Reddit reviews Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin?: Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory
We found 2 Reddit comments about Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin?: Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
>instinctual drives that are more a set of goals than they are behaviors. We instinctively enjoy sex and want to survive, but the behaviors we engage in to fulfill those goals vary in every which way
That's an apt description. But the behaviors we engage in to fulfill those goals don't vary randomly. Some of them consistently vary with regard to sex. Again you reference "hard coded" behaviors, which is a biological determinist position. No scientists are talking about 'hard coded,' and innate doesn't mean 'hard coded.' You're oversimplifying the issues yourself, and accusing an entire branch of science of not getting it. But the science is aware of the complexities. It's possible for innate proclivities to be enormously complex and still innate; take language, as an obvious example.
As for parental investment theory, you still haven't provided any examples of the many counterexamples that scientists ignore. I'm unaware of them, and I don't think you'll find any. Likewise for certain tendencies that exist across cultures. The countless tribes certainly didn't share all of our social structure, but some social institutions are as far as we know ubiquitous. Some of the behavioral differences between the genders span age groups and cultures.
As far as what the proper arguments are, and how these studies can be attempted... it's really complicated. I can leave a few papers that if you're interested in, will do a much better job of explaining it. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm just dumping an 'educate yourself' link on you, but I think these papers are representative, and I honestly think that if you read through them without discounting the possibility that biology has these affects, you'll find that the field is not as insane as it can be portrayed.
[This is a good starting point for an accurate summary of an evopsych theory we discussed](
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165805.pdf)
The book Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities is a very neutral and comprehensive source on what we know about the differences between men and women
More specifically, on the intersection of feminism and science:
This is an excellent paper, and while it likely represents your position much more than mine, I think it presents a good argument that mirrors some of what we discussed
The book Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin and a critique called "more misuses of evolutionary psychology" unfortunately behind a paywall.
This last one is a very on topic; it is a response to social constructionist critiques of EP and a summary of recent debates.
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/196924.pdf
First off, don't automatically assume everyone critical of the progressive politcal agenda is a right-wing youtube-troll. You can read all the Buzzfeed articles you want, I won't hold it against you. Alright, let's hit it!
> the goal of progressive politics is equal opportunity to attain the same economic, societal and political power. The same CV should get the same proportion of callbacks and the same wages no matter what name is on it. Men in power should not be able to rape dozens of women and avoid consequences.
Equal opportunities are mostly the reality. Women in their early twenties out-perform men. Obviously some companies will be cautious hiring women that are about to have babies, but there are discrimination laws for that. I'm aware of the studies that shows discrimination happens in regard to what name you have. This is a problem.
Pay gap is a myth. Rape is a whole other issue.
> Coal mining isn't a position of economic, societal and political power.
I'm not sure if I agree with you that the progressive goal is power-balance. Affirmative action is utilized all over the board, not just for positions of power.
> If you think feminism is too focused on rich white women, read up on intersectional feminism. This is precisely the issue that concept addresses.
I'm aware of it. I haven't seen that it is changing the dynamics much. Isn't it basically feminism for black women?
> Your view of gender studies come from e. g. YouTube videos and cherry-picked list articles. It is a distorted view. If I had done the same by portraying biomedical research as homeopathy and reiki (there are hundreds of such shitty "studies"), you would surely have explained how skewed such a view was. I suggest reading more empirical sociology research instead. I have given some examples so far, but you can start with this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/
There is real conflict between the dogmas of feminism aka gender studies and biology-based science. I recommend this book if you're interested.
> Popular culture is not science. Compare any scientific topic you feel comfortable with and then look at how it is portrayed in popular culture. Cancer biology, biotech agriculture, immunology, nutrition etc. are all butchered by pop culture and does not give you a reasonable or evidence-based view of the research field. Thus, you should accept the same conclusion for e. g. gender studies or empirical sociology.
Well you're right about that, but you're missing my point. The "tabula-rasa"-view is the predominant narrative among liberals/progressive whom basically run the whole media
> It isn't the skin color of white people that are the problem. The problem is that, on average, some groups get benefits they do not deserve and some other groups get punishments they do not deserve had we based our conclusions purely on meritocracy. These advantages are not randomly distributed but tend to aggregate among those who already sits on most economic, political and societal power. The punishments tend to aggregate among those who have the least and are already treated the worst.
Interesting to see how you use the words "benefits" and "punishment". It's like there was some invincible moral forces fucking things up. And by the way, asian men are the most paid ethnic group. I guess it's reversed racism making that happen.
> Look at this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on CV studies. Why do you think that the exact same CV gets 36% more callbacks if there is a white-sounding name on it? http://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870.full, these facts are not questionable.
Agree. It's a problem. And I've never denied it either.