33 lines
1.8 KiB
HTML
33 lines
1.8 KiB
HTML
<!doctype html>
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Zk | 2013-02-13-1-gender-dichotomy-is-a-fairy-tale</title>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/style.css" />
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8" />
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<main>
|
|
<header>
|
|
<h1>Zk | 2013-02-13-1-gender-dichotomy-is-a-fairy-tale</h1>
|
|
</header>
|
|
<article class="content">
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<p>type: link
|
|
link: http://www.themarysue.com/gender-dichotomy-study/
|
|
title: Gender Dichotomy is a Fairy Tale We've Been Telling Ourselves to Sleep at Night
|
|
slug: gender-dichotomy-study
|
|
date: 2013-02-13</p>
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<p>This is pretty intriguing stuff!</p>
|
|
<p>The writing style at The Marry Sue, like at Wonkette and a few other places, can occasionally get a little snarky for me (I've really been trying to be more earnest overall, and I think this and the direction in which [a][s] has headed are examples of that). Sometimes that snark works out, and sometimes it doesn't. </p>
|
|
<p>Here, I'm a little mixed, because on the one hand, it comes off as a bit strong, but on the other, it is actually pretty refreshing to see science and meta-science being done on this subject: that is, it's nice to see a study turn itself on its discipline and notice that, hey, the way we divide up our subjects, respondents, and what-have-you may not be as valid as we had thought, and where did that supposed validity come from, anyway? I suppose I'd do well to read the actual study.</p>
|
|
<p>I was pointed to this by someone on Twitter - I think @DogAsRxD? Don't remember!</p>
|
|
</article>
|
|
<footer>
|
|
<p>Page generated on 2020-04-24</p>
|
|
</footer>
|
|
</main>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|