start to feed and bathe our 3-year-old and 6-month-old and begin various pre-bedtime rituals. By 6 p.m., this thought would be running through my head: If my husband doesn’t come home from the office soon to help, I’m going to lose my mind. By 7 p.m., my panic would turn to anger: Do I have to do everything? Each minute before his arrival seemed like an eternity, my task much more onerous than the pressure he was facing to make daily deadlines.

    Well, quite honestly, rereading that first paragraph, that sounds like a pretty shitty place for the author to be. Saying well ladies there is only a 20 minute difference at the end of the day totally diminished the struggle that she and what many others have. I have also been that woman with the child and the husband who is late because of work again. What she didn’t say was how one of the kids were crying or sick (because little kids are always sick or teething or growing). How dinner is still sitting out. How tired and lonely it felt. It diminishes a caregiver struggle that many feel. I don’t think that struggle has to do with work-time-hours. And at times it just really does feel unfair.

    1. Unfair? Just wondering if you ever tried to understand how it felt for your SO.

      Usually, people don’t like doing work at the office until late in the night.

      They tone of your article seems to imply that it’s the husband’s fault that he is stuck late at work.

      1. And why do you only seem to comment when this kind of topic domes up? I’ve never seen you comment on other things. It’s like you’re on a crusade to put us womminfolks in our place.

        I SMELL SOMETHING FISHY, Trommy Mc Trolly Pants.

      2. I said ‘felt unfair’. See I didn’t make up facts or put words in anyone’s mouth. I didn’t say, husband you are the reason my day sucked. I and other people in that situation to be told, well you put almost the same amount of time today is shitty and un-supportive.

        ‘They tone of your article seems to imply that it’s the husband’s fault that he is stuck late at work.’ I don’t think that I said it was my husband’s fault. It is a struggle that many primary caregivers feel. I can say that at times I just need help that isn’t there, my husband knows it and respects that I work through these difficult times. I don’t see how comparing our work day helps.

      3. My husband is an academic and I just asked him how he felt about his late hours. He said ‘I love my job.’ To your comment, ‘Usually, people don’t like doing work at the office until late in the night.’ he said, ‘It just goes to show some people really hate their job.’

      4. Come here, children. Look but don’t touch. There? See that? That is a fine example of an Internet Troll. They lurk everywhere on the Internet and are hard to avoid.

        Children, it’s very important NOT to make eye contact with the Troll, do not speak to the troll. It will try to tease you into a response because when you respond you give some of your time and your essence to the troll and that is what it needs to survive.

        See, Children. The internet troll is very scary looking but if you ignore it and it will start to go hungry and it will wander off to find nourishment somewhere else.

        Now lets so look as some cute pictures of kitties to cheer ourselves up.

      5. Is the treatment you’re getting here typical of this website? Are you trolling – I mean, your posts seem basically calm and neutral, but the vitriol directed at you has to be coming from somewhere.

        Maybe this is smoke from an underlying fire, and there is some history here.

        I can’t plainly see, though, what you did wrong here, and why everyone is telling you to f*** off and calling you a troll.

        1. “Is the treatment you’re getting here typical of this website?”

          Yes.

          “Are you trolling – I mean, your posts seem basically calm and neutral, but the vitriol directed at you has to be coming from somewhere.”

          To them, trolling is anyone who posts a different opinion. So by that definition, yes I’m trolling. I’ve been posting on Skepchick for a while, and I think I’m pretty infamous now. I always start out calm and present my points. Although there have been times where I will just rage, it’s one of my flaws. The only thing that has surprised me is that I’m still allowed to post here.

          “Maybe this is smoke from an underlying fire, and there is some history here.”

          You guessed correct. You could probably find them if you go through all the most popular posts. It could take a while though.

          “I can’t plainly see, though, what you did wrong here, and why everyone is telling you to f*** off and calling you a troll.”

          I can’t see why either. Usually my comments are met with ad hominem instead of a rebuttal.

          Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

          By this urban dictionary definition, I guess I am technically a troll. But like most trolls, I do not start arguments with ad hominem.

          To be honest, their anger with me is somewhat warranted. However, I do expect better from a skeptic, atheist blog. One would expect them to indulge in any form of debate when possible.

        2. He is a known troll as much as he may claim to the contrary. At best, he’s truly ignorant on what he is doing, at worse, he’s a MRA who descends on us when there’s gender articles up to tell us how we’re doing it wrong. It would be great if he actually argued from a factual basis, but he mostly just postulates hot air and then tells us how wrong we all are.

  6. Hello everyone!

    I’m new here!

    I like the articles posted. The Time Magazine article and the article about falling asleep after sex were interesting.

    I’m a little bit afraid to post, though. This thread is more abusive than I expected.

    1. Mike is a known troll that ONLY comments on these sorts of posts and *nothing else* and is constantly screaming about how unfair it is in this world to be a man and how awful we womminfolk treat him.

      He’s a known troll, which is why we’re all rolling our eyes at him.

      Don’t be afraid, as long as you’re not a troll.

      1. That’s a fallacy.

        If you truly want to know what I’m like on Skepchick, just stick around and look for my posts. Then you can form an objective opinion on how I do things around here. That way you can avoid the biased answers from me and others.

        1. Is it? Because I haven’t seen you comment on anything else, and I generally check every single post and at least glance at the comments even if I don’t leave one.

          It’s possible you *used* to come around during other subjects, but as of late? You are clearly on a mission.

          You’re a troll and your shtick is getting tiresome. Not to mention hat you clearly didn’t even bother to actually read the article. YAWN. You’re getting boring.

          Next!

      2. Are the folks who are berating him considered moderators?

        I mean, I may be unfamiliar with the way this blog is operated, but usually disciplining a contributor is left to those the run the site. What seems alien to me is that the community seems to take a vigilante approach here, and rhetorical pitchforks and torches are utilized to drive away a claimed offender.

        If that’s the way things are done around here, then I think I may move along to another place to contribute.

    1. I don’t think HPV alone has an effect on fertility, but getting cervical cancer certainly can, especially if the treatment involves chemo and radiation, let alone a hysterectomy.

      It’s my understanding that the reason the vaccine is recommended for tweens is that most of us adults are already infected with HPV. In other words, it’s too late for us, but save the kids! If that’s so, most of us HPV positive women are reproducing just fine.

      Disclaimer: I’m not a medical doctor, just a googler.

  7. “To be honest, their anger with me is somewhat warranted. However, I do expect better from a skeptic, atheist blog. One would expect them to indulge in any form of debate when possible.”

    Really? No. I do not want to debate with a fucking troll. That’s a waste of my time. I have better things to do.

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS is a very good piece of advice.

    1. Well, so far, what I’ve read of his as a newcomer does not seem all that trollish. On this thread he has been rational. But, then again, if someone is wrong and refuses to admit it, I don’t consider that to be a troll. He also had some good points, I thought, about the study described in the article, but was told to “f*** off” and such.

      I’m going to post around for a while and see how it goes. So far it seems very unfriendly around here, after going through a number of older threads, TBH.

      I don’t want to be labeled a troll, so I won’t say anymore.

      Nice to meet all of you, and the articles above were interesting. Cheers! Time for happy hour here!

      1. Hi saopulobrasil. Just wanted to say that this is a great website that often tackles controversial subjects so a lot of heat can be generated in the comments section. It’s not all teddybears and lollypops around here, yo. You’re gonna hafta’ develop some thick skin. But welcome aboard.

        1. I don’t know. I am not sure the “fuck offs” are allowed in an unbiased fashion.

          I don’t mind heat. What I do mind is the kind of treatment MikeFromCanada has gotten here. His arguments aren’t subjected to heat; he is just abused.

          Query: if he started telling other contributors to “fuck off” and that they should go away “Trolly McTrollypants” and that sort of thing, would he be permitted to stay around long?

          I’m not impressed by this place. It’s not because of any “heat” or because “thick skin” needs to be developed to “tackle” controversial subjects. People aren’t really tackling subjects here – to me, they are cheering for things and jeering at other things.

          Just one person’s view. I’ll probably sleep on it and come back in a day or so, but I really don’t think this is a place for serious discussion, which is what I’m after. This appears to be more of a place for sniping at undesirables.

          Anyway, have a great day! I’m off to enjoy the rest of my Saturday!

          1. Because Mike from Canada just came along and made an innocent, if not totally non-controversial claim, and got viciously abused for absolutely no reason. Because there is no history at all.

            NOT.

            Try doing a little research first. Google site: skepchick.org “mike from canada” to get a small taste.

          2. It’s too bad there’s only one website on the internet and you don’t have the choice to go anywhere else, huh?

            (as a side note, any mods check saopaulobrasil’s IP as compared to mike’s?)

          3. Wow….just…..wow…

            Alright — check all the IP addresses you like. I can only assure you that I am not “MikeFromCanada.” Believe me or don’t.

            Buzz Parsec – if his posts here are polite and on point, then what justifies people haranguing him? His past behavior?

            And, there is no need or cause for you to be turning your sights on me now. I did “a little research” by clicking around the actual posts on this blog. I didn’t realize that my comment about what I saw here would provoke anger in anyone. I’m not going to, however, start googling and pouring over other websites to find some posts by some person who may or may not be “Mike From Canada” posting on another board. It’s not worth it to me.

            And, mikerattlesnake, I appreciate that there are many sites on the internet. I was directed to Skepchick by a friend, and took them up on it. I didn’t realize that I had said something wrong here to deserve your invitation that I go somewhere else, and I didn’t realize that you were a moderator whose job it was to police the blog.

            What is this? Some sort of mini-fiefdom where “certain” members appoint themselves vigilante moderators?

            Hey — I mentioned on Saturday that I would give it a few days and come back. I came back and looked at the newer articles, but now – I mean really — if Buzz Parsec, Marilov and Mikerattlesnake’s responses are representative of who this blog wants posting here, then I am certainly bowing out. I find it hard to believe my friend recommended the site.

            I don’t need to be bashed — or accused of being an alter ego of another poster.

            You can all go back to telling the undesirables to fuck off, and pretending that doing that constitutes “tackling the tough issues.”

            Good day all, and best of luck to you all.

        2. I’m sorry to say that my experience has been the opposite. It is not a great website, and the people posting here do not appear to have open minds or a willingness to “tackle” tough issues or even discuss them on a rational, skeptical level.

          As I noted below – if posting the few posts here, politely stating my initial reaction and inquiring about the exchanges with Mike From Canada, are going to provoke the ire of self-appointed vigilantes — then count me out.

          I apologize to anyone who I may have upset by my posts, and I appreciate the opportunity to view and comment on the board. Thanks again.

          1. Goodbye, I hope you find a nice safe place on the internet where attacks on a known entity (which Mike from Canada is) won’t bother you.

            I hear Reddit is nice this time of year.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close