Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Feminists HATE evolution/evolutionary psychology

Feminists HATE evolution/evolutionary psychology
November 21, 2011, 02:22:46 PM
Because it would tell them that they are wasting away good gametes and losing at life. Truth is brutal ladies.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/feminists-are-afraid-of-evolutionary-psychology-and-with-good-reason/

True. They hate psychology in general. Currently, feminists claim that psychologists aim at women with Borderline PD, which of course, is a paranoid accusation. All feminists are stupid and neurotic.

Yes. There is a well-known feminist blogger in my country that also hates evolutionary psychology.

Yes. There is a well-known feminist blogger in my country that also hates evolutionary psychology.
link up the blog.
i'll be surprised if her hate has any basis besides ego maintenance

I don't know what their argument against evolution(ary psychology) is, but it may have to do with the bizarre implicit assumption that just because something was necessary, or even just useful, in our evolutionary past, that it is something we should make use of today too, thus ignoring aspects which make this information play a very small part - after all, evolution is universal, not just species based. The explanatory power of evolution is probably just linked with the naturally narrative structure humans give to their understanding of things, i.e. making it myth which happens to incorporate the facts. After all, Darwin wasn't exactly the first to conveive of the notion of evolution, he was just the first to give a scientific account of how it could act on simple life to produce the variety of species currently observed, and ultimately man.
..
If going against something means transcending it, why keep us tied to it?

I don't know what their argument against evolution(ary psychology) is, but it may have to do with the bizarre implicit assumption that just because something was necessary, or even just useful, in our evolutionary past, that it is something we should make use of today too, thus ignoring aspects which make this information play a very small part - after all, evolution is universal, not just species based. The explanatory power of evolution is probably just linked with the naturally narrative structure humans give to their understanding of things, i.e. making it myth which happens to incorporate the facts. After all, Darwin wasn't exactly the first to conveive of the notion of evolution, he was just the first to give a scientific account of how it could act on simple life to produce the variety of species currently observed, and ultimately man.
..
If going against something means transcending it, why keep us tied to it?

No competent thinker puts any stock in the idea that just because something was adaptive for a certain organism in a certain environment at a certain distant time, it is to be necessarily valued here and now.

Anyway, this article was extremey funny and argued that feminists are physically ugly and that they want to increase their perceived attractiveness by getting men to think that being attracted to slim, beautiful women is simply social engineering and not programmed in their genes.

Phoenix

Feminism is a mainstream movement, and don't all mainstream movements get perverted by ignorance? That doesn't mean there aren't kernels of truth to them. Think of conservatism, for example.

Yes. There is a well-known feminist blogger in my country that also hates evolutionary psychology.
link up the blog.
i'll be surprised if her hate has any basis besides ego maintenance

It's in portuguese

escreva*lola*escreva*.blogspot.com without *

Evolutionary psychology is often used as a crutch for preconception, so there may be some validity to the dislike. There is legitimate science, and then there is conjecture and non-sequiturs. The former you will find in publications dealing with science, the latter in ideological blogs and their literary kin. Too often, in non-scientific discussion, it boils down to "evolution did it, hence it is ultimate truth". The two traps I have encountered are "ascribing inherent value", which has been mentioned, and "ascribing purpose".

The current trend is adaptationist, mimicking biology, hence certain basic assumptions are required for the idea to work. However, we know little about how the mind actually works, or even what it really is (in empirically demonstrable terms). Less so even than we understand biology (we can break down mechanisms, but essence and the greater picture both remain elusive). That leaps of logic occur in these fields is valid criticism. The Gaia hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis) is a good example of such errors.

Amongst ideologues, attraction develops to hypotheses that do not conflict with their view of reality. The reverse effect can be observed (historically and currently) in the left, but I would attribute this to ignorance rather than some inherent opposition in modern times. People like Peter Singer (author of "A Darwinian Left") have a good approach. Taking the truth humanity learns and reaching one of many conclusions from it without regarding it as absolute. Such plasticity does not lend itself to philosophical discussion unless you want to argue a series of "What ifs".

Anyway, this article was extremey funny and argued that feminists are physically ugly and that they want to increase their perceived attractiveness by getting men to think that being attracted to slim, beautiful women is simply social engineering and not programmed in their genes.

A denial of the truth because of the well it springs from, essentially (joke or not). Modern men are indeed conditioned towards unrealistic expectations, and women are conditioned into bending to them. That element exists, we gain from acknowledging it. Taking it to an extreme and applying it for the furtherance of an ideology of universal equivalence is where the breakdown occurs. I was going to say it's ironic, but it's actually quite fitting.

Why do we even bother talking about feminism?

Feminism is liberalism. The only people who want to deny this are fools who hope they'll get popular support for their ideas if they make them seem liberal.

All liberals are feminists; partially true. All feminists are liberals... definitely true.

Why do we even bother talking about feminism?

Feminism is liberalism. The only people who want to deny this are fools who hope they'll get popular support for their ideas if they make them seem liberal.

All liberals are feminists; partially true. All feminists are liberals... definitely true.

Feminism directly affects the health of our society. Everything from the quality of babies born due to timing to the structure of families, the male identity, etc. .

All leftists hate evolution.

They think it's a synonym for atheism, which they like, but don't understand.

All feminists are leftists. If you killed all the leftists, the whining about feminism would drop out like the Horst Wessel Lied in a synagogue...

Contemporary feminist theory - which is an offshoot of Marxist critical theory - relies heavily on the idea that gender differences are 'socially constructed.' Evolutionary psychology contends that gender differences are hardwired into us as the result of millions of years of psychosocial/sociobiological factors.

What is interesting is that I have NEVER heard of any evolutionary psychologist claiming that our hardwired sexual characteristics are 'desirable' or 'unchangeable.' Most of these people are SCIENTISTS who are not making any judgment one way or another. They are simply putting forth their findings as the result of research and scholarship.

The common backlash against evolutionary psychology from leftist ideologues is the general statement that, 'Well, just because that's the way it is, that doesn't make it good.' NO ONE is saying that our evolutionary makeup is good or bad. They are simply attempting to explain WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE.

Likewise, I have never heard of an evolutionary psychologist completely denying the idea that we may be socially constructed to a greater or lesser extent. To deny that we might be, at least in part, influenced by our environment would be a stupid assertion. In fact, evolutionary psychology is an assertion that we ARE socially constructed, but that this 'construction' takes place over millions of years and eventually becomes hardwired into us on a DNA level.

The problem that feminists have with evolutionary psychology is PURELY IDEOLOGICAL. Contemporary feminist theory relies COMPLETELY on the idea that we are socially constructed, with the added notion that we can somehow engineer this 'construction process' to achieve more desirable results - according to whichever results feminists consider desirable. In fact, this desire to 'engineer' society is the lodestone of much of LEFTIST thought.

Evolutionary psychology basically says, 'Yeah, nice try with that! Human beings are the way they are because of millions of years of evolutionary programming at a DNA LEVEL.'

To deny the theory of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM on any level is a thought-crime to the intellectual/ideological left. A case in point is the academic left's reaction to Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature." Pinker was vilified in many academic circles for even SUGGESTING that some aspects of human nature might be 'innate,' or hardwired into us. He was called everything from a right-wing zealot to a Nazi. (Which is funny, because he's the furthest thing from a right-winger, and he's Jewish.) Social constructionism is the RULE OF THE DAY in the academic left, which is MARRIED to the idea of social constructionism. Pinker's ideas do a lot to dismantle lefty social constructionism and all the po-mo, Marxist critical theory nonsense that goes along with it. Basically, if you DO believe what Pinker says, you can throw out your Marx, Foucault, Derrida, et al, because such writers wind up being worthless. That's what happened in my case.

And if that happened on a large scale, a lot of lefty academics and intellectuals would be out of jobs. The government grants would dry up, the cushy, tenured positions would disappear. The lofty sinecures at liberal think-tanks would go away. Which is why these people are terrified of evolutionary psychology. If the greater public realized that the emperor of Social Constructionism had no clothes, they'd be in big trouble.

And some people are just emotionally attached to a particular train of thought. People of a very leftist bent, like hardcore feminists (as only one example) do not like the idea that PEOPLE ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, despite all attempts at social engineering. Evolutionary psychology does not paint a very comforting picture on an emotional level. People who want the TRUTH, despite how it makes them feel, usually buy into evolutionary psychology much easier. (And it doesn't have to be ALL of evolutionary psychology.)

Really, if you put Steven Pinker - a Harvard Neuroscientist - against Amanda Marcotte - a feminist blogger, which do you think would have the most sound argument?




Would post something worthwhile but all important points were made by 300pnm. Well done, sire.

Also very much enjoyed The Blank Slate. Crazy that I borrowed it from a friend of mine who is really very liberal on the surface (mostly due to social pressure, I think) but tends toward relatively daring non-fiction like that Pinker book.

Hehe :) Dat is some great shit up dere. 300pnm ftw!

Leftists have to be the stoopidest, stoopidest, stoopidest, stoopidest, stoopidest, stoopidest, stoopidest, lunatics ever to emerge from a not half bad human DNA chain.
The good news is that evolution will reliably settle things, in its own good time.