Stressed men fancy bigger women....

[SardineQueen]

Can anyone explain to me what a useful purpose of this study might be?

BBC

Maybe that field of science should nuclear exploded off the planet have their funding go to...More useful fields?

"Maybe that field of science should be nuclear exploded off the planet have their funding go to...More useful fields?"

If only more women held the purse strings..... So annoying that Patriarchy keeps financial power out of women's hands

But remember, they started a science program JUST for girls! About how to find out the colour of your nail polish! [helpful]

lol

I think it would be worth doing a 'study into the funding of studies' into sex and gender.

I bet if a woman hypothesised something status quo reinforcing, but utter bollox she's get funding for it. Like "a study into female sexual submission and the necessity of rape for optimum natural selection" - they'd fall over themselves.

Actually FoodUnit, I think there bloody well should be a study into the funding of 'scientific studies!'

Not just related to this, there's lots of dodgy funding coming from strange places.

How about a study into 'how the length of a woman's skirt can measure the likelihood of her having numerous sexual partners?'

Actually there has been a lot of research on womens actions on/reactions to men in all sorts of areas, if anything more than research on men.

(Men were seen as fairly simple sperm delivery systems that will shag a drainpipe if needs be, for a long time... Afaics most of the new research says they are more nuanced and have preferences but will still shag a drainpipe :o )

My personal view on why a lot of the research on women doesn't make it into the popular press is that

(i) it is much more complex - women are more influenced by hormonal cycles, life stages, social fabric etc so it's not easy copy

(ii) womens' behaviour is far more amoral than many in society are comfortable with (both men and women) so that too is not easy copy.

"womens' behaviour is far more amoral than many in society are comfortable with"

You're kidding right?

You are aware there are, you know, feminists here?

Nope, it's very recent that people even accepted men did produce sperm and not the whole material for the baby. For a very long time people thought women were just incubators and didn't do anything except carry the baby that men put inside them. Disturbingly, the roots of the US and UK legal systems must have been developing while people still thought that.

However, I would like to see this masses of research on women (though don't bother if it's wiki, obvs.) - I bet there is some out there and it would be interesting.

Whatmeworry I do not get what you are speaking about. Are you referring to the difficulty following paternal lines? I think you are being selective and get your information from other popular takes on human sexuality. For example, perhaps rather than being 'amoral', it is actually 'rape' and the stigma following raped women and the historical stigmatisation of single mothers that is responsible for the difficulty tracking the paternal line? Just a thought?

I don't really get where morality comes into it, TBH. I think she might mean that people don't want to research something if they see it will show that women aren't all lovely, model-of-the-patriarchy types but actually enjoy sex, that sort of thing?

I do know that people have suppressed research on that in the past. People knew for ages women had orgasms (as you'd hope!) but it didn't get into medical textbooks for hundreds of years after people had been writing about semen, and it's still had only the tinest fraction of money gone into researching it that male erection/orgasm has had.

There are two ways to hypothesise about the same thing in this area of 'science', from the patriarchal vantage point where everything looks straightforward and clear (a bit like Nazi architecture), or from the messy perspective where unequal power of one group (those with the vantage point) dominate, control and restrict the other group cumulatively through generations, skewing the behaviour of that group (and also their own actually).... but of course you could always brush off that massive and important influence of cumulative oppression and put the 'messiness' down to the influence of "hormonal cycles, life stages, social fabric" of that group..... whilst comfortably ignoring the great big f*cking elephant in the room!

I don't really get where morality comes into it, TBH. I think she might mean that people don't want to research something if they see it will show that women aren't all lovely, model-of-the-patriarchy types but actually enjoy sex, that sort of thing?

That sort of thing.

Its not that the research isn't being done, its that many people are uncomfortable with the answers - women play the Game of Life as hard - and in many ways far harder - than men do. Because they play for bigger stakes.

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

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.

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

But depressing.

"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.

"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?

sorry phlogiston

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.

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.

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 :/

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 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.

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

By definition, I would have thought, no.