Female sexuality

[Monkeytrousers]

hello and welcome

Jerry Coyne whom Elizabetth quoted above also writes in "Evolution, Gender and Rape"ed Cheryl Brown Travis:

"In mammals we see a fundamental asymmetry between the roles of the sexes"

"[..]internnecine male competition [has also driven]hormonally induced male aggression"

"Feminists are undoubtedly right to claim that culture reinforces sexual stereotypes, but hthere can be no adequate explanation of patriarchy that completely ignores evolution."

"Thornhill and Palmer advance [....] the 'by-product hypothesis' which maintains simply that rape is a side effect of other evolved human traits.[....] This is a reasonable view - indeed a tautology - that few biologists will find objectionable."

"..a mixture of male promiscuity and aggression [...] especially if combined with a male animus toward women, might readily explain rape".

"[Rape] is an act of sex and violence."

"Given that in most reported cases rapists are sexually aroused, often reach orgasm, and sometimes admit to erotic motives, it is hard to disagree with T&P's claim that rape is at least partly a sexual act.[...]But T&P note that 'academic feminists and sociologists' have consistently denied any sexual motivation for rape, insisting instead that 'rape is not about sex, but about violence and power'. It is true that in recent decades the discussion of rape has been dominated by such notions, though one must remember that they originated not as scienctific propositions but as political slogans deemed necessary to reverse popular misconceptions about rape.".................
.........

"Just glanced at the beginning of your post Eliz, and you know, it is the job of science itself to rigorously test data coming from other scientists ? that is what peer review is all about and why the scientific process is the best on ewe have at approaching something resembling the ?truth? of a matter. "

Peer review of a paper isn't the same as testing. Scientists produce results in the lab which are repeatable by other scientists. I can provide you with a scientific proof for e equals mc squared, I can probably get a hold of lab experiments that also support the hypotheses. What tests does EP use because as far as I can see it's speculation?

"Did you read T&P?s response to these critics that I posted? It shows, and embarrassingly demonstrates, the errors that these critics have walked straight into. I haven?t time until ton9ght to pint them out, but I will."

No, perhaps you could cut and paste the relevant areas here as I have done. What did Coyne embarassingly walk into? I'll certainly support my argument but I'm not going to do the work to support yours as well.

"Also, their claim that ?First, Thornhill and Palmer make much of the claim that rape victims tend to be in their prime reproductive years, suggesting that reproduction is indeed a central part of the rapist's agenda.? Is clearly fallacious. I have in my hand a Hone Office document dated last year that corroborates their claim, and more of them. They go back to a 1992 study, without any description of methodology or what exactly ?rape? was defined as. The Home Office study does and more so."

Could you cite it please. Then I can go and look for myself. I'm not aware of Home Office Rape Studies that investigate rape at all ages. As I understand it they question women about rape that has occurred over the age of 18.

"I am sorry that you can?t actually look at the data with an open mind. Or read it for yourself. I was like you a few years ago, so was Griet Vandermassen; we came to change our opinions based on the evidence and with a moral conviction to do the best we can for women around the world; and that feminism embracing this kind of blind ignorance was putting those same women in great danger."

What data? Seriously what data have they cited? If you mean I'm not approaching their arguments with an open mind, I think you'll find that everybody has their biases - you, me, Vandermassen, whoever, don't single me out as uniquely biased. Also it's ridiculous to argue that feminists are putting women in danger. Men who attack and rape women are putting them in danger. It's claims like this that make your arguments look incredibly weak. If they are that strong you don't need to doom-monger.

What's going on here is that you and they are confusing speculation and biases with science which is extremely unscientific.

""In mammals we see a fundamental asymmetry between the roles of the sexes""

Yup. So?

"[..]internnecine male competition [has also driven]hormonally induced male aggression"

In humans? Does he provide any evidence for his argument.

"Feminists are undoubtedly right to claim that culture reinforces sexual stereotypes, but hthere can be no adequate explanation of patriarchy that completely ignores evolution."

Opinion, not fact.

"Thornhill and Palmer advance [....] the 'by-product hypothesis' which maintains simply that rape is a side effect of other evolved human traits.[....] This is a reasonable view - indeed a tautology - that few biologists will find objectionable."

And they also say in that article I quoted above - "What persuasiveness the book does possess rests on an ingenious rhetorical trick. The authors lay out two alternative evolutionary hypotheses: rape is either a "specific adaptation" (i.e., natural selection explicitly promoted the act) or a "by-product of evolution" (i.e., there was no direct selection for rape; rather it is an accidental product of selection for, say, male promiscuity and aggression). Readers unconvinced by the specific-adaptation argument therefore find themselves embracing by default the by-product alternative. Either way, Thornhill and Palmer claim a convert."

"..a mixture of male promiscuity and aggression [...] especially if combined with a male animus toward women, might readily explain rape".

It might do, then again it might not. Nothing scientific backing that argument up.

"[Rape] is an act of sex and violence."

Yup, a violent act using sex organs as its weapons.

"Given that in most reported cases rapists are sexually aroused, often reach orgasm, and sometimes admit to erotic motives, it is hard to disagree with T&P's claim that rape is at least partly a sexual act.[...]But T&P note that 'academic feminists and sociologists' have consistently denied any sexual motivation for rape, insisting instead that 'rape is not about sex, but about violence and power'. It is true that in recent decades the discussion of rape has been dominated by such notions, though one must remember that they originated not as scienctific propositions but as political slogans deemed necessary to reverse popular misconceptions about rape."

T&P have set up a strawfeminist that they proceed to knock down. Coyne has a better grasp of the situation when he notes that the emphasis that feminists placed on rape being about power was to counteract the absurd notion that rapists are driven by uncontrollable sexual impulses.

Just as a matter of interest which feminists have you read Etin and MT?

Jerry Coyne really didn't like this book and he's an evolutionary biologist -

"The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology.
Of Vice and Men

By JERRY A. COYNE
Issue date: 04.03.00
Post date: 03.26.00

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion
by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer
MIT Press, 272pp.

Minor excerpts:

I.

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key -the only key--that can unlock our humanity.

Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are
hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically
testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly.

But the public can be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary biology is equivalent to evolutionary psychology. Books by Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson,
and Steven Pinker have sold briskly, and evolutionary psychology dominates the media coverage of the science of evolution.

......

Thornhill and Palmer's attempts to gain control of rape counseling, laws, and punishments, despite the weakness of their science, reveal their larger goal: the engulfment of social science and social policy by the great whale of evolutionary psychology. This attempted takeover is not new. It was first suggested in 1978 in E.O. Wilson's On Human Nature, and more recently in his Consilience, Wilson extended the program to nearly every area of human thought, including aesthetics and ethics. We are witnessing a new campaign for the Darwinization of Everything. Thornhill's and Palmer's theory of rape is just the most recent attempt at the annexation of all human experience to evolutionary psychology.

After all, if one can give a believable evolutionary explanation for the difficult problem of rape, then no human behavior is immune to such analysis, and the cause is significantly advanced. The apocalyptic tone that
pervades Thornhill and Palmer's book reveals the party to which they belong: "The biophobia that has led to the rejection of Darwinian analyses of human behavior is an intellectual disaster." And "in addressing the question of
rape, the choice between the politically constructed answers of social science and the evidentiary answers of evolutionary biology is essentially a choice between ideology and knowledge."

Let us be clear. It is not "biophobia" to reject the reduction of all human feelings and actions to evolution. Quite the contrary. It is biophilia; or at least a proper respect for science. The "choice between ideology and knowledge" is a real choice; but it is Thornhill and Palmer and the
doctrinaire evolutionary psychologists who choose ideology over knowledge. They enjoy the advantage that people seem to like scientific explanations for their behavior, and the certainty that such explanations provide. It is reassuring to impute our traumas and our misdeeds to our savanna-dwelling ancestors. It lessens the moral pressure on our lives. And so the disciplinary hubris of evolutionary psychology and the longing for certainty of ordinary men and women have combined to create a kind of scientistic cargo cult, with everyone waiting in vain for evolutionary psychology to deliver the goods that it doesn't have.

Amid this debaclefor A Natural History of Rape is truly an embarrassment to the fieldI am somewhat consoled by the parallels between Freudianism and evolutionary psychology. Freud's views lost credibility when people realized that they were not at all based on science, but were really an ideological edifice, a myth about human life, that was utterly resistant to scientific refutation. By judicious manipulation, every possible observation
of human behavior could be (and was) fitted into the Freudian framework. The same trick is now being perpetrated by the evolutionary psychologists. They, too, deal in their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science. Evolutionary psychology may have its day in the sun, but versions of the faith such as Thornhill and Palmer's will disappear when people realize that they are useless and unscientific.

JERRY A. COYNE teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. "

MT/etin, could you give us an example of how EP hypotheses are tested in an evidentiary manner? What kinds of data are used?

I am going to the gym now in a doomed attempt to remould my body in a manner more pleasing to our woman-phobic society but will check back in later.

Oh dear.... think I've left this too late. The words are waaaaay too long now.

I'll get me coat

Coyne is an evolutionary biologist. He still believes rape is connected to male sexuality and male biology. He's not arguing against that.

Why do men want to dominate women? It's not as if it gets them anything, is it? So why?

As for my reading, back in the 70s and 80s it was de Beauvoir, Greer, Marilyn French, Juliet Mitchell, Virginia Woolf, Betty Frieden.. can't remember all the names..and more recently..Sarah Hrdy, Patricia Gowaty, Barbara Smuts,Nancy Makepeace Tanner, Carol Tavris, Ruth Bleier, Mary Evans, Sheila Jeffreys, Lynne Segal, Carol Smart, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Ann Oakley, Anne Campbell, some Dworkin years ago and starting on Mackinnon now... and I don't know how many others I must have missed here.

And You?

Orm... come back!

I guess I should have been more specific Etin. Which feminists did you read who theorised about rape? The reason I'm asking is that so-called academic feminists are being set up as misguided on rape so I'm wondering which were actually being singled out and which part of their theories are being objected to.

If I've got to list feminists though - Sheila Jeffreys, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Robin Morgan, Virginia Woolf, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde, Marilyn Waring, Marilyn Frye, Germaine Greer, Mary Wolstonecroft, there's quite a big list. When people are talking about theorists who wrote about rape they usually mean MacKinnon, Dworkin and Brownmiller.

"Coyne is an evolutionary biologist. He still believes rape is connected to male sexuality and male biology. He's not arguing against that."

He pretty much demolished "A Natural History of Rape" though, which has been promoted on this thread as the great rebuttal to feminist theories of rape.

I posted the whole article Elizabeth, just click on the link above,

The Home Office document is here They ask since age 16. It corroborates the fact that women/girls of childbearing age are over represented in rape stats. I would direct you to the page, but I am filling in another job application and need to prioritise. Will refer you to the relevant page when poss.

I would urge you to buy Griet Vandermassens book, as it addresses all the concerns you have. It is not for me ? I haven?t the time anyway ? to defend Thornhill and Palmer, they do not need defending; what they are being accused of is fallacious; and they are feminists themselves. I really hoper you read Vandermassen?s book and then read their work with an open mind. There is no need for you to feel defensive about this; we are all on the same side here. I hope you come to realise that soon.

Re the adaptation or by-product argument ? there is no alternative, not if you accept the laws of evolution ? are we questioning that now?

To my mind the ?violence? argument is dangerous, because often women are threatened, not actually beaten, and this is seen, with the violence argument, as being a mitigating factor against the victim. If she is not seen to have fought to within an inch of her life, a suspicion remains that it was not rape. But we know, that very often, women are intimidated by the threat of violence, not violence itself.

How can you say that T&P have set up a ?straw feminist? ^when you have not even read the data?? This really is a massive danger to the intellectual legitimisation of feminism, that the movement would encourage women to condemn such studies from the proud position of such ignorance. How can this serve women well??

I was a dyed in the wool political feminist until 5 years ago when I picked up my first book to evolutionary psychology to see what the fuss was about. I immediately recognised that EP could and is an ally to feminism, not an ideological enemy. I am a feminist and a Darwinian, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am not your enemy, but it is you who regard me as such. I am deeply sorry about that.

There is dialogue within science is my point, papers are published to be debated and challenged. Just because other evolutionist don?t like one theory doesn?t falsify it, you misunderstand the scientific process ? dissent is to be expected; that?s how it works!.

If all of you want to know how Ep is tested, please pay £7 and buy Griet?s book and read it. It is all, all of your questions are in there.

They write abotu those three (thoughnot oly) becasue they ahev been the ones to affcet policy - there is a connectioin; is isn;t just random. We, and they, have women;s best interests at heart here. This blind reactionism will be the death of feminism, and I for one an very worried about that

I don't think T&P are being promoted as the great rebuttal to feminist theories here. Palmer himself supports the by-product view in opposition to Thornhill and more in line with Coyne. Coyne did not demolish the book, he did make anti-adaptationist arguments that others make too and they haven't convinced me either.

There is a section of people even within the biological sciences who absolutely hate adaptationism. I'm not one of them. Re. Thornhill and Palmer I'm more inclined towards the by-product view too. But I am investigating sexual coercion throughout the animal kingdom which I know is irrelevant to you but to me it's the opposite.

Selection works on all species - humans cannot possibly have been exempt even if modern humans are very different from ancestral ones. Genes and inherited traits are part of who we are whether we like it or not IMHO. We were not suddenly created by god with no connection to a past, nor did we suddenly lose our genetic input to become some totally novel non-animal. Not IMO.The things we share with other species are too obvious to me to believe otherwise.

Feminists on rape - I've always been very supportive of Dworkin in spite of the enormous antagonism to her views. And same now with Mackinnon. I'm planning to read her more when I get the chance.
I've read collections of writings such as the 'Evolution, Gender and Rape' and others I can't remember the titles of just now. Plenty of traditional feminists I have alot of respect for.

Thirty years ago as a young and naive woman I thought that by explaining properly to men the female perspective they would say something like 'OH Yeah..I understand now..I'll stop doing that.'Thirty years later much has changed but there's a rising male anger at women. Other things, including rape figures, remain depressing. I've watched my son and daughter go through their teenage years along with many of their friends and wondered why differences remain so obvious and antagonisms persist. Having spent about ten years now reading evolution and evolutionary feminism it simply helps to explain what otherwise would remain incomprehensible to me.

Why would a bigot give up their bigotry because someone explained it was wrong, Etin? It didn't work for the Nazis did it? We still had to have a war against them. Same with apartheid: it took the weight of the world's disapproval to affect change there, plus ongoing action by the ANC. And I guess there are still plenty of racist white South Africans even if their power has been removed to a great extent.

I don't really understand why you say you are a supporter of Dworkin and MacKinnon, etin. They are both social constructionists and stand against biological determinism. MacKinnon says that men can refuse to be men i.e. refuse to accept the social construct of masculinity which the evo-psychs say is innate.

"Coyne did not demolish the book"

He called it useless and unscientific after examining their data and the science that they claimed underpinned it.

"The Home Office document is here They ask since age 16. It corroborates the fact that women/girls of childbearing age are over represented in rape stats. I would direct you to the page, but I am filling in another job application and need to prioritise. Will refer you to the relevant page when poss."

It doesn't corroborate anything. It ignores male rape victims and child victims which Coyne points out make up a disproportionate number of rape victims. If you ignore the rapes that don't support they hypothesis then I guess you can say it's been corroborated but science starts with the data. You can't exclude what you don't like or what doesn't suit your theory. But even the initial claim was wrong -

"But the data they present contradicts this claim. In a 1992 survey that attempted to deal with the substantial statistical problem of unreported rape, 29% of U.S. rape victims were under the age of 11. As that age group comprises approximately 15% of the female population, under-11s were over-represented among rape victims by a factor of two. So invested are the authors in their specific-adaptation hypothesis that they try to explain this nonadaptive anomaly by noting that the data do not indicate the "proportion of the victims under 11 who were exhibiting secondary sexual traits."[p.72] Further, "the increasingly early age of menarche in Western females contributes to the enhanced sexual attractiveness of some females under 12." [p.72]. In the end, the hopelessness of this special pleading merely draws attention to the failure of the data to support the authors' hypothesis."

"I would urge you to buy Griet Vandermassens book, as it addresses all the concerns you have. It is not for me ? I haven?t the time anyway ? to defend Thornhill and Palmer, they do not need defending; what they are being accused of is fallacious; and they are feminists themselves. I really hoper you read Vandermassen?s book and then read their work with an open mind. There is no need for you to feel defensive about this; we are all on the same side here. I hope you come to realise that soon."

I've published lists of specific criticisms of Thornhill and Palmer's work and you've just brushed them aside. They've been accused of being wrong as far as I can see you haven't supported their arguments.

"Re the adaptation or by-product argument ? there is no alternative, not if you accept the laws of evolution ? are we questioning that now?"

It's called the Darwinisation of everything as if everything is about evolution and reproduction. There are other ways of viewing the world.

"To my mind the ?violence? argument is dangerous, because often women are threatened, not actually beaten, and this is seen, with the violence argument, as being a mitigating factor against the victim. If she is not seen to have fought to within an inch of her life, a suspicion remains that it was not rape. But we know, that very often, women are intimidated by the threat of violence, not violence itself. "

I have no idea what you are getting at here. If you mean that rape in itself isn't violence you are severely wrong about that.

"How can you say that T&P have set up a ?straw feminist? ^when you have not even read the data?? This really is a massive danger to the intellectual legitimisation of feminism, that the movement would encourage women to condemn such studies from the proud position of such ignorance. How can this serve women well??"

I said they'd set up a strawfeminist because they'd misrepresented feminist arguments. You really are revealing your sexist bias though if you think feminism needs "intellectual legitimisation". Thinking women should be free of oppression because of our sex is intellectually and morally legitimate already.

"I was a dyed in the wool political feminist until 5 years ago when I picked up my first book to evolutionary psychology to see what the fuss was about. I immediately recognised that EP could and is an ally to feminism, not an ideological enemy. I am a feminist and a Darwinian, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am not your enemy, but it is you who regard me as such. I am deeply sorry about that."

When you describe feminism as "dogma", imply it's intellectually illegitmate, accuse feminists of being blind when what we are really objecting to is bad science, you do set yourself up as an enemy (and deeply patronising as well).

"There is dialogue within science is my point, papers are published to be debated and challenged. Just because other evolutionist don?t like one theory doesn?t falsify it, you misunderstand the scientific process ? dissent is to be expected; that?s how it works!."

You could pretty much say that about theology with regards to this, because both EP and religion appear to be based on blind faith and arguments between various adherents. On the other hand science is based on empirical observation and analysis of the same, including the use of experiments to collect data. There is no way of testing what you claim is true and there a million different interpretations that can be made, none of which can be shown to be any more valid than the other. Thus it is not scientific.

"If all of you want to know how Ep is tested, please pay £7 and buy Griet?s book and read it. It is all, all of your questions are in there."

I haven't got seven quid at the moment unfortunately. Tell me one experiment or test that you have done in EP to support your hypotheses.

I think the reason I can hold the two together is this:

I believe there are differences between the sexes that have come about due to evolution.
As I mentioned somewhere above in my theory of the origins of patriarchy, our species-specific evolutionary history gave the human male a upperhand over the female.

In evolutionary biology, there is lots about sexual selection being an arms race between the sexes - one sex gets an advantage, the other then takes the advantage.
Ultimately, reproductive success of one sex has elements at odds with what the other sex would prefer for their advantage.

Now, because of our particular ancestral descent form a shared ancestor with chimpanzees I believe we were patrilocal from before we were human so together with physical and behavioural differences, already the foundations were laid for male advantages and what would become patriarchy.

It is highly advantageous for males to be able to control reproduction/females if they can. It doesn't really happen much in other species.

So when humans developed into increasingly intelligent and complex creatures this was done alongside male advantage over females ie female behaviour could be constrained and controlled by males ie what females could do to survive and prosper was to fit what males wanted ie they were constructed socially by men who had the power to do so. Female agency was not allowed.

So I see a very deep history and an evolutionary history to female oppression that came about due to males winning (or at least the successful males having a clear upperhand)in the arms race with females over which sex gets to control the reproduction of the species. The social construction of what females were allowed to be or allowed to behave started way back in evolutionary history with the foundations already being laid in pre-human times.

"It is highly advantageous for males to be able to control reproduction/females if they can. It doesn't really happen much in other species."

I should have said 'as much' as it certainly is widespread, at least in male attempts to control reproducton.

have to go for now

OK you're a biological determinist but they are still social constructionists. Dworkin says she believes in men's humanity against all the evidence and wants a day without rape, unlike the EPs who appear to be arguing that men are natural born rapists.

You still haven't answered why feminism is the only liberation movement that apparently requires a spurious scientific underpinning.

Don't we also share a common ancestor with bonobos, who exhibit very different behaviour from chimps?

I would really appreciate it if someone could spell out the kinds of evidence/experiments/data that underpin EP - purely to dispel some of my ignorance.

Elizabetth, there is no such thing as biological determinism. Really.

The whole 'social constructionist'arument very well in fact, it is uselful as an abstarct, but not in any literal sense.

You are being far too reactionary. It is limiting your (very obvious) logical faculties. Logic is as much a feminime faculty as masculibe; there is no such thing as a 'feminist science' or 'feminist logic'; only logic. There is no feminist physics, yet there are womwn (and men) who are feminists who are physicists.

Please tell me, what is it that you are afraid of??

Polocywonk, the books you need to read are firstly Hrdy;s 'The Woman that never evolved' which describes the primate links and disparites, and where they are imporant and not important with regadr to humans; as wwll as quearioning the whole validity of the endevour.

Then you need to read Griet's book, which tackles all Elizabeth's issues, pro and con.

Really, I adn Etin, cannot do fulfill all we hoped to; it is far too complex adn, though I know Etin is far more advanced in her understanding of this than I am, and I am so grateful to have 'met' her, even she cannot post a books worth of data and information that is needed to argue the point.

The research has been done though, and woemn with out mind set, our concerns about rape - some of them victims of rape themselves - female oppression and patriachy have taken the path of skeptical inquiry with regards to not feminism itself, but recieved feminist dogma, to see, and hope that it can progress, as it is a progressive moevment at heart.

What Elizabeth it arguing, it seems, is that the enquiry itself is invalid, which is fundamentally wrong, and I think, unfortunatlry shows how unprogressive traditional feminism has become.

It needs to move on, and claim it's place in the progression fo science itself.

briefly as its late and I'm tired:

I'm not a biological determinist but believe we have inherited traits that interact with environments to produce a variety of behaviours. This is not fixed - evolution is about change. You, on the other hand Elizabetth, appear to be an environmental determinist who believes we are all born as blank slates on which society can write what the hell it wishes. No thank you!

Men are not natural born rapists but amongst the sexual strategies is the potential for sexual coercion which will be expressed or not depending on the individual and environmental factors.

I've just been thinking of one proposed policy, by some famous feminist whose name escapes me for now, to relieve women of motherhood and the create new types of people ie that of babies being taken from mothers and brought up collectively in special homes. Why not? Women could then be equal to men and children could be educated to be whatever was desired. If, as a mother your stomach does somersaults at the thought, is that just your socialization?

This reminds me of the Kibbutz and how people have gradually returned to forming families, chidren brought up together finding each other unattractive as sexual partners, women doing the teaching and childcare and men the field work and politicking with other men rather than spending as much time with their children as mothers do. (policywonk, this is perhaps some evidence you seek. And I'm certainly not saying we should therefore accept, say, male dominated politics. On the contrary I believe it just tells us that the system we have suits male traits more than female ones and perhaps something other than forcing women into a 'male' type framework might be needed. It's open to debate as is everything about what should be done).

Feminism does not have to have a scientific base anymore than any other political movement does. What would be unfortunate would be the insistence on the potential to mould humans into absolutely anything imaginable in spite of evidence that people are not born blank slates.

Policywonk, I did mention bonobos earlier and the fact that some people do see them as a closer 'relative'. I don't because we share less with them ie we do not have constant sexual interactions including those between infants and adults and we do not have, and have never had, female dominant societies where females bond through lesbian sex. I do think we have the potential to have some shared traits which could be elicited perhaps in certain circumstances. But I wouldn't argue that for sure. Perhpas the mothers control over the son is one potential.

As to what underpins EP, well, apart from the general evolutionary underpinings re. say, testes size and mating system mentioned before, greater male aggression due to males greater competition for females, males different attitudes to casual sex (also supported by research by feminists), there are also experiments set up by eg Cosmides and Tooby to show certian evolved brain mechanisms to, say, detect social cheaters, and other behaviours that have been selected in a species that is highly social and needs to be a successful social being to survive and reproduce in highly complex human society.

I'm not necessarily convinced by arguments just because they are made by evolutionary psychologists eg as mentioned before re. Thornhill and Pinker before that, but because I understand where their arguments are coming from I can take what they say as part of the debate - just like feminists do not agree with each other merely because they are all feminists but, presumably, are happy to engage in debate.

This will have to do for now.

Just to add, if people are born blank slates and can be socialised and moulded into whatever they desire (this was the policy of the Chinese Cultural revolution BTW, and is one massive piece of evidence that demonstrates people are not blank slates at all) why does patriarchy not impose that women be socialised to enjoy rape? This may sound like an absurd idea, but this is where the logic of cultural determinism leads us; and yes, it is absurd.

The very fact that women do not, and never will, enjoy being forced to have sex against their will, is evidence of an innate female sexuality that is separate from male sexuality.

Policywonk, the Griet Vandermassen article posted by Elizabetth earlier in this thread "Sexual Selection: A tale of male bias and feminist denial" refers to evidence that as a layperson I find very convincing, with regard to gender specific behaviours that are consistent across species.

I would really recommend this article as it provides a really accessible precis of the history of male bias in the interpretation of Darwinist evolutionary theory, the way in which this male bias has caused many feminists to reject evolutionary theory, and the reasons why feminism can and should engage with evolutionary theory in order to overturn this bias. It also very helpfully explains something of the interaction between proximate/direct mechanisms influencing behaviour and evolutionary/ultimate mechanisms.

If you get a chance to read it, I'd really like to know what you think.

Elizabetth questioned why feminism should be regarded as a special case in requiring scientific grounding. I think it can be argued that it is a special case by virtue of the near universality of patriarchy across cultures and even across species. If male oppression was a phenomenon that occurred, say, in Britain in the last 50 years, then of course it would make sense to look only at the immediate or proximate causes. But if we want to understand why male oppression has been entrenched in most human and mammalian cultures over thousands of years or more, in order to do something about it, we need to look for mechanisms that operate on an appropriate scale.

The other very good reason for looking at evolutionary theory from a feminist perspective is that it's not going to go away, so if we don't address the science from a feminist perspective, then the same old male bias inherited from Darwin's Victorian values will prevail in its interpretation.