Thank you for posting!
Here is a abridged version of my PhD proposal - I haven't started it yet, and my funding options are disappearing by the day so I'm not sure if I'm actually going to be able to do it. But I very much appreciate a chance to discuss it.
I'm at my seminar at LSE tomorrow and will be gone from dawn to well past dusk unfortunately. Also have some prep to do tonight so if I don't post in teh next 24 hours don't be offended.
"Exploring a synthesis between feminism and evolutionary psychology, known today as Darwinian Feminism, hence contributing to the intellectual reinvigoration of feminism (still a vital discourse despite its apparent unpopularity) and making it relevant to a new generation of men and women. This will be a work exploring and juxtaposing ideas and theories starting with an examination of the feminist definition of patriarchy.
From this perspective, patriarchy is broadly held to be a system that sprang whole from the mind of Man as a means to oppress women. I will explore its emergence from an evolutionary perspective, hypothesising it as an evolved arena for male intrasexual competition; this going some way to explain why women (on average) have historically been found at a disadvantage within it ? especially when they have children.
Emerging from a preliminary examination of ?feminisms?, this will necessarily have to begin with an impartial and thorough representation of a consolidated feminist position regarding the meaning of patriarchy.
A few possible points of focus to be explored:
A Primarily, the idea that patriarchy was consciously developed and exists purely to oppress women ? from an evolutionary perspective, this is not tenable. If patriarchy, like everything else, evolved over time, the war of attrition between feminism and patriarchy may be something of a blind alley. This is not to say that women do not suffer discrimination within traditional patriarchal systems, but that the reasons for this discrimination are more complex than previously deduced from the premise that patriarchy is fuelled by systemic misogyny.
Some secondary issues encompassing:
B the idea that the battle of the sexes predominates over the cooperation of the sexes.
C Masculinity as pathology
D the seeming paradox that females are not competitive; yet where it is accepted they are, maintain that it is no more or less malign than male competitiveness (re the misogynous myth of female innate duplicity + explore the possible evolutionary origins of this myth in areas of illumination via evolutionary theory such as concealed ovulation and male paternity anxieties)
E issues not of gender inferiority, but of gender preference, as a possible explanation of specific workplace disparities (pre and post-partum).
F Battles for resources between parents in the home. In relation to a disparate societal system that effectively pits mothers and fathers (especially on low and lower middle incomes) against one another in issues such as childcare and positive work/life balance and at best offers strained compromises rather than positive choices. Much of current political rhetoric examines proximate causes of family breakdown ? an evolutionary approach allows for an examination of possible ultimate explanations embedded within cultural and societal structures.
The points above are a few examples of what I hope gets to the heart of two aspects of feminism which I have personally found at odds; those of feminist ?consciousness? and feminist ?ideology?, at times a confusing dichotomy which I found hindered the development of my own feminist consciousness as a younger woman. Ideas such as masculinity as the enemy, of the endless battle of the sexes, etc; these are foci which obviously polarise debate, and are also ideas that have seeped into popular consciousness via endless dissemination in our culture. I feel that while feminism is far from being redundant, as is often mooted in the media, this focus has too often predominated within feminisms ideological parameters, which has hindered its development and rendered it irrelevant for a new generation of women , even though a survey this year revealed that women?s earnings still languished almost 20% behind men?s, a full 30 years after the Sex Discrimination Act. I have found that applying a synthesis between feminism and evolutionary theory has been very illuminating in understanding why, in spite of female intellectual parity being unequivocally proven, these statistics still apply today.
There is however a lot of resistance within feminism and the social sciences to the use of evolutionary frameworks. Much of this I have discovered is based on fallacious argument, fuzzy logic and, at times, plain bad will. The reasons for the feminist stand off are understandable however, but are based mostly on a misunderstanding and/or wilful misrepresentation of evolutionary theory and fears of a slippery slope. While this is understandable, it is not intellectually tenable, not if anyone would wish feminism a future as a respected and vital discourse and one that positively contributes to society in a real sense.
The slippery slope is however unfortunately demonstrated in some societies. All feminists know that, in many cultures, female self-determination and freedom of movement can, and often does, become one of the first casualties of such debates put into action, and certainly if women are not allowed equality in the debating process. This is an important observation and should always be acknowledged.
Contry to many expectations however, evolutionary theory very often scientifically backs up what feminists have instinctively suspected for centuries, such as the tendency for patriarchal oppression when it comes to men coveting a woman's fertility, anxieties over paternity surety, and the tendency of these insecurities to become manifest in social policy. Evolutionary theory then provides proximate and ultimate explanations for these phenomena, helping us understand and introduce corrective measures. What it does not do, as is often claimed, is condone immoral or amoral behaviour. Humans are highly evolved and profoundly moral animals and this fact is central to evolutionary theory.
But one thing we can be sure about is that in the future these debates will always focus on human nature and, as such, feminists and social scientists need to equip themselves with the tools to recognise the real science from the pseudo science that informs discrimination and allows discriminative policies to proliferate ? not ignore it and hope it will go away. Men and women are not evolved from different planets and evolutionary theory and the science of human nature is not going to go away. A failure for feminism to engage with it on a real intellectual level will only leave feminism floundering and I believe that will have moral implications for women, their children and their men folk all over the world.
The amalgamation of Darwinian theory into the social sciences is inevitable. In the words of Dr Helena Cronin at LSE, ?All the social sciences, humanities and indeed policy-making rely on theories of human nature. These theories are generally tacit and almost invariably wrong. The only scientific way to understand human nature is a Darwinian way.?
In my post graduate PhD study, I would like to thoroughly explore this neglected middle ground, not with the intention of discrediting feminism, but of vigorously exploring the instinctive questions my own feminist consciousness posits, with robust thinking free from the fetters of ideology and in the process contributing to the to the continued relevance of feminism and gender studies in the 21st century.