I loving love science turned SJW

[SeventhSandwich]

So why are we not asking why humans exist?

But people do ask that, which is why anthropology is a thing...

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

I don't read propaganda.

Then you will never get your answer

[King Tøny]

But people do ask that, which is why anthropology is a thing...

So then if athropology explains why humans are here.

Then we don't need to explain why human males exist.

[SeventhSandwich]

So then if athropology explains why humans are here.

Then we don't need to explain why human males exist.

The article doesn't specifically deal with human males, it deals with males in general. Why do so many species on Earth have separate lovees, rather than just being hermaphroditic and fertilizing themselves (like plants do)?

It explains that having different lovees allows for loveual selection, which makes it possible for the population to avoid harmful genetic mutations that aren't selected out by the environment. This isn't strictly a 'human' thing, it's true for male beetles, grasshoppers, etc.

[King Tøny]

Yet it doesn't explain male seahorses.

So you can't sit here and claim it is talking about every type of male in existence.

[SeventhSandwich]

Yet it doesn't explain male seahorses.

I mean, you could email them and ask them to explain interesting exceptions to the rule, but I don't think that's what your gripe with the article is. You interpreted "why do males exist?" as some kind of radfem op-ed about why men shouldn't exist, but in reality it's an article about biology and loveual selection.

On a related note: male seahorses aren't even really an exception to the rule. They don't get 'pregnant' like we're taught in grade school - what they actually do is carry the fertilized eggs from the female in a pouch. It's essentially equivalent to a chicken that has the rooster lay on the egg after laying it. The male seahorse still produces sperm that fertilize female eggs.

[King Tøny]

This article was clearly in favor of the ever growing feminist "muh inequality" myths.

It's propaganda.

[IkeTheGeneric]

This article was clearly in favor of the ever growing feminist "muh inequality" myths.

How do you know this? You said you didn't read it.

[SeventhSandwich]

This article was clearly in favor of the ever growing feminist "muh inequality" myths.

cite exactly one quote which suggests that lol

[King Tøny]

How do you know this? You said you didn't read it.

IFL science has been writing too many female articles.

[King Tøny]

cite exactly one quote which suggests that lol

"Why do males exist"

[SeventhSandwich]

"Why do males exist"

again you're reading too much into the article title.

read the actual article - it literally has nothing to do with SJW-stuff or gender politics or feminism or whatever you're reading into it

[IkeTheGeneric]

IFL science has been writing too many female articles.

Sorry, not good enough for me.

[King Tøny]

again you're reading too much into the article title.

read the actual article - it literally has nothing to do with SJW-stuff or gender politics or feminism or whatever you're reading into it

I don't read propaganda.

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't read propaganda.

let me put it this way: if someone wrote an article about the biological origins of females, talking about loveual selection and the evolutionary biology of eggs, titled "Why do females exist?" and some feminist decided to decry the article as loveist trash without even reading the article text, I would rightfully call that SJW.