[krastanov]

Please do not flame the discussion with strawmans. This is a very uncharitable interpretation of what OP wrote. It is not about hatred, it is about minor subconscious preferences that if they exist, the can cause noticeable effects in aggregate.

[andonisus]

What I wrote is not a strawman, it is the definition of misogyny. Perhaps you are conflating this with sexism. The article used the word misogyny, so that is what I am using.

[daveFNbuck]

The article said there was no misogyny. My comment also said that. No one is arguing that people were being driven by misogyny.

[andonisus]

The article starts by mentioning "less to do with misogyny".

My comment is about sexism, specifically misogyny (as used by the article).

You reply to my comment taking about how it can be plausible that it is misogyny.

I believe we are talking about misogyny.

[daveFNbuck]

My comment was that it's not completely absurd to rule out sexism because human biases have affected the gender composition of similar collections. That's pretty far from making a specific argument about how misogyny is involved.

[AstralStorm]

It is completely absurd as you have absolutely less than zero evidence to support it has occurred.

The main problem here is the binomial distribution, not any other kind of bias.

Fossils are rare enough that even a small change in behavior could really stack the deck.

Do you think the was perhaps a child bias in Homo fossils caused by curators? (They're overrepresented probably for obvious reasons.)

[daveFNbuck]

If there is less than zero evidence to support that something happened, isn't that an appropriate time to rule it out?

Everyone agrees that this is not due to sexism. What's the problem with saying so in an article?