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

[DevilWithaHalo]

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

Really? You want to openly call others disgusting based on personal sexual preferences along the ineffible primal level?

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.

Bingo! I suspected that this was your big issue. It's not about race or gender or sexual preferences, it's about money. You're attempting to argue that evolutionary psychology has reinforced social constructs specifically designed to support straight white men as a dominant force in the current western civilized world when you fail to realize it's actually financial force that determines ones influence in a modern capitalism.

Let's ignore for the moment that *history* has *always* had dominant groups which held their ranks in power based on the current structures of their societies. Example; land owners, slave owners, how many live stock you had, etc. Was the common demographic always straight white males? No. It's only been the recently evolution of what we call the "modern western world" that the ruling class happens to be dominated by straight white men (and even then only publicly). Does that mean it's exclusive? No; *anyone* with *money* is part of the *priviliged group* in todays western world.

A lot of big words and long winded arguments about gender inequalities to guise your financially motivated jealousy.

 

[The_Graff]

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.

This. i will admit that it is maybe not the best phrasing to give to the point, but it does seem to drive the point home in a refreshingly blunt manner.

 

[LilithSlave]

Really? You want to openly call others disgusting based on personal sexual preferences along the ineffible primal level?

Virginity fetishism is not an inborn sexual orientation like homosexuality.

And just like rape fetishism, is honestly quite creepy and problematic. Especially since many people are trying to normalize it for men.

Bingo! I suspected that this was your big issue. It's not about race or gender or sexual preferences, it's about money. You're attempting to argue that evolutionary psychology has reinforced social constructs specifically designed to support straight white men as a dominant force in the current western civilized world when you fail to realize it's actually financial force that determines ones influence in a modern capitalism.

The two are related.

The social constructs promote heterosexual white males as having money as the norm. And these social norms push away the female and the coloured. Those of xx chromosome and colour are particularly pushed away from prosperity and privilege. And it is why you see such low statistical academic achievement in blacks and why so many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. A privileged white person may just see the black plight and say "it's their fault", "they just need to read a god damned book and stop being that way", as if the matter is so simple and they aren't in a system that's hard to get out of at all. As if they somehow have true equal opportunity, they don't. They don't have the same access to resources as others overall. The same as women are discouraged from math and science and then certain people try to assert a hypothesis that it's biological as fact.

It's because of this privilege we have all these biases, trying to fund slanted studies saying that women prefer men to be more powerful than them/women. Saying it's biological that women don't want power and that women earl less because it's their fault and women aren't interested in higher paying work is just blaming the victim. It's like saying it's the little girl's fault and their biology that they want the pink dress, not that they are constantly surrounded by a society telling them they want pink frilly things instead of a toy truck.

Currently, society is still saying to women "you want the pink dress, you want the pink dress, you want the pink dress, you want to be girly, math is hard, Barbie said so". And people funding studies are saying the same thing. "Of course you do, it's in your biology". And thus the stereotypes and things holding back women from any real power and respect continue.

A lot of big words and long winded arguments about gender inequalities to guise your financially motivated jealousy.

Don't play psychologist and try to explain away someone you disagree with, and discredit them by saying they have some silly motivation. I do agree with supporting the %99 which I am a part of as they say. But women in general need to be better off and more socially respected.

And explaining away the problems of white privilege and male privilege as just petty jealousy is exactly the type of behavior that supports it.

You wouldn't want me suspecting every user of harboring misogyny and dismissing their posts as lots of big words and long winded arguments to guise misogyny. So don't just dismiss me and feminists as unrighteously jealous and poor if you don't us to dismiss you as unrighteously misogynist.

 

[jessegeek]

The OP hit the nail on the head. Also, as someone doing their degree in evolutionary biology (biological anthropology), I would like to point out that people who use the evolutionary psychology or even evolutionary characteristics as a way to justify male/female discrimination have completely misunderstood the data.

Whilst we know that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, we have no direct evidence of the gender-work divide. Pretty much the only thing we can assume with the current data is that men hunted the big game, but there are equal amounts of evidence showing that both men and women hunted smaller game such as wild pigs, and these small game kills took up more of the diet that larger kills. Also, the 'gathering' part was probably where most of their diet came from, and whilst that was provided mostly by females immature and elderly males would have participated too. The same goes for caring for the young.

The reason why the stereotype of the rigidly gender-divided prehistoric world exists is because many of the key finds were discovered in times in our modern history when sexism was rife, and the archaeologists attributed their cultural bias to neutral finds.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.)

I think I'm seeing the problem now.

Here is the thing: MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT THE SAME. That's not the same as inequality. Men and women are biologically different, which is kind of the point in having different genders.

Women generally have a larger hip section than men. Men are generally stronger. Women are generally more flexible. Women tend to be more social. Men tend to be more aggressive.

Example of a good argument against inequality: Men and women don't get paid the same amount of money for the same work, but should because work is work. (Extremely simplified)

Example of a bad argument against inequality: Men should have to give birth because it's unfair that only women have to.

Biological differences!

Edit: For the record, I have no problem with women who want to 'wear the pants' in a relationship, men who want to be househusbansd (Like me!), or a female President/boss/whatever. But these people are in the minority for a reason.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Virginity fetishism is not an inborn sexual orientation like homosexuality.

So you support the notion that sexuality is a genetic trait then?

And just like rape fetishism, is honestly quite creepy and problematic. Especially since many people are trying to normalize it for men.

No, the real answer is that it?s none of your god damned business! What two consenting adults choose to do with each other is their own god damned business. What one person decides are physical traits that they are socially or genetically attracted to is their own god damned business. Calling someone disgusting because they enjoy the idea of a virgin is equally as useless as calling chubby chasers disgusting because they like fat people.

The two are related.

Not in the way you think they are. Women dominating the field of ?book clubs? doesn?t inherently create gender bias at an institutionalized level. The only reason you think the two are inherently related is because that?s the current paradigm. 300 years ago it was snobby British wankers. Before that it was Persians warlords. Before that it was Aztec priests.

The issue you have in failing to credit your position is that the only support you have is a correlation between white heterosexual males and economic elitism given the current majority speaking demographically. You?re supposing historical social evolution as a primary indication for causation which doesn?t actually exist because it?s only being applied to the current system, while ignoring systems which have adapted completely different results.

The social constructs promote heterosexual white males as having money as the norm. And these social norms push away the female and the coloured. Those of xx chromosome and colour are particularly pushed away from prosperity and privilege. And it is why you see such low statistical academic achievement in blacks and why so many blacks are still stuck in the ghetto. A privileged white person may just see the black plight and say "it's their fault", "they just need to read a god damned book and stop being that way", as if the matter is so simple and they aren't in a system that's hard to get out of at all. As if they somehow have true equal opportunity, they don't. They don't have the same access to resources as others overall. The same as women are discouraged from math and science and then certain people try to assert a hypothesis that it's biological as fact.

You?ve perfectly illustrated a very real problem; social reinforcement of stereotypes. If people choose to adhere to social pressures; then I have nothing but contempt for them. What?s really preventing a woman from learning mathematics? Stop for a second and seriously think about that. NOTHING! Do you think that the national average of test scores is going to prevent a black student from succeeding to attend college if they actually passed the necessary qualifications?

Now I won?t deny that there are some additional hardships certain demographics might need to overcome, but I?m a little tired of people blaming their weight on a hyperactive thyroid gland. You can either choose to support the status quo, or get off your ass and do something about it. Do you know where I would be if I adhered to social pressures? A politician with a family. I?m not, because I choose to do something different.

But we?re not talking about insuring people have equal access are we? You said it yourself, it?s simply not enough to be treated equally under the law. What else do we need to do? How about stripping every school exam to the bare minimums? Make sure Harvard can be affordable by everyone? Fuck it, you?ve been advocating for socialism this whole time, let?s just cut the bullshit. What opportunity do I really have that anyone else doesn?t? Why did Obama have the opportunity to become president and I didn?t? Why did little miss kiss my ass win the lottery and I didn?t? Stop trying to suggest that society has crafted special cases for a certain class (even when the reverse is true) outside economics, when that?s been your whole argument!

It's because of this privilege we have all these biases, trying to fund slanted studies saying that women prefer men to be more powerful than them/women. Saying it's biological that women don't want power and that women earl less because it's their fault and women aren't interested in higher paying work is just blaming the victim. It's like saying it's the little girl's fault and their biology that they want the pink dress, not that they are constantly surrounded by a society telling them they want pink frilly things instead of a toy truck.

Slanted? Seriously? Are you now suggesting that? every? single? study? that has confirmed the same finding to be slanted? Next thing you?ll tell me is that the government has some seedy motive in slanting studies that suggests most people are more attracted to others that wear the color red! Everyone, not just women, want to date someone with equal to or greater footing. That?s again not a gender issue, it?s a financial one.

Currently, society is still saying to women "you want the pink dress, you want the pink dress, you want the pink dress, you want to be girly, math is hard, Barbie said so". And people funding studies are saying the same thing. "Of course you do, it's in your biology". And thus the stereotypes and things holding back women from any real power and respect continue.

Advertising is a financially motivated construct. How are you not getting what you?re arguing?

Don't play psychologist and try to explain away someone you disagree with, and discredit them by saying they have some silly motivation. I do agree with supporting the %99 which I am a part of as they say. But women in general need to be better off and more socially respected.

When the entirety of your arguments surrounds the economic portion of the debate, I?m well within my right to question your motivations. You talk about white hetero male privilege, then you ignore the privilege associated with any other demographic. You talk about gender equality, then claim that legal equality simply isn?t enough. You talk about social equality, but fail to consider biological or psychological arguments that support social paradigms. You talk about historical contexts, but fail to realize that the modern western world context your argument requires only exists within the last few hundred years. Then you talk about economic disparities between demographics, but fail to consider that alternate demographics have found the same privilege within the economically driven system.

Ok, fine, I?ll solve your problem. Work toward a decent career, and stop being a *****. Boom, you're better off and more socially respected!

You want to be better off? Pay your dues. You want to be socially respected? Respect yourself. Seriously, how hard do you have to make this? You want to be treated equally? Stop acting like you deserve something someone else got lucky enough to get.

And explaining away the problems of white privilege and male privilege as just petty jealousy is exactly the type of behavior that supports it.

Right, and eating meat supports animal cruelty. When you actually bring real arguments to the table, I?ll reconsider calling you jealous of the wealthy and well treated.

You wouldn't want me suspecting every user of harboring misogyny and dismissing their posts as lots of big words and long winded arguments to guise misogyny. So don't just dismiss me and feminists as unrighteously jealous and poor if you don't us to dismiss you as unrighteously misogynist.

I wasn?t dismissing feminists; I was dismissing your positions. When you come up with something a little better than; ?Straight white men are better off than I am so something should be done!? I?ll listen attentively. Until such time though, I?m going to continue saying ?bullshit?.

I?ll throw you a bone though. I?m not under the opinion that certain studies are slanted; such as those that indicate women still make a little less than men do in the work field (god knows why). And I fully support a necessary change to address any legal disparities between men and women; but I would hope you would be willing to address any disparities that favor women in the same light. Or at the least, explain to me how the evolutionary and social natures of men justify additional legal protections to women who want to be treated the same way? And perhaps after that, could explain how you could justify the conditioning of people?s perceptions to either gender that continue to adhere to their stereotypes as anything other than arbitrary ethical control of people?s free will?

 

[orangeban]

I agree... almost. Firstly, a lot of Evo Psych tends to be bullshit, and equality for women is still a pressing issue in todays world.

Although I'd like to point out that you can actually be both a masculinist and a feminist. I count myself as both. Think of it not as two warring parties, but instead of a number of parties all fighting together against the enemy of inequality!

 

[Loonyyy]

Virginity fetishism is not an inborn sexual orientation like homosexuality.

And just like rape fetishism, is honestly quite creepy and problematic. Especially since many people are trying to normalize it for men.

I'd just like to stop right here and point out the pseudoscientist. You claimed that the virginal fetishism is supported by evolutionary biology. Now you claim that the facts do not support it as being inborn. I'm going to go ahead and ask you: Cite Sources. If you make extroadinary claims, it'd be nice to have proof. If the science is suggesting this, show us the studies saying it. If the facts disagree, show us peer reviewed articles in respected journals refuting it.

Calling something pseudoscience does not make it so. That's simply circular reasoning via ad hominem. If you believe it is pseudoscience, find something debunking it. It's really pointless otherwise: A quick google search gave me several peer reviewed journals on the matter, so the field has certainly got a big enough sway: If what you say is correct, finding some evidence would go a long way to convincing me. Because at the moment, you're making unsupported claims and assertions as fact. That's not even pseudoscientific, that's just demagoguery.

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.

I'm not actually supporting that hypothesis, as you put it, I'm using it as an example. And if you think it's weak, then prove it. Again, I'm not making any heterorthodox claims, and if these concepts are wrong, I'd love to read the article.

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.

Ok, how about this: We are all unequal. I was born with asthma, and an ectomorphic build. I'm not going to be an olympian anytime soon. Fortunately, I was born significantly more intelligent than most, so my lack of prowess on the field was made up for by my ability in education. This doesn't make me any better or worse than someone who was born in different circumstances: We're humans. All of us. Any differences you can find are dwarfed by this concept. Even if Racial Inequality is or was or in any way has merit, it doesn't give anyone the right to mistreat another human being, or deny them the same rights we expect or are entitled to. That's basic morality: in the same way that people shouldn't deride me for being unable to run well, I shouldn't deride people with learning disabilities, and no-one should use race, ethnicity, disability or ability to discriminate against others. In some cases, we can see a superiority. I am likely intellectually and physically superior to a person who was born afflicted with Down's Syndrome. This doesn't mean I should discriminate, or that there's a rational reason to discriminate against them. Whatever superiority I might lay claim to, we're both just people. That means we are both worth exactly the same. Even if you can prove someone's superiority, it would not make anyone worth more or less than anyone else. Whether or not anyone is better than anyone else is irrelevant to the way we treat each other, which is an ethical and not a naturalist issue. If you believe that this research can or would make anyone superior, then you're as bad as those who would use it to discriminate, because you acknowledge the use of difference as a discriminatory power. It isn't, and there's no excuse. If you have cause for reasonable doubt about the methods and motives of those conducting research, then share it: it's the premise upon which much of your argument is based after all, it shouldn't be an unwarranted assumption.

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.

Sure, men still have a social status which is seens as dominant towards women. I'm not disputing that. Just as the racist parts are true. And you don't need to start with a patronising non sequitur on the what the names of different priviliges are. I really don't care, it doesn't supprt your argument, and telling someone something they already know in such a matter never engendered sympathy. Sure, our society is dominated largely by males. That's obvious. But where we differ is how we think that this could play out, or how we think that dealing with it should be done. I never disagreed with either point, in fact, I acknowledged both.

I also see the privilige of the heterosexuals (Sure, it's a massive non sequitur you started, but this is an issue I care about, so I'm going to acknowledge it anyway). I recently was reading an article about one of my state's major political parties taking the position that it was in support of Gay Marriage, and that if their partner party in their coalition would not back them on it, they would not support them, and regardless of federal decision, they intend to move towards legalisation before a year is out. This is a good thing. It gives a group of people exactly the same right as those priviliged white heterosexual males you keep mentioning. I was very gladdened to read this article. Then I noticed a poll on the side, where people could say whether they supported the decision or not, and if they though gays should be allowed to marry. At the time, 60% said that they should not. This is an example of privilige: A group feels that they can decide the rights of others (A minority), simply by being a majority.

But that is not how rights work, and that's not how society works. We protect the minorities (When we're doing it right), and rights are in place so that large majorities can't determine the rights of others. Which means, basically, that heterosexual, or religiously motivated, or conservatively motivated people attempting to ban Gay marriage, are acting out of a false sense of privilige, and whatever they do, they're infringing on what should be the rights of others. Privilige is dangerous, but that's why things are made universal rights, and should be enshrined in Law. Everyone gets the same treatment, and everyone is equal. I'm a heterosexual white male, and I don't give a f*** whether gays can marry. They should be able to, since I'm allowed to. That's equality. And it didn't take any effort on my part to think it. Now, I used to think homosexuals were evolutionarily inferior to heterosexuals, and unnatural because they could not reproduce without defying their instincts. I was in the wrong about this, clearly. But even if they were unnatural, or evolutionarily inferior, that doesn't make them, their way of life, or their decisions morally wrong, or give me the right to frown on them. Their still people, and, to be honest, considering our society, braver people than I.

Back on topic:
It does not matter the motives of those making the claims: All that matters is that the claims are logically valid and supported by the evidence. Nazi scientists, and the Manhattan project still contribute to knowledge, even if their motives are not based in the attaining of knowledge, but on Mass Murder or Genocide. Of course, it is possible people are starting from the point of view of trying to prove a racist point: That's why peer review exists. If someone continually tries to make a point ignoring other hypothesis without adequately discounting the likely ones, then it will be noticed. That's self evidentiary. But more importantly, if you claim that the researchers are bigots, then you should prove it. Even implying it is unnacceptable: If you're calling someone a psuedoscientist who is supporting racist, or anti-feminine sentiments, then you should back that claim up. I don't care how: List researchers who are members of the KKK for all I care.

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.

I don't care if women are in general more or less suited to Math. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. As long as they're free, and encouraged, to do what they want, learn what they want, and do what they want, it's all good. Math is good. Women in Math is good. Even if there was a tendency for a different sort of thinking which made women less suited to Math, it would not satisfy an argument to keep Women out of Math and Science: Marie Curie was a woman, she accomplished far more than I likely ever will in the field of science. It clearly matters not one jot either way, since women can and will be successful at Maths and Science. Plus, the more of them in my science and engineering classes, the better. It would be great if there were more women to talk to in those classes. And yes, if someone cites Evolutionary biology to support a claim, they need adequate sourcing and proof. I don't think I ever saw any of that happening. Mostly it was people making stuff up and sticking a scientific field in front of it to make them seem clever. You're offended by the math is hard adds, good! So am I. I'm also, coincidentally, offended by adds which show women being absurdly attracted to a man in response to a razor or a toothpaste or similar. It's silly stereotypes, and them marketing to what they think will sell.

On the bit about apartheid, it seems very hyperbolic to mention this: Are you being used as a slave labour force in a nation where you don't have the right to vote, and where any attempt at gaining equality will be met with imprisonment or being put down by a wealthy, militarized elite? Of course the black people were the majority, population wise. The difference is, they did not get a say in their system. They weren't represented at all. That doesn't make them a minority, and that doesn't make the term minority offensive (As a matter of fact, as a proselytizing atheist, I'm a minority, but I really don't care about the sematics of the affair anyway). Women do have the right to vote, and do have power. You do have the ability to elect people to government who support your rights, and you do have the right to unionise, to rebel, to protest, and to argue. You can even run for office. It's in no way like the apartheid. Their both discriminatory, yes, but the issue here is mostly social, rather than to do with a governing body deliberately mistreating people. More to the point, constantly banging on about women and not people just reinforces the differences, rather than helping to fix them. Rather than saying: "Women should be payed more! We deserve the same!", it should be: "You're paying a (woman/black/atheist/whatever you want) less? Why is that?" There's no justification that can be made for paying someone less for doing the same job. Whatever you can find about differences between people, and advantages or disadvantages, does not overwrite the simple principle of trade: You do set thing, I give you set thing. It's not relevant.


Ok, that last bit is completely wrong. You seem to be saying something about me being for the majority or something, I don't know. But quite simply put: You can not use a legal system to force tolerance. It will not work. It will create a system rife for abuse, and adds yet more delicacy to the issue. It sucks when minorities are mistreated. That's why we have to band together and support them. That doesn't require law making. That requires simple ethics. Moreover, terms like feminist seperate groups. I'm a secular humanist, and I believe in equal rights for all. That doesn't mean I think unenforceable laws "Affirmative Action" etc are a good thing (In fact, such ideas are themselves inherently discriminatory, that means that I think that every person has a responsibility to give the same rights to their fellow human that they have, or want in return. It's that simple. Of course there are people who won't agree, and some who don't want to give proper rights to others. But litigating will not fix this: It just makes things worse. I'm happy to fight for your rights, right up until the point where laws are being made that say if I'm paying you less for legitimate reasons, you could play the sex card, or the race card, and sue me. These systems usually result in one endgame: Employers stop hiring minorities out of fear of legal action. It's an unintended consequence of giving someone else a priority right over another in the interest of equality. As I said, equality can not be enforced, since to give anyone a privelige escalates them above the others. Of course a system by which the reliance on human good is bound to fail at times, and will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean that the best alternative is affirmative action. Even if the case is that there are inferiorities in one race or gender or the other still would not change that everyone is still human, and deserving of the same respect, rights and dignities. If you think that a purely science based view removes an ethical obligation, you're wrong. Even if it turned out some particular group is inferior, it would not make mistreating them or abusing them right. Only the sickest of minds could think that. I don't know about you, but in my society, those who champion the underdog, those who support the weak, those who ignore the differences between us and band together are far more valued than those who are concerned with the differences. Even if we're all different, we're all the same. WE. ARE. ALL. THE. SAME. A human is a human is a human. A black person is a human with a different melanin level to a white person, who has a different melanin level to an Asian person: This means NOTHING. Likewise, people born with disabilities are still people. I don't see why people can't understand this: Science is ALWAYS constrained by the ethics of the populace.

In the end, if you believe this is a pseudoscience, please educate me on this: I'd be happy to look at any significant peer reviewed articles which refute the field. But just because the field is used to support unscientific, or, let's face it, evil, conclusions, does not make it wrong. Genetics is used in the prediction of the next years flu viruses. It saves lives. But it was also used by the Nazis as part of their logic for the justification of pure genes and a Master race. That doesn't make Genetics pseudoscience. It makes the Nazis evil. In the same way, someone who uses any facts or conclusions in a subject to deny others their rights or justify mistreating them, is simply wrong, but that does not make the science wrong.

Gee, I typed wayyy too much...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Although I'd like to point out that you can actually be both a masculinist and a feminist. I count myself as both. Think of it not as two warring parties, but instead of a number of parties all fighting together against the enemy of inequality!

It's rather depressing that you have to point out that you can support the rights of two different groups at the same time, but it is something that needs repeating.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

http://www.ted.com/talks/nellie_mckay_sings_feminists_and_if_i_had_you.html

Requires a healthy sense of irony.

 

[Torrasque]

*snip*

Finally got around to reading this. I've been meaning to, since it struck me as interesting. But I've just been caught up in Skyrim and Halo anniversary (as well as my crazy sleep schedule these days) so yeah...

These are fascinating points you bring up, it almost makes me think it is a summary about a book or a thesis for some big term paper.
I agree with your point that society breeds the opinion of inequality and not biology, but I'll just add this: I think the initial inequality was created because men are biologically able to acquire muscle mass quicker than women, and are typically larger than women. That doesn't mean that women can't be warriors/chieftains/etc. as well, but in a warrior society, it would make sense to have the biggest meanest person leading the group, which would likely be a man; it is seen in most animal societies, so it would make sense if humans followed the same logic.
That being said, I don't think the men are leading corporations and countries because they are the biggest and meanest of the group.
It would also make sense that a society built on the foundation that big/strong = leader, that big/strong would be confused as meaning "man" and not the literal meaning of being the biggest and strongest. A society built on that foundation would turn out like ours. But that is all just theorizing and guess work. I am simply trying to make sense of why our society came to be like it is today.
It certainly makes sense that our society creates the inequality, just look at the other things it has spawned... I would just like to know what started it all.

As for your statement about being a feminist, I don't dislike feminists. I put feminists in the same category as christians, gamers, and people who like Harry Potter movies. Before you rage, let me clarify: I consider feminists to be people with an opinion about something. Whether that opinion is correct or incorrect doesn't matter to me. What does matter to me is how well they support their opinion, and how they convey it.
I have no problem with christians, but when they shove it down my throat, I get pissed off. I don't hate people who like the Assassins Creed series, but when they say it is the best game ever because the assassinations are amazing, I get pissed off. I don't dislike the people who like the Harry Potter movies, but when they say they are the best movies ever, and convey the books sooooo well, I want to kill them.
So, I don't hate you as a feminist, you can think the sky is made of pudding and every breath is a tasty treat (that actually sounds like fun), but if you support your arguments with crazy nonsense, and then tell me I am wrong about everything ever, then I may become irritable.
TL;DR: Zealots fucking suck.
Thankfully you are non zealous, and are alright in my books

Oh, and I don't like taking the far left or right in any debate. It happens, there are some positions that require a far left or right opinion (like whether Twilight is garbage, or whether the LOTR movies are good) but I still think a neutral position on things is the best option. Why? Because people tend to be more reasonable in their arguments when you tell them you are neither A or B, and because I can sit back and watch the flame war commence.
As for gender equality, I would like complete equality, but don't plan on seeing it in my lifetime.

lol, don't read a post for 2 days, and write a short novel as a reply xD

 

[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.)

I think I'm seeing the problem now.

Here is the thing: MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT THE SAME. That's not the same as inequality. Men and women are biologically different, which is kind of the point in having different genders.

Women generally have a larger hip section than men. Men are generally stronger. Women are generally more flexible. Women tend to be more social. Men tend to be more aggressive.

Example of a good argument against inequality: Men and women don't get paid the same amount of money for the same work, but should because work is work. (Extremely simplified)

Example of a bad argument against inequality: Men should have to give birth because it's unfair that only women have to.

Biological differences!

Edit: For the record, I have no problem with women who want to 'wear the pants' in a relationship, men who want to be househusbansd (Like me!), or a female President/boss/whatever. But these people are in the minority for a reason.

It's a given that men and women are different. The argument isn't that they should be the same. It's that women are wrongly typified in ways that are destructive to their living. For example if we went with the argument that women are biologically predisposed to seek partners that are dominant to them, we could also draw the conclusion that women overall are just more suitable to subservient roles. (That is, jobs where they play the secondary or supportive role to dominant male figures -These roles tend to pay less.) This of course would (well, does) dismiss the capacity for women to do well in leadership/dominant roles (Roles that generally pay more) and unfairly limit their progress in society because of a silly oversimplified assumption.

^ That does happen.

I'm male and I believe the best person for the whatever situation should be the one to deal with it. Inaccurate assumptions about sex prevent this from being the case and as luck would have it, this has tended to hinder women more than men.

The problem with your response to my post is that you wrongly assume I'm proposing something radical. The proposition is simple, people should be judged based on their capacities.

 

[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.)

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.

I didn't intend to insult your intelligence, I just wanted to make sure ahead of time that we weren't assuming that citations are enough to legitimise an argument. On that same note, we're in for an endless argument if we're going to divert attention away from the article to arguing the ins and outs of its references. My argument against this article depends on how and why it uses these studies.

But it's not just a report of statistics. The article intends to describe how people are. Their study of X group of women illustrates that they, for example, tend toward dominant males. What is implicit in this claim is that women are suited for subservient roles. This assumption based on a certain sample size typifies women in general. It doesn't need to outright make the claim or intend to subjugate women, all it needs to do is validate the assumptions that are used to unfairly hinder women, which it does. Women are unsuitable to higher management jobs because they are inclined to play a submissive role, whereas men are suited to higher management jobs because they are the relatively dominant sex. His article, in attempting to describe people overall, justifies this claim. There are women who are suited to dominant roles and there's nothing inherent in a female that dictates she should or is suited to play a subservient role. It also detaches females from their social context. It's ridiculous to assume that a sample of individuals inclined one way somehow correlates with the claim that women inherently, because of their biological nature, seek dominant males.

You can't preface descriptions of how things are with broad claims about sex and then pretend it's completely irrelevant to the way they're meant to be perceived. You're painting sexes with broad strokes and in doing so, validating assumptions that are unfairly used to the detriment of women.

I have to come back to my initial question, do you really not see how evolutionary psychology in this instance provides a depiction of women that is unfavourable in arguing for their equality?

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

Maybe you're picturing me writing in a more aggressive tone, but I don't mean to sound hostile. (I'm writing like I usually do. >.>; ) When I ask my question, I ask it with genuine surprise. I am dumbfounded by the fact that you didn't pick up on what I did. I say this because outside of this thread, I rarely find myself participating in any feminist discussion beyond my usual simple: "People should be judged by their capacities" statement. The flawed assumptions made by this article jumped out at me, particularly regarding women. I wasn't looking to scrutinise or discredit, it's like the article just 'asked for it'.

Although if this discussion is more annoying than interesting, I won't hold it against you. It's not worth stressing over a text we're not being graded on. xD

 

[Therumancer]

- 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.

Err, yeah. As I said in my post, Anglo-Saxons didn't come into power until after the fall of Rome. Before that we were the poor schmoes that were raided by everyone for slaves and kicked around.

Other than that the only bit your correct about is technology, but mainly when it comes down to technology dedicated to war, a more advanced civilization that can't defend and assert itself is going to be overrun by barbarians every time. It might be sad, but military technology has to come first.

As far as economics go, they are only important globally when you see a general balance of power, otherwise it comes down to whomever is the most powerful militarily asserting themselves, those who are weak, or are not willing to assert themselves gradually wind up on the bottom of the economic totem pole. Hence the saying "Free Trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely". Throughout history almost every major war has been preceded by people insisting a war is impossible for economic reasons, and that is always incorrect. The old "Barbarians At The Gates" referance comes from the final days of Rome where they literally had the Barbarians massing, but the Romans refused to acknowlege the threat and call in their military because they thought the Barbarians were just there to trade and were making noise/a show. After all Rome got into a groove where it was a shadow of it's former military power and preparedness, it figured nothing could happen to it because it was Rome, and without them trade would be hurt, and nobody would build and maintain the roads. They were of course wrong.

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.

Except that, you know, it isn't. Your problem lies not with those conclusions, your problem lies with people using those conclusions for their own agenda.

And yes, such claims do claim that inequality is biological.

That's because we are. You're confusing equality with equal-worthiness. It's a cold hard fact that women and men are not equal; men can't make babies, women don't have a penis, women are, very generally, better in certain things than men and the other way around. We're not the same, we're not equal, this is a biological fact of life.

We are however equal worthy; despite the differences a women isn't worth less than a man or the other way around. As I've already said, the problem you're stating lies not with the fact of inequality, it lies within people twist those facts to say that one of the sexes are worth less than the other.

But either sex is not worth less than the other, and that's not what evolutionary psychology concludes, if only for the simple fact that humanity needs both sexes to thrive.

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

Are you trying to suggest that evolutionary psychology, that goes way beyond explaining why men and women are attracted to each other and such, is some kind of vast misogynistic conspiracy to keep women suppressed?

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.

Because it's biologically soooo weird that males are the dominant sex. You seem to forget that we're just another species of great apes. And just take a look at other great apes, what do you see in their societies? Well whaddaya know! Dominant males!

Of course, there is a huge difference in mental capacity between us and other great apes, but that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of years worth of social patterns instilled in us. As Dastardly explained in an extremely well-written and clever post, one you've chosen to pretty much ignore, it takes a whole lot of effort to rise above it and it's not something that's going to happen overnight.

It's funny by the way how you rage against these scientific theories, yet offer no scientific rebuttal. All you say is "It doesn't fit with my moral convictions, therefor it's wrong." Yeeeaaaah, no science doesn't work like that.

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.

You cannot blame that scientific conclusion for it being used by misogynists to discourage women to get into those professions. If research shows that a woman's brain is indeed structured like that on a fundamental level, then you can't just say "It's unequal therefor wrong!" We're not talking about vague, esoteric theories or something, we're talking about cold hard facts.

And yes, it's a sad thing if such facts get abused, and as someone else has explained quite well, evolutionary psychology is a field sadly susceptible to such abuse. But that abuse doesn't make any conclusions from that field automatically wrong.

 

[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.

Err, yeah. As I said in my post, Anglo-Saxons didn't come into power until after the fall of Rome. Before that we were the poor schmoes that were raided by everyone for slaves and kicked around.

Other than that the only bit your correct about is technology, but mainly when it comes down to technology dedicated to war, a more advanced civilization that can't defend and assert itself is going to be overrun by barbarians every time. It might be sad, but military technology has to come first.

As far as economics go, they are only important globally when you see a general balance of power, otherwise it comes down to whomever is the most powerful militarily asserting themselves, those who are weak, or are not willing to assert themselves gradually wind up on the bottom of the economic totem pole. Hence the saying "Free Trade means he with the biggest guns trades freely". Throughout history almost every major war has been preceded by people insisting a war is impossible for economic reasons, and that is always incorrect. The old "Barbarians At The Gates" referance comes from the final days of Rome where they literally had the Barbarians massing, but the Romans refused to acknowlege the threat and call in their military because they thought the Barbarians were just there to trade and were making noise/a show. After all Rome got into a groove where it was a shadow of it's former military power and preparedness, it figured nothing could happen to it because it was Rome, and without them trade would be hurt, and nobody would build and maintain the roads. They were of course wrong.

Right of course how could i be sooo stupid the anglo saxons of course the gemanic tribes that colonised britain after the roman empire left, or mabye you meant the saxons the the coalition of german tribes from outside the roman empires borders?

You probably mean the celts, visi goths or gauls.

And your wrong about economics you want to know the greatest power for world pease? GLOBALISATION. Seriously the main reason 1st world powers dont fight any more is because its to difficult economically when so many countrys are interdependant, take a look at the gaming industy how many game studios have several offices in different countrys?

Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00492.x/abstract
http://aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP24_Does_Trade_Integration.pdf

Finally i might add please stop talking about history as if you know what your talking about because you clearly dont >.<.

The barbarians at the gate were the roman army, by the time rome fell the iconic roman legionary was long since gone. Because as the roman empire age uprisings where less common as a result the standing roman army was reduced constantly and the vast majority of their army was made from provincial forces i.e. barbarians more specifically guess who?
Yup thats right, those pesky germanic tribes again. It wasnt the romans didnt believe rome could fall thats why they didnt call in the troops, they couldnt call em in coz they where to busy sacking rome.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

KEEER-snip

I believe that you and I may need to agree to disagree. I will make some final arguments, and allow you to do the same, as a matter of wrapping up our dialectic.

I believe that it is just statistics being cited. I believe that one cannot extrapolate "women are/should be subservient" from "women are attracted to men who demonstrate dominant features. I am curious how you are arriving at that conclusion.

Statistics can always be interpreted to someone's advantage/disadvantage. This does not mean we stop doing research. It means we should be more sensitive to the cultural relevance of our work and provide cautionary notations about what can cannot be stated using the work.

"It's ridiculous to assume that a sample of individuals inclined one way somehow correlates with the claim that women inherently, because of their biological nature, seek dominant males."

Why? What if the study is replicated? What if its results correlate with the results of other similar studies?

"I have to come back to my initial question, do you really not see how evolutionary psychology in this instance provides a depiction of women that is unfavourable in arguing for their equality?"

You question is tricky, as I can see your perspective. However, to say that the work depicts women unfavorably requires a few assumptions. Why is it unfavorable? What judgements are being made about these women and why? Why are these judgements necessary or important? Most importantly, how do these judgements impact their ability to receive equal treatment? I do not have answers for these questions. I see a statistical reality presented about trends of attraction, etc.

"I rarely find myself participating in any feminist discussion beyond my usual simple: "People should be judged by their capacities" statement" Same.

"The flawed assumptions made by this article jumped out at me, particularly regarding women." And this is why you and I may need to agree to disagree. I do not, to this point, understand how the article spoke in error, having only cited statistics relative to a theory. I maintain that doing so is, in itself, no wrongdoing.