Darwinian Gender Studies

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism

2012-01-30T12:19:00.002Z

Great paper by Barry X. Kuhle

Abstract

I comment on Eagly and Wood’s biosocial constructionist evolutionary theory (2011; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9). Although this gender feminist theory allows for evolved physical differences between men and women and evolved psychological similarities for men and women, it fails to consider evolutionary accounts of psychological sex differences. I hypothesize that gender feminists’ reluctance to acknowledge that evolution has left different fingerprints on men’s and women’s bodies and brains stems from two common misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology: the myth of immutability and the naturalistic fallacy. I conclude that although evolutionary psychology is eminently compatible with equity feminism, evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences. Gender feminism’s dualistic view of evolution hinders the search for and understanding of the proximate and ultimate causes of inequality. Feminist psychology needs to evolve by embracing equity feminism, which has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes.

Susan Pinker in conversation with Allan Gregg

2012-01-29T18:47:00.000Z

Speaking about the gender pay gap
Here

A question of research?

2012-01-29T15:26:00.001Z

"Talking to an ageing Don Juan the other day, I was struck by his sudden defence of his behaviour…

"It's in our genes," he said comfortably. "I could impregnate every woman in this room, but you couldn't have a child with every man in this room. So men evolved to be really, really promiscuous."

"And doesn't that make you feel good," I said.

"Sure," he said happily.

In the 19th century, that same man might have believed that God made men to be leaders and women to be followers."
Roses are Red - So What

This quote aptly illustrates everything feminists hate about Darwinism. It links two concepts, which orthodox feminists erroneoulsy believe are inextricably linked with evolutionary theory; male chauvinism and biological determinism. It’s crafted to instantly trigger a thousand feminist stress responses, the message: know thy enemy!

The shame of this article - the unchallenged claim of Walter’s ageing Don Juan, that he could impregnate every women in the room, that such a feat was ‘in his genes’ - is that it is false and either Walter knew this and published it anyway, or she didn’t conduct even the most cursory research on the claim. Either way, the ethics of both acts are rather suspect and unfortunately typical of feminist scholarship in this area. What Walter did here – indulging her negative muse – was to use her privileged position in the media to disseminate untrue myths about male dominance, which your average lay person would have no idea how to counter. Who needs patriarchy, when feminists do the job themselves!

Had Walter done some research, she would very quickly have discovered the following, which might have given the piece some journalistic worth:

“Imagine a male that mates with 56 women over 56 days and a woman mates with 56 different men over the same period. The woman is likely to become pregnant and bear one offspring in the same year…If the male avoids the time of menstruation he has about a 15% chance of impregnating a woman during her fertile period. Only half of the female ovarian cycles will be fertile, some women will be infertile...and implantation will only take place about 40% of the time. The number of women a man could expect to make pregnant is one.”
Cartwright p34

Next time you come across a Don Juan of any age, remember to pass this on!

David Buss and Richard Dawkins in discussion re EP

2012-01-26T17:43:00.003Z

Part 1,Part 2,Part 3,Part 4,Part 5,Part 6,Part 7,Part 8.

Jill and John tweaked

2012-01-25T10:55:00.001Z

Slightly tweaked after some notes from David Buss. This hopefully illustrates convergent strategies as well as divergent ones. After all, men and women ostensibly want the same things - to survive and thrive!

DGS cartoons!

2012-01-23T13:40:00.000Z

Some cartoons I have been working on which illustrate some of the common issues I come across as a Darwinian feminist. Please feel free to disseminate on the net and in blogs and in talks/lectures. All I would ask is that if anyone would like to publish them, they make a much needed donation to my post-grad education fund This one illustrates female intrasexual competition within the sisterhood - the elephant in the room.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a work in progress highlighting evolutionary themes in Shakespeare, specifically mate guarding, paternal insecurity, etc - the nuts and bolts of Darwinian gender studies. This is just a little skit about gender feminism. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic cautionary measures for cross-disciplinary talks from the natural to the social sciences?

Fundraising!!

2012-01-20T12:04:00.003Z

I have been offered a place at one of the UK's top universities to study evolutionary anthropology on a PhD pathway. I need to raise funds for postgraduate study. If you are a fan of this blog and can donate anything, please get in touch. I will of course provide proofs. email me at porlawright[at]msn.com Thanks for listening!

'Woman' Is Not My Slave Name

2011-12-14T12:51:00.021Z

I agreed with Naomi McAuliffe in her worry that feminism is doing itself no favours with its choice of high profile campaigns this year in Is the Muff March a cunning stunt? (For more on cunning stunts masquerading as feminism see this blog post) Where we differed was with the principle behind the march; in this case “the very real issue of cosmetic genital surgery.”

A real issue? I understand the personal is supposed to be political, but this is just a bit too personal. It may be the statistical case that “Labiaplasty, vaginal tightening, and hymen reconstruction are all on the increase”, but if women are choosing to do these things with their own highly evolved brains, where is the issue? The (apparently) oppressed women inside the Harley Street clinics were not privileged a voice to enlighten us. If they had, a curt, 'Get stuffed and mind your own muff business', might have been the response.

The feminists succeeded in getting headlines, but what benefit to the cause – indeed, what cause? Only WH Smiths could have benefited from the stunt, being spared a few hours of 'radical', 'guerilla' feminist activities denouncing the female form as pornographic and slapping stickers over pert boobs. In the war against sexual objectification, the next step may well be putting paper bags over pretty girls faces as they walk down the street. Come to think of it, these Object and Feministing girls would do well in Dubai, enforcing purdah.

But back to the elusive “issue”. With nobody being physically forced into anything, McAuliffe invoked the feminist context of collective female shame. Always a safe bet as, not being perfect, humans very often feel shitty about themselves whatever their sex. History is littered with ideologies which have sought to harness this nebulous power. “Women and girls have to live with accusations of smelling like fish, smelling during our periods, having vaginas that are too slack, having labia that is not neat enough, growing too much hair (as though it's a choice), or not decorating a minge like a Christmas tree with some ghastly vajazzle. They're reacting to these accusations with razors, wax and a surgeon's scalpel.”

If this is anything to go by, feminists are spending far too much time hanging around with teenage boys, (or frequenting Mumsnet - the vernacular is pretty much indistinguishable.) To take serious note of either opinion has the political weight of engaging in a debate on climate change with the Monster Raving Loony Party. There's an adage about arguing with idiots that some feminists would do well to heed.

Another thing which jarred about this protest was the implication that such surgery was driven by vanity. Many surgical procedures in those clinics are not actually 'cosmetic' (as if that were a pejorative term – it isn't) but reconstructive. But typically, these feminists jumped to the most negative opinion of women as vain, shallow, and easily led creatures. What a woman recuperating after getting a 3rd degree perineal tear repaired would have made of their caterwauling we don't know.

It reminded me too of the 'too posh to push' myth; a myth pretty much perpetuated by women in the media. Anyone who has ever been through childbirth knows it is not about being posh, it is about a genuine mortal fear of childbirth and wanting to avoid unimaginable pain. So unimaginable, in fact, it's impossible to imagine it afterwards. That's a neat biological trick! It's about a series of trade offs: between facing that fear and pain (surely an individual choice in a civilised and technologically advanced society) or having a few extra days bed rest and a sore tummy; between childbirth induced vaginal and rectal trauma or a fully functioning pelvic floor.

It's one of the cornerstones of our civilisation that women do not have to face the mortal horrors of childbirth alone and without help if they need or want it. Why lead them up the garden path, then slam the door in their faces? I find it odd, not to say highly disturbing, that it is feminists, and not 'The Patriarchy', who are protesting that there should be limits to those privileges; and not based on medical or fiscal considerations, on ideological ones. Thankfully we do not live in a feminist autocracy, and 'The Patriarchy' allows women to choose to avoid these traumas and to have them surgically fixed for whatever reason they so choose – bladder control or good sex – without the harassment of the establishment. Feminism once fought for women to have opportunities and choices such as these. Now it almost seems like it wants to revoke them.

As a society, we have come far. No man can now take to the pavement, pious placard in hand, telling women what they ought to be doing, and rightly expect to be called anything but a sexist pig. So what does that make these feminists?

Actions speak louder than words. For all the cries of feminism being a pro-women organisation, more and more it actually appears pro-feminist and anti-women. The disconnect between feminism and women is becoming more palpable as time passes. If it is for women, why won't it listen to us? Why not take criticism where its due? Why not adapt? The feminists on the 'Muff March' perfectly illustrate how orthodox feminism today is not about creating opportunities for women or empowering them to make their own choices. It is about disseminating archaic 20th century dogma and slavishly following ideology, in spite of women’s wants, needs and lived experience today.

So here's my question: Does feminism serve women or do women serve feminism? That's not a rhetorical question. It needs to be answered.

Too often feminism connects the word 'woman' with terms of weakness, victimhood and shame. If I could tell these feminists anything, it is that times have changed and 'woman' is not my slave name.

Follow the link to see the Facebook debate about the Muff March

Unradical Feminism: An Old Sexual Manifesto

2011-12-05T12:49:00.001Z

One might be forgiven for thinking the recent rumblings of feminist agitation within the pages of The Guardian signified a progression of some sort. In Moral panic? No. We are resisting the pornification of women, Gail Dines and Julia Long take up arms against the old foe of the 'pornification of culture'. They repeat scripts written by feminists of decades past, “(P)ornification...perpetuate(s) myths of women's unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women's rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality.” This asserted in spite of the fact that women in the West enjoy unparalleled levels of sexual autonomy, control over their fertility, physical safety and economic and social equality. A similar campaign has been hosted on the pages of The Guardian before. That too ended with a live Guardian debate. That one, like this one, was basically a book promotion dressed up as feminist activism. Lets take a step back in time...

On April fools day 2006, media feminist and Guardian regular Madeline Bunting railed against the sexualisation of our public spaces, decorated ubiquitously with female bodies, which to her represented, “another insistent, insidious message of how culture shapes expectations of our sexuality, another reminder of one's own powerlessness to assert other images of sexuality with anything like comparable prominence.” Buntings invective was roused by, amongst other things, a console game advertisement on the sides of UK double decker buses which had instructed those who just happened to glance at it to ‘Paste your girlfriend's white bits here.’ Bunting posited a brief thought experiment, “Imagine: could I have an equivalent number of double deckers trumpeting the message that sex is the magical experience of mutual giving?”, but quickly had a reality check, “Boring ... duh ... The problem about our pervasive cultural sexism is that the debate is tilted all one way.” The piece signalled her allegiance to radical Marxist feminism in the title, Sex Slaves to the Market, and predictably pointed a highly critical finger at that putative symbol of western patriarchy; capitalism. “Pornography is colonising all other forms of media… a multimillion-pound industry will carry on churning out the websites, DVDs and magazines that are distorting our sexual mores.”

A week later, Libby Brooks, another Guardian regular and fellow traveller, published a new call to arms for feminism, A New Sexual Manifesto, again, in The Guardian, “This is not about being anti-sex,” she began, pre-empting the oft-used insult of feminists being anti-sex and frigid, “It is not about being prudish, or easily embarrassed, or unliberated. But it is about anger.”

Both articles were motivated by two recent feminist publications, the primary being Ariel Levi’s investigation into the rise of what she termed ‘raunch culture’ in the US. In the best spirit of the sisterhood, it was called Female Chauvinist Pigs. Both Bunting and Brooks had been roused into action by an attempted broadside at Levi’s exposé from Kate Taylor, Today's Ultimate Feminists are Chicks in Crop Tops, which appeared in the Guardian on 23 March 2006, and seemed to re-run many of the anti-feminist clichés that Brooks’ attempted to foreclose in her first few sentences.

Taylor opened with, “Men, you can relax. You are no longer the enemy. Instead, judging by recent events in America, modern feminists have a much shapelier target in their sights - other women. Specifically, scantily clad women who use their sexuality to get ahead.” Taylor then subverted this sass by succinctly encapsuling the dilemma facing modern feminism; the same unresolved dilemma that emerged in the UK in the early to mid 1990s, articulated within the media friendly ‘ladette’ paradigm:

“Levy thinks raunch culture is a feminist movement gone terribly wrong. We are, in her eyes, doing all these things merely to show the men that we are "one of the guys" and "liberated and rebellious". Naturally, she finds this confusing. "Why is labouring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering? The answer is, labouring to look like Pamela Anderson is not empowering. We're not trying to be empowered. The twentysomething women I know don't care about old-style feminism. Partly this is because they already see themselves as equal to men: they can work, they can vote, they can bonk on the first date. For younger women, raunch is not about feminism, it's just about fashion.”

Here we had some dissent from the ranks, some space for real debate to emerge, not simply the usual rhetoric regurgitated for a new generation. Here was a voice from that generation, disrespecting the matriarch with a message from the front. But Bunting was not about to privilege this particular female voice, “They may recruit a naive cheerleader - such as Kate Taylor on these pages last week - but she's only a token; this phenomenon is driven by the market. While the cash rolls in, millions of lives are muddled, sometimes even ruined, by the multiple misconceptions being peddled.”

That was Kate told. She was a 'token'. The 'pornification of culture' was a problem only Marxist feminists could solve. The message was clear: Don't you dare disrespect the non-hierarchical sisterhood! The title of Levi's book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, invoked a similar, uneasy paradox. The elephant in the sisterhoods room; female intrasexual competition. Yes, once again, the great nemeses of feminism, other women, play footsie with patriarchy while Amazionia burns.

Pigs, was ostensibly a 'new' broadside against the 'pornicopia' of the West, but which suspiciously looked to me like a Stateside reworking of Imelda Whelehan's Overloaded which charted the rise of 'Loaded' magazine and lipstick feminism in 1990s UK. In it, Levi railed against women living in the false consciousness of sexual liberation. The message was: You're not liberated. You're still being exploited and to make things worse, you are wilfully abetting the patriarchy! To a feminist, there could be no greater crime.

So, not being able to parade these women for shame with heads shaven in the marketplace, Levi levelled at them the accusation of being not just chauvinists, but pigs too. Talk about tough love. Not since Faludi's ugly-sisterly rant against Betty Friedan in Backlash for having the gall to be a (spit) liberal feminist, had feminist competition been so disseminated.

All this would not have appeared so ironic if there was any sort of agreement within feminism about female sexuality. But the truth is, now as it was then, that orthodox (aka 'radical') feminists object to 'false' representations of female sexuality in the media, even though they, within the multitude of feminisms, can't actually agree on what female sexuality is. All they can do is agree on what it is not. A tenacious attachment to such stagnant and conservative feminist values is very well documented within the published articles of media feminists over the years in the Guardian, and more than illustrates just how little the discourse has adapted to changing times.

Taylor's lonely dissenting voice found support however in the unlikely form of Lynne Segal in A Misguided Manifesto. Segal attended the live event even though she, “was reluctant to join the fray, feeling I had been here many times before.” She charted her journey to such weariness, ending with a defence of the young women castigated by Levi and co, bringing with her a healthy dose of historical perspective, “Superficially, it is easy to see the appeal of this attack on raunch culture: young girls are not "liberated" by wearing thongs, waxing their bodies...or buying sex toys. But then again, I'm rather glad they feel free to do this without getting stoned alive, without being arrested as whores and hookers.” Refreshingly free of feminst cultural relativism also.

Fast forward five years and we have a re-run; same script, same stage, different characters. Moral panic? No. We are resisting the pornification of women. No you're not, your co-opting feminism to sell your book. Having read the script already many times before, I'm not buying it. Feminism was in crisis in 2006 and it still is today. The last thing it needs is the cynicism and, yes, conservatism of Gail Dines. Re-reading Brooks and Bunting, Dines and Long, it's easy to forget true pioneers like Olympe de Gouges who in 1791 wrote one of the first feminist tracts, Declaration of the Rights of Women and Women Citizens; who spoke out for her sex and against the Terror and was guillotined for it; or modern day feminist pioneers like Egyptian Aliaa Magda El-Mahdy. Dines, Brooks and Bunting & co cannot support El-Mahdy as her chosen weapon, her young, naked female body, is precisely that which they do not understand – the unbound power of female sexuality.

It's easy to forget that feminism desperately needs a new manifesto, one that reiterates its duty of care and allegiance to all women (not just card carrying feminists) above and beyond defunct 20th century ideologies. It's easy to forget that feminism is an essential movement in a world where we know men will attempt to constrain female choice, if cultural mores allow them to. It's easy to forget that we in the West are the exceptions to the global rule of female oppression, that we should stop navel gazing and use our power and influence to help less fortunate women, and by proxy their children and menfolk, enjoy the rights and privledges Dines, Bunting and Levi seem to take so much for granted.

Back at the Guardian debate in 2006, Segal came away with a subversive message:
“Let me share a little secret with you, something that hampers any attempt to rectify sexual behaviour: sex is all about wanting to be objectified, wanting to be the object of another's desire, another's gaze (even if, like a traditional straight man, we pretend that this is not the case). However, it is about wanting to gain this attention in ways that are reasonably safe from risk, harm or hurt - except, perhaps, for when these are the very things that turn us on.”

Predictably, after much sound and fury, the event ended up signifying nothing. I could not attend, being poor and working class and it being a decidedly London-provincial event. I was writing my undergraduate dissertation at the time on Feminism and the Media, called tellingly, Shoot the Messenger. My alliance to orthodox feminism was still strong and intact, though the inexorable logic of evolutionary theory would soon seduce me and I would be cast out of the sisterhood as a Darwinian feminist. I did however email Bunting asking her if the debate would be published. In a brief reply she reported that she thought there would be a podcast on Comment is Free. After waiting some months for it to appear I emailed again to be told 'I don't think there is any podcast'. I have a feeling this next event will similarly be lost to history, and survive only as a strategy to be re-run with the next publishing deal. More fool us if we fall for such cynical, superficial nonsense masquerading as feminism.

Towards defining Darwinian feminists and feminist Darwinians.

2011-12-01T22:58:00.001Z

The following is extracted from:
Can Darwinian Feminism Save Female Autonomy and Leadership in Egalitarian Society? Griet Vandermassen. email Griet.Vandermassen@UGent.be

A critical distinction needs to be made between Darwinian (or evolutionary) feminism and feminist Darwinism (or evolutionism): whereas the former is feminism informed and inspired by evolutionary knowledge, the latter is Darwinism inspired by feminist perspectives and concerns. The distinction does not just come down to a difference in focus; it is a difference in category.

Evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, and other evolutionary disciplines are sciences. The job of scientists is to find out how things work, to try to be even-handed with the evidence, and to present their findings in a neutral way—not to embellish their results to make them more politically palatable. Feminism is not a science, so it is not held to these requirements. The various strands of feminism are first and foremost political philosophies and programs, based on the finding of women’s oppression, and aimed at freeing women from this oppression. By extension, Darwinian feminism is first and foremost a political philosophy and program, and not a scientific one. Political theorists are studying what is, but also what might be or ought to be, in addressing normative concepts such as justice, liberty, and rights. As they necessarily let themselves be inspired by a theory of human nature, whether explicitly or implicitly, this is where an evolutionary perspective may step in.

The most effective political program will arguably be one that is informed by a sound theory of human nature; that is, a theory that is willing to take into account the latest findings on the determinants of human behavior. Research within the biological and evolutionary sciences is now providing a strong corrective to the “blank slate view” of the human mind that has long been prevailing within the social sciences (Pinker 2002).

Following this, Darwinian or evolutionary feminism would be a feminism that is prepared to investigate and take into account the growing body of scientific knowledge regarding evolved psychosexual differences between women and men. Armed with these insights, it would strive for a world in which the interests of both sexes are taken seriously. This intellectual openness will, however, demand a reevaluation of many previously held positions, because the premise no longer is a psychosexually neutral mind, nor is the political ideal the creation of a society in which average gender differences no longer exist.

The political ideal would be a society that gives individuals the maximum freedom and opportunity to be whatever they want. We might expand this definition of evolutionary feminism to that of a political movement that would use knowledge about our evolved dispositions to strive for a more just and more peaceful world, a movement that looks for strategies to “work around” less palatable components of human nature, by seizing upon some of our more constructive evolved dispositions.

Feminist Darwinism, or feminist evolutionism, on the other hand, is not a political program at all. It is a scientific program that lets itself be inspired by an awareness of the centrality of gender to social structures in the human and animal world, of the liability of bias in disciplines that have traditionally been male-dominated, and of gender inequality in humans. It is interested in bringing female perspectives to the evolutionary study of human and animal behavior, and it may, and probably will, also be inspired by a wish to fight gender inequality and sexual violence. It will, however, never let ideology prevail. It is prepared to go wherever the evidence takes it, and will not force schemes generated by wishful thinking upon reality.

Feminism can be invaluable as a source of inspiration to scientists, but in the end scientific methodology should prevail. Feminist sensibilities can never serve as a source of validation in a scientific context. This is why I think Darwinian feminism does not belong in the world of science, but outside it—just like all other varieties of feminism. I am greatly in favor of any research inspired by feminist aims, however, as long as basic scientific standards are adhered to.

Gowaty (1997b), who explicitly calls herself a Darwinian feminist (p. 5), makes a similar distinction between Darwinian feminism and feminist evolutionary biology. Darwinian feminism, she argues, is based on natural selection hypotheses that explain the functions of particular human behavior. In scientific tests of these hypotheses it is mandatory that they be rigorously tested. Political actions based on theories of Darwinian selection pressures, however, are not held to that standard. Gowaty feels a tension between both: although the scientist in her thinks that it would probably be more effective to base political activism on tested theories, the feminist activist in her resists this slow process (p. 9–10).

A more poetic way of phrasing the difference between Darwinian feminism and feminist Darwinism is provided by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller:
I’d describe myself as a Darwinian feminist, but also as a feminist Darwinian. I often find it useful to switch back and forth between them. Darwinian feminism emphasizes using an ideologically-liberated (or at least ideology-sensitive) imagination to develop new scientific hypotheses and insights; feminist Darwinism emphasizes using scientifically rigorous methods and standards to investigate female-focused alternatives to male-biased hypotheses.

For me, feminism in science is mostly about freeing my male imagination from its individual history and cultural constraints, so I can better sympathize with the adaptive problems faced by both females and males. It is an imagination-amplifier and an empathy-amplifier. (Personal communication, 2008)

I am quite convinced that other feminist evolutionists would concur that ideology should not come into the way of science. In discussing how feminism relates to primatology, Darwinian feminist Hrdy (1999a), for example, stresses that, as a scientist, she is first and foremost led by scientific concerns:
Feminism was part of the story, but not because women primatologists and biologists had different sensibilities than male scientists, or because feminists do science differently. Rather, women fieldworkers were predisposed to pay more attention when females behaved in “unexpected” ways. Women were also more likely to have been affected by feminist ideas.

My own interest in maternal strategies grew directly out of an emphatic identification with my study subjects. (…) women scientists were less likely than male scientists to identify with authority and with the scientific status quo. Women fieldworkers (…) may have been more willing to entertain unorthodox ideas about sex roles (…). But feminism per se had little to do with the conclusions I reached. (p. xviii–xix)

She continues:
A few have gone so far as to ask whether the incorporation of “the female perspective” into evolutionary biology should be read as a “triumph” for science or for feminists. I think such questions are mischievous. The answer is so obvious: any time wrong ideas are corrected, science wins. If biases were there in the first place because of sexism, and a feminist perspective helped us to identify them, it is still science that comes out ahead when they are corrected. (p. xix)

Afghan rape victim freed but 'to marry attacker'

2011-12-01T22:20:00.000Z

Afghan rape victim freed to marry attacker

I'll be looking for traffic online and in media from mainstream feminists but I fear it will be sadly lacking. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad of it.

I would love to have some links in this to the cited "human rights groups" We have one source in Kimberley Motley who I will be contacting soon.

On the subject of the ?EU decision to withdraw the film (from what though - national, european, or worldwide release?) citing the "very real concerns for the safety of the women portrayed"...

It's my personal opinion that individuals should not be sacrificed for causes, unless they explicitly consent. For me, this is a point that seperates humanitatian causes from political - or ideological - ones, and where feminism - as an overt political movement - is weakest and could be very much strenghened.

In Defence of Reformed Patriarchy

2011-11-22T07:58:00.000Z

Searching the net with the words ‘feminism’ and ‘Aliaa Magda El-mahdy” got little results apart from one blog post on Feministing. I would have expected not just the feminist blogosphere but the mainstream press to be lit up about this. Where are the voices of Kira Cohrane, Natasha Walter, Libby Purves, Lynne Segal – even Janet Street Porter, who was complaining about the lack of a sisterhood in the Mail recently?

I find their silence astonishingly remiss, just as I found their silence and lack of support for Marnie Pearce cowardly and shameful. Women like Aliaa Magda El-Mahdy are real feminist pioneers who are risking their lives for the furtherment of women’s rights in highly oppressive patriarchies.

We in the West - in reformed patriarchies - have the power to support these women, to lobby politically for female emancipation via the dissemination of rationalism and liberal values. I wonder if many feminists baulk at this task, because to be 'legitimate' feminists, they feel they must be critics of liberal democracy rather than focusing on the many positives. Many feminists still call for the end of patriarchy in all its forms, despite the fact that western patriarchy that has been reformed by the progression of feminism and liberal democratic values.

Aliaa Magda El-Mahdy and feminists like her abide in dangerous, unreformed patriarchies and need our help, not our silence and hypocrisy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2064267/Israeli-women-strip-support-nude-Egyptian-blogger-Aliaa-Elmahdy.html

New paper by David Buss and David Schmitt

2011-07-20T19:49:00.000+01:00

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism

Acknowledgements

2009-03-07T23:23:00.000Z

Thanks to Drs. Daniel Nettle, Helena Cronin, Griet Vandermassen and Craig Palmer for essential feedback on drafting the Ms submission.

A recent submission to Ms Magazine

2009-03-07T22:24:00.001Z

"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." -Gloria Steinem

Whilst the goals of second wave feminism regarding equality have arguably been a huge success in western society, the problems faced by women searching for justice after experiencing sexual assault remain chronic. The global magnitude of the problem demands serious engagement from moral, ethical, humanitarian, religious, socio-political and scientific perspectives. The new paradigm of evolutionary feminism does this by looking at the problem via the prism of evolutionary theory. In doing this, it sets aside much ‘orthodox’ feminist ideology in the process. Evolutionary feminism replaces the subjective perspectives that define orthodox feminist discourse with objectivity and an adherence to the principles of the scientific method. Evolutionary feminism takes as a baseline the well-documented evidence for psychosexual difference (that is, the evidence that men and women have evolved complementary yet distinct sexualities). From this, emerges the hypothesis of ‘male perspective bias’. The existence of such a bias could go some way to explaining the tendency for uniquely male insecurities to become manifest in social policy, including rape prosecution policy. This article is a brief examination of the implications of such a study, as well as an overview of contemporary evolutionary feminism and its challenge to orthodox feminism today.

The Problem

In the UK, the figure for successful rape prosecutions lingers around the 5-7% mark. This, along with other statistics from the last British Crime Survey, inform us that only 15% of rape victims report the crime to the police and that of those that do, 70% fall out of the process before it reaches court. Add to this a false allegation rate of 2-3% and we get the picture that, even with a conservative bias, over 90% of rapists are getting away with it. Yet this year in the UK, rape crisis funding was cut and centres began to close. Concurrently, funding for women’s studies at universities ended. All the while, the rape prosecution conundrum continues to stare at us, sphinx like, its riddle seemingly unbreakable.

One possible explanation – and perhaps even solution - to the crisis may lie within an area many feminists are ideologically opposed to; evolutionary theory and specifically, evolutionary, or Darwinian feminism. Away from the furore that usually surrounds skirmishes between evolutionists and feminists, evolutionary theory very often objectively supports what feminists have instinctively suspected for centuries. These include the tendency for patriarchal oppression when it comes to men coveting a woman's fertility; male anxiety over paternity surety; the existence of pervasive myths of female duplicity linked with the phenomenon of concealed ovulation and, most crucially of all, the tendency of these uniquely male insecurities to become manifest in social policy, including rape prosecution policy.

The issue of psychosexual difference is central to this investigation. Today, the evidence in favour of psychosexual difference is well documented and, in spite of feminist fears - and, it has to be said, fear mongering - evolved sex differences do not equate to inferiority. In evolution, we in fact see true equality expressed in discrete and fascinating ways.

We know this via the pioneering work of female evolutionists such as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Helena Cronin, Anne Campbell and Barbara Smuts. Their work succeeded in illuminating the role the female of our species (and in fact females of all species) play as vital agents of evolution via the phenomenon of ‘female choice’. These women have affected an unsung revolution (unsung by feminism, not evolutionists) within a previously male dominated science, not with declarations of war and angry rhetoric, but with dedicated objective thought. Just as evolutionary feminist consciousness has identified and recalibrated ‘male perspective bias’ within evolutionary science, it can also just as successfully identify and correct such bias within rape prosecution policy, and by the same means.

That women do not want to be raped has been a constant throughout our ever-changing sociocultural environments. Even apparently paradoxical issues, such as women indulging in so-called rape fantasies - so-called because most women who have actually experienced rape do not have happy fantasies about it thereafter - are autonomous acts that a woman is in complete control of, something that rape, by its very essence, is not. Add to this the fact that no woman was ever impregnated, ostracised, abandoned, or her children disowned because of a private fantasy, and it begins to become clear that there is no paradox, even here. It is only via the certainty of psychosexual difference, sustained by the logic of evolution that helps us see this.

An evolutionary feminist perspective of humanity informs us that feminism is a vital movement in a world where we can objectively predict that women’s reproductive autonomy will always be under some form of tacit or explicit manipulation from the men around her, for better or worse. It also tells us that when under certain social, cultural and genetic pressures, some men will attempt to override that autonomy by rape, in order to bolster their own reproductive fitness. Recognising this is far from legitimising any male propensity to rape, just as placing locks on our windows does not sanction the theft of our goods. It is identifying real risk so that real counter measures can be taken. In this and more, the most important message evolutionary theory carries to feminism is that it must adapt if it is to survive and honour its duty of care to women

Concerns

There are concerns that giving women a strong reason to resist rape will somehow legitimise any corresponding male propensity to rape. The explanations, proximate and ultimate, for why some men rape are complex and cannot be addressed here with any brevity, but the worry about justifications can be. It is a legitimate concern, but one which has its own answer.

Since the dawn of 2nd wave feminism, when women began to demand equal status in law and ceased to be the literal property of their fathers or husbands, it has been a maxim within our culture that ‘no means no’. Women in liberal democracy now have the legal right to refuse any man’s sexual advances. In highly patriarchal or conservative cultures, where women’s rights are automatically lesser than those of the male - where for instance, spousal rape is not a crime and stranger rape is appreciated formally as a crime against family and honour rather than against the female individual at the centre of such trauma - the very real oppression of women occurs already and without any such ‘excuse’. The primacy of the male is all that is needed, and is usually decreed by a highly subjective divine authority.

Our liberal democracy (for all its putative flaws) has, with the help of elements such as feminism, technology and post-enlightenment philosophy, taken steps to free women from such tyranny. Here, the rights of the individual, with a moral claim to freedom of action, do not stretch to the right of oppressing another by something so trivial as stealing their pencil case never mind raping them.

Psychologists and feminists have long considered the possibility that something inherent in masculinity may want to override female sexual choice in certain circumstances. The extrapolation of this is that it casts all men as potential rapists. Not a nice cud for anyone to chew on. That all men are not rapists is quite obvious, but that many men are potential rapists is never more demonstrated than when instances of rape peak to obscene levels within troubled societies, when infrastructure breaks down, such as in war zones or areas suffering catastrophic natural disaster. For women unfortunate enough to abide in these areas, the assumption that all men are potential rapists becomes an essential survival skill. Unpalatable as it is, if we wish to understand rape and improve justice for victims, we must not avert our eyes to this.

What an evolutionary approach tells us is that the problems that confront us about rape - why it happens, how we can better stop and/or punish those who commit it and protect those at risk from it - are not novel. They are as old as our species itself. If we accept this, is it not then reasonable to explore our deep histories in an attempt to explain and contain this most pernicious aspect of human nature? The latent voices of our female ancestors, females who contributed to the shaping of our species via their barely imaginable strivings and sufferings, deserve our consideration in this matter. It is highly remiss of anyone, especially feminism, to attempt to cast their voices aside just as they are beginning to be heard and given the respect they are due within the realm of science.

Post-Script

Feminism faces many challenges today. One of those challenges is how to connect with a new generation of women who do not identify with the rhetoric of victimhood. This is not a feminist failure – it is one of its triumphs. Feminism needs to listen to what these women are saying and take note of the choices they are making. It is not enough to despair at these choices because they deviate from feminist script or dogma. Feminism is for all women, not just feminists.

A second challenge for feminism is to escape the ‘post-modern thicket’, which has choked it of academic and intellectual relevance. It has also made it impenetrable to many a lay feminist and as been devastating to grassroots feminism. This is manifest in the numbers of women forsaking the term ‘feminist’ even though their feminist consciousness is alive and well. For this author, this is where the battle has been situated, between an inert, conservative feminist ideology and an ever-evolving, progressive feminist consciousness, with the former attempting to oppress the latter.

Evolutionary feminism is of service in both these challenges. It allies feminism with a robust, unifying and (like it or not) inexorable academic methodology and it speaks to women with the empowering language of evolutionary agency – language utterly liberated from the doctrine of female weakness. Evolutionary feminism also helps identify pseudo-issues such as the ‘plight’ of women in top-flight jobs hitting the ‘glass ceiling’, and reorients itself to addressing chronic problems such as the rape prosecution conundrum. ‘Justice for rape victims’: This could be the concrete goal of the fourth wave of feminism – evolutionary feminism.