But you are the one who is bought into conventional "wisdom" and is driven by an agenda. I'm simply presenting what the data from a wide variety of subject matter experts over several interrelated disciplines have found and the only plausible explanation of what the synthesis of that data is. When I have the opportunity to learn something new, I welcome it. You seem to have dug in your heels to resist it - mostly I think, because it's coming from me. Whatever ... like I said, join the ranks. Women never ever do that to me. Guys do it all the time. Not sure if it's because they have a subconscious visceral attachment to patriarchy or they don't like having a woman be so "uppity."
Despite all of the ways that I've demonstrated to you that patriarchy is a destructive, unequal, cutthroat system that has brought more harm than good, you're still incensed at having it disparaged, so I guess you're in that camp, although I suspect there's a bit of the second part in there as well. Again, whatever....
You still haven't refuted anything concrete that I've said (other than perhaps my off the cuff example about climate science, which is tertiary to this discussion). I was going with a "cultural myth" that everyone knows and should have bothered to look it up before putting it out there, but that doesn't impact anything else that I've said which does come from years of study of a multitude of disciplines related to this topic. But, you're going to look at what I say with a "jaundiced eye" none-the-less based on semantics around the word "aberration" which you introduced into the conversation. I didn't pick that word and would have never used it unless you had.
The point is not that we can recreate the world of 10,000 years ago. We've already agreed on that, and you trying to dredge it up again is some sort of mental gynmanstics so that you don't have to concede anything. Don't feed me this BS about how sad you are about female writers who won't engage in "discourse and learning." I'll remind you again that you were the one who presented a bunch of myths that were quite simple to dispell. Where's the learning on your part? You say I'm very possibly right, but keep resisting having to actually engage with the things that I've presented so you can pick at the way that I present myself, at the way that I engage with you, etc. In other words, your ego as a man who has been shown up by a woman. But my purpose wasn't to show you up. It was to present you with things that are based in science rather than myths. If that's more than you can handle, well, that's not really my problem.
And I can't imagine there is really anything else left for me to say here, so I'm out.
