Feminism for Dummies.

Arsenal this first link is useless, there are no figures or indications of methodology or any other relevant factors. There is also another scientist disputing the significance of the study on the point the article is trying to make.

The second link does not mention a connection between height and having children in its key findings. This is an epidemiological study, it has nothing to do with evolution or women's preferences. A key principle of epidemiological studies is that *correlation does not imply causation" - that is a very important point.

Re women preferring men who are dicks, I don't believe it is the case for the vast majority of women. Almost all the men I know who are dicks are single or divorced.

No sorry it is not Closer, they are plenty of studies but this one is one of them.
BBC summaries it better
UCL review, but with links to the hard numbers

my point is height has AN ADVANTAGE and you cant deny that.
Anyway it doesn't take a genius to figure out most couples are made up of a TALLER man and a SHORTER woman.

because the reasoning is women prefer a dick, then why should they change.
Its not stupid if there is some truth to it. You cant just dismiss something because you don't agree with it.

Its not the answer to everything, but the more people know about how 'chemistry' works the better.

If I can speak for Prom she didn't say biology is misogynistic rather that your assumptions and interpretations that you are laying over your knowledge of biology are misogynistic and patronising and bullshit. And, I'll add, unproven.

The harm is that women nowadays get saddled with all the childcare/housework, when they might not want to accept this role anymore.

You can call anything you like, but calling biology misogynistic is a naturalistic fallacy pure and unadulterated.

I never said anything even approaching men are evolved to work in banks. It perhaps explains your antipathy to science that you read into it so much more than was actually said.

Females, including women, have evolved to derive more pleasure from caring for their offspring than males. This follows inevitably from the basic biology that males have a higher capacity to reproduce than females, and thus caring for an offspring has a higher opportunity cost to a male than it does to a female.

Where is the harm in different groups of people finding reward in different occupations? Misogynistic and patronising, my arse.

Studies has shown taller man have an advantage in the dating pool.

What studies? In Closer? A quick look around you will show that plenty of short men are married with children and plenty of tall men are not.

because the reasoning is women prefer a dick, then why should they change.

That's not reasoning, it's stupidity.

JoTheHot I asked you for an article on gender differences in animal behaviour and I said:

I assume you do mean gender rather than sex.

But it seems you did mean sex rather than gender, which is very different. We are so so far from being able to draw any meaningful conclusions from evolutionary theory to modern day feminism and if you can't be bothered to set out your position, I'm not sure why you've bothered posting.

I was asked for an article on sex differences in animal behaviour. All the basic stuff on behavioural ecology was done some time ago, any article will tend to take this stuff as read. Any undergraduate text should cover this stuff. I had Begon, Harper and Townsend, butthere are others. I know mark ridley did some of the earlier stuff on phylogenetic analyses. For instance linking relative testes size to degree of polygyny. Humans came out somewhere in the middle so we evolved in a context were low-levels of sexual infidelity was the norm.

The relevance of evoultionary theory to feminism is that it helps us to understand why women and men are different both physically and psychologically. This in turn helps us to understand what a truly free world might look like. For instance, freedom of choice and equality of opportunities would not lead to women and men participating equally in child care, because women have evolved to be the primary carers.

Not sure, presumably because most of us are attracted to the other sex and those are just characteristics of the other sex. Lots of short men get married and reproduce and lots of tall men don't.
They are not characteristics of the other sex, they are just preferences. People come in all shapes and sizes; characteristics of a man is having a cock and wearing men's clothes and the characteristics of a woman is having a vagina and wearing women's clothes.
Studies has shown taller man have an advantage in the dating pool.

Women might pick Brad Pitt over Danny De Vito in a survey of ideal partners but in real life personality and sense of humour play very important parts in forming relationships.
Yes personality/sense of humour= friendship.
Tall, big shoulders, displays of high levels of testosterone = sex
Both = long lasting love
ONS: Rugby player vs Primary school teacher. Probably a rugby player for most women.

a lot of this stuff is used to justify the "natural order" and oppress women.
Yeah its used to justify being a dick, because the reasoning is women prefer a dick, then why should they change.

"Modern human began 250,000 years ago and this sudden change was 'only' 10,000 years ago, meaning it's most likely relevant to how we choose out partners."

I don't agree that means it's most likely relevant - we just don't have enough information to make that statement. Also it doesn't have any bearing on modern day social structures. I agree with Prom that a lot of this stuff is used to justify the "natural order" and oppress women. The logic behind evo-psych is circular because it is based on assumptions that are not supported by the evolutionary evidence.

Why do women want their partner to be taller, stronger and have fixtures that display high levels of testosterone, whereas men prefer their partner the other why round.

Not sure, presumably because most of us are attracted to the other sex and those are just characteristics of the other sex. Lots of short men get married and reproduce and lots of tall men don't.

This whole alpha / beta construct that MRAs and PUAs bang on about all the time is just not represented in the real world. Women might pick Brad Pitt over Danny De Vito in a survey of ideal partners but in real life personality and sense of humour play very important parts in forming relationships.

I don't think evo-psych has any significance for feminism other than to recognise that a number of anti-feminists think this way.

Yeah its the whole chicken and egg thing.

the article makes no connection with Pareto efficiency and there is nothing to suggest the authors thought that played a part

The paper doesn't say anything about the Pareto efficiency but its just something I find interesting. Somehow the 20:80 ratio is found in a lot of things in life. It does get boring if its something you are not interested in.

this is prehistory, not history so we have no meaningful evidence of the social structures prevalent at the time

Modern human began 250,000 years ago and this sudden change was 'only' 10,000 years ago, meaning it's most likely relevant to how we choose out partners.
Why do women want their partner to be taller, stronger and have fixtures that display high levels of testosterone, whereas men prefer their partner the other why round.
This has probably a lot to do with our prehistoric minds. I suspect our subconscious is largely influenced by our prehistoric mind, hence we can't help who we fall in love with.

Obviously that's not the answer to everything but it is interesting.

I couldn't read the article as I don't subscribe to the New Scientist however I had a quick read of the original article (I think) in the Journal Of Molecular Evolution:

utenti.unife.it/guido.barbujani/pdf/23.pdf

A couple of points:

• this is prehistory, not history so we have no meaningful evidence of the social structures prevalent at the time

• the article makes no connection with Pareto efficiency and there is nothing to suggest the authors thought that played a part

• the paper does not state that 20% of living, potential male breeders had children but that assuming a birth rate of 1:1 it would equate to 20% of male births. The paper actually considers whether there may have been a higher proportion of women born

• even if it was 20% with a 1:1 birth rate, the paper does not suggest why this is. You have assumed the powerful men got all the women (you do know this is a common MRA trope, right?) but there is no evidence of that. It could be that 80% of men were killed before childbearing age either by animals, other men or maybe this is evidence of early rad fems who killed 80% of the boys and kept the rest as breeding stock.

The point is that we don't know enough about either the biological science or the social science of prehistory and evolution to draw any meaningful conclusions for modern social structures.

Pareto efficiency: basically the 20:80 rule occur in nature, our interactions etc..

www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924111.900-a-few-prehistoric-men-had-all-the-children.html
Honestly its too much to explain further i have to actually read something i wrote over 12 years ago but eventually the conclusion is around 20% of men and 80% of women had children.
Well the numbers may not be exact but the point is still the same. Powerful men had all the women.

arsenal

If it helps I get paid to write useless programs, I wrote a dissertation on 'Pareto Efficeny'

How is this related to evolutionary theory?

Most women do prefer stronger and taller guys, you cant even deny it yourself. That is why men are bigger and taller.

The logic is circular at best, absent at worst. What's the evidence?

And yes 20% of men actually had during during history.

Evidence?

What's the source for the 20% figure arsenal?

Part 3 for Ilovemyself.

So you now see that a man has a different start in life which might not cause him direct advantages but which shelter him from disadvantages. You were effectively a rung higher up than me as soon as we were born (prior to this in other societies ).

You didn't cause this and chances are that you might not even see it. That's male privilege. And when I start talking about that, you as a man are going to feel unjustly attacked.

But understand that I also have privileges - let's use my being white. My white privilege will shelter me from ever knowing what life is like for a black woman. It would be crass of me to say that racism doesn't really happen anymore and that black women should get over it. I would be putting my perceptions, influenced by my white privilege, over their lived experiences as black women. They might argue that they have it worse than me, that they face a whole separate strand of discrimination. How on earth would it be appropriate for me to deny that or to dismiss their views.

But you see, now I feel attacked and diminished by black women. I don't discriminate against them so they shouldn't blame me. I didn't cause racism. And anyway, things are better than they used to be. I'm not a racist so they must be wrong, they're all irrational and as for those ones who want to live in black communities free from white prejudice, well, that's just illogical therefore I'll just ignore them and dismiss them all as irrelevant.

If i allow myself, then it would be easy to think like that ^^ My white privilege is in danger of blinding me to the plight of others. It's making me feel attacked so I go on the defensive. I think that they want to improve their lives at the expense of me. I can no longer see that all that is wanted is a level playing field. That may require me to lose a little privilege but I'm only giving up something I should never have had. I don't lose out, I only gain but my privilege may not let me see that.

So, when you feel attacked for having male privilege, you need to be aware that you as an individual are not being attacked and that you have privileges that you're not even aware of.

children throughout history*

flora evolutionary theory rather than evolutionary psychobabbly gosh you love to mock the perceived intelligence of others
If it helps I get paid to write useless programs, I wrote a dissertation on 'Pareto Efficeny'
Im only answering the question why men are bigger.

Actually what I said is very true:
Most women do prefer stronger and taller guys, you cant even deny it yourself.
That is why men are bigger and taller.
That is why male lions are bigger and stronger.

Also studies has shown women do have a preference for high testosterone men during ovulation.
And yes 20% of men actually had during during history.