How many people here think evolutionary biology is sexist?

I think there is a school of feminists has a tendency to react strongly against any categorical statement about women as a group. So if evolutionary biology tries to say “women behave in x manner”, this type of feminist’s reaction is automatically, “not ALL women”. Which is a valid complaint——there are probably a lot more difference WITHIN the group of [all women] than BETWEEN the groups of [all women] and [all men].

Also, I think there is a school of feminism that truly believes our genders are 100% social constructs, and any attempt to find biological differences between men and women is misguided. This is blatantly incorrect. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of things that make men and women different that are a byproduct of our biology, including some behaviors.

So to answer your question—I think a lot of evolutionary psychology is crap, but not for that reason. A lot of it seems like post hoc speculation rather than proper science.

Edit: Oops—for some reason I thought you asked about psychology rather than biology—which is a lot more contentious.

I think it’s cool!

I’m a little confused here. I am a woman and a feminist and I have never thought of evolution as sexist. What would be considered sexist in evolutionary biology?

Biology is biology. What is there to get offended about?

Women’s brains aren’t structured to make them as good at math as men are. Women are naturally more social animals. There’s an evolutionary advantage for women who gossip more. Evolution can explain why women shop the way they do, or why they spend more time in the bathroom. It explains why they behave the way they do around men, and on and on.

I don’t know if these are all things from evolutionary biology, but that’s the way it thinks. It looks at behavior, and then tries to see if there’s an evolutionary advantage to that behavior, and thus explain the behavior that way.

Feminists who, as Nikipedia noted, believe that gender is a social construct have a big problem with this. This says that biology is destiny, and that means it is probably impossible to change, if you don’t like it. And if you don’t like it, and you’re in the minority, it’s even harder that impossible.

@syz – Fundamentalist Christians get all offended over biology down here in the south all the time.

I think what these feminists do not realize is the fact when they say “women TEND to…” they literally mean the average or majority. They are not addressing all woman, because that would be illogical and untrue. These statements are all based on studies, with large groups of people. They make there statements by the results of the tests.

Daloon, I don’t think any of the statements you made are based on any kind of biology.

You said, “It looks at behavior, and then tries to see if there’s an evolutionary advantage to that behavior,”

The problem with some of your statements about women, is that they’re not actually true. If an evolutionary biologist looks at a phenomenon and tries to analyze it in some way, for their analysis to be accurate, the phenomenon has to be real. Now just because women have historically been outperformed by men, does not mean that they are less capable in mathematics.

For example, “Women’s brains aren’t structured to make them as good at math as men are.”

It’s just not true.

The fact that women’s math scores have historically been lower than men’s is a product of gender discrimination, and the trend is being righted right now. I direct you to this article about a study conducted by the National Science Foundation entitled, “Math Scores Show No Gap for Girls, Study Finds”.

So no, I don’t have any problem with evolutionary biology, I have a problem with misguided sexist assumptions like the one I saw in your explanation.

@lcg: perhaps I used a bad example. So you accept evolutionary biolody, I take it you like the theory that behavioral differences between the genders could be biologically determined?

@Lcg: I think these are all claims that evolutionary biologists have made, not necessarily claims that @daloon agrees with. “Is there an innate difference in math/science ability between men and women” would be a really interesting thread unto itself, I think, although I may have posed a similar question a few months ago…

Edit: Looks like I did.

Nikipedia, I totally quoted the same article in that question, too. lol.

Daloon, perhaps I was too harsh on you. I’m not very familiar with evolutionary biology. I just took your description at face value. I don’t know who’s making these assumptions about the differences between genders, but that’s who I have a problem with. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to figure out a basis for behavioral or other differences between genders, but I think the assumptions about what these differences may be, specifically, should be very carefully assessed from a scientific point of view, and not just taken for granted.

What assumptions are we talking about? If I can try again, the idea is to see if you can think of survival values for various behavioral differencs. If so, then evolution could have pushed us towards behaving in that way.

So, cheating, for example, has a survival value for both men and women. For men, it’s a way of fathering more children, and for women, it’s a way of getting better genes for your kids, while also having a mate who will help you bring them up.

I think these things are helpful, because if you find it difficult to behave morally, it may be because you are being pushed by chemicals in your brain, over which you have no control. This makes it harder to behave correctly. It doesn’t take away any responsibility for behavior.

Evolutionary theory is not that kind to men either. There is a theory of why men do not like to commit. I read one theory that sex was invented so that the men could fight against each other while the women raised children.

“sex was invented” ...?

By whom?

I was speaking metaphorically, though if you are a true believer..

^is it bad that true believer makes me think of spiderman

a true believer in what?
<<——-is so confused

Have we become such a secular society that the phrase “true believer” does not immediately suggest religion?

It didn’t make sense to me that you would be referring to religion because saying that in one theory of evolutionary biology, God “invented” sex doesn’t make any sense. No real theory of evolution would say that, it’s ridiculous.

It seems much more likely that this was a joke, but not a very well-executed one, because a true believer wouldn’t put any stock into a theory of evolution.

Sorry if that came out sounding harsh…i didn’t mean for it to…

chica, no offense taken. I just want to point out that there are religious people who accept the theory of evolution, although I personally do not see how they can reconcile the two ideas. The official policy of the Vatican is to accept evolution.

lost, i’m sorry but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. i’m sure there are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution, but a person who actually believes in evolution doesn’t believe that god “invented” anything…a person who believes in evolution believes that things evolved.

It’s a subject which tends to, at least when translated into laypeople-speak (without proper interpretation) generalize what ‘the nature of women’ or ‘of men’ is, without recognizing what a huge impact on us as individuals and societies our cultures & social organizations play in shaping us. Instead of taking a critical look at how biology & culture/social-orgs interact, and even influence biologists (who tend to be middle-class & up, Westerners – which brings in its own biases, limitations; just like every other similar piece of our identity does), much of what I hear – as a layperson in this subject – tends to reinforce old cultural norms, reducing our behavior to an essentialist nature of ours rather than giving room for us to (with thought + effort) change or at least not mindlessly follow any natural tendencies we have.

There is no ‘human nature’, though we do have a bulk of natural potentials, many which lie latent, some which are expressed to an extreme extent under the right conditions – which by nature include culture (even primates have that, to some extent) and social arrangements which vary group to group and over time. To study biology without recognizing the role those influences play hinders both biology as well as those who live in societies where the sciences play a significant role in understanding ourselves and the world.

In terms of sexism, one of the worst notions that some seem to find is supported by this field (not sure if this is the understanding of all or any evolutionary biologists or even those who study related fields; eg. evolutionary psychology) is that men are by nature in good part horny animals who can’t help but act in any way they’re driven to – which can easily offensive to men, annoying to straight women who know men have more control than many lead themselves to believe, and to anyone who isn’t fond of having a whole set of personality traits projected onto them (or those they care about) as soon as someone knows what sex they are.

So until the role of other parts of human existance, eg. culture, societal conditions, &tc., are recognized, some assumptions which appear to be at least influenced by evolutionary biology i & others don’t believe should be swallowed at face-value, especially when those assumptions enter heavily social arenas – eg. people allowing their behavior in regards to other people to be legitimized or influenced by those.

@resmc: Hmmm. It strikes me that this attitude you referred to in your last paragraph reflects a misunderstanding of science. Any description that uses gender as a predictor will be making a statement only about the average behavior.

Individuals will always differ. The differences may be explained by latent or directly measurable variables of some kind or another, but it seems likely that one of those variables is the degree to which the individual applies their experience and values in making decisions about how to behave.

They can’t pull themselves off the hook by blaming evolutionary biology. They might try, but there is so much unexplained variance in gendered behavior, that they really can’t get away with it.

Thanks for the well thought-out answer, and welcome to fluther!

That’s understood. The same is often true of some types of social studies. However, when scientific findings based on the average-composites enter into common discourse, often that is not understood, hence its strong potential to reinforce overgeneralized views of people.

And of course there’s variation… however, we won’t get a full understanding of this until we factor in how biology interacts with culture, or even how biologists and their subject interact with society. It makes things complex, i know – and it’s more appealing to many to, if possible, stick to what types of studying come naturally to them while not fully appreciating (or even, in some instances, looking down on) other angles of studying the same object.

Not sure what may cause this; my inklings are the assumptions underlying the philosophy/approach of the general fields of social & material sciences, combined with the cultures within each discipline; but currently it’s been noticed by some that those who professionally study something in one of those major categories tend not to be in the habit of seeing the reality around them as heavily influenced by stuff more in the domain of the category they don’t study. Further, because of the often highly technical nature of the material sciences, and its economic & geopolitical value, there’s often little time for students to even be introduced to very basic concepts in social/human sciences like social construction (which i probably don’t even fully grasp, tho even from my understanding, mention of it to those who haven’t studied it almost always are misunderstood), which adds even more disbelief when vital if slightly critical observations about them or their fields are brought up from a more sociological angle (as personally-uncomfortable criticism which raises more complex, uncomfortable questions than they answer sometimes already aren’t apt to be welcomed with open arms).

Evolutionary biology shouldn’t be blamed. Yet there is some distinct room for it to become more socially & culturally critical, or at least aware of its relationship to those. It’s odd, this parallels another issue actually relating to the sort of uncomfortable observations i mentioned about, where the constructive criticism is hard to see from the perspective of the target of said criticism, yet sometimes hard to miss from another person’s angle which they can’t – by nature of reality/our minds/something – directly see out of.

@daloon “Women’s brains aren’t structured to make them as good at math as men are”
i remember reading something similar although what i read was slightly different.

in a nutshell, it said women were actually better at processing math formulas than men were, however, the article said that men were better at developing formulas than women were when given a sequence of figures.

all i know about women is that they cry more than the men i know, and dont seem to share our need to spend time alone every now and then.