Just feeling really angry at all the murder, assault, rape of females that goes on

[BornStroppy]

I told my husband how horrible it is being part of a gender that is constantly attacked, murdered, etc. He had never thought about it. He doesn´t need to. So we have Tia Sharp, the lady who disappeard in London, an old lady in Scotland murdered by son´s friend, another one murdered in a taxi in Birmingham - this is just over two weeks.

I have one son, pregnant again and just hope its another boy to be honest.

Why is it OK? Apart from raising gentlemen, what the hell can we do? As a gender, we give birth, nurture, raise, care for them, and as a gender we are the ones who suffer at their hands.

its so depressing.

Yes, LRD, you mustn't exert yourself with all that thinking! Your reproductive organs will be in danger....

Quite. I feel my womb a-wandering as we speak.

Right, it's been a chuckle, but I am finally off to bed, to dream of the day when we have converted meow into the perfect feminist clone...

I feel we're getting closer everyday

Night night.

LRD - I agree the evolution stuff is out of place on this thread but it's a conversation I'd like to have some time

To know why men are violent, you have to talk about evolutionary theory, unless you want to restrict yourself to only "nurture" based theories and exclude all "nature" ones.

I think my issue is, I think a lot of this thread - unfortunately - has been more about bashing feminists and claiming science as a back up

I don't think that's right, its mainly been about disputing male violence, its reasons, and who its victims really are. I did note some of the MN Radical Feminists making statistically incorrect claims, so yes they have been challenged, and rightly so.

As to "claiming science as a back up" - well, if you are familiar with the science you will, as it answers a lof of these questions vey elegantly.

I've been amusing myself for the past hour or so googling Feminsm vs Evolution, and it would seem that that the battle lines have been drawn - for many decades, this isn't new at all - between Evolution/Sociobiology/Evo Psych, and 2 main Feminist sub groups, viz:

• those who believe there is no natural differences between men and women, ie all differences are down to nurture, and

• those that believe all oppression is due too a Patriarchy and women are its defenseless victims.

BTW - it seems the other big opponents of Sociology and Evo Psych over the decades are the liberal human studies - various 'ologies' - as it attacks a lot of their core tenets too.

My suspicion therefore is that a lot of those most anti the use of evolutionary etc theory on this thread are in fact liberal arts/humanities educated Radical Feminists :)

Should read Sociobiology and Evo Psych....

Does feminism dispute evolution? Or evolutionary psychology? They're not the same thing.

I googled feminism vs evolution too, but the first few pages of results deal with evolutionary psychology. Are you meaning to imply that feminism and feminists are standing shoulder to shoulder with creationists to dispute the theory of evolution?

I googled feminism vs evolution too, but the first few pages of results deal with evolutionary psychology. Are you meaning to imply that feminism and feminists are standing shoulder to shoulder with creationists to dispute the theory of evolution?

Its much more nuanced that that - various feminists have different reactions. Also, not all "modules" of evolution/sociobiology/evo psych science are as well received as others. Science just likes ones that have good data and are predictive, and doesn't like theses that are not - but thats not the criteria all the opponents use.

So some Feminists are up there with the Creationsists, but others are behind Evo Psych in all its glory, and see it as helpful (One paper says "equity" feminist by and large like, "Gender Feminists" do not.

I got especially interested in those parts dealing with modern women's control of reproduction and what that may mean, it is truly revolutionary.

But do read some of it and make your mind up, its very interesting.

So some Feminists are up there with the Creationsists

I should be clearer, they don't believe what the Creationaist believe, its more an opposition to Evolution but for different reasons (mainly around nurture primacy afaics).

Evolution is not interchangeable with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Feminists who dispute evolutionary psychology are not disputing evolution.

LRD - re: arranged marriage etc...

Yes. Not saying that arranged marriage is the single driver of sexual selection, but more in answer to people saying 'for long periods of history women didn't freely choose their partners therefore how can sexual selection have taken place'

From a "gene's eye view" which is how evolution takes place if a behaviour promotes the transmission of a gene it doesnt matter whether that behaviour is carried out by the individual organism, or a relative carrying the same gene.

E.g. The Grandmother Hypothesis - that women who lived longer were
able to support the upbringing of more healthy grandchildren, thus passing on a genes for longevity beyond menopause unique to humans.

Similarly actions taken by parents in influencing their children's choice of partner could lead to them (or their siblings) having more chance of
passing on the gene that promotes this behaviour to the next generation. Parents evolutionary pressures are not 100% aligned to the genetic pressures on any single offspring (who shares half their genetic variation) - parents will pass on more genes to future generations if their actions promote the reproductive success of all their offspring, whereaschildren will pass on more genes if they prioritise (but not completely) their own sucess over those of their sibs.

SGM "feminists don't support evolutionary psychology"

Some do.

Can you define the dividing line between evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology?

E.g. Do you include in your acceptable beliefs that aspects of human behaviour are genetically influenced? That sexual selection takes place? That males and females face very different reproductive odds?

Himalaya - Re: who does the choosing in an arranged marriage type situation.

Yes you are right, it niggled me when I wrote it too.

I said 'parents' for simplicity -mothers and mother-in-laws do play a role. I don't think it implies equality though - more different pressures on males and females as potential parents and grandparents.

I think this is the sort of simplicity we should be really careful about. If we are talking about male violence and whether females 'choose' violent males, the use of the gender-neutral 'parents' fudges the whole issue.

We all come from a long line of people who survived and who had grandchildren. Not one person in our direct lineage failed to do these two things.

So while in legal, property or status terms we might see things in terms of the "male line", in evolutionary terms we come from a long line of survivor females as well, who benefitted (in reproductive terms) both from the way their own genes were expressed but also those of the men who they had children with.

It doesn't matter who has the "final say from an evolutionary point of view -I.e. Survival has the last say.

This is all true, but you could make a similar argument about cattle. They are extremely successful in terms of reproduction and survival, more especially those cattle which carry genes for growing really fast, producing big juicy steaks or ridiculously large milk yields. It doesn't mean those are traits the cows have chosen.

Feminists don't support evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is NOT the same as evolutionary theory. To believe they are you have to be either incredibly thick or deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to point score

That is just not true. Some Feminists - like you RadFems - hate it, as it threatems your beliefs, but not all do not. "Equity" feminists are far happier with it, I test as mainly Liberal Feminist and I think its very usseful.

It's fairly obvious in this thread who has a passing acquaintance with feminist theory, evolutionary theory and the nincompoopery which is evolutionary psychology

I agree wholeheartedly with the view that its clear who only has a passing knowledge. Here's a hint - anyone who says Evo Psych is nincompoopery doesn't have a clue..... and fwiw I find your knowldege of "Feminist" theory limited to one brand only.

Here's the thing, as a feminist, I find evolutionary psychology's obsession with insisting men are all violent rapists utterly offensive. Most men aren't violent or rapists

I think that statement proves beyond doubt that you know absolutely nothing about Evolutionary Psychology.

Supporting a theory which requires ALL men to be like this is, simply, wrong. It ignores the basic science of evolution in order to normalise the behaviour of certain men

On the contrary, the only theorists that I know of that comes even close to believing all men are rapists is some of the more extreme thinkers in Radical Feminism.

Evolution is not interchangeable with sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. Feminists who dispute evolutionary psychology are not disputing evolution

Do tell me what you think is purely Evolution then. Sexual selection is smack bang in the core of it, and that is where most of the dispute in this thread has been.

I find it's more that people who don't like the basics of sexual selection, but know that others will think they are fools if they are seen to be rejecting evolution, who try and argue that all that stuff is not Evolution but Evolutionary Psychology. They then try and argue that is all nincompoopery, via false straw man arguments ( eg SGMs post on it arguing all men are rapists)

As a feminist I don't disagree with the idea of evolutionary psychology, ie. that certain psychological characteristics have been adaptive and are therefore more prevalent. What I disagree with us the current theories on offer by contemporary evolutionary psychologists who tend to advocate a very chest-beating view of things and often end up justifying male violence as adaptive.

Plus they focus way too much on the man-as-hunter in their search, often without really looking at women's part in evolution, except for lazily putting it down to sexual attractiveness. Which, apart from not being very nice, is simply inaccurate.

As for evolution itself I'm a fem and I love love love it. Having a semi religious background I was discouraged from it and didn't completely understand it ("if we're evolved from apes why do they still exist?). When the penny dropped it was like one big glorious liberating whoosh!

Where's Richard Dawkins when you need him ?

Whatme, Sexual selection isn't "smack bang" in the middle of evolution. Of course it's huge but it's not the only way in which animals characteristics change.

The core of Evolution is the existence of mutations in the DNA rendering slight changes to the animals physical or psychological characteristics. If said characteristic is adaptive in that particular environment and enables said animal to live long enough to reproduce, the likelihood if that new DNA variation being passed on to future generations. If it is maladaptive said animal will likely die before having chance to reproduce.

In this aspect it is less about sexual selection based on choosing the mate based on certain characteristics you find attractive but actually surviving long enough to reproduce with the gene lottery you have inherited. But if course sexual selection is an important part of evolution, just not the only part.

Look at peppered moths for example. The on-the-pull peppered moth didnt suddenly develop a fetish for black moths over white speckled ones. The white ones were eaten before they had a chance to reproduce, leaving the black ones to take over and spread their genes.

oh dear, might have had one too many last night, sorry if i was talking bollocks without putting my grain into gear.

anyone got any alka selsa?

I wouldn't worry Meow. This is feminist chat not feminist evolutionary theory BA(Hons)