[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.