Female sexuality

[Monkeytrousers]

hello and welcome

I have found this paper using google scholar.

Sexual Selection: A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial
Griet Vandermassen
European Journal of Women's Studies 2004; 11; 9

I shall read it and perhaps be able to join in then.

Any more journal references that might come in handy?

I posted a link to that paper earlier. Is is only one facet of one chapter of her book. I'd really recommend reading the whole thing

It seems to me that this thread is highlighting one serious problem with evolutionary biology, which is that is that it is so prone to being misunderstood, particularly with regard to the fallacy that it implies biological determinism (eg the "men can't help themselves" thing.)

Despite Etin's and Monkeytrousers' numerous explanations (I particularly liked Etin's recent explanation of distal and proximate causes), the thread is still full of posts from highly intelligent and well read women who are rejecting evolutionary psychology on the grounds that they see it as a justification for the status quo.

I don't see why there should be anything controversial in investigating why certain behaviours might have persisted over thousands of years and over almost every human culture. Surely we have a better chance of changing behaviour if we understand all possible motivations (proximate and distal!).

It looks to me as though some of the debate in this thread is more to do with lack of understanding of basic concepts in evolutionary theory than with any real difference in ideology. We're all feminists. We all want women to have more control in society and in our personal lives. Looking at the imbalance of power between genders through an evolutionary lens gives us the chance to come up with a deeper understanding of the problem, and I've always believed that understanding a problem is a crucial factor in finding a solution.

However, I agree that the question of how the understanding of evolutionary biology might be applied to the here and now is a complex one - especially because it is so easily misunderstood and misappropriated.

But for starters, and to reiterate my earlier post (and to echo Griet Vandermassen), it's got to be a good thing for feminist scientists to actively engage in this field to counteract the male bias inherent in previous interpretations of evolutionary theory.

I'm not going to buy the book (which I doubt they stock in my village library) until I've had a taster

Evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology is misunderstood?

you can get it on amazon TUM

I agree, obvioulsy, Kittock. Thanks

But not for free I suspect.

I think that being a feminist means believing that women are autonymous human beings who are entitled to full human rights - I don;t think anyone on this thread disagrees with that. But the rest of the interpretation of what feminism is, is very varied.

"It seems to me that this thread is highlighting one serious problem with evolutionary biology, which is that is that it is so prone to being misunderstood"

I don't misunderstand evolutionary biology. I think it's an interesting field with I'm sure plenty more discovery to come.

My issue is with applying evolutionary biology to psychology or rather Human Nature (capital H, capital N) with the accompanying claims that Evolutionary Psychology is the last word on it which is clearly nonsense.

Kittock interesting post

I agree I certainly come from a position of almost total ignorance and finde the primary sources.. er.. challenging.

and yes, i think that I have definite 'where is this all going' paranoic tendencies.

However it does seem quite reasonable to be .. startled by some assertions on the thread, even as a layperson.

and I - probably totally unfairly - feel that the onus is on our lovely EP-ers to prove that EP is Not Scary At All, given its murky past.

"Just brieftly here - the word 'ultimate' does come across as having some 'final truth' meaning that that's not quite what is meant in EP. Another term that might be used is 'distal'. The distal explanation and the proximate. Does that remove some of the religious fervour that may be falsely coming across to some here?"

Not at all. It's quite clear that Griet Vandermassen and all the other EPs are making extremely big claims for EP: i.e. that it is the "ulitimate" (that's her word and she's using it in its original sense) explanation for human nature. Both Vandermassen and MonkeyTrousers (and a whole lot of other EPs by the sound of it) think that their speciality is going to be the one that undermines feminism and feminists. Not only that but they have the cheek to claim they are the real feminists (even though MonkeyTrousers still hasn't come up with the feminists she takes issue with).

I guess your entitled to make your claims, however my wish is that you'd bog off out of feminism because we've heard all these ridiculous sex-stereotypes before (including by people who claimed they were based in Science). In fact they are what feminism successfully fought and is still fighting in order to free women to be ourselves rather than have "truths" about our natures imposed on us by people who are pretending to be objective but are anything but. If you want to apply EP to human nature and human behaviour, how about you turn your attention to capitalism and why some people become economic exploiters and some the exploited - I'm sure someone can do a "test" to find out what adaptation striking by workers is. Or maybe the Holocaust would be ripe for investigation - what adaptation made Nazis send millions of Jews, homosexuals, lesbians, gypsies, communists, mentally disabled people, mentally ill people and anybody else who stood in the way of creating their Aryan nation to the gas chambers? The thing is you probably wouldn't be taken very seriously whereas sexism, because it is so deeply entrenched is always open to any argument that claims it is just human nature even if that is clearly bollocks.

"The evdence is in their books Eizabetth. It would be an infringement of copyright to cut and paste a books worth of material here. Can I suggest you go and read them?"

It's quite possible for you to provide a precis, or a few quotations, MT. I think the problem you have is that there isn't anything in their books (or actions for that matter) to support your argument that they are feminists. Being a feminist means something even if every opportunist who thinks they can make a mark for themselves wants to take up the label in order to further their own agendas.

For example I can say that Catharine MacKinnon has worked to end the oppression of women by helping create the first sexual harassment laws in the US (arguing that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination), by taking up the cause of Bosnian rape victims and getting genocidal rape recognised as a war crime for the first time, for creating a legal ordinance that would allow people harmed by pornography to sue pornographers (which was never passed but still serves as a model for other feminists to follow), for spending years analysing the situation of women and teasing apart the mechanisms of male power that keep us oppressed.... the list goes on.

Now what have Thornhill, Palmer Dawkins or Tom, Dick and Harry ever done for women? Cos to me it looked like in Thornhill and Palmers case at least they made a lot of money from a book bashing feminist arguments.

Elizabetth: not all feminists admire Catherine McKinnon unequivocally. Many disagree with her willingness to form alliances with the religious right, for instance.

Mind you it's not that easy a task to find any feminist figure that every feminist agrees with, is it?

Vandermassen does use 'ultimate' as etin describes Elizabetth. And certainly describes herself as a feminist.

Sorry if you've addressed this already - I'm a bit lost.

Your beef with EP - Is it that Vandermassen and others describe themselves as working from an evolutionary feminist perspective, or is it doubts about the validity of the assumptions on which EP is based? Or both?

Tellusmater, the misunderstanding I was talking about on this thread is of evolutionary psychology in particular - sorry should have been clearer on this - specifically the idea that it implies biological determinism.

I mentioned evolutionary biology in general too though, as it has had a history of serious misinterpretation eg as a justification for Eugenics in the early 20th Century.

Onebat - I'm finding your last post strangely exciting. What is ovating?

She didn't form an alliance with the religious right. That was a lie put out by a PR firm hired by pornographers. Apart from the porn ordinance, I'm sure there's a lot you can find to agree with in MacKinnon's work, madamez. Surely you don't object to sexual harassment laws or genocidal rape being recognised as a war crime, or the massive settlement she achieved for Bosnian rape victims?

Anyway that isn't the question, the point is that I can demonstrate she is a feminist, something I think MT will find hard to do for Thornhill, Palmer and Dawkins.

TellusMater, it's a bit silly to get into a "she does, she doesn't" argument. Once again it's quite clear that EP's think their "science" will supersede social constructionist feminist arguments because theirs is the "ultimate" understanding of human nature. I think it's quite clear what my beefs with EP are. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread again if you haven't quite understood my arguments. If there are places I haven't been clear, feel free to highlight them and I'll try to explain further.

Thanks for that...

vb of noun 'ovation'?
made it up..

Oh I see. that's not quite so exciting. I think it sounded a bit like ovulating in my mind. I always get up on my hind legs to ovulate.

lol! an adaptation or primary thingummy do you think?

I think it's a primary adaptation thingammy

Can I put a question to anyone who is suspicious of evolutionary psychology (this is a proper question not a tricksy rhetorical one - I am primed and ready to be persuaded if necessary).

Do your suspicions arise from:

a) the belief that it is inappropriate to apply the principles of evolutionary theory to behaviour, whether animal or human.

b) the belief that it may be appropriate to look at the causes of non-human animal behaviour in this way, but not of human behaviour.

c) the belief that it while it may be appropriate to consider human and non-human animal behaviour in evolutionary terms, the methods used by evolutionary psychologists are unscientific.

d) none of the above - please elaborate (use a separate sheet if necessary...)

My suspicions arise from the fact that when you examine their arguments as in the case of Thornhill and Palmer, their claims are based on faulty data, something which MT has simply ignored despite being their biggest cheerleader on this thread.

Secondly, perhaps non-feminists (which most EPs seem to be) are unaware that these are very old arguments. Biological determinism is what feminism has been fighting for the past two hundred odd years. It's very tedious to see these same old arguments coming back again, once more dressed up as science.

Thirdly, I can't see how its even possible to make final deductions about human behaviour given the number of variables involved. Those so-called "tests" that MT posted earlier would need to be repeated across cultures and across time before any final conclusions would be drawn (and I'm not even sure the design of the "tests" would stand up to much scrutiny, but she'd need to describe them here).

Finally the standing of EvoPsych within the scientific world is demonstrated when you realise that it is possible to study it at the LSE, a school of social sciences whereas Imperial College, a real science college has no courses on offer.

Thank you Elizabetth, this is all very clear.

Have to say though that from what I can gather you would be hard pushed to find an evolutionary psychologist arguing for biological determinism. I think that this is a misinterpretation of ep arguments.