Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

No. Just because some feminists find evolutionary psychology unpalatable doesn't make the two incompatible. Does my dislike for broccoli make vegetrarianism incompatible with atheism?

I personally see no connection between the two except that the much derided politcal stance and the much derided scientific stance are (rightly) criticized for excessive claims made by extremists and both are dismissed out of hand because of those extremists.

I thought nearly everyone thinks that EP is retarded, because most of it is. Femnonazis are jist bein' sensible.

Human psychology is as much a product of evolution as everything else about us, but human psychology is so massively complex that scientific attempts to predict human behaviour for political purposes are, so far, hopeless. Our technology has been transformed by science, while our political institutions are almost untouched by any findings of modern psychology, whether evolutionary or not. Our evolved anatomy is still the main ongoing problem for feminism (defined as having the goal of political equality between the sexes): women are almost uniformly smaller and weaker than men, and this has translated into political subordination in almost every historical society. I'm happy that modern democracies are unusual in this respect, but I don't think it's altogether clear why this has happened, though it's presumably something to do with modern technology replacing muscle power.

I don't know how the fact men are generally larger than women is a problem for feminism. It's neither a strength nor a weakness. it just is. Men being larger than women doesn't cause subordination of women nor does it make said subordination reasonable.

The silliness that gets passed off as evo-psych ("women like shopping and pink because.... gathering berries") is what's fucking stupid and just an attempt to justify the enforcement of traditional gender roles. The notion our mental functions and behaviours are shaped by evolution is pretty reasonable.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I don't know how the fact men are generally larger than women is a problem for feminism. It's neither a strength nor a weakness. it just is. Men being larger than women doesn't cause subordination of women nor does it make said subordination reasonable.

I certainly agree with you that men's larger size doesn't make subordination of women reasonable. I continue to suspect it's why women have been subordinate in so many societies.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I don't know how the fact men are generally larger than women is a problem for feminism. It's neither a strength nor a weakness. it just is. Men being larger than women doesn't cause subordination of women nor does it make said subordination reasonable.

The silliness that gets passed off as evo-psych ("women like shopping and pink because.... gathering berries") is what's fucking stupid and just an attempt to justify the enforcement of traditional gender roles. The notion our mental functions and behaviours are shaped by evolution is pretty reasonable.

And of course the problem evo-psych continually runs into is that our social systems are the result of adaptation to the environment they arose in. Any argument that such-and-such a trait is clearly the result of an adaptation to such-and-such a circumstance runs squarely into the problem that a purely cultural trait would display evidence of such adaptation as well.

The thing many people who make claims about gender allegedly based upon evo-psych completely miss is that evo-psych could only make assessments about average tendencies. Regardless of what evo-psych ever actually turns up, I can't see how you could ever get an argument about what laws should be passed or what social structures are desirable from the findings of evo-psych.

I mean, if a particular trait is genetically-determined, why would you need - or want - to enforce that with a law or a cultural prohibition?



So, not only do I not think evo-psych has turned up anything corrosive to the goal of gender equality, I don't think that it could.

It is possible that some findings in evo-psych might have some implications for people insisting on legally-enforced 50/50 gender quotas, but who cares about those fuckers anyway? For people campaigning for equality of opportunity - a level playing field - there's no problem.

EP is dumb because even if our pleistocene ancestors behaved in X way, it does not mean we will behave that way now because we are subject to current evolutionary influences and current cultural factors.

Perhaps you should ask the people at FEPS, Surr?

Feminism is a scentific viewpoint now?

hackenslash wrote:Feminism is a scentific viewpoint now?

Correct. There is also Christian science, Islamic science, creationist science, homeopathic science, and basket-weaving.

surreptitious57 wrote:Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

They are not necessarily incompatible, it's just that asides from EP folks doing bad science, they also do bad philosophy by constantly committing the naturalistic fallacy. That tends to not sit well with the feminists as the conclusions that EP reaches are largely against the views some feminist tend to hold.

However, I actually think the two disciplines are perfectly compatible when they are at their best. So good EP research has no reason to be rejected by good feminists.

Interestingly enough, as bad EP has been, there are biologists and psychologists looking to reboot the field so it will be interesting to see how this new iteration turns out (see link below)
http://www.wrightofer.com/uploads/2/0/5 ... al_v2a.pdf

surreptitious57 wrote:Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

Evolutionary psychology and feminism cannot be incompatible as the former is a scientific field and the latter is a philosophical position. Even if evo psych found that women on average were biologically less intelligent, unable to comprehend logic, more uncontrollably emotional, etc etc, it wouldn't affect feminism since men and women would still deserve equal rights and to be treated according to their merits.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:EP is dumb because even if our pleistocene ancestors behaved in X way, it does not mean we will behave that way now because we are subject to current evolutionary influences and current cultural factors.

To be fair to EP, only one group of researchers in the field accepts the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness assumption (that behaviors must have evolved in the pleistocene), and even they don't tend to claim that cultural factors don't affect behavior. They attempt to tease apart genetic and environmental variables.

Imza wrote:Interestingly enough, as bad EP has been, there are biologists and psychologists looking to reboot the field so it will be interesting to see how this new iteration turns out (see link below)
http://www.wrightofer.com/uploads/2/0/5 ... al_v2a.pdf

Nice. I also recommend this article: Evolutionary Psychology and the Challenge of Adaptive Explanation.

EP is Plasticine Science, or is it Pleistocene Science? I forgets.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

Evolutionary psychology and feminism cannot be incompatible as the former is a scientific field and the latter is a philosophical position. Even if evo psych found that women on average were biologically less intelligent, unable to comprehend logic, more uncontrollably emotional, etc etc, it wouldn't affect feminism since men and women would still deserve equal rights and to be treated according to their merits

But it does affect feminism since many feminists reject it entirely. Which may have to do with it being - rightly or
wrongly - perceived as reinforcing patriarchy. Just ask a feminist who believes in social justice what she thinks of
it now. They in particular seem to have no time for it whatsoever. It is akin to being the natural default position

surreptitious57 wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

Evolutionary psychology and feminism cannot be incompatible as the former is a scientific field and the latter is a philosophical position. Even if evo psych found that women on average were biologically less intelligent, unable to comprehend logic, more uncontrollably emotional, etc etc, it wouldn't affect feminism since men and women would still deserve equal rights and to be treated according to their merits

But it does affect feminism since many feminists reject it entirely. Which may have to do with it being - rightly or
wrongly - perceived as reinforcing patriarchy. Just ask a feminist who believes in social justice what she thinks of
it now. They in particular seem to have no time for it whatsoever. It is akin to being the natural default position

This happens in many fields in humanities and to certain extent in psychology as well. In my experience people generally find evolution very intimidating and demoralizing in the humanities as it somehow "reduces" the person to just another animal. For the feminists, I think they are also considering the naturalistic fallacy by assuming that if they take evolution seriously, they somehow have to admit that inequality between men and women is justified. It's not, as Samsa pointed out.

Samsa

Nice. I also recommend this article: Evolutionary Psychology and the Challenge of Adaptive Explanation.

Very interesting find, thanks or the link! I'm actually trying to put together a course on EP but looking at it more critically and ironing out the wrinkles of it's past baggage. This could be a good read for undergraduates as I've found that many undergraduate psychs tend to not only reject EP but extend that out to evolution all together.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

Evolutionary psychology and feminism cannot be incompatible as the former is a scientific field and the latter is a philosophical position. Even if evo psych found that women on average were biologically less intelligent, unable to comprehend logic, more uncontrollably emotional, etc etc, it wouldn't affect feminism since men and women would still deserve equal rights and to be treated according to their merits

But it does affect feminism since many feminists reject it entirely. Which may have to do with it being - rightly or
wrongly - perceived as reinforcing patriarchy. Just ask a feminist who believes in social justice what she thinks of
it now. They in particular seem to have no time for it whatsoever. It is akin to being the natural default position

I've spoken to a number of feminists on this topic and the general response from those who hold a negative view of it is that they don't reject the science but rather they think the "science" is bad and politically motivated. They are essentially just rejecting people who start with a 1950s view of gender norms and then try to rationalise their position by warping data to fit their beliefs.

Talk to practically any feminist though and ask them if they believe there are gender differences, in physiology and behavior, between men and women and the vast majority will tell you that they accept this. The debate is simply over exactly what these differences are, how large these differences are, and what these differences mean in terms of equality.

Imza wrote:Very interesting find, thanks or the link! I'm actually trying to put together a course on EP but looking at it more critically and ironing out the wrinkles of it's past baggage. This could be a good read for undergraduates as I've found that many undergraduate psychs tend to not only reject EP but extend that out to evolution all together.

Yeah it's a really good resource, in my opinion, as it's not simply critical of EP but it actually explains the correct way it should be done and how it can be scientific.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Are evolutionary psychology and feminism mutually incompatible ?
This is something which I know next to nothing about so any input
would really be appreciated [ no anti feminist rants now please ]

Evolutionary psychology and feminism cannot be incompatible as the former is a scientific field and the latter is a philosophical position. Even if evo psych found that women on average were biologically less intelligent, unable to comprehend logic, more uncontrollably emotional, etc etc, it wouldn't affect feminism since men and women would still deserve equal rights and to be treated according to their merits.

I would argue that feminism is a set of political positions. Political in the purest sense that it is primarily concerned with questions of policy, and a set because it's diverse. There are philosophical positions, but the problem is that there are so many to choose from, many of them quite mutually contradictory.

I have to wonder whether feminist judgment of EP is genuinely concerned with bad science or more like the Soviet Union's rejection of natural selection due to it's being perceived to conflict with Dialecteical Materialism.

Truly, EP has many extreme idiots in it, but so does feminism, and I tend to agree with scott (sorry; I forgot the digits) that both fields are judged by the extreme idiots and the way they manage to take over the discourse, and that the judgment is a sound one. Still, one of the few things that unites most feminists is their reflexive aggression and name-calling when the idiots are pointed out, and it does not seem justifiable not to apply the same standards to EP.

The real question is can people without penises do science? How can they penetrate nature?

There are apparently machines these days that can replace the penis...