https://t.co/z5qQ07vMG5
The whole idea of Alphas, Betas etc is stupid. It doesn't exist. It doesn't even exist for wolves! It's just nonsense.
I can't believe straight cis men are so brainwashed by patriarchy that they voluntary believe in false hierarchies.
The Sigma Male idea is stupid, pseudoscientific and reveals the flexibility of the pick-up artist grift, telling clients that they're basically John Wick because they have commitment issues, but can also explain away their own failings to meet 'alpha' standards.1/? pic.twitter.com/j4cZKGTvK9
— Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan (@SVR13) January 26, 2021
https://t.co/z5qQ07vMG5
https://t.co/z5qQ07vMG5
We have the power to reason, the ability to behave morally, opposable thumbs, and advanced civilizations. You don't need animal examples for your behavior. You can just...be human.
https://t.co/Dl14RVqLtQ
When wolves choose a mate and breed, they become an alpha couple (alpha male and alpha female) and the subordinates are their *children*, not other adult wolves.
https://t.co/L6Y9JUmkMK
More from Society
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?