RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   
  Topic: Feminism, Discussion on feminism and concepts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,11:28   

Hello. I'm a Darwinian feminist.  Can define that a bit later. For now - can anyone tell me how to attach PDF's?? This is my protoblog, though it needs updating. My Webpage

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 26 2011,19:50

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,11:30   

That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,12:29   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,14:27   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Quote
Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p


Ha, yes a bit. Especially the feminist and evolutionist bit.

Quote
Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley


Thanks

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,14:46   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Wow, I'm having some trouble getting to grips with the board layout.  

Quote
I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.


DGS is a term I use as I have struggled with Darwinian feminist in the past.  There is already a great deal of work that one could label DGS; the work of David Buss for instance.  I sometimes prefer it because my interest is in sexual selection and the way men and women make their way through life wanting essentially the same things from an evolutionary perspective (to survive and procreate) but have different proximate strategies to those ultimate goals. I see the study of women as meaningless without also studying men - and their offspring, and traditionally feminism is the study of women only. The term feminism has a huge amount of political baggage too. Like someone said further up the thread, its a bit of a tangled bank.

If its possible to attach pdfs though I could post a couple of the most recent papers on DGS/darwinian feminism/feminist darwinians.  There is a paper by Buss and Schmitt on my blog re EP and feminism which is current too.  

I wrote this in response to the thread and questions re a feminist expert - apols for length.  Will be better to just respond to individuals after getting this out of the way..!



I am not a feminist in the orthodox sense. For one,  I am a Darwinian feminist, and as such represent everything orthodox feminism stands against  - biological determinism, male superiority, female passivity -  (I know that Darwinism doesn't stand for any of these things, but most feminists still do  unfortunately.)

The first problem with defining feminism (which today means 2nd wave feminism – a very different movement from the  1st wave) is that any feminist will tell you that there is not one feminism – but many feminisms; Marxist feminism, socialist feminism, post-modern feminism, standpoint feminism, black feminism to name a few. The multiplicity of standpoints in feminism represents female intrasexual competition to me as a Darwinist, but feminists themselves struggle with this idea, as  it appears to be at odds with a utopian sisterhood.

One thing they do seem to be able to agree on is that patriarchy is the enemy. Each has slightly different conceptions of what patriarchy is, but all agree that it is a socially constructed phenomena which is enforced by socially constructed notions of sex and gender which equate to male supremacy and female inferiority and that the dismantling of patriarchy is central to the metafeminist project.

The only feminist excpetion to this rule is liberal feminism (alla Betty Friedan - see Falaudi's Backlash for what radical feminists think of her) who do not advocate social revolution (the over throwing of a patriarchy for a matriarchy) but social improvements for all.  To this end they are generally labelled conservative feminists – see critcs of Christina Hoff Sommers (the conservative meant to be a pejorative, especially in the UK) or just antifeminists. Evolutionary psychologist Anne Campbell is a feminist Darwinian, as is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (though I think she prefers 'distaff darwinian'; evolutionary philosopher Helena Cronin is also a feminist darwinian. (See hopefully soon to be attached paper by Vandermassen re the distinction between feminist darwinians and darwinian feminists.) My phd is going to be in the evolutionary origins of patriarchy – I won a place at Durham this year but funding fell through so I'm back as an independent for the moment.

So, I am probably a specialist in Darwinian feminism and Darwinian gender studies, though I'm not PhD level. I have studied a lot of orthodox feminist theory along the way, but I am a rationalist not a construtivist and so would probably be labelled antifeminist by an orthadox feminist, even though my interests are in examining evolution via a female perspective and better understanding female dilemmas within the context of sexual selection, etc.
Nice to be here by the way.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:11   

Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:19   

I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:24   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,15:11)
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...

Quote
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...


Thanks. So what's with the 'after the bar closes' side forum? Is this just for late night boozy chats??

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:28   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,15:19)
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.

Quote
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.


Well...one of my hypotheses is of patriarchy as a human 'lek'.  An culture for men to compete with other men - what happens when women enter the lek? They have to compete roman rules, just like the men - or can the lek be feminised?? How to bloody test it!

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,16:35   

AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:11   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,14:35)
AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:19   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,17:11)
I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt.

I think this is what you are referring to.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:19   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,23:11)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,14:35)
AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.

To be honest, I think there must have been some factor that led to the patriarchal construct of human society (not all of it, there are native tribes in south-east Asia that are matriarchal). Sexual dimorphism might be a factor, but maybe there are other underlying reasons. As you so wisely put it, I dunno, either...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,04:28   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,17:19)

Quote
I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...


The phylogenetic line can give a lot of insight into mating strategies as the theory of matri/patrilocality in proto-species is thought to be fundamentally linked to mating strategies manifest in contemporary species, including humans.  Patrilocality is thought central to theories of male resources control, male alliances and female vulnerability to oppressive sociocultural practices ( see Smuts, 1995). Lion females live in their natal groups which is more matriarchal. The males are basically just there to protect offspring from rogue males, they get mating rights for this, but its a pretty short, brutal life compared to the females.  (I'm not a lion specialist, so this is a laymans opinion!)

Quote
Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.


In our history? How far back? Sexual dimorphism is I think thought to be driven by sexual selection. Ridley hypothesises sexual division of labour is to be one of the reasons homo sapiens success over other hominid species. Hunting and gathering targets 2 specializations which results in the group being bigger than the sum of its parts and enables food sharing and cooperation. Calories provided by female gathering form the majority of calories in contemporary h/g societies, men hunt for meat (which is more perishable that gathered food so must be consumed quickly and so food sharing and trade takes place). Food sharing - the way humans indulge in it - is unique  among primates which have strict dominance hierarchies.

I don't doubt that some women have hunted, but I don't recall reading anything which stated that this was the norm and the men gathered. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.  The sexual division of labour occurs universally in the most egalitarian of societies.   Anthropologists tend to agree that hunter-gatherers are less sexist than agriculturalists. In the Ache and Hadza hunter-gatherers, males are keen hunters and  appear relatively more sexually permissive society than the Hiwi and the !Kung who are intermittent hunters and are less permissive.

I'm not sure what you mean about technology and tools.  What field did they even – between men and women? Not that I'm aware.  Female autonomy and leadership in 'primitive' egalitarian societies such as hunter-gatherers has always been a hot topic for feminists. The late Marxist feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock tried to assert that she had found such societies (17th century Montagnais Native Americans and among the Iroquois), but the evidence for this has been found to be spurious. Women can and do exert influence in their own realms in such societies, but don't generally gain formal political power over group decision-making, though they can informally via kin, etc. A good example of the lack of formal power is seen in marriage arrangements where “in many societies free partner choice for women is virtually unknown or severely constrained. Marital alliances are negotiated by parents or male relatives. Although women may informally make their preferences known, it is often basically men who decide upon the marriage options of not only their mates, but their daughters, sisters, and nieces.” (Low 1987).

Dunno if that makes any sense. I'm trying to write a blog piece at the same time!

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,05:41   

My guess for how the patriarchy got started, lo, these many centuries ago: Way back when, long before the advent of Civilization, brute physical force was the major factor (or perhaps only one of them? pretty damned important, either way) which determined who got their way in a conflict between (proto-)human and (proto-)human. Since male humans tend to have more brute strength than female humans, it therefore follows that male humans would get their way a rather large percentage of the time. Thus, females would tend not to have much influence over how things are run, simply because their relative deficit in brute physical strength would keep them from having as much influence as they might otherwise have.
In addition, (proto-)humans just didn't have most of the knowledge and technology we moderns do, so they tended to die younger and for a larger range of reasons than we moderns do; this means keeping the population up would be a primary concern for whatever societies (proto-)humans might have managed to create at that time. And it just so happens that male humans are largely expendable, as far as maintaining-stable-population is concerned. If half the male population of Tribe X suddenly dies, and at the same time, half the female population of Tribe Y suddenly dies, which tribe is going to have a more-severe, longer-lasting drop in its total population? As a consequence, early (proto-)human tribes that protected their females better would tend to endure longer than tribes which weren't as good about protecting their females. I think this is how the "women and children first!" deal got started in the first place.
In other words, I think "traditional gender roles" are a fossilized (sociocultural) leftover from those long-past days when those roles had a positive effect on how long a culture might endure. Things have changed since then; in particular, contemporary environmental conditions are no longer the same as those which originally made traditional gender roles actively adaptive. But since traditional gender roles were actively adaptive, those gender roles were passed down from generation to generation, and are still being passed down even now.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,05:57   

It seems indeed that sexual dimorphism in hominids was even more obvious at the time of Australopithecines, probably (but that's just my gut-feeling) in response to sexual selection pressure.

Here is an interesting (yet short and clear) paper extract mentioning it, with a size/weight comparative table:

Linky

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,08:27   

Heres a link to a recent paper by David Buss and David Schmitt - EP and Feminism

(I have permissions to dissemminate it)

Buss and Schmitt

Also a paper by Darwinian Feminist Griet Vandermassen
A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial Just click on the download link and its free. Griet also wrote Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,10:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 17 2011,15:19)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,17:11)
I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt.

I think this is what you are referring to.

Ha ha ha! Even when I was 19 thought this was hilarious!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,17:59   

Hi, wanted to add this link http://www.epjournal.net/filesto....525.pdf
"A review of Alan R. Rogers, The Evidence for Evolution in 100 pages". University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2011" bt not sure where to put it on the 'wider' board - sorry, a newbie so still finding my feet.

I have noticed though that I've had a bit of traffic from this site to my proto-blog. Please feel free to ask me any questions or give feedback (positive or negative). I'm developing my voice, but it's not there yet!

There aren't many Darwinian feminists about, we're a pretty rare species, so any feedback is great. (also want to tred carefully here - humans are funny, especially online!)

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,19:55   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:28)
Hello. I'm a Darwinian feminist.  Can define that a bit later. For now - can anyone tell me how to attach PDF's?? This is my protoblog, though it needs updating. My Webpage

You can post a link to a PDF hosted elsewhere. There's currently no provision for file upload here.

The board layout is a fairly out-of-the-box Ikonboard BB, software circa 2002. There are snazzier packages, but this one has a number of customizations, such as providing an RSS feed, that were/are unusual in BB software.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,20:59   

Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

But, if you have medically made pregnancy selective, and have technologically (or socially) made nursing optional, the the biological basis for the sexual division of labor is gone. We are currently renegotiating that social contract (with various sides occasionally on strike).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,16:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 26 2011,20:59)
Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

I agree. When it comes to the principles of natural selection men and women differ little  - it’s under the principles of sexual selection that the differences begin to become manifest and these are all to do with procreation, not survival. As I'm sure you're all aware.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – with a particular interest in proximate mechanisms of how men oppress women and how this oppression can be countered.

At the moment I’m wrestling with the idea that females (on averge) pay a proximate price (in quality of life as males attempt to control female choice) for possessing the ultimate advantage (in fertility terms  with women being the more fecund of the sexes, contrary to popular opinion!) Not that it needs be this way, as the West demonstrates.

Anyone seen this before? It’s quite entertaining.
Is there anything good about men?

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,17:55   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 29 2011,14:19)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 26 2011,20:59)
Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

I agree. When it comes to the principles of natural selection men and women differ little  - it’s under the principles of sexual selection that the differences begin to become manifest and these are all to do with procreation, not survival. As I'm sure you're all aware.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – with a particular interest in proximate mechanisms of how men oppress women and how this oppression can be countered.

At the moment I’m wrestling with the idea that females (on averge) pay a proximate price (in quality of life as males attempt to control female choice) for possessing the ultimate advantage (in fertility terms  with women being the more fecund of the sexes, contrary to popular opinion!) Not that it needs be this way, as the West demonstrates.

Anyone seen this before? It’s quite entertaining.
Is there anything good about men?

Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,11:01   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,19:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 30 2011,09:01)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

No, I think we're in this together.

But it seems there's some programming that says I'm supposed to be The Provider. I've described not working as feeling unmanned.  

I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:08   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,17:26)
I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

It's an image that has been part of the cultural background for all of our lives. A meme on steroids if you will.

On a separate but related note, one of the things I find the most frustrating when discussing feminism (or any question regarding privilege really) is the refusal of the privileged to acknowledge that privilege. The illusion of being self made seems awfully important to people.

I was born a male in a patriarchal society, part of the local ethnic majority, in a stable family living in a middle class neighborhood with a low crime rate and given access to free education. To claim that I'm a "self made man" is laughable.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Don't mind the personal non sequitur and I'll just enjoy the papers that have been posted.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2011,19:55)
You can post a link to a PDF hosted elsewhere. There's currently no provision for file upload here.

I've checked and I can't post Griet's papers as they are copyrighted by the university. I can post abstracts and extracts though so will when I get the time.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:59   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 01 2011,01:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,17:26)
I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

It's an image that has been part of the cultural background for all of our lives. A meme on steroids if you will.

On a separate but related note, one of the things I find the most frustrating when discussing feminism (or any question regarding privilege really) is the refusal of the privileged to acknowledge that privilege. The illusion of being self made seems awfully important to people.

I was born a male in a patriarchal society, part of the local ethnic majority, in a stable family living in a middle class neighborhood with a low crime rate and given access to free education. To claim that I'm a "self made man" is laughable.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Don't mind the personal non sequitur and I'll just enjoy the papers that have been posted.

I'm not sure that is is cognitively silly.  I would think its more likely a cultural meme with roots in the gene.  In our evolutionary history, a man who couldn't provide for his family would be at a fittness disadvantage to those that could, or risked being cuckolded by better 'providers'. Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2120
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,13:20   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 30 2011,23:59)
(snip) Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Protein content? Or because the men do it? Or because killing is associated with removing threats?

Chicken, meet egg.  (?)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:04   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 30 2011,23:59)
(snip) Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Protein content? Or because the men do it? Or because killing is associated with removing threats?

Chicken, meet egg.  (?)

Bit of both, but mostly it appears - because men do it.  Definitely a bit of a sexual doule standard going on. This paper is a good overview. For those who don't have access, I will post some snippets.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
  122 replies since Nov. 03 2011,11:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]