[WastingMyTime89]

Come on, you know what is implied. The summary is intentionally riffing on American ideological battlegrounds.

Even I find that unpalatable because well, it doesn’t make much sense. Most of nature can’t be sexist. That’s a sociological term meaning prejudice on the basis of sex. Most species have neither society nor prejudice so the whole concept doesn’t apply. Same for gender as a social construct. What does it even mean for a wild animal to have a gender?

[DoreenMichele]

The book is about more than spider sex like the OP suggested. I haven't read the book. I pulled out a partial description to make it clearer what the book is about and someone attacked that, as if I'm trying to promote the book, not cast light on what it is about.

My question was a sincere and good faith question. Those are the other two things I considered saying.

When I joined HN, it was roughly 98 percent male. I'm a woman. For a lot of things, it seems I'm dammed if I do and damned if I don't. There is no assumption of good faith and if I address the assumption of bad faith it's just viewed as more bad behavior on my part. People don't seem to think I read about and comment on "women's issues" because such things genuinely interest me and are pertinent to my life.

I am routinely treated with suspicion, as if I'm on HN with a nefarious feminist agenda, and never mind that I've done everything in my power to make it clear I don't self identify as a feminist, I'm medically handicapped and my agenda is to distract myself from the misery of my life while feeding my mind while trapped at home and too sick to do other things.

[brokenkebaby]

Hey! The book can be better than the description you posted, but the description is what is open for everyone to see here. As for people downvoting you that wasn't me so I can't say for sure, but I'm observing your initial comment is not pale. I guess it all started with the second one because "would you be happier" sounds a bit too aggresive/personal for a thread which is not about you after all. It could look to somebody as a too pushy advertising case. Peace

[DoreenMichele]

I don't believe I said anything about downvotes and none of that answers the actual questions I asked you and you are the person who chose to describe my comment as buzzfeedy malador.

[brokenkebaby]

I (quite obviously) talked about the description you posted. Unless you are the author it's not really yours wrt its content. If by chance you are, ok, I can see the reason for emotions. But the text is still disgustingly buzzfeedy, sorry

[meristohm]

Having read the book, the description DoreenMichelle responded with seems fine to me; humans have described many animal behaviors through a sexist lens, namely downplaying the role of females in evolution (did you know that female songbirds birds don't sing? Oops, turns out that's wrong- too many scientists just hadn't bothered to push against their assumptions. Also, ducks have notably fascinating genitals, as do hyenas, and mole females have extra testosterone so they can tunnel so much and amass piles of spit-paralyzed worms as baby food) to fit Victorian-era mores (it seems Darwin left out some observations about female animals due to social pressure). I keep questioning and unlearning many things I thought I knew, and it's quite a trip.