Stressed men fancy bigger women....

I guess that would at least make more sense. I hope it wasn't the intent because it seems nastier, really.

"surely it is only tautology to posit that biological urges are amoral?"
ha ha yes! I think 'immoral' must have been the intent

It really is weird.

I've just realized, does whatme mean 'immoral' or 'amoral'? They are different.

I can imagine women's choices might be immoral according to some daft standards (OMG, women enjoying sex!), but surely it is only tautology to posit that biological urges are amoral?

Agreed LRD

BTW I still don't know what you mean by this whatmeworry: "I will stick to my guns re women turning out to be fairly amoral, and that threatens a lot of belief sets, of all stripes. (Which you'd expect, evolution has taught us not to be pushovers but we don't compete on physical strength)"

What do you mean by 'amoral' are you saying we're driven to get off on abusing the vulnerable and ahead by exploiting them.... or do you just mean the idea that we are driven to shag olympian adonises when we ovulate then dupe a considerate and constant man into believing he is the father?

The whole realm of 'morality' is a bit weird in this discussion

Religion used to pride itself just as much on being real, proveable truth - in some parts of the world it still does. There are certainly lots of people who believe Christianity is proveable and will not budge from that.

Any orthodoxy that responds to questions by insisting the questioners are paranoid/extreme/'wrong' without being able to respond, is suspect IMO.

By the way - what is this sentence?:
"30 years ago the Nurture brigade had it in for Sociobiology when it started out, but eventually good science drives out wrong beliefs."

'the nurture brigade'? what does this mean? Sociobiology has pretty much been anti-feminism dressed as science, and 'nurture brigade' a slur for those who prioritise a huge importance for socialisation in forming the person - a slur which is also antifeminist, since it implies that women's traditional role of nurturing human beings has no value because its all down to the biology of the baby that pops out - and good/bad parenting has no influence.

What are the 'wrong beliefs' that have been driven out by the 'good science' within sociobiology?

Phlogiston ... for years they were convinced it existed and rejected any evidence to the contrary.
The behaviour of the scientific establishment is as much sanctimonious orthodoxy as patriarchal religion, except worse, since they 'pride themselves' so bloody much on their 'impartiality'. Revelations are not just suddenly accepted by the scientific establishment if they require a paradigm shift, they are fought and suppressed in the name of 'rigour', when really it is just that it puts too many noses out of joint.
The whole idea that socio-biological reality is a 'thing' that can be scientifically 'found' within the dynamics of a patriarchal society is the phlogiston of evolutionary psychology/socio-biology.

Isn't sociobiology pretty widely looked down on?

If I chat to researchers doing science, they don't object to evo psych because it's full of good people doing bad research - they object because, by and large, it is full of mediocre scientists who don't really understand why their research is flawed. I think that's probably more dangerous than good people doing bad research.

I mean, let's not split hairs here, this study was so crap it was possible to point up very basic mistakes like the man--> human thing on a cursory reading. That doesn't give the scientists a good name.

Good scientists may well be aware of that, but I doubt many of them specialise in 'evolutionary psychology'

I think the opposition to Evo Psych by many belief sets (RadFems are hardly alone) is precisely because so may people, and good people at that, are working on it.

30 years ago the Nurture brigade had it in for Sociobiology when it started out, but eventually good science drives out wrong beliefs.

All the above are good points - though I think the scientific method is more rigorous and more neutral than you fear FU, and there are a lot of women in it now too.

I will stick to my guns re women turning out to be fairly amoral, and that threatens a lot of belief sets, of all stripes. (Which you'd expect, evolution has taught us not to be pushovers but we don't compete on physical strength)

...but I am still scratching head over the role of Phlogiston here :)

I feel God in this case definitely pees standing up, too.

blinding flashes of insight into the human condition handed down straight from the mind of God
That sounds like a description of the intent and purpose of 'evolutionary psychology'

By definition, I would have thought, no.

Good scientists may well be aware of that, but I doubt many of them specialise in 'evolutionary psychology'

I don't think we can analyse the patriarchy perfectly, from inside it.

I think good scientists are aware of that, but it is a huge worry that I think the media is far less aware, and also far less aware (or less willing to acknowledge) that studies are only studies - they're not blinding flashes of insight into the human condition handed down straight from the mind of God.

Also, I'm all for the scientific method and rigour and all that. Science has been responsible for just about all the amazing things that we can use and enjoy...

I just have a deep mistrust of any research into the sexes that doesn't include patriarchy as a significant contributing factor. And since 'the effects of patriarchy on human preferences and behaviours' is not widely researched, I don't see how it is even possible to include it.

I come from a family of scientists. Mansplaining a-go-go.
I don't believe it is deliberately upholding the patriarchy when scientists are prejudiced by it. They simply can't [without a huge amount of effort to eventually lose personal advantages] help it - bless 'em :/

Meant to conclude that nine times out of ten it's down to the media's portrayal and desire for a soundbite which matches what their readership wants - ie a patriarchal view. Don't blame the research.

Scientists pride themselves on their independence, it's part of their raisin d'être - would be interesting to consider their work as their working to uphold the patriarchy, but I don't think they do. Funding streams do have some impact but not enough to disguise genuine research and outcomes.

My DH works in research and has all sorts of strong opinions, but is frequently amused, surprised, interested, shocked and perturbed by his findings. I know that he and his colleagues would never disguise findings or design studies which would give misleading conclusions - however they are occasionally (by no means regularly) under pressure from clients to provide research which justifies already made decisions. They hate doing this and rarely do.

sorry phlogiston

"And its not just The Patriarchy who get upset - Nurture-ists, Religious people, Feminists - all hate some of the implications for their belief sets."

It seems that you don't believe these scientists are part of patriarchy. Somehow, they are the most superior, unbiased, detached form of human that arrives at the truth :/ .... Flogistan?

"Its not that the research isn't being done, its that many people are uncomfortable with the answers "

This feminist isn't worried about the 'answers' - I'm worried about the f*cking questions, and about the vested interests of those who ask the questions, fund/do the studies and interpret the results of those questions.

DNA tests have existed for a pretty long time, it seems unlikely.

But depressing.

LRD I think I know exactly what whatmeworry is talking about - it is one of the pieces of shite I have had flung at me by mansplaining niceguys: you can't follow paternal lines because the incidents of men actually being cuckolds is too high to get meaningful stats.