Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

DoE - I don't think it is necessarily about conscious choice. But it isn't about competing for food supply either. As you say these evolutionary pressures apply to men & women equally.

The fundamental difference between men and women in evolutionary terms is that women can have up to around 12 children in their lifetime, they can be certain about parentage, and can only have one episode of pregnancy/breastfeeding at a time. Most women throughout evolutionary history (around 80% I think) have had a least one child.

Men can have 100s of children, but are never sure of parentage. Throughout our history only around 40% of men became fathers at all. The rest were the end of the line.

It is these different reproductive odds that shape sexual selection.

Ok I will think about that. But is it conscious selection or is it more "the more aggressive man punches his hunting partner to get the meat/ berries and therefore survives to reproduce" because if women were part of the food collection as I believe they were, wouldn't the same apply?

Himalaya, I am not saying this is what you are advocating but in my head it is evolutionary psychOlogists who came up with the "women like pink because berries are pink" stuff which sounds like a heap of crap.

Thedoctrineofennis -

That's kinda my point. Selective breeding isnt natural selection (although it can be a force driving evolution).

So drawing a parallel between domestic cattle (and other livestock) and humans isn't all that useful, since we are not domestic animals bred by another species for a their gain (although maybe the bacteria that live in our guts might argue otherwise )

There is a political, legal and social parallel - where women have in some times and places been treated as chattel and valued as 'breeding stock', this has been an important feminist insight and something to challenge - but it doesn't follow that it makes sense in biological/evolutionary terms to use that same thinking to analyse what was going on, if you see what I mean?

I think it is really uncontroversial and a central part of evolutionary theory to say that if there are characteristics that are inherited as part of "human nature" then it is likely that they at some point in evolutionary history they gave our ancestors (or their kin carrying the same genes) an advantage over others whose genetic lines died out. (they could be other explanations -genetic drift, mutation, spandrels etc.., but "no explanation" doesn't cut it).

So if the question "why are men more aggressive/violent in general than women" has in any part a biological answer and not simply "culture" then this answer has to be that men who had the capacity to be more aggressive, and women who had children with them and who had sons who were able to be more aggressive did better at producing surviving offspring than others.

Himalaya, I wouldn't call selective breeding any form of evolution though. We have selected cattle to make juicy steaks - such cattle might actually be reproductively less successful (ie require artificial insemination etc) but they suit our social purposes of yummy meat much better.

Similarly a family could make a decision about an arranged marriage for example that didn't actually optimise the reproductive chances of their genes. Parents past the age of reproduction with only one surviving daughter might chose an old rich man (with poor sperm quality) for her to marry in order to ensure their own survival. That would seem a sound psychOlogical decision, an unsound evolutionary decision.

So you know, I'm coming from the perspective of someone querying if evolution in the Darwinian sense applies to humans (and various other animals eg domestic cats) any more as environmental and social changes caused by humans are far quicker than evolutionary timescales but each individual is socialised by the changes which is a greater "force" than evolution.

Plentyofpubegardens "This is all true, but you could make a similar argument about cattle. They are extremely successful in terms of reproduction and survival, more especially those cattle which carry genes for growing really fast, producing big juicy steaks or ridiculously large milk yields. It doesn't mean those are traits the cows have chosen."

POPG - domestic cattle have not evolved through natural selection, they have evolved through artificial selection (Selective breeding).

Messy - sorry wasnt meaning to put words in your mouth or anything like that.

You and Hester seem to be arguing from examples of peppered moths and single celled organisms that....

I brought in single called organisms because evolution is not just about humans, it applies to all species. Sex selection in the way that you are framing it is not a requirement of evolution.

There's a lot of blending of evolution and evolutionary psychology in this thread.

Himilaya, why are you directing that at me? I never said we were single celled organisms! Lordy.

I simply pointed out how sexual selection is not the only way in which evolution occurs, whilst also acknowledging that it is a huge part of it. Which is what you're also saying, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing.

My point is re. the selection of mates and its relevance to thread is that whilst one may choose a mate based on certain criteria one can only choose from what's on offer and what's on offer can be determined by other factors such as vulnerability of certain characterics to predation, or to a specific aspect of the environment.

Messy, Hester,

But we are not single celled organisms.

I think it is fair enough to say that sexual selection is in the middle of human evolution. Not the only mechanism of course. But the idea of understanding human evolution without sexual selection doesn't make sense.

What messy said. Conscious sexual selection based on perceived attractive traits is not necessary for evolution to occur. No arranged marriages in the single celled organism community.

Whatmeworry, the last line of your post is very ambiguous in its phrasing. It reads on first pass as though you are saying SGM argued that all men are rapists. I'm sure you didn't intend to give such a false impression.

I wouldn't worry Meow. This is feminist chat not feminist evolutionary theory BA(Hons)

oh dear, might have had one too many last night, sorry if i was talking bollocks without putting my grain into gear.

anyone got any alka selsa?

Look at peppered moths for example. The on-the-pull peppered moth didnt suddenly develop a fetish for black moths over white speckled ones. The white ones were eaten before they had a chance to reproduce, leaving the black ones to take over and spread their genes.

Whatme, Sexual selection isn't "smack bang" in the middle of evolution. Of course it's huge but it's not the only way in which animals characteristics change.

The core of Evolution is the existence of mutations in the DNA rendering slight changes to the animals physical or psychological characteristics. If said characteristic is adaptive in that particular environment and enables said animal to live long enough to reproduce, the likelihood if that new DNA variation being passed on to future generations. If it is maladaptive said animal will likely die before having chance to reproduce.

In this aspect it is less about sexual selection based on choosing the mate based on certain characteristics you find attractive but actually surviving long enough to reproduce with the gene lottery you have inherited. But if course sexual selection is an important part of evolution, just not the only part.

Where's Richard Dawkins when you need him ?

As a feminist I don't disagree with the idea of evolutionary psychology, ie. that certain psychological characteristics have been adaptive and are therefore more prevalent. What I disagree with us the current theories on offer by contemporary evolutionary psychologists who tend to advocate a very chest-beating view of things and often end up justifying male violence as adaptive.

Plus they focus way too much on the man-as-hunter in their search, often without really looking at women's part in evolution, except for lazily putting it down to sexual attractiveness. Which, apart from not being very nice, is simply inaccurate.

As for evolution itself I'm a fem and I love love love it. Having a semi religious background I was discouraged from it and didn't completely understand it ("if we're evolved from apes why do they still exist?). When the penny dropped it was like one big glorious liberating whoosh!

Evolution is not interchangeable with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Feminists who dispute evolutionary psychology are not disputing evolution

Do tell me what you think is purely Evolution then. Sexual selection is smack bang in the core of it, and that is where most of the dispute in this thread has been.

I find it's more that people who don't like the basics of sexual selection, but know that others will think they are fools if they are seen to be rejecting evolution, who try and argue that all that stuff is not Evolution but Evolutionary Psychology. They then try and argue that is all nincompoopery, via false straw man arguments ( eg SGMs post on it arguing all men are rapists)

Here's the thing, as a feminist, I find evolutionary psychology's obsession with insisting men are all violent rapists utterly offensive. Most men aren't violent or rapists

I think that statement proves beyond doubt that you know absolutely nothing about Evolutionary Psychology.

Supporting a theory which requires ALL men to be like this is, simply, wrong. It ignores the basic science of evolution in order to normalise the behaviour of certain men

On the contrary, the only theorists that I know of that comes even close to believing all men are rapists is some of the more extreme thinkers in Radical Feminism.

Feminists don't support evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is NOT the same as evolutionary theory. To believe they are you have to be either incredibly thick or deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to point score

That is just not true. Some Feminists - like you RadFems - hate it, as it threatems your beliefs, but not all do not. "Equity" feminists are far happier with it, I test as mainly Liberal Feminist and I think its very usseful.

It's fairly obvious in this thread who has a passing acquaintance with feminist theory, evolutionary theory and the nincompoopery which is evolutionary psychology

I agree wholeheartedly with the view that its clear who only has a passing knowledge. Here's a hint - anyone who says Evo Psych is nincompoopery doesn't have a clue..... and fwiw I find your knowldege of "Feminist" theory limited to one brand only.

Himalaya - Re: who does the choosing in an arranged marriage type situation.

Yes you are right, it niggled me when I wrote it too.

I said 'parents' for simplicity -mothers and mother-in-laws do play a role. I don't think it implies equality though - more different pressures on males and females as potential parents and grandparents.

I think this is the sort of simplicity we should be really careful about. If we are talking about male violence and whether females 'choose' violent males, the use of the gender-neutral 'parents' fudges the whole issue.

We all come from a long line of people who survived and who had grandchildren. Not one person in our direct lineage failed to do these two things.

So while in legal, property or status terms we might see things in terms of the "male line", in evolutionary terms we come from a long line of survivor females as well, who benefitted (in reproductive terms) both from the way their own genes were expressed but also those of the men who they had children with.

It doesn't matter who has the "final say from an evolutionary point of view -I.e. Survival has the last say.

This is all true, but you could make a similar argument about cattle. They are extremely successful in terms of reproduction and survival, more especially those cattle which carry genes for growing really fast, producing big juicy steaks or ridiculously large milk yields. It doesn't mean those are traits the cows have chosen.

SGM "feminists don't support evolutionary psychology"

Some do.

Can you define the dividing line between evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology?

E.g. Do you include in your acceptable beliefs that aspects of human behaviour are genetically influenced? That sexual selection takes place? That males and females face very different reproductive odds?

LRD - re: arranged marriage etc...

Yes. Not saying that arranged marriage is the single driver of sexual selection, but more in answer to people saying 'for long periods of history women didn't freely choose their partners therefore how can sexual selection have taken place'

From a "gene's eye view" which is how evolution takes place if a behaviour promotes the transmission of a gene it doesnt matter whether that behaviour is carried out by the individual organism, or a relative carrying the same gene.

E.g. The Grandmother Hypothesis - that women who lived longer were
able to support the upbringing of more healthy grandchildren, thus passing on a genes for longevity beyond menopause unique to humans.

Similarly actions taken by parents in influencing their children's choice of partner could lead to them (or their siblings) having more chance of
passing on the gene that promotes this behaviour to the next generation. Parents evolutionary pressures are not 100% aligned to the genetic pressures on any single offspring (who shares half their genetic variation) - parents will pass on more genes to future generations if their actions promote the reproductive success of all their offspring, whereaschildren will pass on more genes if they prioritise (but not completely) their own sucess over those of their sibs.

Evolution is not interchangeable with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Feminists who dispute evolutionary psychology are not disputing evolution.