Stressed men fancy bigger women....

[SardineQueen]

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

BBC

blinding flashes of insight into the human condition handed down straight from the mind of God
That sounds like a description of the intent and purpose of 'evolutionary psychology'

I feel God in this case definitely pees standing up, too.

All the above are good points - though I think the scientific method is more rigorous and more neutral than you fear FU, and there are a lot of women in it now too.

I will stick to my guns re women turning out to be fairly amoral, and that threatens a lot of belief sets, of all stripes. (Which you'd expect, evolution has taught us not to be pushovers but we don't compete on physical strength)

...but I am still scratching head over the role of Phlogiston here :)

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

I think the opposition to Evo Psych by many belief sets (RadFems are hardly alone) is precisely because so may people, and good people at that, are working on it.

30 years ago the Nurture brigade had it in for Sociobiology when it started out, but eventually good science drives out wrong beliefs.

Isn't sociobiology pretty widely looked down on?

If I chat to researchers doing science, they don't object to evo psych because it's full of good people doing bad research - they object because, by and large, it is full of mediocre scientists who don't really understand why their research is flawed. I think that's probably more dangerous than good people doing bad research.

I mean, let's not split hairs here, this study was so crap it was possible to point up very basic mistakes like the man--> human thing on a cursory reading. That doesn't give the scientists a good name.

Phlogiston ... for years they were convinced it existed and rejected any evidence to the contrary.
The behaviour of the scientific establishment is as much sanctimonious orthodoxy as patriarchal religion, except worse, since they 'pride themselves' so bloody much on their 'impartiality'. Revelations are not just suddenly accepted by the scientific establishment if they require a paradigm shift, they are fought and suppressed in the name of 'rigour', when really it is just that it puts too many noses out of joint.
The whole idea that socio-biological reality is a 'thing' that can be scientifically 'found' within the dynamics of a patriarchal society is the phlogiston of evolutionary psychology/socio-biology.

By the way - what is this sentence?:
"30 years ago the Nurture brigade had it in for Sociobiology when it started out, but eventually good science drives out wrong beliefs."

'the nurture brigade'? what does this mean? Sociobiology has pretty much been anti-feminism dressed as science, and 'nurture brigade' a slur for those who prioritise a huge importance for socialisation in forming the person - a slur which is also antifeminist, since it implies that women's traditional role of nurturing human beings has no value because its all down to the biology of the baby that pops out - and good/bad parenting has no influence.

What are the 'wrong beliefs' that have been driven out by the 'good science' within sociobiology?

Religion used to pride itself just as much on being real, proveable truth - in some parts of the world it still does. There are certainly lots of people who believe Christianity is proveable and will not budge from that.

Any orthodoxy that responds to questions by insisting the questioners are paranoid/extreme/'wrong' without being able to respond, is suspect IMO.

Agreed LRD

BTW I still don't know what you mean by this whatmeworry: "I will stick to my guns re women turning out to be fairly amoral, and that threatens a lot of belief sets, of all stripes. (Which you'd expect, evolution has taught us not to be pushovers but we don't compete on physical strength)"

What do you mean by 'amoral' are you saying we're driven to get off on abusing the vulnerable and ahead by exploiting them.... or do you just mean the idea that we are driven to shag olympian adonises when we ovulate then dupe a considerate and constant man into believing he is the father?

The whole realm of 'morality' is a bit weird in this discussion

It really is weird.

I've just realized, does whatme mean 'immoral' or 'amoral'? They are different.

I can imagine women's choices might be immoral according to some daft standards (OMG, women enjoying sex!), but surely it is only tautology to posit that biological urges are amoral?

"surely it is only tautology to posit that biological urges are amoral?"
ha ha yes! I think 'immoral' must have been the intent

I guess that would at least make more sense. I hope it wasn't the intent because it seems nastier, really.

Yes - patriarchy exposed: "women are biologically driven to be untrustworthy".... and we all know what that sounds like - misogyny justified by science, now that religious ideas of 'Eve persuading Adam to eat the apple' have been discredited.

Yes, exactly! A proper scientist would not use terms like 'untrustworthy'. It's absolute bollocks. And yet, you can bet that when studies come out, this is how they get reported in the press. It's as hoop says.

I find it so odd that when we look at men, people are quite happy to say the characteristic features that make males of any species attractive to mates - such as obvious good health, good genetic material, etc. - might easily be translated into more modern social concepts such as wealth, intelligence, etc.

People bend over backwards to explain why 'biology' would explain a woman choosing a man who might be able to provide - but who is a lousy genetic risk. I've actually seen people justify Hugh Hefner this way! I mean, let's not be unfair, but the chances of a man his age fathering a healthy child are not high!

Yet when it's women we focus on - why, of course, men choose pretty women because pretty women have good genes.

the nurture brigade'? what does this mean? Sociobiology has pretty much been anti-feminism dressed as science, and 'nurture brigade' a slur for those who prioritise a huge importance for socialisation in forming the person - a slur which is also antifeminist

Clearly you know exactly what I mean therefore :)

Yes, its all about the Olde Nature vs Nurture issue, still red in tooth and claw.

Actually, I don't think the Nature arguments hurt Feminsism overall, in fact many help it.

What they do hurt more is Radical Feminism, which has all its philosophical eggs in one belief basket, and if that is seen to be holed the whole thing collapses in a holy mess. Hence the fierce resistance here.

Yes the patriarchal paradigm.....has not shifted yet.

Also, what I find really annoying is that so many of the findings are at odds with my empirical knowledge.... I wonder if that's because....I'm.....a woman?

I've just realized, does whatme mean 'immoral' or 'amoral'? They are different

I meant Amoral - it is tautological I suppose, in respect to biology - but I mean it in the sense of threatening the moral authorities a number of belief sets base themselves on.

Um.... if you meant it in that sense, I think you mean 'immoral'?

'Amoral' means without regard to a moral system. 'Immoral' means in contradiction to/thread against an established moral authority.

Yes, exactly! A proper scientist would not use terms like 'untrustworthy'. It's absolute bollocks. And yet, you can bet that when studies come out, this is how they get reported in the press.

That is it exactly - the cuckolding behaviour you describe is biologically (and scientifically) amoral, (and not even that common in humans by all accounts) but it so deeply threatens male primageniture belief structures so they all see it as "immoral", use words like "untrustoworthy" (ratger than genetically efficient :o) etc etc, and try desperately to curtail it.

"What they do hurt more is Radical Feminism, which has all its philosophical eggs in one belief basket, and if that is seen to be holed the whole thing collapses in a holy mess. Hence the fierce resistance here."

Sorry, you have to qualify that one... Are you saying that radical feminism (arguing that patriarchy is central to social dynamics) is not based in reality?

And by 'feminism' you must mean 'fun' feminism - which you believe to be the 'real' feminism because it is more welcoming of science that has not had its patriarchal prejudice exposed?

I really need to understand what you mean by 'philosophical eggs in one belief basket'...

I never described 'cuckolding behaviour', whatme, that's rubbish.

"That is it exactly - the cuckolding behaviour you describe is biologically (and scientifically) amoral, (and not even that common in humans by all accounts) but it so deeply threatens male primageniture belief structures so they all see it as "immoral", use words like "untrustoworthy" (rather than genetically efficient ) etc etc, and try desperately to curtail it."

This may threaten notions of 'virtuous purity', but it does not threaten pornography - which is much more important to patriarchy these days than religion. Any discovery that could be framed as 'women are untrustworthy bitches on heat that want multiple penetrations in a big gang bang, by various random men' is actually welcome and no longer threatens the establishment at all, but validates it. It helps to confirm the rape myths that we say no when we mean yes, etc.

This may threaten notions of 'virtuous purity', but it does not threaten pornography - which is much more important to patriarchy these days than religion. Any discovery that could be framed as 'women are untrustworthy bitches on heat that want multiple penetrations in a big gang bang, by various random men' is actually welcome and no longer threatens the establishment at all, but validates it

I'd agree that research that says the above would probably be welcomed, but research that said those women are very good at doing all that gang bangin' with other men while fooling their partners, or that women are very good at fooling their partners as to whose child they are carrying, is deeply threatening to the patriarchal structure.

That is when biological amorality (Seeking the best/a variety of genes) becomes immorality in the eyes of the patriarchical belief structure.

I'd dispute porn is more important to the patriarchy that virtuos purity (ie guaranteed paternity), but thats another debate.

I never described 'cuckolding behaviour', whatme, that's rubbish

No, FoodUnit did and you agreed with her. Do you know what cuckolding means btw?