Evolutionary Feminism
EVOLUTIONARY FEMINIST THEORY
Female Intrasexual Competition:
Toward an Evolutionary Feminist Theory
Special thanks to Mark Pratarelli for permission to post this
paper.
pratarelli@uscolo.edu
Ingo, K.M.
Colorado State University-Pueblo
Mize, K.D.
Florida Atlantic University
Pratarelli, M.E.
Colorado State University-Pueblo
Abstract
Female intrasexual competition is perceived as a hindrance to feminist goals
of equality. This paper argues a modern feminist theory could be consistent
with natural selection. The social science feminist framework believes female
competition is fostered by a patriarchal power structure benefiting from a
division amongst women. Feminists argue that environment plays far greater
roles in shaping people than does biology, and thus cultural reform will alleviate
this competition. It is an implicit assumption of the hunter-gatherer model
that survival is a cooperative venture between partners. Thus, women competing
over high status mates and men over a woman's mate value are simply functional
coevolved strategies; they do not impose a value-laden hierarchy. Nature may
give the appearance of inequality and injustice between the sexes. However,
a cognitively complex brain-mind could reconcile the meaning of coevolved
strategies and educate individuals past their perceived ills toward more equitable
outcomes with an evolutionary feminist theory.
Female Intrasexual Competition: Toward an Evolutionary Feminist
Theory
Competition for resources is the foundation of evolutionary theory. It is
the force that drives a species to survive ( Darwin, 1859). To compete with
others is to behave aggressively, be it directly or indirectly. Direct aggression
is most commonly associated with males and indirect aggression with females,
although either sex is capable of both types. From an evolutionary standpoint,
these strategies were the most compatible with solving problems faced in an
early hunter-gatherer environment (in which the human mind evolved) rather
than modern social environments and in fact, may be detrimental in modern
times (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). That is, the environment of evolutionary
adaptation (EEA) is most like that described by anthropologists for hunter-gatherer
communities. Males evolved into a directly aggressive role to defend against
predators and other males. Females evolved to aggress in ways that ensured
them the least amount of physical danger when competing for food and superior
mates, while also developing the capacity for direct aggression when protecting
their offspring. The EEA is an important consideration in evolutionary psychology
because it establishes a context for assessing the efficacy of putative preexisting
adaptations in later (current) or future environments. That is, what may have
been a successful adaptation to existing environmental pressures in the EEA,
may no longer serve their primary purpose or may in fact become counterproductive
in a changed environment. In view of tremendous changes in modernity vis-à-vis
the EEA, the question of intrasexual competition (for both women as well as
men) demands that the behavioral sciences make its best effort to reconcile
the two. Nonetheless, because male aggression is so visible and has attracted
much attention from social scientists, female aggression and its implications
have received comparatively little attention even within feminist theory.
The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) contends that aggressive behavior
is the result of socialization (Buss, 1999). Essentially, it suggests males
are rewarded for aggression while females are discouraged from it. As a result,
males tend to be aggressive and females cooperative. It is important to note
that while the SSSM does not characterize exactly all the varieties of contemporary
feminist perspectives, it continues to capture the essential elements of those
that subscribe to the postmodern constructivist paradigm. Vandermassen's (2005)
recent work on this subject dissects the various and most prominent feminist
perspectives and identifies those elements in each that allows readers to
assess to what degree they fit the classical SSSM. One consistent theme is
the almost conspicuous absence of the issue of competition between females.
When it is addressed, it is explained as the result of a patriarchal power
structure constructed and maintained by men to keep women divided and oppressed.
As Wolf (2002) suggests, "Competition between women has been made part
of the myth that women will be divided from one another" (p. 14). The
purported "myth" is simply an example of the modern denial of a
biological human nature (Pinker, 2002; Pratarelli & Mize, 2002), which
some fear reduces humans to a collection of animalistic drives. This argument
has ancient roots and saw its greatest popularity at the time Charles Darwin
published his Origin of Species. This is because of the denialists' refusal
to accept a biological link between humans and nonhumans; not surprisingly,
the latter are perceived as lower in kind. Postmodern feminist theory, in
particular, exhibits this class of historical reconstruction that fits a political
or religious set of presumptions and rejects any hint of biological determinism
(McGettigan, 2000).
By attributing their oppression to solely environmental causes, women are
sabotaging their own success as well as feminist goals of equality. Their
solutions to their subjugated status are reformation and reconstruction of
the current system. They suggest that raising children as androgynous, resisting
the media images of what a woman should be, and activism within the political
sphere will ultimately lead to equality. While these are all valid suggestions,
they do not attempt to understand the root of the problem. The media does
bombard women with unrealistic images; children are encouraged to behave in
ways considered consistent with their sex; and women do compete with each
other in damaging ways yet, focusing on the cultural representations of biological
motivations does little to effect change. The position taken in this article
is that by understanding why the biological motivations exist and how they
combine with environmental factors to generate and shape cultural norms may
very well be the first step toward change. Thus, the purpose of this paper
is to explore the ways in which women have evolved to compete with each other
and how understanding this competition could translate into a more rational
and efficacious feminist theory.
Evidence from Human Evolutionary Psychology
Contemporary feminists have objected to evolutionary psychology for a number
of important reasons worthy of explanation and clarification. They have accused
the field of considering everything an adaptation, presenting "just so"
stories as fact, and supporting the sociopolitical status quo, etc., ( Campbell,
2002). Regrettably, as Vandermassen (2005), McGettigan, (2000), Pratarelli
(in press) and others have intimated, these accusations stem partially from
a resistance to examine the state-of-the-art literature and understand its
concepts. To be considered a psychological adaptation by the mainstream academic
human evolutionary psychology community, a behavior must be documented in
at least three different and important ways (Buss, 1999). The behavior in
question must be examined (1) historically across extended periods of time,
(2) it must be observed in multiple cultural contexts that allow experts to
continue testing the hypothesis that the behavior is culturally universal,
and (3) it must be seen in at least one other nonhuman species such that it
increases fitness and reproductive success (Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004).
In keeping with this methodological standard, this article will briefly examine
each in later sections.
A final consideration involves examining at least some of the most frequent
or popular issues raised by the detractors of evolutionary explanations in
general, and for intrasexual female competition in particular. The "just
so" stories accusation is leveled by detractors (cf., Rose, H., &
Rose, S. (2000); Panksepp & Panksepp, 2000) who may not have had the opportunity
yet to fully consider the theoretical and methodological details of the "new
science of the mind" (Buss, 1999). Campbell (2002) captures the essential
properties of evolutionary models by saying,
…evolutionary psychology proceeds by (1) identifying an adaptive problem
that proto- humans would have faced in the environment of evolutionary adaptation,
(2) developing a description of the module that is suggested to have evolved
in response to this problem, including the range of inputs that would have
activated it and the impact of its outputs in terms of differential survival
and reproductive success, (3) formulating a description of the current environment
and a map of correspondence between the ancestral and present conditions that
allows specific hypotheses to be generated about the current activating inputs,
and (4) undertaking tests of these hypotheses which, where appropriate, allow
comparison with alternative (evolutionary or non-evolutionary) accounts. (p.24)
Evolutionary psychology is not based on speculation; it is backed by sound
evidence utilizing the scientific method (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). It
also does not purport that what is natural is necessarily morally right. It
does not try nor intend to support and legitimize the sociopolitical status
quo. Seeking to understand the biological motivations that underlie certain
human behaviors is an attempt to explain the possible origins of these behaviors,
not justify them. Many feminists in fact recognize and accept biological predispositions
as partial explanations of behavior. This can be inferred by their acceptance
in their reactions to the notion of biological predeterminism, which Vandermassen
(2005) has termed, "biophobia within feminism" (p. 85). However,
the belief that all things natural and biological are therefore right, correct,
and good is a product of a heuristic reasoning process called the naturalistic
fallacy (Landeweerd, 2004). Feminist scholars who have unknowingly applied
the naturalistic fallacy simply misunderstand the implications of biological
explanations of behavior. They assume that what is natural is being justified
as morally right, good, and thus legitimized. However, these are moral judgments
that lack both a theoretical and scientific basis. Infanticide in primate
species is a natural occurrence but it is doubtful that a rationalist would
consider it right or good, it just is. The flaw in reasoning occurs when one
mistakes what is for what we believe ought to be. Kant and Hume both addressed
the is versus what ought to be dichotomy philosophically, but Pratarelli (2003)
has recently integrated it with the human evolutionary psychology theoretical
framework.
Proponents of the SSSM types of feminist models, which still enjoy considerable
popularity in nonacademic communities and some proponents even within academic
circles, functionally ignore the role of innate drives in the production of
behavior and culture, focusing instead only on the effects of environmental
triggers assuming that they entirely cause the response. This is the expected
position from the social learning theory perspective, which dates back some
40 years (Bandura, 1977), well before both cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary
psychology revolutionized psychology's understanding about the origins of
human behavior, including social behavior. Therefore, consistent responses
to an environmental demand by a species indicates that "the pattern of
response is part of the species' nature" (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004,
p. 4). If the environment is to trigger a response, organisms require an inherited
psychological processor to respond in a species-typical manner because "responses
are impossible without rules of responding" (p.5). While the more progressive
proponents of the SSSM-type perspectives acknowledge that "some traits
result from experience and some result from genes," it is impossible
to determine which portion of any given trait can be attributed either to
nature or to nurture (p.6). Social scientists argue that the environment shapes
traits based upon the limits set by genes. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists
contend that this is a mistake. They argue there is compelling evidence that
there are inborn rules that delimit an organism's response to variations in
the environment. These "facultative traits" are what were naturally
selected for resulting in the interaction of nature and nurture for any given
trait (p.8).
Why and How Women Compete
Both men and women compete intrasexually to obtain a superior mate. Biologically,
the purpose of selecting a superior mate is to enhance the likelihood of producing
the most viable offspring. What is considered superior varies according to
sex and the mating strategy employed (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men are statistically
more likely than women to pursue a short-term strategy, i.e., they have the
capacity and drive to attempt to fertilize as many women as possible with
as little commitment or investment as possible. Despite this difference, long-term
strategies are common to both sexes. According to Sexual Strategies Theory,
"[m] en prefer as long term mates women who are young and physically
attractive as indicators of [health and] reproductive value and who are sexually
loyal and likely to be faithful as indicators of paternity certainty"
while, "[w] omen in long-term contexts…place great value on a man's
ambition, earning capacity, and professional degrees" (Buss & Schmitt,
1993, p. 226).
To understand why female intrasexual competition is a beneficial adaptation
in mate selection, one must first understand the adaptive nature of the sexual
division of labor in the EEA. Anthropology tells us males hunted for meat
and protected the group from predation so that females were safe to gather
food while bearing and raising children who would ensure the future survival
of the species. While this characterization might not appeal to a majority
of contemporary feminists who would prefer a more equal division of labor,
it is important to note that these behaviors coevolved as a function of survival.
If an adaptation increases a species' ability to survive and reproduce, it
is passed on to future generations. Because the sexual division of labor practiced
by early humans met those criteria, it has perpetuated itself through the
genes that express those traits in the X and Y-chromosomes. Female intrasexual
competition was a necessity in an environment where survival depended on superior
mate selection that led to increased food acquisition for females whose parental
investment was far greater than that of males'. Despite the modern human environment,
it continues today, on an unconscious instinctual level (Pinker, 2002; Pratarelli,
2003). These motivational instruction sets exist as brain circuits passed
on generation-to-generation, much like the ability to breathe or the capacity
to acquire symbolic language is passed on one generation to the next.
In order to acquire superior mates while maintaining the highest degree of
personal safety, females evolved an indirect way of aggressing toward one
another. "One way women can compete without risking their safety or compromising
their lives is through acts that ostracise, stigmatise, and otherwise exclude
others [female competitors] from social interaction" (Campbell, 2004,
p. 3). Gossip and backstabbing are two common acts practiced by women to effectively
eliminate a rival. By casting doubt on the fidelity of rivals, women are able
to increase their own chances of acquiring what they believe is a superior
long-term mate (Vandermassen, 2005). Prior intimate knowledge of one's competitor
also serves to validate the claims one makes against a rival.
Common forms of spreading gossip and backstabbing are seen in the emergent
behaviors of high-school age adolescent females, although they have been reported
in girls as young as 8 years old (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen,
1992). The combination of higher levels of maturity and larger social networks
allow females to refine their technique over time resulting in more covert
and less personally damaging behaviors (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Campbell,
2002). Gossip, exclusion, and dirty looks were the three most frequently reported
forms of indirect aggression in a self-report study of 15-16 year-old girls
conducted by James and Owens (2005). Utilization of these forms of indirect
aggression have been found to continue into adulthood (Bjorkqvist, Osterman,
& Lagerspetz, 1994).
Another way that women compete is through physical appearance. Henderson and
Anglin (2003) found that women whose facial features men rate as most attractive
are also the women with longer life spans. The causal connection may be that
pleasant facial features are an indicator of good health. The same causal
association is applied universally to selecting unblemished fruits, vegetables,
meats, etc., because they are less likely to cause sickness. The longer a
woman lives, the more likely she is to be able to continue to care for future
generations that carry on the genetic composition of she and her mate. The
use of cosmetics as well as face or brow lifts, microdermabrasion, and other
anti-aging creams and masks are ways in which a woman can project an enhanced
facial appearance, thereby increasing her chances of being viewed as a superior
mate. Moreover, since youth is also valued as a sign of reproductive fitness,
women can be naturally expected to exhibit a degree of malediction and avoidance
or denial of aging. Body shape, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is
yet another way in which men evaluate a woman's mating potential. Buunk and
Dijkstra (2005) have in fact argued that, "a low WHR signals health and
fertility" (p. 380). Tummy tucks, liposuction, and specialized contour
enhancing undergarments are used to project a lower WHR. By presenting the
physical attributes considered appealing to the majority of the opposite sex,
females are able to enjoy a greater amount of selectivity and attention in
mate selection.
Feminist theory refutes the use of attractiveness by women to compete for
mates by citing variations in beauty standards dependent on culture. While
definitions of beauty indeed vary by region, the biological motivations that
underlie the drive to achieve it in fact meet the criteria of universality.
Similarly, in countries where food is abundant, a more slender body may be
more appealing because it signifies health, whereas in countries where food
is scarce, a more ample body shape is more appealing because it signifies
access to resources (Vandermassen, 2005). At their core, cultural differences
are just different manifestations of identical biological imperatives necessary
for the survival of the species. This is essentially what was meant by Cosmides,
Tooby and Barkow (1992) when they proposed that our biology is what makes
culture possible in the first place.
A conspiratorial media and advertising is another way in which feminist theory
attempts to cast doubt on an evolutionary explanation of women's competition
via physical appearance. In American media where youth and beauty are valued
seemingly above all else, feminism views the pressure as too great and as
a result women feel pressured to conform in order to succeed. Feminists attribute
the targeting of women's appearance by advertisers as a profitable way to
keep women preoccupied with issues other than equality (Wolf, 2002). Advertising,
however, is a supply and demand industry. The increased numbers of beauty
products ranging from cosmetics to anti-aging creams are simply a natural
reaction of the industry to the increased demands of consumers. Women seek
these products in order to become more competitive with one another. Feminists
would undoubtedly counter with the assertion that the demand is created by
the media's representation of the ideal woman, not a biological imperative
to compete. Although these social factors surely play a role, they do not
explain the historical and cross-cultural (i.e., cultural universality) evidence
for aggression and competition that can not possibly be the result of advertising
(Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Furthermore, Buss and Duntley suggest, "This
ignores a plausible suggestion that media messages are products of women's
and men's evolved psychology that merely exploit the existing mechanisms of
media consumers rather than create them" (Campbell, 1999, p.219). As
before, cultural variations do not preclude biological drives, they express
them.
Cross Species Evidence
One of the criteria used in evolutionary psychology to determine whether a
behavior is an adaptation is its observation comparatively across other species.
Non-human primates are the most commonly utilized due to their genetic proximity
to humans. Through the use of field and laboratory studies, researchers have
confirmed that female intrasexual competition through indirect aggression
occurs in many primate species. In a study conducted in the laboratory using
common female marmosets, Saltzman, Schultz-Darken, and Abbott (1996) found
that female aggression aimed at another unknown female predicts dominance.
This is also especially important among marmosets, a species in which only
the dominant female ovulates. As the only ovulating female, the dominant marmoset
is able to breed with males assured of paternity. Her offspring are also guaranteed
to be cared for not only by herself but by the subordinate females as well.
In her naturalistic observations of tufted capuchin monkeys, Izar (2003) found
that competition between females was highly dependent on the availability
of food. Of the aggressive acts observed, "…70% of the episodes
were disputes for food and 30% protection of dependent offspring" (p.
83). Due to the limited food resources in the observed monkeys' habitat, competition
for food rather than competition for superior mates appeared to drive the
observed intrasexual competition. But the competitive drive exists nonetheless.
Vervaecke, Stevens, and Van Elsacker (2003) observed captive dominant female
bonobos increasing their reproductive success at the expense of subordinate
females. By interfering with the ovulations and copulations of the lesser-ranked
females, dominants were able to mediate their relative reproductive success.
These same females were also viewed harassing and killing the infants of lower
ranked, unrelated females thereby securing larger amounts of resources for
their own young.
Evidence for Cultural Universality
Another important criterion used to determine whether a behavior is an adaptation
is its observation across cultures. If a particular behavior or class of behaviors
is observed in all cultures, especially in those that may have had no direct
contacts where cultural exchange was possible in recorded history, then the
motivators must exist as part of the human genotype. This is an area teeming
with research opportunities as it is often assumed that second-class status
among women exists universally. Few formal studies have been conducted in
the United States regarding female competition let alone in other countries.
The evidence, however, can be gleaned by surveying countless sociology, psychology
and cultural anthropology studies that intimate women compete for mates in
the varieties of ways discussed earlier. Yet, the researchers who have explored
this area have returned promising results.
Through the use of ethnographic interviews, surveys, and naturalistic observation,
Hines and Fry (1994) found that women in Buenos Aires, Argentina also employ
more indirect forms of aggression than men. Their use of, "fashion, sex
appeal, make-up, [and] hairstyles" to compete with one another are consistent
with the strategies employed by women in the United States (p.232). It was
also noted that the women of Buenos Aires were very socially aware. It was
hypothesized that this increased social awareness may have improved their
abilities to compete indirectly through various social networks. If a woman
wanted to destroy a rival's reputation, she need only determine where in the
social network she could obtain possibly damaging information. This use of
social awareness by women to compete has not yet been fully explored. A recent
study of the Tsimane women of Bolivia (Rucas et al., 2006) extends the cross-cultural
evidence concerning the use of indirect aggression by women. Further research
in this area might reveal other aspects of indirect aggression. While the
little research that has been conducted seems to point to the same forms of
female competition within other cultures; more research is needed to confirm
these results.
Toward an Evolutionary Feminist Theory
Through the course of human existence, males and females have co-evolved strategies
that increase reproductive success. One of these adaptations is the use of
aggression. Because of their increased parental investment, females have evolved
to compete with one another using indirect means. These have been documented
across-species and the several cultures that have been studied to date. While
this strategy has benefited women in many ways, it is still viewed as problematic
within feminist theory for the reasons addressed earlier regarding our current
understanding of the role of biological predispositions. The denial of possible
biological origins of female intrasexual competition thus hinders the ideals
of the feminist movement. The tendency of some feminists explanations to attribute
the problems within the movement to a patriarchal society is an ineffective
way of establishing or justifying equality. Moreover, placing women in the
role of victim effectively hinders their ability to effect change and disempowers
them.
Instead, identifying the motivations and predispositions that compel women
to compete with other women does not diminish feminism in any way. It does
not make or support the assertion that women are, by nature, inferior and
powerless to change the current power structure. Contrary to Kimmel's (2000)
fatalistic view that acceptance and understanding of biological origins implies
that, "…no amount of political initiative, no amount of social
spending, no great policy upheavals will change the relationships between
men and women" (p. 22), the progress made by the feminists in the past
is evidence that some degree of change is indeed possible. The important question
is whether, in general, the postmodern feminist framework is counterproductive
because it obviates women's biological nature.
Evolutionary theory represents a sound logical and cohesive paradigm wherein
the contributions of both sexes are necessary for survival. In modernity,
there is little doubt that males are just as capable as females of taking
care of children, and females are just as capable as men of providing for
a family. As we stated earlier, nature is indifferent to human moral concerns.
As long as a species adopts behaviors that increase fitness and reproductive
success it does not matter which sex takes which role. If feminists were to
look beyond culture to the possible underlying biological motivations that
produce them, women would be able to deconstruct the roots of their oppression.
By examining our past, feminists can understand the roles that men, society,
and themselves have played and continue to play in the competition game. Further
examination of these roles can lead to theories and practices that are more
likely to result in the further success of the noble feminist goals. As evolutionary
biology did for the biological sciences and medicine, a biopsychosocial model,
or rather, an evolutionary feminist theory would provide a comprehensive and
cohesive interactionist framework for examining female intrasexual competition
that, to this point, appears to have hindered reaching the goal of gender
parity.
The work of Chesler (2003) is the beginning of an understanding within feminism
of the biological motivations that drive females to compete with one another.
In her book, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, Chesler cites the extensive research
within psychology and anthropology that points to the biological causes of
indirect aggression between women. She also provides a possible solution to
the problems these adaptations cause within the feminist agenda. She suggests
that if women are informed of these drives-thereby understanding the context
within which they exist-then they will be better able to cope with the urges
they produce. She suggests that women take a hard look at their belief systems
and realize that while they are part of the solution to inequality, they are
also part of its cause.
Conclusion
Research has provided compelling evidence for the development and adaptive
nature of female intrasexual competition. The use of indirect aggression by
women to compete with other women for superior mate selection, which is tied
to food acquisition and parental investment, is both beneficial and damaging.
While it increases the survival of the species, it also has the capacity to
create inequities between the actors who share common species-specific interests.
Some of these inequalities between the sexes have been the focus of the feminist
movement for many years as it attempts to encourage sociopolitical changes
to nurture gender parity. As Vandermassen and others have shown in other areas
that concern feminists, the present paper examines the biological bases for
intrasexual female competition in order to frame it in a scientifically objective
and testable manner. It is our contention that a clear and complete non-constructivist
accounting of the innate predispositions that manifest themselves in both
individual and institutionalized behavior patterns-as is the case with female
intrasexual competition-is a far more rational method of study. Moreover,
it is necessary precondition for developing and implementing intervention
programs that stand a chance of succeeding where others have struggled in
the past.
The strength and efficacy of women's biological predisposition to engage in
competition over mate selection and its implications cannot be ignored because
they both contribute and are part of the patriarchal system evolved in many
primates, and especially in the human species. Keeping always in mind that
the trap of the naturalistic fallacy threatens to derail theory development,
experts need to regularly reexamine their arguments as well as their motives
for promoting certain perspectives or political agendas to the exclusion of
others. Thus, when we examine behavior patterns such as gossiping, backstabbing,
and a focus on physical appearance as characteristics of female intrasexual
competition, it is important to keep in mind that raising the biological/innateness
argument in no way legitimizes the inequities that they inherently create
under normal environmental circumstances. Doing so only serves to perpetuate
the patriarchal society that men and women have shared in creating, but for
which most agree needs to be adapted to eliminate the conspicuous inequalities
apparent in modernity. Although beyond the scope of this paper, future work
should continue to focus on reviewing more thoroughly both the strengths and
weaknesses of both evolutionary psychology and feminism, how the two may serve
to complement each other, and developing a framework for the two to work together
toward a modern evolutionary feminist theory. Generating such a theory could
provide a starting point from which feminists could (1) begin to understand
the biological motivations that drive all cultures to treat women as second-class
citizens, and (2) develop a strategic plan to address change more effectively
through education aimed at providing women with the tools to recognize and
effectively combat the indirect aggression of their female counterparts. After
all, there is little dispute today that the single most important variable
that impacts such pervasive social ills as poverty, rapid population growth,
health and malnutrition (by reducing them) is the education of women (United
Nations, 2002). International research in population demographics has shown
that education of women always results in a reduction in family size and the
improvement in living conditions as women begin to take greater control of
their body, their access to resources, and their social climate in general.
Given the importance of female intrasexual competition in women's lives, education
that represents it in its proper light in terms of its natural selectivity
is one important step toward realizing a new modern feminist theory.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1994). Sex differences
in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary
psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 605-619.
Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2005). A narrow waist versus broad shoulders:
Sex and age differences in the jealousy evoking characteristics of a rival's
body build. Personality and Individual Differences,39, 379-389.
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual
aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 , 203-252.
Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, A. (2004). Female competition: Causes, constraints, content, and
contexts. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 16-26.
Chesler, P. (2003). Woman's Inhumanity to Woman. New York: Plume.
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Barkow, J.H. (1992). Introduction to Evolutionary
Psychology and conceptual integration. In J.H.Barkow, L.Cosmides & J.Tooby
(Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray & Co.
Henderson , J. J. A., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts
longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 351-356.
Hines, N. J., & Fry, D. P. (1994). Indirect models of aggression among
women of Buenos Aires,
Argentina . Sex Roles, 30, 213-236.
Izar, P. (2003). Female social relationships of cebus apella nigritus in a
southeastern atlantic forest: An analysis through ecological models of primate
social evolution. Behaviour, 141, 71-99.
James, V.H., & Owens, L.D. (2005). 'They turned around like I wasn't there':
An analysis of teenage girls' letters about their peer conflicts. School Psychology
International, 26, 71-88.
Kimmel, M.S. (2000). The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Landeweerd, L. (2004). Normative-descriptive and the naturalistic fallacy.
Global Bioethics, 17, 17-24.
McGettigan, T. (2000). Flawed by design: the virtues and limitations of postmodern
theory. Theory and Science, 1(1). Retrieved on 02/08/2007 at: http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol001.001/05mcgettigan.html
Panksepp, J., & Panksepp, J.B. (2000). The seven sins of evolutionary
psychology. Evolution & Cognition, 6(2),108-131.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New
York: Viking Press.
Pratarelli, M. (2003). Niche Bandits: Why Big Brains Consumed an Ecosystem.
Pueblo, CO: Medici Publishing.
Pratarelli, M.E., & Mize, K.D. (2002). Biological determinism/fatalism:
Are they extreme cases of the use of inference in evolutionary psychology?
Theory & Science, 3(1). Retrieved on 01/19/07 at: http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/volume3issue1.php
Rose, H., & Rose, S. (2000). Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary
Psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.
Rucas, S.L., Gorden, M., Kaplan, H., Winking, J., Gangestad, N., & Crespo,
M. (in press, 2006). Female intrasexual competition and reputational effects
on attractiveness among the Tsimane of Bolivia. Evolution & Human Behavior.
Saltzman, W., Schultz-Darken, N. J., & Abbott, D. H. (1996). Behavioural
and endocrine predictors of dominance and tolerance in female common marmosets,
Callithrix jaccus.Animal Behavior, 51, 657-674.
Schmitt, D.P., & Pilcher, J.J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological
adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15,
643-649.
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: Conceptual foundations.
In David
Buss (Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
United Nations (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
26 August, Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved on 12/22/2006 at: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf
Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin?: Debating Feminism
and Evolutionary Theory. Lanham , MD : Rowman & Littlefield .
Vervaecke, H., Stevens, J., & Van Elsacker, L. (2003). In Clara B. Jones
(Ed.), Special topics in primatology vol. 3: Sexual selection and reproductive
competition in primates: New perspectives and directions (pp. 231-253). Norman,
OK: American Society of Primatologists.
Wolf, N. (2002). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are used Against Women.
New York : HarperCollins.
_______________________________________
Copyright, Evolution's Voyage, 1995 - 2011