The thought laden inside Evolutionary Psychology is one of the chief causes of inequality.

[Danzavare]

It may be because I'm sleepy, but I'm sure your argument would be more persuasive if you stuck to simpler words and shorter sentences. @.@ That being said, we read an article on Evolutionary psychology in philosophy class and judging by it (I can give the author/title at a later time if anyone can be bothered finding it online) I have to say, it sounds like crap. People who don't want to breed are inherently inferior (Because only the worthy reproduce. *Looks at various welfare families and trailer parks), more choice is inherently bad because it leads us to having standards and women desire to be dominated. (Among other silly claims) My problem with this kind of theory is that it prescribes the way people are rather than describing them. Analysis of women and men are prefaced with archetypes in mind that over simplify them. I understand there are practical benefits to assuming aspects of individuals away (Like assuming people always act Rationally in economic analysis) but when your purpose is describing the individual, it just doesn't work.

So if your point was that Evolutionary psychology is not helpful to the feminist cause, then I agree.

There's definitely terrible stereotypes and idiotic views that plague notions of what a man should be in society but, as should be obvious, women have it worse, they do. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is open-minded to the point of stupidity. It's like complaining that you broke a nail to a person that just broke their spine! Feminism works for me if we're talking about it in a genuine sense (As in equality) and it's something I really support. There are many people who don't understand the concept and are very vocal with their misunderstanding, but that doesn't take away from the fact that feminism is a good cause. The fact that the world still needs a movement called feminism is appalling, but that doesn't reflect badly on the feminist movement.

....I think I was being relevant, right, right?

 

[Danzavare]

While I don't disagree with what is being said, allow me to offer a counterexample: television advertising. The same "anti-feminist" box that says women can't be happy unless cooking, cleaning, or making themselves look more beautiful for their man, portrays men as bumbling, deliberately irresponsible, inept miscreants who essentially aren't deserving of anything they have, having obtained it by sheer coincidence. And God forbid a man should be stupid enough to father children and stick around to raise them, or even just want to play with them... the act of being a good father means "Dad" loses several dozen IQ points, becoming incapable of understanding even the simplest of tasks, and needing "Mom" (or worse, his own children) to "rescue" him and save the family from his incompetence to the point where something being incredibly simple is expressed as "even Dad can do it".

I don't know about any sort of "global agenda", but when I see crap like that I don't feel especially "privileged".

just remember...everoyne is secretly judging your toilet...

yes thats right.....everytime somones vists your house they are judging how clean your toilet is...DO YOU want to get a low toilet score???? could YOU live wiht the shame??? the humiliation?? your children being scared for life knowing that their mother FAILD in her duty to provide a clean toilet...therefore dishounouring the family for GENERATION!!! and dooming them to a life of poverty and ridicule!!!??

thats why harpic power plus removes stains without the extra bacteria of a cage...

I couldnt find a youtube...but this ad is real, and almost as rediculous as I just made out (Im hardly exagerating)

You must be some kind of evil to bring that up here. As if that ad doesn't torture me enough in youtube or TV ads. ;_;

The world would be a nicer place were it not for marketing departments.

 

[axlryder]

I appreciate many of your points, However, could you be compelled to expand on why Evolutionary Psychology is to blame for your grievances?

I wouldn't make a claim so silly as that Evolutionary Psychology is even a major cause of sexism. Sexism is much older than that. However, Evolutionary Psychology does typical support age old sexist claims.

Such as that women are sexually attracted to power. That women are sexually attracted to and prefer a man who has been with multiple women, and a man more sexually attracted to a virginal woman. That by sexually attracted to power, women with money are the problem that causes underpopulation in first world countries. Because women always want to date a man with more money than them. And so to "fix" underpopulation in a nation that doesn't have a high birth rate, women need to give up ambitions and raise children, and stop being competition in the men's workforce.

Some of the latter I have mentioned are not outright stated by Evolutionary Psychology. The "what oughts", but their claims are biased and favor an idea that hurts women. So much as saying that men are hardwired to be attracted to virginal weakness and women attracted to a man of sexual conquest and money, you are supporting inequality. You are saying that female inferiority is a biological fact. You can say "that's just about relationships" all you like. But this is a major facet of all society, that claims that women desire inferiority. The microcosm is or leads to the macrocosm. These are major economic and sexual claims about inferiority, no matter how you spin them.

I think that people should understand all they can about neurology and how the human mind works and why it likes what it likes and doesn't what it does not. Why it functions a specific way and what causes the variation. The typical implications ascertained by people who claim that mental dispositions are inherited, though, typical support notions of racism, sexism, classism, or some kind of supremacy.

by that same token, to deny that humans tend to be genetically predisposed towards a certain psychological tendencies(among other things) seems a bit bold. Humans are a sexually dymorphic species. While I'm not a psych major, I find it hard to believe that this sexual dimorphism limited specifically to a physical domain. What's more, I (along with what I'm sure are many others) don't believe a person's psychological tendencies are dominated purely by environmental factor. Now obviously the perpetuation of stereotypes for the sake of furthering age old notions is not helping anyone, but identifying trends in human behavior and interpreting those trends is not inherently biased. Of course in a species that has likely been manipulating gender roles since its inception, there's inevitably going to be some inherent bias integrated within the fact and individuals themselves, but I'm assuming psychologists have found a way to filter this out...probably.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It may be because I'm sleepy, but I'm sure your argument would be more persuasive if you stuck to simpler words and shorter sentences. @.@ That being said, we read an article on Evolutionary psychology in philosophy class and judging by it (I can give the author/title at a later time if anyone can be bothered finding it online) I have to say, it sounds like crap. People who don't want to breed are inherently inferior (Because only the worthy reproduce. *Looks at various welfare families and trailer parks), more choice is inherently bad because it leads us to having standards and women desire to be dominated. (Among other silly claims) My problem with this kind of theory is that it prescribes the way people are rather than describing them. Analysis of women and men are prefaced with archetypes in mind that over simplify them. I understand there are practical benefits to assuming aspects of individuals away (Like assuming people always act Rationally in economic analysis) but when your purpose is describing the individual, it just doesn't work.

So if your point was that Evolutionary psychology is not helpful to the feminist cause, then I agree.

There's definitely terrible stereotypes and idiotic views that plague notions of what a man should be in society but, as should be obvious, women have it worse, they do. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is open-minded to the point of stupidity. It's like complaining that you broke a nail to a person that just broke their spine! Feminism works for me if we're talking about it in a genuine sense (As in equality) and it's something I really support. There are many people who don't understand the concept and are very vocal with their misunderstanding, but that doesn't take away from the fact that feminism is a good cause. The fact that the world still needs a movement called feminism is appalling, but that doesn't reflect badly on the feminist movement.

More or less, yeah.

People have come with with pseudo-science to justify their prejudices for as long as science has existed. You'll also note how evo-psych is used to "explain" that black people are less intelligent or attractive than white people, that third world countries are like that cause they're not white enough, and so on.

A hundred years ago, phrenology was doing the same thing, just with calipers. Everyone "knew" that the white male was superior to black people and/or women, so they developed a field of study to prove it.

Before that, childbirth involved using up a woman's energy that she'd otherwise need to think with, or it was the vapours or somesuch.

Oh, and you're last sentence there is a very good summation of the issue, I'll think I'll be misquoting that one.

 

[Lord Legion]

I appreciate many of your points, However, could you be compelled to expand on why Evolutionary Psychology is to blame for your grievances?

I wouldn't make a claim so silly as that Evolutionary Psychology is even a major cause of sexism. Sexism is much older than that. However, Evolutionary Psychology does typical support age old sexist claims.

Such as that women are sexually attracted to power. That women are sexually attracted to and prefer a man who has been with multiple women, and a man more sexually attracted to a virginal woman. That by sexually attracted to power, women with money are the problem that causes underpopulation in first world countries. Because women always want to date a man with more money than them. And so to "fix" underpopulation in a nation that doesn't have a high birth rate, women need to give up ambitions and raise children, and stop being competition in the men's workforce.

Some of the latter I have mentioned are not outright stated by Evolutionary Psychology. The "what oughts", but their claims are biased and favor an idea that hurts women. So much as saying that men are hardwired to be attracted to virginal weakness and women attracted to a man of sexual conquest and money, you are supporting inequality. You are saying that female inferiority is a biological fact. You can say "that's just about relationships" all you like. But this is a major facet of all society, that claims that women desire inferiority. The microcosm is or leads to the macrocosm. These are major economic and sexual claims about inferiority, no matter how you spin them.

I think that people should understand all they can about neurology and how the human mind works and why it likes what it likes and doesn't what it does not. Why it functions a specific way and what causes the variation. The typical implications ascertained by people who claim that mental dispositions are inherited, though, typical support notions of racism, sexism, classism, or some kind of supremacy.

You seem well educated, and I appreciate that you have encountered enough material on Evolutionary Psychology to review some conclusions that can be, simply put, unsettling. I believe, However, that you and I have entirely different view points on the purpose and utility of science.

Allow me a few assertions: Evolution concerns itself with the manners by which an organism passes its genetic information. Postulations fit within the theory of evolution, and that theory has resulted in many consistently replicable claims. Natural selection results in weak methods of genetic transition fading (due to fewer healthy offspring) or being subject to niche, while strong methods thrive (due to more numerous healthy offspring).

This, right here, is what evolutionary psychologists are concerned with in regards to psychological mechanisms. "What psychological mechanisms have been produced by the evolutionary process, that promote the creation of healthy offspring?" Scientists are not ignorant of the implications. Therein, I am unaware of any research article in the last 10-20 years that expresses commendations for, or support of, the subjugation of women.

I would reiterate my original premise. Are Evolutionary psychologists to blame, or are there groups whom have interpreted the results of the research in manners that suit their agenda? I would argue that this research could just as easily form the framework for rectifying many of the unjust practices currently in place.

EDIT:

Just to be clear,

"Evolutionary Psychology does typical support age old sexist claims."

THIS is what you are saying that concerns me.

I believe the stance held by the OP is that there must be a break away from the commonly desired mental set of a more subservient woman for a mate. Evolutionary psychology could certainly be used to highlight why inequality is so prevalent by assigning it 'ground in', biological terms.

I think it was more of an attack on the methods used to explain... and the subsequent, "ho-hum, well if it is in our genes, there's nothing we can do about it" sort of feeling derived.

I am kinda a psycho grad student myself... kinda. Mainly pursuing my interests at the moment. If I am wrong, I beg forgiveness. I think the only problem was that you felt the OP was attacking the people firstly, and not the mindset they hold.

 

[Vault101]

While I don't disagree with what is being said, allow me to offer a counterexample:

I don't know about any sort of "global agenda", but when I see crap like that I don't feel especially "privileged".

just remember...everoyne is secretly judging your toilet...

yes thats right.....everytime somones vists your house they are judging how clean your toilet is...DO YOU want to get a low toilet score???? could YOU live wiht the shame??? the humiliation?? your children being scared for life knowing that their mother FAILD in her duty to provide a clean toilet...therefore dishounouring the family for GENERATION!!! and dooming them to a life of poverty and ridicule!!!??

thats why harpic power plus removes stains without the extra bacteria of a cage...

I couldnt find a youtube...but this ad is real, and almost as rediculous as I just made out (Im hardly exagerating)

You must be some kind of evil to bring that up here. As if that ad doesn't torture me enough in youtube or TV ads. ;_;

The world would be a nicer place were it not for marketing departments.

the worst part is...its one thing to seek out and laugh at really old adds...because your just like "well, things were different back then"

but that fact that this as is relitivly recent..and probably MORE rediculous than anythign they thourght up back then..kind of makes your brain hurt

 

[Hagi]

Feminism isn't about hating men. It's about hating this stupid crap. This stupid crap that says that women earn less, not because of society, but because they have a biological hardwiring towards it and depending upon a man. A biological hardwiring, to physical, economic, emotional, and every kind of possible inferiority in comparison to men. A male privilege that is every so conveniently ignored.

Wholeheartedly agree. Lovely post OP. Bashing on two of the things that are easily in my top 10 of things I hate: Evolutionary Psychology and anti-Feminism.

There's two ways to get equality. We can all try our hardest to make sure everyone is just as miserable as we are ourselves, bashing Feminists who are trying to improve their lot at every turn if they don't also improve our own lot by just as much.
Or we could try to give everyone the rights and opportunities they deserve, even if we don't get those rights and opportunities ourselves at that point in time. Supporting Feminists and knowing that for every Feminist issue we resolve there'll be more time and room for Masculinist/Gay/Whatever issues in the future.

 

[TheReactorSings]

LilithSlave, have you read Cordelia Fine's book Delusions if Gender? It's an attempt to debunk some of the errant science surrounding sex-differences. I've only skimmed it myself, but there seems to be a lot of good material, most of it pertaining to what she calls 'gender priming' in psychological experiments.

 

[Hagi]

The anti-racism movement isn't called "blackism" the anti-ageism movement isn't called "oldism" and there's no reason for the anti-sexism movement to be called "feminism".

The African-American Civil Rights Movement (you know that one with Martin Luther King jr., Malcolm X and Rosa Parks) says hi.

Sure, they weren't called precisely "Blackism", but it's about as close as you can possibly get without sounding silly.

 

[Zerazar]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about anti-feminist males. I'm all for equality, and I don't think biology is an excuse to be "less equal". There are many ways were males are the ones getting screwed over both by law and culture and I have yet to speak with a feminist who acknowledged that in any way.

Was about to post a longer rant, but this guy's comment is pretty much my TL;DR anyway

My experience of feminism is this:
Feminist: "I WANT AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE CAKE"
Society: "Ok, here's your cake, now here's your half of the washing up"
Feminist: "I'M NOT DOING THE WASHING UP, LA LA LA EMPOWERED WYMEN!"

True story.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about anti-feminist males. I'm all for equality, and I don't think biology is an excuse to be "less equal". There are many ways were males are the ones getting screwed over both by law and culture and I have yet to speak with a feminist who acknowledged that in any way.

If you support equality between the sexes, than you yourself are a feminist.

If you talk to yourself, than you are speaking to a feminist that agrees with you

 

[Hagi]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about anti-feminist males. I'm all for equality, and I don't think biology is an excuse to be "less equal". There are many ways were males are the ones getting screwed over both by law and culture and I have yet to speak with a feminist who acknowledged that in any way.

Was about to post a longer rant, but this guy's comment is pretty much my TL;DR anyway

My experience of feminism is this:
Feminist: "I WANT AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE CAKE"
Society: "Ok, here's your cake, now here's your half of the washing up"
Feminist: "I'M NOT DOING THE WASHING UP, LA LA LA EMPOWERED WYMEN!"

True story.

They don't acknowledge my issues so I'm not going to acknowledge their issues? Very mature...

 

[Zerazar]

They don't acknowledge my issues so I'm not going to acknowledge their issues? Very mature...

Again with all those assumptions. Very nice of you to imply my lack of maturity. Also, I like how you're using the 2 wrongs makes 1 right. If that was a proper argument in this debate, then "I don't get laid enough so I'm not going to pay women properly" is exactly as valid and applicable.
I very much do acknowledge issues related to inequality, at least the ones I'm aware of.

If you support equality between the sexes, than you yourself are a feminist.

If you talk to yourself, than you are speaking to a feminist that agrees with you

Nice to see a friendly reply^^.

edit: Formatting messed up

 

[Hagi]

They don't acknowledge my issues so I'm not going to acknowledge their issues? Very mature...

Again with all those assumptions. Very nice of you to imply my lack of maturity. Also, I like how you're using the 2 wrongs makes 1 right. If that was a proper argument in this debate, then "I don't get laid enough so I'm not going to pay women properly" is exactly as valid and applicable.
I very much do acknowledge issues related to inequality, at least the ones I'm aware of.

Thus explaining you quoting a post as a TLR branding the whole of feminism as wanting all the rights without any of the responsibilities.

 

[Zerazar]

Thus explaining you quoting a post as a TLR branding the whole of feminism as wanting all the rights without any of the responsibilities.[/quote]

Yes. Because that is my experience with them too, thus my anti-feminist stand point. Because that is all you hear. The militant feminists are the only ones I run into. I already stated very early that my view on the actual issue of equality is not sexist.
You're really just further asserting my view :/.

 

[Hagi]

Yes. Because that is my experience with them too, thus my anti-feminist stand point. Because that is all you hear. The militant feminists are the only ones I run into. I already stated very early that my view on the actual issue of equality is not sexist.
You're really just further asserting my view :/.

Right and this disproves me saying you don't take feminist issues seriously how?

If you took them seriously you'd actually make the effort to find out what the issues are and you'd discover that the vast majority of Feminists aren't at all like those militant ones you run into.

 

[Sandernista]

Thanks OP.

I'm never as eloquent as I'd like to be, that's why I have people like you to do it for me.

 

[LetalisK]

Am I the only one that found it humorous that the original post against female subservience was put up by someone named LilithSlave? >.>

Tangent, I know.