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

[LilithSlave]

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.

 

[Alexlion]

If you want true equality more power to you, i dont see why any one would disagree with that.

But if you believe sexism is a totally one way street your wrong, women have it worst i dont dispute that.

Edit: Also those proletariate revolutions change nothing they just changed who where the privalaged few:
French revolution out with a king in with an emporer
Russian revolution out with a Tsar in with lenin and stalin
Chinese bye bye emporer hello Chairman Mao

The changing of the law is important its the fundamental building block of our society and in the end will force social change, although it may not be fast it is changing. The last bastions of sexism are falling one at a time in another 20 to 30 years i think society will be a lot more equal.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I wont pretend to know all that much about equality, my girlfriend and I have agreed on a more traditional form of labour because she has her own online business running and prefers to set her own pace.

I tend to view feminism as being a movement which seeks to address an uneven legal and economic position which women find themselves in. This inequality has become less pronounced in the past century but by no means do I believe we're done.

The root of the problem with anti-feminism being prominent has a number of causes, militant feminism gets a lot of negative attention which serves to give validity to the traditionalist crowd who feel that women need to be subjugated by men for religious or historical reasons.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

I'll cite this one as the more popular example. It is unfortunate that the gender division arose in the first place but within the context of the western world and the past century I feel there's good grounds for optimism at least. The internet may give notoriety to the most extreme negative examples here and there but the rational foundation for feminism remains intact so long as there is a problem to address.

 

[Alexlion]

"it's women who are privileged today! There's loads of reverse sexism! Look at the preference for giving children to kids!".

Slight pickle there, I'll delete my quote once it's fixed.

I wont pretend to know all that much about equality, my girlfriend and I have agreed on a more traditional form of labour because she has her own online business running and prefers to set her own pace.

I tend to view feminism as being a movement which seeks to address an uneven legal and economic position which women find themselves in. This inequality has become less pronounced in the past century but by no means do I believe we're done.

The root of the problem with anti-feminism being prominent has a number of causes, militant feminism gets a lot of negative attention which serves to give validity to the traditionalist crowd who feel that women need to be subjugated by men for religious or historical reasons.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

I'll cite this one as the more popular example. It is unfortunate that the gender division arose in the first place but within the context of the western world and the past century I feel there's good grounds for optimism at least. The internet may give notoriety to the most extreme negative examples here and there but the rational foundation for feminism remains intact so long as there is a problem to address.

Yeah tbh that woman clearly has problems and is deeply sexist, vocal minority not sensible majority.

 

[LilithSlave]

Slight pickle there, I'll delete my quote once it's fixed.

Hey, that's not nice, you should conveniently ignore such a typo.D:

But if you believe sexism is a totally one way street your wrong

Oh, I don't think that.

Though I do think that a lot of the problems men face ironically actually come from patriarchal, male privileging, or even male supremacist notions.

Like the reasons there may be bias in court towards giving custody of children to women. Is because women have historically, and are still pushing in the area of child rearing and are assumed to be better at raising kids. Because a woman's place is seen a nurturing, not being and becoming powerful. Such as a CEO or the like. The bias doesn't come from misandry, it comes from the traditional thought that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". There's no feminist conspiracy against men raising children, we like men who are good fathers.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

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.

Huh...

Psychology Grad student here...

I appreciate many of your points, However, could you be compelled to expand on why Evolutionary Psychology is to blame for your grievances? I am not sure if you are misunderstanding the study of psychological mechanisms from the context of the evolutionary model, or if you are upset with people whom have used the results of those studies out of context to benefit their agendas. You have stated that it is not Evolutionary Psychology "itself," but also begrudge 'unreviewed/untested' hypotheses being held as 'truth.' I am paraphrasing, naturally, and would welcome you to correct my misallocation of your meaning.

 

[Maze1125]

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".

 

[Soviet Steve]

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".

I'm curious, how many societies of peoples in modern history have been ruled exclusively by women while men have been regarded as little more than property? Sexism isn't the central issue to feminism, rather it is the injustices done in inequality of rights in terms of legal, economic and cultural matters done by men against women.

One could make an excellent case for feminism being an inappropriate term but it'd require that there was an even field between the genders in terms of abuses, which at this stage does not seem to be present.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Though I do think that a lot of the problems men face ironically actually come from patriarchal, male privileging, or even male supremacist notions.

What gender inequality issues could come from anything other than a system that promotes inequality between the genders?

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".

In the same way that "Gay rights" movements are inherently homophobic heterophobic (fucking stupid typo)? And...if your biggest complaint is the choice of name, it doesn't sound too bad.

I'd agree with you about the white middle-class bit, though, that's long been recognised as a serious issue by feminists (or at least the ones truly committed to equality). It seems you can be, for example, black, or a woman, but not both.

 

[LilithSlave]

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.

 

[Alexlion]

Slight pickle there, I'll delete my quote once it's fixed.

Hey, that's not nice, you should conveniently ignore such a typo.D:

But if you believe sexism is a totally one way street your wrong

Oh, I don't think that.

Though I do think that a lot of the problems men face ironically actually come from patriarchal, male privileging, or even male supremacist notions.

Like the reasons there may be bias in court towards giving custody of children to women. Is because women have historically, and are still pushing in the area of child rearing and are assumed to be better at raising kids. Because a woman's place is seen a nurturing, not being and becoming powerful. Such as a CEO or the like. The bias doesn't come from misandry, it comes from the traditional thought that "a woman's place is in the kitchen". There's no feminist conspiracy against men raising children, we like men who are good fathers.

I agree with that to a point. there are positive and negative types of sexism that stem from the same problem for example opening doors for women is beneficial to women but its still sexist and the idea it stems from leads to negative effects. That applys to men as well the idea we are "stronger" meaning if a time of war comes around only men get conscripted to go off and die.

At the same time there are the Sharon Osbourne's who think its funny when a husband gets his genitals mutilated by his wife because hes a man and therefore he "probably deserved it".
Our enemys are the same people they inhabit both sexes and hold to the idea that men and women are different species rather that the same one.

If we behave this way do to genetics or society is irrelevant, i have always said the one redeeming quality of mankind is conscious thought and that allows us to empathise with another person and put ourselves in their position and understand what they go through and therefore withold ourselves from irrational hatred or discimination. Both sexes being human are capable of this to an equal degree, although women have had the worst of it.

Im not a femanist nor am i an anti-femanist i am a Humanist and i believe we are all equally stupid .

 

[Thaluikhain]

Im not a femanist nor am i an anti-femanist i am a Humanist and i believe we are all equally stupid .

If you believe that the sexes are equal, than you are a feminist, by definition.

 

[2xDouble]

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".

 

[Maze1125]

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".

I'm curious, how many societies of peoples in modern history have been ruled exclusively by women while men have been regarded as little more than property? Sexism isn't the central issue to feminism, rather it is the injustices done in inequality of rights in terms of legal, economic and cultural matters done by men against women.

One could make an excellent case for feminism being an inappropriate term but it'd require that there was an even field between the genders in terms of abuses, which at this stage does not seem to be present.

That's a fallacy.

Just because the European invaders slaughtered, maimed and raped the native Americans, doesn't automatically give those of native American decent a right to be nasty to anyone of European decent today.

Equally, just because women have had it far far worse in history, and still do in many culturally backward counties today, doesn't justify "feminism" as an appropriate term in modern western society.

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".

In the same way that "Gay rights" movements are inherently homophobic?

Well for a start, the term "homophobic" by definition only refers to prejudice against homosexuals.

More importantly, the gay-rights movement doesn't try and pretend to be something it isn't. I think you'll find most gay rights proponents would never say they're trying to get rights for heterosexuals, while most feminists would say they're trying to defeat all kinds of sexism, not just sexism against women.

And...if your biggest complaint is the choice of name, it doesn't sound too bad.

You're right, if a name isn't important to you then this issue is essentially irrelevant.
But some feminists spend their entire time doing nothing but defending the name itself, obviously it's very important to them, and they're the people I was directing my comments at.

 

[Alexlion]

Im not a femanist nor am i an anti-femanist i am a Humanist and i believe we are all equally stupid .

If you believe that the sexes are equal, than you are a feminist, by definition.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. So yes but its only aimed at women, but you could also say im a masculinist looking for equal rights for men.

I say humanist because it encompasses every one regardless of gender.

 

[Soviet Steve]

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".

I'm curious, how many societies of peoples in modern history have been ruled exclusively by women while men have been regarded as little more than property? Sexism isn't the central issue to feminism, rather it is the injustices done in inequality of rights in terms of legal, economic and cultural matters done by men against women.

One could make an excellent case for feminism being an inappropriate term but it'd require that there was an even field between the genders in terms of abuses, which at this stage does not seem to be present.

That's a fallacy.

Just because the European invaders slaughtered, maimed and raped the native Americans, doesn't automatically give those of native American decent a right to be nasty to anyone of European decent today.

Ah, but feminism wasn't established with the goal of oppressing men, the core issue was and still is that women are generally not accepted as being equal to men. The issue is less pronounced but it is still present in various forms.

The various civil rights movements is a flawed analogy as there were many minorities within the US who were oppressed by the white men, whereas with feminism the only real issue is women being treated as being beneath men.

The cause of making women equal to men thus seems perfectly sensible when labelled feminism.

Equally, just because women have had it far far worse in history, and still do in many culturally backward counties today, doesn't justify "feminism" as an appropriate term in modern western society.

Except that the whole issue is the rights of women.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. So yes but its only aimed at women, but you could also say im a masculinist looking for equal rights for men.

I would certainly hope so. There seems to be this bizarre viewpoint that we are living in a zero sum game, that for one group to have rights, you have to take them away from someone else. To be decent person, you'd have to be a feminist and a masculinist and a gay rights supporter and a straight rights supporter, and any number of other things besides. Admittedly some of those causes need more support than others, but the idea is no less valid for that.

That's a fallacy.

Just because the European invaders slaughtered, maimed and raped the native Americans, doesn't automatically give those of native American decent a right to be nasty to anyone of European decent today.

Equally, just because women have had it far far worse in history, and still do in many culturally backward counties today, doesn't justify "feminism" as an appropriate term in modern western society.

I'd agree with that, only current situations are of relevance, but the current situation still makes the term appropriate.

Well for a start, the term "homophobic" by definition only refers to prejudice against homosexuals.

Typo, sorry, should have said "heterophobic".

More importantly, the gay-rights movement doesn't try and pretend to be something it isn't. I think you'll find most gay rights proponents would never say they're trying to get rights for heterosexuals, while most feminists would say they're trying to defeat all kinds of sexism, not just sexism against women.

I'd disagree with that. Firstly, wanting to establish rights for one group hardly means you aren't allowed to want rights for others. Though, yeah, it happens alot.

Secondly, many theories of feminism hold that sexism can't be ended while the sexes are regarded as being inherently different. Or, to put that another way, you can't remove sexism against one group without removing it entirely, ie, from the other. For the sexes to be equal, neither can be less equal than the other.

You're right, if a name isn't important to you then this issue is essentially irrelevant.
But some feminists spend their entire time doing nothing but defending the name itself, obviously it's very important to them, and they're the people I was directing my comments at.

If they are concerned solely with the name, they aren't feminist. On the other hand, "your movement is bad 'cause of the name" is constantly used to attack feminism as a whole.

 

[FarleShadow]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Vault101]

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)