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

[zehydra]

If feminists -- whether the sensible ones who want true equality (whatever that means), or the foaming-at-the-mouth, down-with-dicks types -- woke up tomorrow to discover that every grievance on their list had been instantly "corrected" by a genie, they'd find something else to be loudly unhappy about by next Thursday lunch.

That's not a criticism of feminists. All humans display this behavior to one degree or another.

Everyone is unhappy. Way too many of us think we are entitled to more, that our unhappiness can be fixed by things outside ourselves, that we would be happy if only ______ were equal or (be honest) tilted our way just a bit. We all want more. We all complain about it to anyone who will listen. The truth is, if we're unhappy now, we probably wouldn't be happy if we got the things we think we want.

I've been studying Feminism for a bit now and I feel that this is all too true. If you look at women's issues in say, Afghanistan or certain places in Africa, a lot of Feminist problems over here in the US feel very unimportant in comparison. I'll grant that equal pay for equal work is an important principle, but at least women aren't systematically being violated, oppressed and diminished here in the United States.

 

[Johnny Impact]

If feminists -- whether the sensible ones who want true equality (whatever that means), or the foaming-at-the-mouth, down-with-dicks types -- woke up tomorrow to discover that every grievance on their list had been instantly "corrected" by a genie, they'd find something else to be loudly unhappy about by next Thursday lunch.

That's not a criticism of feminists. All humans display this behavior to one degree or another.

Everyone is unhappy. Way too many of us think we are entitled to more, that our unhappiness can be fixed by things outside ourselves, that we would be happy if only ______ were equal or (be honest) tilted our way just a bit. We all want more. We all complain about it to anyone who will listen. The truth is, if we're unhappy now, we probably wouldn't be happy if we got the things we think we want.

I've been studying Feminism for a bit now and I feel that this is all too true. If you look at women's issues in say, Afghanistan or certain places in Africa, a lot of Feminist problems over here in the US feel very unimportant in comparison. I'll grant that equal pay for equal work is an important principle, but at least women aren't systematically being violated, oppressed and diminished here in the United States.

This is why I like the Escapist forum.

I don't mean because you agreed with me. I mean anywhere else, the typical response to my remark would have been along the lines of, "youre a man aren't you, i can tell, u suport the patriachy with you insensitive lies, women are opressed its a fact how bout a lil respect ok". In other words, completely missing my point.

I'm continually pleased with the quality of the debate here. The original poster had a specific argument which was stated with 90% clarity, and even the people who disagreed completely with everything she said did so in a mostly reasonable manner. It's almost as if we're respectful adults. Given that this is happening on the Internet, it's practically the fourth sign of the Apocalypse.

Sort of makes me wish I had more of an opinion to offer on the subject.

OT: I'm an egalitarian guy. You women want the same pay for the same job, and the same opportunity to get that job, that's great, you deserve it, I agree 100%. You want the same pay for the same job AND for the man to pay for the date and buy you flowers after, uh-uh, screw you. Ladies, you wanna get on the board of directors and break up the old boys' club, a few of you are gonna have to crawl around in ditches and install sewer pipes with the roughnecks. As far as I'm concerned, equality is yours, you don't even have to ask. Just remember, coins have two sides.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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.

Awesome topic and thanks for posting.

I'm no woman but my understanding is that women are generally attracted to men of a high social status or have power and wealth. As a man, yes virgin women are strangely more attractive in a primal way. Evolutionary psychology has good job of identifying these trends within our human species and has given us an explanation, evolution. Evolutionary psychology is a science, not a philosophy. Evolutionary psychology does not speak of how we ought to behave, but why we behave the way we do a species of social animals. Evolutionary psychology cannot be sexist, raciest or anything else.

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.

Ever read the Bell Curve? The Bell Curve is a raciest piece of work hiding behind statistics. Does that mean statistics are raciest? Evolutionary psychology does not sate that women are inferior. Men are different than women and these differences do not make for inferiority or superiority between the sexes. No work of Evolutionary psychology I have ever come across has made such statements.

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.

I think Evolutionary psychology has done a world of good in providing insight into why we, as a species, think and behave the way we do. I believe Evolutionary psychology has provided us with a window into which we can see why racial discrimination and sexism exist. As with any theory there will be people who wish to use it to support malicious claims. I take it you ran across some sexists and they have used Evolutionary psychology to justify their sexist claims?

The hard wiring of our brains in Evolutionary psychology took place in our evolutionary environment. We no longer live in our evolutionary environment yet we still have the minds of early human hunters and gathers. This situation we find ourselves in is problematic and is why I support affirmative action. There are small degrees of discrimination and sexism present in every man and woman. It's natural and is how that primitive part of our minds work. In modern western society women are encouraged to take a role beyond homemaker but that does not make the traditional role of homemaker inferior. Women have always been equal. I find the notion that women should occupy the same types of jobs as men to be considered equal as sexist.

I don't see how evolutionary psychology supports sexism. If anything it points out problems like sexism and racial based discrimination inherent in our species.

 

[LilithSlave]

I'm no woman but my understanding is that women are generally attracted to men of a high social status or have power and wealth.

If so, that is a social problem. One that is hurt by the fact that many people claim this is biological in the name of "science".

As a man, yes virgin women are strangely more attractive in a primal way.

That's disgusting. And don't blame your virginity fetishism on being a man.

Evolutionary psychology is a science, not a philosophy.

It's about as much of a "science" as creation science. They typically don't make falsifiable claims. Instead, they look at trends and just say it's evolution. That's not science. Look at the scientific method, you will see little of that in "evolutionary psychology".

Evolutionary psychology does not speak of how we ought to behave

Neither does Craniometry or Phrenology. The typical deductions, however, from saying that "women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner" are obvious. They don't outright say how things should be, but they do, on the other hand, send a very troubling message. One that generally supports classism, sexism, racism, and other social problems.

And forms as a common rebuttal against anti-racist, anti-sexism, and anti-classist activism as "pointless" because "inequality is biologically based". And in this case, that male supremacy is biologically based. What a lot of "evolutionary psychologists" say about women, isn't much better than one similar biologically determinist or biologically leaning claims often used to say(and sometimes still do say) about black intellect.

Evolutionary psychology cannot be sexist, raciest or anything else.

Oh yes it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Social problems have always been able to try to infiltrated the areas of study that should be unbiased.

A lot of supposed "scientific" research today, isn't scientific at all. And instead attempts to support religious, racist, sexist, classist, and other psuedoscientific ideologies.

Ever read the Bell Curve? The Bell Curve is a raciest piece of work hiding behind statistics. Does that mean statistics are raciest?

Evolutionary Psychology isn't statistics. Most materials within the field of Evolutionary Psychology strongly resemble the Bell Curve and other racist works.

Well female privilege still exists

On the tiniest, microcosm of a scale, in certain walks of life that don't amount of power and any real privilege? Yeah, I suppose by that logic some minor degree of "black privilege" or "Asian privilege" exists in the West.

But when we use "privilege" like this, we're talking generally, about a macrocosm of a societal force. And in the Western world, there is only one real true privilege, one dominant group. Heterosexual white males with money.

I apologize for not responding to many posters. But that would accumulate far too much text for one post, at the very least.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

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.

Scientific organizations, the APA included, are held to an ethical code that make any such impression inaccurate, in my opinion. You can check it out here ([link]http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx[/link]). There is, in fact, a facet taught in many methodology classes called "social validity," that I find particularly pertinent. If the means or objective of research would contradict the health and well-being of society, or subsets of society (individuals included) then the research should be questioned with great scrutiny. For example, trying to use scientific methods to 'cure' homosexuality, is deemed unethical because it does not achieve social validity. Therein, any research used to subjugate women or drawing conclusions to the effect that women 'should' be subjugated, is blatantly invalid.

My concern in reading this thread is sired from suggestions that an entire FIELD of science would forgo ethics.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I'm no woman but my understanding is that women are generally attracted to men of a high social status or have power and wealth.

If so, that is a social problem. One that is hurt by the fact that many people claim this is biological in the name of "science".

As a man, yes virgin women are strangely more attractive in a primal way.

That's disgusting. And don't blame your virginity fetishism on being a man.

Evolutionary psychology is a science, not a philosophy.

It's about as much of a "science" as creation science. They typically don't make falsifiable claims. Instead, they look at trends and just say it's evolution. That's not science. Look at the scientific method, you will see little of that in "evolutionary psychology".

Evolutionary psychology does not speak of how we ought to behave

Neither does Craniometry or Phrenology. The typical deductions, however, from saying that "women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner" are obvious. They don't outright say how things should be, but they do, on the other hand, send a very troubling message. One that generally supports classism, sexism, racism, and other social problems.

And forms as a common rebuttal against anti-racist, anti-sexism, and anti-classist activism as "pointless" because "inequality is biologically based". And in this case, that male supremacy is biologically based. What a lot of "evolutionary psychologists" say about women, isn't much better than one similar biologically determinist or biologically leaning claims often used to say(and sometimes still do say) about black intellect.

Evolutionary psychology cannot be sexist, raciest or anything else.

Oh yes it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Social problems have always been able to try to infiltrated the areas of study that should be unbiased.

A lot of supposed "scientific" research today, isn't scientific at all. And instead attempts to support religious, racist, sexist, classist, and other psuedoscientific ideologies.

Ever read the Bell Curve? The Bell Curve is a raciest piece of work hiding behind statistics. Does that mean statistics are raciest?

Evolutionary Psychology isn't statistics. Most materials within the field of Evolutionary Psychology strongly resemble the Bell Curve and other racist works.

Well female privilege still exists

On the tiniest, microcosm of a scale, in certain walks of life that don't amount of power and any real privilege? Yeah, I suppose by that logic some minor degree of "black privilege" or "Asian privilege" exists in the West.

But when we use "privilege" like this, we're talking generally, about a macrocosm of a societal force. And in the Western world, there is only one real true privilege, one dominant group. Heterosexual white males with money.

I apologize for not responding to many posters. But that would accumulate far too much text for one post, at the very least.

You have made a great many claims in this post.

It's about as much of a "science" as creation science. They typically don't make falsifiable claims. Instead, they look at trends and just say it's evolution. That's not science. Look at the scientific method, you will see little of that in "evolutionary psychology".

A lot of supposed "scientific" research today, isn't scientific at all. And instead attempts to support religious, racist, sexist, classist, and other psuedoscientific ideologies.

You also made some inaccurate statements about the deductions that Evolutionary psychology makes.

"women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner"

I am going to need to see some citations on these before I believe that any researcher worth his salt, writing for a peer-reviewed journal, would ever propose these things.

I am holding faith that you are interested in defending your position, given that you have posted it on a public forum, with a heatedly debatable premise.

 

[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.

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.

I've read enough 'academic' journals to know that people can find 'facts' to support anything. These types of 'facts' seem especially common where there is an absence of reason.

 

[Batou667]

The "common man" doesn't care enough to go out of their way to cause offense. That's not quite the same thing. Apathy and ignorance can cause problems without malice being involved.

Sure, I agree. There are situations where just going along with the status quo can actively harm a certain demographic - historical examples include the slave trade and Nazi Germany. But we now live in a world where sexism and racism are socially unacceptable and a "level playing field" is enshrined in law, not to mention there's a fair amount of reverse-discrimination happening. So I wonder what genuine grievances feminists have left? Mostly imaginary ones, I'd venture.

Well female privilege still exists

On the tiniest, microcosm of a scale, in certain walks of life that don't amount of power and any real privilege? Yeah, I suppose by that logic some minor degree of "black privilege" or "Asian privilege" exists in the West.

But when we use "privilege" like this, we're talking generally, about a macrocosm of a societal force. And in the Western world, there is only one real true privilege, one dominant group. Heterosexual white males with money.

You've obviously never worked in the education sector, that's highly female-dominated, especially at the primary school/elementary school level. Becoming a male teacher is a real uphill struggle and a sizeable minority of female teachers display some quite undisguised animosity toward males who try to encroach on "their" profession. Female privilege certainly exists if you know where to look.

Also, LilithSlave - you mentioned a lot of grievances in your first post, but short of some kind of radical, paradigm shifting overhaul where men get mind-wiped and reprogrammed with the "correct" level of humility, impotence and all-round guilt for being born male (I'll apologise now in the hopes that you might go easy on me when the revolution comes), what do you actually propose in the way of solutions to this perceived inequality?

 

[Danzavare]

You also made some inaccurate statements about the deductions that Evolutionary psychology makes.

"women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner"

I am going to need to see some citations on these before I believe that any researcher worth his salt, writing for a peer-reviewed journal, would ever propose these things.

I am holding faith that you are interested in defending your position, given that you have posted it on a public forum, with a heatedly debatable premise.

David M. Buss, 'The Evolution of Happiness'. American Psychologist, 55 (1), (2000), pp. 15-23.

Just posting that now before I pack my textbooks away for the Summer. I know it can be a ***** to find academic articles without paying for the appropriate websites. (Or having a university that pays for you)

Edit: I haven't actually read the debate you two have been having, I just wanted to show the journal I was referring to that does in fact make sexist claims that are counter-intuitive to anyone that supports feminism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The "common man" doesn't care enough to go out of their way to cause offense. That's not quite the same thing. Apathy and ignorance can cause problems without malice being involved.

Sure, I agree. There are situations where just going along with the status quo can actively harm a certain demographic - historical examples include the slave trade and Nazi Germany. But we now live in a world where sexism and racism are socially unacceptable and a "level playing field" is enshrined in law, not to mention there's a fair amount of reverse-discrimination happening. So I wonder what genuine grievances feminists have left? Mostly imaginary ones, I'd venture.

Equality might be stressed in law, but that's not to say inequlaity is socially unacceptable. Admittedly, people aren't supposed to admit to prejudice, but that's a long way from not having it.

 

[Alexlion]

- Snip-

Right well i could break down your argument for you but if i need to point out whats wrong with "white anglo saxon culture being supressed by those dusky skinned greeks" apart from the huge historical inaccuracy that anglo saxon culture didnt arrive till the end of the roman empire and is still largely derivitive of it.

You can talk about strength all you like, but the fact is our society and laws are meant to protect the weak and the vunerable. If you live in a society based apon strength and you break your leg what happens? You mate gets taken my another male, as well as any wealth, food etc.
In other words you die, now we all accept at some point in time we are vunerable as a group we take the decision to look after people when they are in the hopes they will do the same when we become sick, and it works the only way you wouldnt like a system like this is if you currently benefit from a system that primarly benefits you. Our species evolved to be co-dependant this is one of the reasons we have survived, neanderthals were stonger and had capacity for large brains, but we survived because we lived in a socially dependant society where the strength becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Also im going to add this Darwinian survival has never been about "survival of the fitest" that term was coined by darwins cousin not the man himself and show an inherent lack of understanding of the principle of natural selection its always been about survival of the best adapted which could mean anything from longer legs to the ability to digest different kinds of food.

Also ramble on about politics all you want but its total bull, economics and technology govern the world not you deluded macho power fantasys.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

You also made some inaccurate statements about the deductions that Evolutionary psychology makes.

"women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner"

I am going to need to see some citations on these before I believe that any researcher worth his salt, writing for a peer-reviewed journal, would ever propose these things.

I am holding faith that you are interested in defending your position, given that you have posted it on a public forum, with a heatedly debatable premise.

David M. Buss, 'The Evolution of Happiness'. American Psychologist, 55 (1), (2000), pp. 15-23.

Just posting that now before I pack my textbooks away for the Summer. I know it can be a ***** to find academic articles without paying for the appropriate websites. (Or having a university that pays for you)

Edit: I haven't actually read the debate you two have been having, I just wanted to show the journal I was referring to that does in fact make sexist claims that are counter-intuitive to anyone that supports feminism.

I am not seeing what you are seeing then. Could you provide an example from the article? I have read most the way through it and am only seeing well cited examples, and sex differentials that make balanced cases for the behaviors of men and women.

An example: After explaining how males are statistically more likely to attribute attraction to friendly gestures such, as smiles, they wrote that, "Education about the fact that men's and women's minds house somewhat different psychological mechanisms, and that the differences can be deactivated under certain conditions, may help to reduce the frequency of strategic interference."

Scandalous.

 

[Danzavare]

You also made some inaccurate statements about the deductions that Evolutionary psychology makes.

"women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner"

I am going to need to see some citations on these before I believe that any researcher worth his salt, writing for a peer-reviewed journal, would ever propose these things.

I am holding faith that you are interested in defending your position, given that you have posted it on a public forum, with a heatedly debatable premise.

David M. Buss, 'The Evolution of Happiness'. American Psychologist, 55 (1), (2000), pp. 15-23.

Just posting that now before I pack my textbooks away for the Summer. I know it can be a ***** to find academic articles without paying for the appropriate websites. (Or having a university that pays for you)

Edit: I haven't actually read the debate you two have been having, I just wanted to show the journal I was referring to that does in fact make sexist claims that are counter-intuitive to anyone that supports feminism.

I am not seeing what you are seeing then. Could you provide an example from the article? I have read most the way through it and am only seeing well cited examples, and sex differentials that make balanced cases for the behaviors of men and women.

An example: After explaining how males are statistically more likely to attribute attraction to friendly gestures such, as smiles, they wrote that, "Education about the fact that men's and women's minds house somewhat different psychological mechanisms, and that the differences can be deactivated under certain conditions, may help to reduce the frequency of strategic interference."

Scandalous.

You have a strange notion of 'balanced'. Surely as a university student you've been asked to question the validity of statistics or why certain citations are used over others especially in typifying vast amounts of people. (Keeping in mind the number of citations don't enhance the validity of the argument, you have to examine the claims it the article makes)

Example 1: Women love their partner less after being exposed to dominant high-status men, especially in comparison to women exposed to less dominant men.
Example 2: Women are more offended by emotional rather than physical infidelity.

You don't see how these claims could possibly portray women as being predisposed to a subservient role or tending toward the overly emotional?
(Don't get me wrong, I think this article has many other problems that affect men as well.)

 

[YawningAngel]

That's right. I'm sure that drives a stake of irritation into many who hear it. That's right, the mentality, not Evolutionary Psychology itself, but the aspects of society it is brethren with, the assuming a hypothesis to be true with no attempt to disprove it, and instead only feeding it, is a brand comparable to psuedoscience which supports the very social pillars of male privilege. Society creates male privilege, not biological "differences", and shifting the blame supports it's existence.

And unsurprisingly, there are many bedfellows who seem to be willingly ignorant of male privilege. It's not surprising that many people who claim to be anti-feminist, but anti-sexist, think that only equality in law matters, and is somehow the proper fix to everything and everything else is biological in terms of inequality and shouldn't be messed with. A lot of them say "it's women who are privileged today! There's loads of reverse sexism! Look at the preference for giving children to women!". Ignoring the fact that pushing women into child rearing roles and stereotypes that created this so called "female privilege" is what pushes women away from any real power. You can say mothers are respected all you want. It's corporate CEOs that have real power. And they say, "because (I) am against inequality, I'm a masculist instead!". And many seem actually reasonable. And then you have the types, who instead of saying "gender roles are bad for men, too", you get the types who fall back on male privilege and while decrying all the "oh so horrible" discrimination men face that those "evil feminists/women" are insensitive to, fall back on male supremacist notions, that the areas that men have it better, fall to biological differences in humans that those evil feminists don't understand simple logic about. Notions that say women are attracted to money, should depend on a man, and that women being as wealthy or wealthier than men of their own work and accord, hurts reproductive and romantic health and should be eliminated.

I will tell you what. I am a feminist. And you know why? Because there's no better ideology that makes more sense for gender equality that exists. I'll worry about how "sexist" the label "feminism" sounds, when male privilege doesn't exist. You fight for civil rights for equality, which means the minority, to be equal. Just like you call economic movements in class-centric terms. Are proletarian movements classist and evil and reverse discriminator because they don't include the bourgeois in their talk? No, because fighting for economic equality means fighting for the proletariat. And in the same way feminism still exists and makes sense as a term because male privilege still exists. And I also have found almost no anti-feminist who is not hypocritical on some level. Who claims to be against sexism, claims that feminism is sexist, but refuses to see the bigger picture and the blatant evidence of male privilege. And turns around and claims that inequality between the sexes is biological. Almost without fail I hear the same biological determinist, pro-male, inequality believing things from anti-feminists. Not to mention laden with incorrect ignorance about most feminists, feminist materials and norms, but of women themselves. It is getting ridiculous and it is not making me sympathetic toward the masculist and "anti-feminist" crowd. Especially the "anti-feminist" crowd.

Equality before the law is not enough for blacks. And it is not enough for women. And the differences and inequalities are not biological. And thinking like that is a waste of time unless you are in a field to fix it if you believe that is a cause. When you tell people who want to fight sexism in our social structures and thought, that it's pointless, because it's biological. You are standing right in the way of equality based upon a sexist hypothesis you can't prove.

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.

I hope someone here remotely agrees with me. I'm not an angry women. I don't hate men. I hate that people support these kinds of notions and ignore the bigger, "patriarchal" picture.

You realise that you have at no point actually made a coherent argument? I'm not asking for a tl;dr so much as a cogent explanation of your point.

 

[Loonyyy]

If you think you can accomplish something outside of equality outside of the law: Good Luck.
The only way to accomplish that is to force your views on others. That would be wrong. Period. Black people still have to put up with racists and intolerants, immigrants still have to put up with the same, Islamic people still have to put up with racial profiling and I still have to pay taxes, while churches do not.

Equality before the law is the ONLY type of equality that can, or should, be enforced. DEAL WITH IT. As long as everyone has the same rights, and the same responsibilities, and no-one is unfairly discriminated against for their differences, then there is NO way to improve the situation further.

It sucks that women are paid less than men (Which I think is your point, I think that was the general idea hidden in that rant). It's certainly not fair.

But how do you enforce fair payment for roles without uniform pay above minumum wage? What's to stop you from paying a woman less and just saying that her performance doesn't justify an increase?

I wish we lived in a perfect world, where women could have that same equality. And they should ask for it. But there is no way to get it, bar unionisation and asking for it. Time will be what really fixes the issue. Eventually, the concept of women as equals will become more accepted, as the conservative holdouts die off, just as the same happened with racism (You fail to realise that even once segregation was ended, blacks were still treated unfairly, and people still have the power to mistreat others). The anti-feminist arguments are all invalid, yes, we get this. Women aren't biologically inferior blah blah blah. It's the 21st century. Most of us do realise this. It's not iconoclastic to mention this, it's common sense. I'm all for equality, all around. But equality will comes with a recognition and acceptance of our differences, rather than simply ignoring them. Women are different to men. Men are different to women. That's not necessarily a problem, unless you're intolerant.

And for all you say about gender equality being only a one way issue, think back to what you said about masculism and the like: There are certainly issues that men face, particularly in the case of sex crimes, which are hardly fair. Dismissing those arguments out of hand doesn't make you very sympathetic to anyone.

TLDR: Sure, women are paid less than men etc. Deal with it. There is no way to get what you want, except for asking for it from those you want it from. Strike. Perform mass resignations. WHATEVER. It's an issue for you to deal with. Since you already said you don't want outsiders in your group, with your little burgoiuse analogy, then it's up to you.

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

So obviously wrong, I don't even think I need to rebutt it, but I will. There's a tendencey for courts to give custody to women as a part of the mothering stereotype. The stereotype is feminist issue, but the effect is a gender equality issue outside of feminism: Masculinism. Similarly, courts are very inclined to convict men of sexual misconduct, even in cases where the prosecution is not solid. That's not ok. Sure, it's not necessarily the same scale a problem, but it's an issue to do with gender equality which is not feminism. You're Wrong.

I'll worry about how "sexist" the label "feminism" sounds, when male privilege doesn't exist.

And with that, you're being sexist too.
Are most anti-feminists hypocritical? Yes. But so are most feminists too.

Yes, most men don't realise how bad things are for women. But, and here's the kicker, most women don't realise how bad it is for men.
That's just human, almost no-one can accurately judge someone else's point of view, nor do most even try, because they think they can accurately judge it.

And, rants like this, supporting inherently sexist terms like "feminism" do nothing to help the situation.

The feminist movement is the very embodiment of this issue, as, no matter how much good it achieved, it was founded by upper-middle class white women who cared about no-one but themselves. It's the ultimate example of two wrongs making a right. One sexist view attacking another.

Sure, not all feminists were like that, some made extreme sacrifices for the sake of equality, but they were the minority, not the majority.

I am not anti-feminist, as most feminists are just good people with a narrow point of view. In other words, most feminists are human.
But I am very against the term feminism, as it is archaic, coined by sexists and inherently sexist in it's derivation.

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".

Legendary. Although the last sentence could be disputed (And has been), it's a brilliant sentiment: Gender equality is gender equality, and feminism is about rights for women. End of it. I personally like equality, and equal rights. By calling themselves feminists, they seperate themselves from others who support equal rights, by making themselves far less approachable to men.

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.

Evolutionary psychology is NOT necessarily pseudoscience, and is NOT necessarily intolerance. Understanding how Natural selection works is important. For example, if I was born with a significantly greater intelligence, but a large growth distorting my cranium, then I should, being a better fit to the environment, be an evolutionary improvement right? Wrong: I'm no longer attractive, and hence, LESS likely to reproduce. Of course, this is a general process, and that trailer park example exists, but that can be attributed to a destruction of the fitness portion of Natural Selection: Where before, fitting your environment better was an advantage, now, if you don't fit in, if you aren't suited to it, you can still survive and pass on your genes. Natural Selection applies to a much reduced extent to modern humans thanks to community living, social services, and medicine. If some conclusions are used to support racist agendas, and discriminatory bile, that's fine. It doesn't make the facts themselves evil. That's a Logical Fallacy: Argument from Final Consequences. It does not matter how information is used, and the way that information is used does not necessarily reflect on the information itself. That's pretty obvious. Of course unscientific notions are also used to promote such ideas. But do you know who it is who refutes those ideas? It certainly isn't the feminists. It's Science to the rescue! Science shows that women's brains aren't significantly smaller than mens, science shows that women are perfectly suited to most male dominated roles, and so on. Dismissing what you don't like or necessarily understand does not make it wrong: Proving it wrong makes it wrong.

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.

Well, if the science says women are attracted to power, in general, and that men are attracted to weakness, then that's that. It's not supporting inequality. Suppressing the science to support an ideological agenda is a sure road to failure. Just because you don't like a fact, or a theory, doesn't make it less valid. Only an idiot would assume that women being attracted to power makes them inherently inferior, and only an idiot would assume that such knowledge was discriminatory. Men also like women with smooth bodies, narrow waists, and often, larger breasts. That's not discrimination. That's how we are. Women like men with lean muscles, six packs. Do I cry discrimination when women don't like my pasty chubby frame? No. I get over it. The fact is, people are attracted to different things, and Natural Selection is a sexual process, not exclusively a fitness selective one (Fitness being best fit to environment), and understanding this is important, more important than your agenda. If women are attracted to power, so what? Why should this matter, to anyone? This doesn't say anything about women's rights. It just says that next time I'm looking for a date, I need to look more like a Boss. Sure, this reinforces a negative stereotype. But the next add on television I see of Twilight with an indian looking guy with no shirt, I'm not going to get mad about stereotypes. I'm going to accept that there are some things you're just going to have to deal with.

/rant over. That makes me feel so warm inside. TLDR: Evo-Psych is not pseudoscience, The use of information does not affect the morality of the motive of information, Feminism is a discriminatory movement by its very name and nature, and Equal rights are deserved by everyone.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

You also made some inaccurate statements about the deductions that Evolutionary psychology makes.

"women generally aren't good at or as interested in science because of biological reasons" or "black people have lower IQs generally because of biology and lack of northern mutation" or "women are attracted to a powerful alpha male archetype who has money, political or social power, and has slept with many women" and "women are not as attracted to a man that is less wealthy than them and are not interested in power very much themselves, only a powerful partner"

I am going to need to see some citations on these before I believe that any researcher worth his salt, writing for a peer-reviewed journal, would ever propose these things.

I am holding faith that you are interested in defending your position, given that you have posted it on a public forum, with a heatedly debatable premise.

David M. Buss, 'The Evolution of Happiness'. American Psychologist, 55 (1), (2000), pp. 15-23.

Just posting that now before I pack my textbooks away for the Summer. I know it can be a ***** to find academic articles without paying for the appropriate websites. (Or having a university that pays for you)

Edit: I haven't actually read the debate you two have been having, I just wanted to show the journal I was referring to that does in fact make sexist claims that are counter-intuitive to anyone that supports feminism.

I am not seeing what you are seeing then. Could you provide an example from the article? I have read most the way through it and am only seeing well cited examples, and sex differentials that make balanced cases for the behaviors of men and women.

An example: After explaining how males are statistically more likely to attribute attraction to friendly gestures such, as smiles, they wrote that, "Education about the fact that men's and women's minds house somewhat different psychological mechanisms, and that the differences can be deactivated under certain conditions, may help to reduce the frequency of strategic interference."

Scandalous.

You have a strange notion of 'balanced'. Surely as a university student you've been asked to question the validity of statistics or why certain citations are used over others especially in typifying vast amounts of people. (Keeping in mind the number of citations don't enhance the validity of the argument, you have to examine the claims it the article makes)

Example 1: Women love their partner less after being exposed to dominant high-status men, especially in comparison to women exposed to less dominant men.
Example 2: Women are more offended by emotional rather than physical infidelity.

You don't see how these claims could possibly portray women as being predisposed to a subservient role or tending toward the overly emotional?
(Don't get me wrong, I think this article has many other problems that affect men as well.)

This is getting a little out of hand for a conversation I am unsure will end with mutually satisfied parties.

You have a strange notion of 'balanced'.

From my perspective, you have a strange notion of 'unbalanced.' We both have room to find a common ground in the matter. I am willing to find that place with you.

Surely as a university student you've been asked to question the validity of statistics or why certain citations are used over others especially in typifying vast amounts of people.

Surely, I have. In fact, my undergraduate degree is a Bachelors of Science in Sociology, wherein I went to great lengths familiarizing myself with the common practices involved with surveying large populations. I assume you have as well, to one extent or another. Have you, then, already analyzed the methodology of each article cited? (If I seem a little harsh, your wording felt as though it were meant to insult my intelligence and dedication to my studies.)

You have to examine the claims it the article makes.

I have. So far as I can see, none have strayed from claims that can be justified statistically. The previous sentence is actually of paramount importance to my feelings in the matter. If, to the contrary, you feel that the reporting of statistical findings was improper, I would welcome your interpretation.

***

Looked up your examples:

1.

Women exposed to multiple images of dominant, high-status men showed a similar decrement in commitment to and love of their regular partner, compared with women exposed repeatedly to less dominant men. These sex-linked contrast effects were precisely predicted by Kenrick's evolutionary psychological framework. (page 16)

The subject article:

198 female and 165 male heterosexual undergraduates rated their current relationships after being exposed to opposite-sex targets varying in both dominance and physical attractiveness....females' evaluations of their relationships were unaffected by exposure to physically attractive males but were lower after exposure to targets high in dominance. Data support predictions derived from an evolutionary model and suggest that such models can be used to generate testable hypotheses about ongoing social cognition. (abstract)

Research on social cognition. Understanding how people think in groups. This is about understanding our world and how we interact with one another. There is nothing here about using the information to subjugate women or raise men in status. This is, in short, taking the average reactions to variable stimuli, and differentiating by sex. Common practice in every field of Social Science.

2.

Much empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that sexual jealousy is an evolved psychological mechanism designed to combat the adaptive problem of threat to valued long-term mateships (Daly et al., 1982; Symons, 1979). Jealousy, according to this hypothesis, functions to alert a person to a mate's possible or actual infidelity and motivates action designed to prevent infidelity or deal with defection. Its design features include sex-linked activators, with men becoming more jealous in response to the threat of sexual infidelity and women becoming more jealous in response to emotional infidelity?hypotheses supported by psychological, physiological, and cross-cultural data (Buss et al., 1999; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996; Daly et al., 1982; Geary, Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993).

Why did this show up in the article? To provide an example for the evolutionary utility of stress. Science studies issues society deems worthy of investigation. Infidelity exists, and we want to know more about contributing factors. Of interest to Evolutionary Psychologists, because supporting a child you believe to be your own, but is the sire of another male or female (in cases of birds sneaking their eggs into neighboring nests) is not a 'fit' behavior. Again, none of this appears to be a matter of female subjugation. Nor does it portray women as "overly emotional." It does, however, make the assertion that women experience variable styles of infidelity differently than men.

 

[LilithSlave]

And now there's far, far too many things for me to respond to in one post. Forgive me for not being poignant or just responding to a small tidbit. But I have to give one quick rebuttal, albeit not a very important one.

Well, if the science says women are attracted to power, in general, and that men are attracted to weakness, then that's that. It's not supporting inequality.

I am not attacking science. I am saying it is psuedoscience and that biases and unscientific things are going into it. The claim that you're saying here is but a weak hypothesis, not worthy of being called a theory.

And yes, such claims do claim that inequality is biological. It does support inequality. If you claim there is scientific proof that the races are not equal in various respects, or are different in various respects that promote social inequality, then the facts themselves would support inequality. And racial inequality would be an undeniable truth.

But it is reasonable to doubt the claims and the motives of many people within the field of Evolutionary Psychology.

If there is ever any proof that white heterosexual males have the biological tendency to be the dominant group. Then there will be no else to be said. But there is none, it doesn't qualify as more than hypothesis.

And this is exactly what these sort of attempts as "science" claim. That males have the biological tendency towards dominance. The is social and general superiority. That's what dominance is. And it's also privilege. If you have a dominant position over a certain group, you have a superior and privileged position in comparison to a certain group.

In Western society, men still have a social status seen as dominant to women. Just as whites have a social status seen as dominant to blacks. These systems are called "male privilege" and "white privilege". For sexuality, it's often called terms like "heterosexism" or "heteronormativity".

And when people claim that these inequalities are biologically based, that is a rebuttal that seeks to undermine social progress for minorities and pointless and against biological fact.

For instance, "women have a brain structure which doesn't support mathematical and scientific thinking, women will never be as interested in science as men", is often used as a rebuttal against social advocacy for things that promote women in the fields of science and math. For instance, advocacy against social mores of any sort, even just advertising, that promotes against females being into science(such as the Barbie "math is hard" fiasco). A frequent rebuttal against any claims against the toy, was that "this is silly feminist crud against biology", and would cite Evolutionary Biology as a claim, that women just need to give up and accept that science isn't their forte, and advertisements simply reflect that.

Equality before the law is the ONLY type of equality that can, or should, be enforced.

Equality of all kinds should be socially promoted. I'm not going to talk of affirmative action and whether it is okay here. But the system of white male privilege should be ended and minorities will never have equal rights so long as they are under such a system. Hence we call them minorities, minority is not about being a larger number. Under African apartheid, whites were the majority, but had fewer numbers than blacks.

Similarly, blacks, women, and other groups in the Western world are under a system that makes them a minority, regardless of their number. And psuedo-"science" like this keeps them down. As it makes for a rebuttal that the effort to do something goes against biology and nature.