Repurposed feminism - Why we still need it

[Theda Baratheon]

Often evopsych is just used as an excuse. Not as a descriptive tool, but as a prescriptive one. "I am the man, me sleeping around is not as bad because...monkeys 300,000 years ago" is just one example.You can understand why people have problems with it.

Yes, exactly.

God I hate that bullshit argument so much in terms of hundreds of thousands of years ago. As I've studied paleoanthropology, neanderthal and archaic homo sapiens quite a lot in University it's really something that fucks me off every time I hear/read a variation of it.

Yes, there are anatomically modern human beings as early as 160, 000 years ago, perhaps earlier, but in a world drastically, drastically different to ours. Also, we do not know if there was really much of a distinction between the sexes yet.

[Guest Raidne]

Complaining about rich men is like going to roman empire and instead of indentifying slavery as problem saying "how come there are no female senators?"

I don't think so. The complaint is not about rich men. The question is why a woman similarly situated to a man has a harder time attaining the same benefits.

Ironically, the lower levels of the socioeconomic stratosphere in the United States is the hardest place to make this case. Women at those levels have seen very significant gains relative to similarly situated men, while the middle through the top has seen very little movement. And the fact that a woman in college today is going to have to get a graduate degree to earn the same amount as a man with a bachelor's degree is hardly a problem for the "elites" - unless you define that term broadly enough to encompass 30% of the population.

The reality of being in that 30% of Americans with bachelor degrees, or 11% of Americans with graduate or professional degrees (the majority of which, in all categories, are earned by women) means getting passed over for leadership positions because of some jerk-off's belief that women don't have natural charismatic leadership skills, or dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace, or just having to work 20% harder, all the time, to keep level with the men you work with in the eyes of your superiors. These things are part of everyday life.

Would I deal with a male superior always angling his arm to brush up against my chest whenever I walk past him if it would cure cancer? Sure. But why are you always asking me to? This is the same story labor unions sold women when they chose to advance the agenda of working men for decades, and asked women to wait for their turn. Repackage it however you want - I've been to this dog and pony show before.

[Tempra]

The ominous ''some feminists'' the scary ''THEY''

Sounds like the scary STRAIGHT WHITE MALE.

Generally, once a group reaches a certain size, there will never be a consensus amongst the group on any idea. Hell, we have had entire threads on defining feminism and pretty much everyone had their own opinion.

[Knez Snow]

Yes, exactly.

God I hate that bullshit argument so much in terms of hundreds of thousands of years ago. As I've studied paleoanthropology, neanderthal and archaic homo sapiens quite a lot in University it's really something that fucks me off every time I hear/read a variation of it.

Yes, there are anatomically modern human beings as early as 160, 000 years ago, perhaps earlier, but in a world drastically, drastically different to ours. Also, we do not know if there was really much of a distinction between the sexes yet.

So here is the answer:

Evo psych is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. Only thing I would say is that we have to take reality into account when we discuss how things ought to be. I understand that some people might abuse it in that sence, but that is not relevant to the fact that evopsy is neccesary, and it can be used properly as well.

Also it's more than just monkys 300000 years ago. It still applys, and you can even observe and explain a lot of things in today world using evo psy

ETA: Yes, we do know there was distinction between sexes.

[Sci-2]

I think it's time for Athena Andreadis's Evo-Psych Bingo Card.

Also, excellent post by Raidne. [Adding link]

I like the idea of finding the right time to shift into post-feminist thinking. I definitely agree we aren't there yet.

IT'S THE FEMINIST HIVEMIND! THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG NOW! :lol:

Hahahaha

If you are interested in the transcript for the full program (or the video for that matter) its located here

Long story short they both agreed that freely consented sex work is compatible with feminism.

Gillio intro'd me to Q&A. I really should listen to it more often. Also, note that there's a segment about feminism and chivalry.

[Knez Snow]

Whole evolution of not just humans but other animals with gender dimorphism is usually based on natural selection that brutally marks many males as unworthy, and still the same mechanism is in our brains. The reason why men are psihicaly stronger is because they had to be because they faced harder conditions, and had to conform to harder standard to survive and reproduce.

ETA:that bingo card is a strawmen.

[Guest Raidne]

Is feminism against the idea that men are biologically skewed to prefer women with fewer sexual partners for marriage than those with more?

It's not quite right to say that "feminism" is against certain identifiable hypotheses. What feminism is against is generating hypotheses from the default position of confirming currently observable societal norms, which are reasonably likely to be the products of thousands of years of sexism.

Of course, some of those norms are very likely not the product of sexism, and it requires a great deal of care to tease that out – the propensity to argue in favor of the position one favors regardless of the data is probably very tempting to both sides.

To avoid these issues, a careful feminist would ask the following: Is there anything odd, or even unscientific, about the framing of this question? Where did the hypothesis come from? Did the researcher start, for example, from observation of primate behavior? Or cross-cultural data? Or data from certain defined cultures across different time periods? Or is it unclear where this hypothesis came from? If the reasonableness of the hypothesis is treated as a premise, that hypothesis rightly raises suspicion - this is bad science in every field. Assuming the rational actor model without any empirical basis held back economics for decades, which finally seems to get the idea that it is, in many ways, social psychology. Similarly, evolutionary psychologists seem unaware that cultural anthropology has been answering the same type of questions they're asking for years and years now, only from hypothesis grounded in an actual discipline, and not some guy's musings on why he wants to get all pissed off and tell his girlfriend to not suck any dicks on her way across the parking lot because she got naked with some dudes before he came along.

So, why ask the question the way that you did? Isn't "whether the number of known previous sexual partners affects the perceived desirability of men and/or women as potential mates in X groups/cultures/etc.?" a more scientifically phrased question? Should I really be the one with the burden of defending my preference for a hypothesis grounded in empirical science? Shouldn't it really be you who has the burden to explain why the phrasing of your question isn't, on its face, evidence of experimenter bias?

Lastly, as already noted upthread, your exact question, as phrased, can be tossed almost instantly for asking about the biological motivations for choosing "marriage" partners. That's like asking about the biological drive behind parachute pants. As there is no possible scientific answer, that can't be your reason for asking. Assuming you have some reason for asking, we're then left with the question of what that reason is.

But do you have an answer? And can you explain why evopsych is necessary in a world where anthropologists have already existed for some time? What questions were they leaving unaddressed? What methodologies have they been neglecting?

[Knez Snow]

Feminists deny evo psy because it chalenges their confirmation bias. Evo psy is science just like evolution. Christian fundamentalists are similar, they deny evolution because of their conf. bias. But feminists are even more irrational since they usually accept evolution, but reject evo psy.

[Knez Snow]

But do you have an answer? And can you explain why evopsych is necessary in a world where anthropologists have already existed for some time? What questions were they leaving unaddressed? What methodologies have they been neglecting?

Both evopsy and antro is a genuine science, They are realted but different. I don't see why one would exclude the other.

[Sci-2]

Feminists deny evo psy because it chalenges their confirmation bias. Evo psy is science just like evolution. Christian fundamentalists are similar, they deny evolution because of their conf. bias. But feminists are even more irrational since they usually accept evolution, but reject evo psy.

I think at least few links to some peer reviewed articles would give your position the minimum amount of validity needed to take this set of statements seriously.

Because right now I have to note the person who made that bingo card has a PhD in neurobiology.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Feminists deny evo psy because it chalenges their confirmation bias. Evo psy is science just like evolution. Christian fundamentalists are similar, they deny evolution because of their conf. bias. But feminists are even more irrational since they usually accept evolution, but reject evo psy.

Forgive the hyperbole to follow, but you're painting with a pretty broad brush and you can't use 'evo psych' (note trendy quotation marks) as some kind of trump card like anything you put that label on becomes absolute irrefutable truth...

You can accept evolution but still recognize that despite (or because of) our biology, humans also have the capacity to make decisions. Despite the fact that somewhere back in the evolutionary chain an animal consumed its young to survive, doesn't mean it's okay to eat your kids if you're hungry.

Evolutionary psychology, yes it's a discipline, but it doesn't mean that it's okay for men to just rape whatever they feel like because biology makes it feel good. It can explain things but that doesn't mean you can use it to justify social injustice.

[Knez Snow]

I think at least few links to some peer reviewed articles would give your position the minimum amount of validity needed to take this set of statements seriously.

Because right now I have to note the person who made that bingo card has a PhD in neurobiology.

appeal to authority, logical fallacy

[Knez Snow]

Forgive the hyperbole to follow, but you're painting with a pretty broad brush and you can't use 'evo psych' (note trendy quotation marks) as some kind of trump card like anything you put that label on becomes absolute irrefutable truth...

You can accept evolution but still recognize that despite (or because of) our biology, humans also have the capacity to make decisions. Despite the fact that somewhere back in the evolutionary chain an animal consumed its young to survive, doesn't mean it's okay to eat your kids if you're hungry.

Evolutionary psychology, yes it's a discipline, but it doesn't mean that it's okay for men to just rape whatever they feel like because biology makes it feel good. It can explain things but that doesn't mean you can use it to justify social injustice.

I have said already that i agree it can be abused. However that fact does not justify to ignore it.

[Sci-2]

appeal to authority, logical fallacy

Well it meets legitimate expertise, which is why asked for those peer reviewed publications so we could see if her opinion is part of the expert consensus.

[Guest Raidne]

-use reason and logic, not emotional reaction

Ahahahaha. I have to give it to you, that's totally a good one...wait, this was a joke, wasn't it?

Anyway, I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and advice, that is what I intended.

Absolutely. Much like Charles Manson had to teach black people about Helter Skelter, I can't logically see how women could get started on repairing feminism without some external source of logic. Thank you for taking the time to help us out.

Edited to remove embarrassing evidence of mistaken charitable approach.

[Guest Raidne]

Both evopsy and antro is a genuine science, They are realted but different. I don't see why one would exclude the other.

Religion and philosophy address many of the same subjects. That does not mean that both are "science."

Also, I'd like an honest answer from the peanut gallery: would anyone here feel differently if the suggestion was that the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow take some constructive advice and learn to use reason and logic instead of emotional reaction?

[Sci-2]

Religion and philosophy address many of the same subjects. That does not mean that both are "science."

Also, I'd like an honest answer from the peanut gallery: would anyone here feel differently if the suggestion was that the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow take some constructive advice and learn to use reason and logic instead of emotional reaction?

I figured trying to address all the errors in that post to be a waste of time. Why I suggested he go back and read all the prior threads.

At this point I'd settle for some peer reviewed articles on the legitimacy of gender essentialism.

[Guest Raidne]

I do have one other question: what is the biological explanation for women who wear skimpy clothes out in public but claim to be uninterested in sexual intercourse?

[Larry of the Lawn]

\

Also, I'd like an honest answer from the peanut gallery:

Well since you asked so nicely : I don't need to read anything by these Ivory Tower intellectuals like the PhD lady Sci mentioned; I can get my info from a website run by a guy named Testiclio Magoo instead. He says evo-psych is boss.

[Knez Snow]

I figured trying to address all the errors in that post to be a waste of time. Why I suggested he go back and read all the prior threads.

At this point I'd settle for some peer reviewed articles on the legitimacy of gender essentialism.

just look at nature. Animals are divided between male and female. Humans are no exeption.

ETA: Sure some exeption on individual level may happen for whatever reasons, but normal state of things is clear.