It isn't "feminist revisionist science." It's just science. Ironically, by flatly denying science because the conclusions are inconvenient for your preconceived notions about sex and gender, you're the one being anti-science.You can save the nonsense feminist revisionist science, Gender roles evolved as they did out of necessity same with the what they chose to wear.
Same bullshit as making a movie of how black women were responsible for NASA.
I suggest you read the article I linked to, because female big game hunters occurred "out of necessity."
There is very little I'm aware of in today's gendered clothing that arose out of necessity or from biology. Dresses are, and have been, worn by men in different cultures. Gendered long/short hairstyles vary by culture and time period. Gendered pink/blue colors vary by culture and time period. Make-up usage varies by culture and time period. There is very little, if anything, about what you consider typical gender roles that isn't a societal construct that varies by culture and time period. Even if there were something that was consistent across cultures and time periods, that wouldn't be a reason why it would be at all problematic for someone to defy that gender role.
As for your quip about the movie Hidden Figures (I haven't seen it), while there are some minor historical inaccuracies, it is true that there were women of color who were critical to NASA's early success, and there are women of color who continue to be critical. I'm sorry if you're somehow threatened by or opposed to these facts.
Last edited by Lacius,
, Reason: Typo