Feminism and Evolutionary
Psychology
by
Sophia Elliott Connell
Circa., 2000
If feminists-of all stripes-want to know their enemy, it is now available for inspection (Robert Wright, 'Feminists, Meet Mr. Darwin', New Republic, 28 Nov. 1994: 34-46).
The enemy in question is evolutionary psychology,
an increasingly influential description of human motivation and behaviour, which
assumes profound psychological differences between men and women based on their
differing reproductive strategies. This field of study, which has also been
known as human sociobiology, extends evolutionary theory in order to explain
behavioural as well as physical adaptations to particular environments. The
environment to which human being have adapted is taken to be that occupied by
the first nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes. Behavioural traits that serve to maximise
reproductive advantage in that environment are considered to have been more
effectively passed on to the next generation, forming our inherited mental capacities.
For this new breed of Darwinians, it is not individuals but their genes which
strive to perpetuate their kinds. The fundamental regenerative drives of genes
are capable of accounting for the varieties of animal structure and behaviour
we observe. Although genes are obviously not conscious agents, such teleological
terminology is unavoidable. Because animal behaviour is brought about by genetic
mechanism, the animals themselves are thought of as vehicles for genes, and
are even sometimes described as puppets or robots.1
The genes of male and female animals must develop different mechanisms in order
to ensure their survival, since their parental 'investment' differs. Most male
animals 'invest' very little in reproduction, while females especially among
mammals, provide nourishment for months, or even years.2 In order to ensure
reproductive success males must attempt to mate with as many females as possible,
while females have to carefully select fathers for their offspring. Evolutionary
psychology posits that genes ensuring male promiscuity and female 'coyness'
predominate in most animals, having survived best of all. This general picture
of the rationale behind animal behaviour is applied to humans and thought to
provide insights into the different sexual habits of men and women and to lie
at the root of other fundamental psychological and behavioural differences between
the sexes. In terms of sexuality, proponents of evolutionary psychology believe
that men are naturally lecherous and seek only youth and beauty in their partners,
while women feel the need for security from wealthy and powerful men. 3 Female
coyness and the intense male competition and aggression it produces, serve to
expand the theory of sexually dimorphic behavioural patterns to explain the
prominence of men in positions of power, male violence against women, rape,
war, adultery, infanticide, etc.4
Recent popular summaries of this type of research in evolutionary psychology
attempt to sell their ideas by detailing the way in which it fits with stereotypical
gendered behaviour in humans. However, they have also felt obliged of late to
deny the reactionary aspect of their work, especially its seemingly obvious
sexism. Evolutionary psychology defends itself against feminist criticisms in
two ways. First it appeals to the supposed truth or objectivity of its point
of view, a quality which it then contrasts with the fictitious or fanciful nature
of that of its opponents. Thus Glenn Wilson in his book The Great Sex Divide:
A Study of Male-Female Differences (Peter Owen: London, 1989) thinks it 'unfortunate
that so many books on the topic of sex differences are written by dedicated
feminists whose political aims take precedence over objective facts in the matter'
(p. 39). For him reverse discrimination is completely unjustified since it disregards
the truth of sex difference and instead 'indulges in fantasies' (p. 114). Meanwhile,
Kingsley Browne, author of Divided Labours, professes that m en's desire for
status and tangible rewards is biologically ingrained and runs deeper than a
mere social 'paradigm', as is women's desire for high-status men. The notion
that large numbers of female executives and professionals would be willing to
marry men who would stay home and tend children is nothing short of fanciful
(p. 56).
Another common strategy of evolutionary psychology's apologists is to claim
that 'science' does not need to involve itself in unrelated issues of ethics,
politics or justice. Stephen Pinker, for instance, who laments the fact that
'today's intellectual climate' makes it impossible not to mention feminist theory
in his account of sex difference, thinks that the goal of feminism is 'an ethical
and political position that is in no danger of being refuted by any foreseeable
scientific theory or discovery' (p. 492). When he notes that the environment
he envisages for the development of our psyches is one in which 'sex led to
babies' and 'children were a mother's problem more than a father's' he notes
that these statements are completely separate from moral considerations (Pinker,
Mind, pp. 468-9). Matt Ridley is also careful to argue that '[t]he asymmetry
in prenatal sexual investment between the genders is a fact of life, not a moral
outrage'. He claims that because somethings being 'natural' does not make it
right, his detailed account of the naturalness of sex inequality is mere harmless
description (Ridley, Queen, p. 174).5
Before we find out in what sense evolutionary psychology counts as scientific,
it is important to question whether it is possible to claim that scientific
descriptions of human behaviour have no effect on or responsibility to society.
These authors are well aware of the power of appeals to the naturalness or unnaturalness
of certain behaviours which still serve as potent prescriptions or deterrents.
Also by claiming to be giving people the truth or the scientific facts about
sex difference they are consciously promoting their point of view. It even seems
possible that the sidelong stabs at (usually a straw version of) feminist in
these works reveal a covert political agenda.6 Their need to refute feminism
shows that they aim to persuade rather than to inform the reader. For if their
theories were really true, they would not feel at all threatened by the idea
of female equality. Feminism, on the other hand, has good reason to feel threatened
by evolutionary psychology. As it rides high on the wave of popular science
literature, this account of naturalness of sex inequality not only effects common
opinion, but is also being used in the public sphere to justify sexism.
There are three branches of study that I will discuss: (1) technical papers,
published in academic books or journals; (2) feminist evolutionary psychology;
(3) popular books which provide a general picture or 'worldview'7 by bringing
together a series of technical studies.
The author or authors of technical papers attempt to fit a certain human behaviour,
considered to be universal trait, into the structure of evolutionary theory.
Rape, for instance, is taken to be a heritable tendency in human males, which
evolved as an effective method of ensuring that extremely undesirable men are
able to reproduce.8 Another example is male jealousy, which is explained with
reference to women's inclination to cheat on their husbands with genetically
stronger men.9 The reproductive rationale for women's behaviour is explained
in detail, as are the advantages of male anger and violence against those women
who look likely to stray.10
The theoretical model used in these studies comes from evolutionary science,
although much of their methodology does not. In general, a priori theories are
posited which are meant to explain aspects of complex behaviour patterns in
adult humans. Confirmation of these patterns is usually offered in the form
of surveys, questionnaires and statistics, as well as the anecdotal evidence
of history and anthropology which are meant to justify treating any particular
behavioural trait as universal. The numerous problems with this approach have
been pointed out by scholars and scientists over the past few years, in pieces
of writing that never seem to make it into the pages of newspapers and magazines.11
First of all, it has been pointed out that when empirical data does not seem
fit with the premises of evolutionary psychologist, the writer immediately accommodates
the theory to this new information. Thus, the fact that many men remain monogamous
throughout their lives, which may look to be at odds with the hypothesis that
men are naturally promiscuous, turns out to pose no problems. Monogamous men,
they explain, because they lack the wealth and power requisite for attracting
women, must settle for what they can get.12 Another recent example responds
to the mismatch between the results of their survey of male University students
and the hypothesis that men rape because they cannot attract women, by proposed
an alternative thesis still within the framework of evolutionary psychology.13
A theory can be upheld only if the scientist is able to imagine data which will
falsify his view and show that this data cannot be generated. Gravity is viable
in part because it could be disproved if a physicist could make heavy objects
travel upwards as regularly as they travel downwards on earth. But there is,
by the look of it, no possible bit of evidence that could disprove the hypotheses
of evolutionary psychology.14
Another scientific failing of evolutionary psychology is that it is not able
to definitely dismiss alternative explanations of the data it cites as support.
For instance, in one experiment women and men at a university campus were approached
by attractive members of the opposite sex and invited to have sex. Many more
men than women accepted the offer.15 Evolutionary psychology cites this as proof
that men are programmed to pursue sex indiscriminately, while women have evolved
to be more cautious.16 But another explanation is available: perhaps the women
were tempted but were also afraid that they would be attacked or raped, especially
by someone so strange as to suggest sex with every passer-by.17 There is also
an alternate, and more plausible explanation for the weakened sex drive of nursing
mother cited by Wright. Evolutionary should ensure that people who are infertile
are psychologically disinclined to have sex, according to Wright. This conjecture
not only ignores the inclinations of many pregnant and post-menopausal women,
it also appears to show that Wright is unaware of how exhausting feeding and
caring for a small baby can be. These represent only a few examples of evolutionary
psychology's failure to even seriously consider alternative explanations of
the available data.18
Even if evolutionary psychology were to show how its account of the data was
superior to any other account, the surveys, questionnaires and statistics it
cites do not provide the required scientific proof of its hypotheses. Surveys
cannot give direct evidence of innate biological inclinations, since the answers
are prejudiced by media representations, education, family experiences, as well
as what the respondent thinks he or she is expected to say. Fully grown human
subjects have been exposed to a lifetime of gender imperatives.19 Even scientifically
viable experiments that show differences in the brain structures or mental capacities
of men and women cannot be used to prove that this differential is genetic.20
Most brain pathways are formed by experience and it is likely that the differing
levels of encouragement and education that boys and girls experience results
in the development of different psychological capacities.21
Much of the evidence the proponents of evolutionary psychology cite, which also
includes anecdotes, has the status of rhetorically rather than scientifically
proof of their claims.22 This becomes particularly clear when attempts are made
to justify the use of questionnaires about sexual fantasy23 in order to tap
into men and women's real feelings about sex.24 For Wilson, sexual fantasy 'is
more relevant to the sexual nature of men and women' because it is 'less constrained
by partner preferences and social expectations' (Sex Divide, p. 10). Another
writer thinks that in order to 'discover just how different the sexual mentalities
of men and women are' it would be necessary to conduct a controlled experiment
in which an 'average man and an average woman' (whose averageness would it seems
be difficult to measure) and 'give each the option of faithful marriage to a
familiar partner or continual orgies with beautiful strangers'. Although he
laments the impossibility of conducting this interesting experiment, there is
no reason to despair: 'For it is in effect possible to do exactly that experiment
by looking inside people's heads and examining their fantasies' (Ridley, Queen,
pp. 260-1). Claiming the veracity of fantasies that are matched in every particular
by the conventions of contemporary popular pornography appears to be extremely
questionable.
More serious complaints still come from the field of genetic research. There
have been no quantitative tests attempting to confirm the hypothesis that psychological
features of humankind are biological adaptations. One field of wheat may grow
taller than another because its genes are adapted to do so, or because it is
responding to different environmental pressures: only a controlled experiment
could determine the possible evolutionary basis of differences between adult
plants or animals. It is impossible to create a controlled experiment in which
human male and female children are exposed to exactly the same environment.25
Therefore, evolutionary psychology's claim that character or behaviour is adaptive,
and thus genetic, finds very little support from genetic science.26 A comprehensive
and thoroughly tested account of the pathway leading from genes to behaviour
would also be required. If this were ever to be proven, the claims of evolutionary
psychology regarding gendered behaviour would further entail some account of
the mechanisms by which behavioural genes were turned on by sex hormones.
Evolutionary psychology maintains that although there is no way to trace behaviour
or psychological traits directly from a particular gene or complex of genes,
nevertheless they are adapted and inherited traits. These theorists assume that
human minds were adapted to maximise reproductive advantage in a Palaeolithic
hunter/gatherer environment about which we can know very little.27 Thus, many
conjectures about this environment and the way in which humans adapted their
behaviour to it are impossible to test. Once again able to avoid scientific
experiment and controlled empirical proof, neo-Darwinians depend instead on
statistics from adult humans to establish the validity of their hypotheses.
Evolutionary psychology maintains that the presence of universal psychological
or behavioural traits in humankind proves that these traits are adaptive and
evolved early on and data attempts to provide evidence that certain behavioural
traits occur in all human societies. The logic behind this endeavour is flawed,
since the universality of a trait need not imply that it has been passed on
genetically.28 The methods used to locate universal human traits are also questionable,
since in this pursuit there is a purposeful disregard of evident diversity among
human populations, and an unwillingness to assess the cultural expectations
of observers. The latter fault has been left far behind by modern anthropology.
As for the former, recent feminism itself has challenged the ability to create
a unified and consistent picture of sexual oppression, advocating an openness
to divergent perspectives. Evidence would have to be manipulated to create an
even account of sex difference in societies across the globe.29 Often, evolutionary
psychologists do not use comprehensive samples in any case. It is perhaps unsurprising
that particularly brutal patriarchies, such as the !Kung tribe of Africa or
the Yanomamš of South America, are most often employed as examples of cross-cultural
data. Most studies do not bother with even this gesture at universality, settling
instead for the ubiquitous opinions of American university students and statistics
from Western cites.30
Faced with problem of obtaining information about 'typical' human behaviour
in a supposed period of uniform environmental pressure, much evolutionary psychology
depends on the technique of comparing humans with animals. Typically, certain
behaviour patterns that animals species have adapted are taken to be identical
to these patterns in humans. For example, one study compares sexual coercion
in scorpions to rape in humans.31 Others take data from rodents, reptiles and
birds as well as certain sorts of primates and map the evolutionary models that
explain such behaviour onto humans. Simone De Beauvoir criticised this type
of approach over fifty years ago.
[A] society is not a speciesÉ Its ways and customs cannot be deduced
from biology, for the individuals that comprise the society are never abandoned
to the dictates of their nature (S. de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H. Parshley
[New York: Knopf, 1953] p. 40).
Today's criticisms come not only from feminist, but also from biological science.
Cross-species comparisons are rarely employed by biologists since it is difficult
to justify the transference of data from one species to another; nobody would
study bees in order to find out about chimpanzees.32 Evolutionary theory cannot
support this move either since similar behaviour in different species of animal
need not indicate that the same evolutionary process lies behind both.33 Besides,
many of the human behaviour patterns that evolutionary psychology likens to
animal behaviour appear to be too complicated. 'Assertiveness' or 'achievement-motivation'
in adult men is not really the same thing as aggression in primates and birds.34
The final set of criticisms I will mention comes from within the discipline
of evolutionary psychology itself, some of whose proponents are professed feminists.
Darwinian feminists employ similar methodology to traditional evolutionary psychology
but challenge their colleagues' use of selective empirical evidence.35 In the
tradition of one branch of feminist epistemology, these thinkers take it that
women have a different point of view, which allows them to assess data in a
more open manner. The masculine scientist focuses on the male and his interests,
and tends to find what he expects to in terms of his own cultural paradigms.
Thus, traditionally, biologists have tended to ignore or undermine evidence
of female sexual adventurousness and male parental concern in the animal world.
Darwinian feminists, in contrast, focus on the behaviour of female animals,
especially that which has not been previously accounted for.36 Some proceed
by questioning why baboons, whose society is based on violently maintained sex
hierarchy, are chosen for comparison with humans rather than other more peace-loving
and seemingly feminist primates.37 Although some have tried to get rid of anthropomorphic
terminology in the study of animal behaviour (e.g., 'wife-swapping', 'cuckolding',
'prostitution' and 'rape'), because Darwinian feminists remain committed to
cross-species conjectures, they are open to the same criticisms that plague
their more masculinist colleagues.38
Documentation of facts about animal behaviour is probably more influenced than
any other portion of biological research by human expectations. Theorists tend
to see what looks familiar from human society; this is why they describe it
using familiar terms for human emotions and actions. When evolutionary psychology
uses the behaviour of animals as proof of the naturalness of certain human behaviours,
they are often reporting what humans tend to see of themselves in animals.39
Consider the import of the following:
[M]en lay claim to particular women as songbirds lay claim to territories, as
lions lay claim to a kill, or as people of both sexes lay claim to valuablesÉ40
Mating effort has a high fixed cost; the male must establish himself as successful
before he can mate at all. In deer, this entails growing antlers and gaining
size; in humans, it may involve acquiring sufficient size and resources to become
attractive to a potential mate (Browne, Divided, p.13).
[M]an is just like an ibis or a swallow or a sparrow. He lives in large colonies.
Males compete with each other for places in a pecking order (Ridley, Queen,
p. 226).
Each statement appears to have more in common with literary metaphor and maybe
even fable than with scientific reasoning. Could it be that accounts of evolutionary
psychology are moral tales rather than scientific facts? It certainly seems
that neo-Darwinians' stubborn proclamation of the truth of their views is only
matched in stubbornness by their refusal to use scientifically acceptable methods
to prove their case. In advocating as true that which is woefully underdetermined,
the authors are acting irresponsibly. Either this or they are indeed aware of
the possible use of their views in public and political spheres.
The popularity of this type of work on the biology of sex difference indicates
that it does not challenge common cultural conceptions. People read these accounts
because they seem familiar: mentions of prostitution, adultery, mistresses,
pornography and fashion models are in line with most other forms of popular
media. Ridley notes that the evolutionary account of the differences between
male and female minds 'accords with common sense' (p. 245), while Browne notes
these differences are 'just what [evolutionary] theory would predict' (p. 48).
These statements do not so much show the veracity of their picture, as illustrate
that these theories must have come from common perceptions of gender differences
in our society. Books which challenge such complacent and conservative views
of human nature are far less easy to swallow.41
In defence of their studies, many evolutionary psychologists argue that analysing
rape, violence against women, adultery and other behaviours within their framework
will be helpful in endeavouring to curtail such activities.42 But the recommendations
for tougher sentences and stronger will-power they mention hardly require the
backing of biological theory. The picture they present is much more likely to
may discourage visions of a world free of needless violence, by leaving readers
with the impression that anti-social behaviours of the kind they describe are
inevitable. These claims of utility mask the much more likely consequence that
these theories will be harmful to society, especially in their explanations
of violence against women. One study claims that the propensity of men to reject
raped wives and girlfriend as 'damaged goods' or accuse them of having enjoyed
the rape is merely part of a set of evolutionary strategies implanted in their
minds to ensure their reproductive success (Daly and Wilson, 'Chattel', p. 305).
Another author supports the idea that rape itself is an reproductive strategy
by portioning some of the blame to the victim of the attack.
It is also increasingly recognized that if a woman looks like she will put up
considerable resistance, most rapists will move on to easier prey, rather in
the same manner that a car thief steals cars that are easy to break into. This
fact is predictable on the basis of evolutionary theoryÉ (Wilson, Sex
Divide, p. 130).
Both statements show how coolly these theorists use highly charged, contention
and sensitive issues to promote their viewpoint without any regard for the feeling
of the victims of such crimes. It is unsurprising that statements of this kind,
however qualified, tend to reinforce the unjust treatment of victims.43
Marriage, and its failings, is another social issue which evolutionary psychology
claims it will be able to help us to understand properly44 But the insights
it pretends to offer are depressingly familiar.
After a few years of marriageÉthe husband's sexual appetite begins to
wane and an apparent reversal of libido may even occurÉHe, of course,
is still perfectly capable of being aroused by his mistresses and office girls.É
The need for periodic recharging of libido by novel females that is seen in
most mammals is another manifestations of the male's reproductively optimal
'promiscuity strategy'. This presents a problem, for men especially, over the
course of a long marriageÉ (Wilson, Sex Divide, pp. 43, 94).
Beneath all the thoughts and feelings and temperamental differences that marriage
counsellors spend their time sensitively assessing are the stratagems of the
genes-cold, hard equationsÉ Is the wife really duller and more nagging
than she was twenty years ago? Possibly, but it's also possible that the husband's
tolerance for nagging has dropped now that she's forty-five and has no reproductive
future (Wright, Animal, p. 88).
A man uses his wife to produce children for him. A woman uses her husband to
make and help rear her children. Marriage teeters on the line between a co-operative
venture and a form of mutual exploitation - ask any divorce lawyer. (Ridley,
Queen, p. 19).
Modern marriage cannot benefit from such obnoxious stereotypes of bored husbands
and scheming wives.45
When discussing issues such as rape and marriage, one is immediately entering
the public domain and can only with difficulty maintain the stance of objectivity.
Matt Ridley, although he does not admit it, accepts and promotes regressive
sexual stereotypes. We can be in no doubt, from the following quotation, that
the formidable scientist Richard Dawkins agrees with Ridley's rejection of 'politically
correct' (read: 'feminist') views about sex difference.
Matt Ridley is more concerned with clarity of explanation, elegance of style
and simple, honest truth than he is with the yawn-inducing canons of political
correctness, and his book is consequently a breath of fresh air (Richard Dawkins,
back cover of Ridley, Queen, my emphasis).
Dawkins also does not admit his views outright; instead he proclaims Ridley's
account to be true. As we have seen, Ridley and the studies he cites provide
the reader with very little insight into the scientific facts of the matter.
Such popular accounts of sex difference according to evolutionary psychology
ought to be clearer about how much of their text is based on objective fact
and how much on opinion. And they probably need to ask themselves why they wish
to discuss the social world in terms of evolved sex differences. In some cases,
evolutionary psychologists appear to be unaware of having any political agenda
of their own.46 In these cases, they should at least acknowledge that their
work may affect politics. By reinforcing stereotypical perceptions of the capacities
of men and women more generally, evolutionary psychology feeds into the political
rhetoric of the right, especially in North America.47 The media favours sensational
articles based on this research, which can in turn effect public opinion and
those political and judicial processes that depend on it.48 Evolutionary psychology
has even been exploited by prominent politicians in America.49
The new Darwinians urge us to consider that humans are animals, and that we
have to have been designed to some extent by evolutionary processes. To this,
few would disagree. However, the extend to which humankind can be explained
in terms of evolutionary biology is a very big question indeed. It seem likely
that the behaviour of human beings is greatly effected by their environment,
which, if correct, would render any genetic factors in behaviour insignificant.50
The difference between the sexes that evolutionary psychology wants to place
in a biological framework could be equally well explained with reference to
social coercion, prejudice, and profound lack of choice. And accounts of this
research often work to help restrict women's choices.51 Some of these appear
to be particularly confused about what choice and freedom for women would look
like, as is clear in the following quotation from Stephen Pinker's How the Mind
Works.
Throughout history the critics of beauty have been powerful menÉThe enthusiasts
are women themselves. The explanation is simply economics and politics (though
not the orthodox feminist analysis-quite insulting to women, incidentally-in
which women are dupes who have been brainwashed into striving for something
they don't want). Women in open societies want to look good because it gives
them an edge in competing for husbands, status, and the attention of powerful
people [meaning men]. p. 487.
Pinker obviously has little understanding of what women find insulting. More
important than this is the political nature of his view that women should be
allowed only to envisage certain kinds of choices. The persistent claims that
women truly want to stay at home, care for children, marry aggressive men or
use their beauty to influence the powerful (and are restricted from these fulfilling
occupations by the authoritarian canons of feminism) crudely conceal the political
stance of these authors.52 If they think that the worst danger of feminism is
that it will 'wither for lack of support' than these authors would not worry
so much about refuting it.53 Some Darwinians admit that they are interested
in the potential political significance of their views, but are not clear about
what effects they wish their claims to have. The presence of a research institute
entirely devoted to evolutionary psychology at the London School of Economics,
indicates the probable amenability of Darwinist social theory to modern economics.54
Darwin at LSE's promotion of an evolutionary calculus of advantage appears to
support right wing capitalist agenda and yet it leader, Helena Cronin, is keen
to deny any such affiliation. Instead she promotes her views thorough the, by
now familiar, veil of scientific fact. In defending the evolutionist's stance
on sex difference, she claims that men are more persistent, competitive and
risk-taking than women because of the 'divergent mating strategies' that 'ramify
throughout our evolved minds, pervading male and female psychologies'.
ÉAll this is well-established science, painstakingly modelled and tested.
And yet feminist orthodoxy persists in denying any evolutionary basis to sex
differenceÉ Science simply tells it like it is; it doesn't dictate goals.
But how can we promote a fairer world - from social and legal policy to personal
relationships - unless we understand differences, unless we let truth, not ignorance,
be our guide? ('It's Only Natural', Red Pepper, Aug. 1997, 38, my emphasis).
The claim that her views about human capacities and human nature are pure and
simply truth is unjustified, but remains an irresistible way to contrast these
with the views of her opponents. Cronin and others like her must take full responsibility
for their opinions.55 As a feminist, I consider it important to be fully informed
about the biological aspects of sex difference in order to, as Cronin says,
'understand differences'. However, the profound sex inequality found in many
human societies has never been proven to be based in biology. This means that
those evolutionary psychologists who delight in publicly pronouncing that they
are need to be more open about what they are up to. If their real aim is to
discover what evolutionary biology might be able to tell us about human differences,
they need to practice due scientific caution and not discredit their project
by too swiftly settling for what they expect to be the case
1 'Puppet' in K. Browne, Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998), p. 14 and R. Wright, The Moral Animal:
Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life (London: Little and Brown, 1994),
p. 37; 'Robot' in R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: OUP, 1989), 2nd edn.,
pp. 19-20.
2 The hypothesis that parental investment effects behaviour was first formulated by R. Trivers, 'Parental Investment and Sexual Selection' in B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971 (Chicago: Aldine, 1972).
3 D. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994); M. Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (London: Viking, 1993), pp. 259 60; S. Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York: Norton, 1997), p. 482.
4 See Recent Issues of the journal, Evolution and Human Behaviour, edited by M. Daly and M. Wilson.
5 See also Wright, 'Feminists', p. 44.
6 Most evolutionary psychologists who make passing mention of the dubiousness of the claims of feminism are clearly unaware of all its stripes. They often dismiss the view that men and woman are the same, a view which is not necessarily part of feminism and which has been discussed extensively in scholarship they do not read. See for instance, I.M. Young, 'Politics of Difference' in her Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).
7 Wright, Animal, p. 4: 'a new worldview is emerging'.
8 R. Thornhill and N. Thornhill, 'Human Rape: The Strengths of the Evolutionary Perspective' in C. Crawford, M. Smith and D. Krebs (eds.), Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications (Hillsdale, NJ, 1987), pp. 269 91 and their 'The Evolutionary Psychology of Men's Coercive Sexuality', Behavioural and Brain Sciences 1992, 15: 363 421; and popular versions in Wilson, Sex Divide, p. 129; Ridley, Queen, p. 229, Pinker, Mind, pp. 491 3.
9 R. Baker and M. Bellis, 'Human Sperm Competition: Infidelity, the Female Orgasm and Kamikaze Sperm', Human Behaviour and Evolution Society Conference Proceedings, 1992.
10 B. Smuts, 'Male Aggression Against Women: An Evolutionary Perspective', Human Nature 1992, 3: 1-44; M. Daly, M. Wilson and S. Wehorst, 'Male Sexual Jealousy', Ethology and Sociobiology 1982, 3: 11-27; M. Daly and M. Wilson and J. Scheib, 'Femicide: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective' in P. Gowaty (ed.), Feminism and Evolutionary Biology (New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997), pp. 431-65.
11 See for instance A. Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 2nd edn.; P. Kitcher, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, (Boston: MIT Press, 1985); A. Fausto-Sterling, 'Feminism and Behavioural Evolution: A Taxonomy' in Gowaty (ed.), Feminism, pp. 42-60; V.L. Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics, Feminism and Evolutionary Theories of Gender Difference' in Gowaty (ed.), Feminism, pp. 86 115; Z. Tang-Martinez, 'The Curious Courtship of Sociobiology and Feminism: A Case of Irreconcilable Differences' in Gowaty (ed.), Feminism, pp. 116-50; C. Allen, 'Inextricably Entwined: Politics, Biology, and Gender-Dimorphic Behavior' in Gowaty (ed.), Feminism, pp. 515-21; D.L. Rhode, 'The Ideology and Biology of Gender Difference', The Southern Journal of Philosophy 1996 Supplement, 35: 73-98; J. Dupr, 'Against Reductionist Explanations of Human Behaviour', The Aristotelian Society Supplement 1998, 72: 153-71.
12 See especially Wright, Animal, on the Charles Darwin's marriage and Ridley, Queen, p. 260: 'An ageing ugly man does not mate with several young and beautiful women (unless he is very rich indeed). He settles for a faithful wife of the same age', see also pp. 171, 199.
13 M. Lalumiere, L. Chalmers, V. Quinsey and M. Seto, 'A Test of the Male Deprivation Hypothesis of Sexual Coercion', Ethology and Sociobiology 1996, 17 (5): 299 318.
14 See Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', pp. 119, 136; Allen 'Inextricably Entwined' p. 517.
15 R. Clark and E. Hatfield, 'Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers', Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 1989, 2: 39 55.
16 Buss, Evolution of Desire.
17 Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', p. 141.
18 Although Wright claims that evolutionary psychology is the best explanation of the human mind available, he fails to show this to be the case. Instead the status of evolutionary theory as 'truth' and 'right' is evoked and contrasted with moral or social alternatives (Animal, p. 150). For more thorough expositions of this topic see especially Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', pp. 109-110; Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', pp. 139-141; Allen, 'Inextricably Entwined', p. 518.
19 Wilson, for instance, cites questionnaires completed by readers of the Sun as proof for his theory of the biological basis of gender difference (pp. 58 62, 91). For more criticisms of this methodology see Dupr, 'Reductionist Explanations', pp. 159 60.
20 Fausto-Sterling, Myths, pp. 34, 74.
21 Rhode, 'Ideology', p. 80.
22 Ridley posits that the simultaneous instincts for marriage and casual sex (in men) is 'proven by the existence of a thriving call-girl or 'escort' industryÉ' (p. 176). He also notes that in his view there is 'no reason' to disbelieve what fictional women say about their sexuality (p. 210), (even though most of them are created by male writers). See also Browne, Divided, p. 17 and Wright, Animal, p. 66: 'These predictions have been confirmed by eons of folk wisdomÉ'
23 Of course they do not find the 'fantasies' of feminists (involving business-suited women watching over their nappy-changing men) to be nearly so revealing of reality (Browne, Divided, p. 114).
24 B. Ellis and D. Symons, 'Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: An Evolutionary Psychological Approach', Journal of Sex Research 1990, 27: 327-55.
25 Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', pp. 101 102.
26 Fausto-Sterling, 'Taxonomy', p. 47; Dupr, 'Reductionist Explanations', pp. 161 2.
27 See L. Cosmides, J. Tooby and J. Barkow, 'Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology and Conceptual Integration' in L. Cosmides, J. Tooby and J. Barkow (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 3-15; Wright, Animal, p. 38.
28 Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', pp. 109, 112.
29 Young, 'Politics of Difference'.
30 L. Lueptow, L. Garovich, M. Lueptow, 'The Persistence of Gender Stereotyping in the Face of Changing Sex Roles: Evidence Contrary to the Sociocultural Model, Ethology and Sociobiology 1995, 16: 509-30 cites one survey as evidence for complex claims concerning innate sex differences. M. Wilson, M. Daly and J. Scheib, 'Femicide: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective' in Gowaty, Feminism, pp. 431-65 uses statistics from only three locations in North America and Australia. The economic, social and personal circumstances under which these murders took place were considered, but not proven to be, irrelevant.
31 R. Thornhill, 'Rape in Panorpa Scorpionflies and a General Rape Hypothesis', Animal Behaviour 1980, 28: 52-9.
32 Kitcher, Vaulting, p. 435.
33 Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', pp. 121 3, 128. See also R. Lewotin, S. Rose and L. Kamin, Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature (NY: Pantheon, 1984), p. 157.
34 Browne, Divided, pp. 18 19. This lumping together of concepts is criticised in Rhode, 'Ideology', p. 82.
35 See, for instance, M. Small, Female Choices: Sexual Behaviour of Female Primates (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1993), D. Haraway, Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1989) and others listed by Fausto-Sterling in 'Taxonomy', pp. 49-50.
36 E.g., E. Lloyd, 'Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality' in E. Fox Keller and H. Longino (eds.), Feminism and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 91 102.
37 Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', pp. 123 6.
38 Ibid, pp. 128 9, 143; cf. P. Gowaty, 'Sexual terms in sociobiology: Emotionally Evocative and, Paradoxically, Jargon', Animal Behavior 1992, 30: 630-1.
39 'Sociobiology's appeal to nature to explain social dominance works by focusing on those animals and birds whose behaviour (if they were human beings which they are not) would be rather deplorable' H. Rose, 'Beyond Biology', Red Pepper, Sept. 1997, 37; Cf. Kitcher, 'Homage to Aesop' in Vaulting, pp. 13 16.
40 M. Daly and M. Wilson, 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Chattel', Barkow, Cosmides, Tooby (eds.), Adapted Mind, pp. 289 326 (p. 289).
41 P. Kitcher's Vaulting Ambition, for instance, has long been out of print. Cf. A. Brown, The Darwin Wars (London: Simon and Schuster, 1999), p. 72.
42 Daly, Wilson and Schneib, 'Femicide'; Pinker, Mind, p. 492; P. Gowaty, 'Introduction: Darwinian Feminists and Feminist Evolutionists' in Gowaty (ed.), Feminism, pp. 1 17 (pp. 12 13). Criticisms can be found at Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', p. 143.
43 Fausto-Sterling, Myths, pp. 194 5.
44 Browne, Divided, pp. 92 5.
45 For a measured analysis from a feminist perspective of the pressures inherent in modern marriage see C. Dryden, Being Married, Doing Gender: A Critical Analysis of Gender Relationships in Marriage (London: Routledge, 1999).
46 Fausto-Sterling, Myths, p. 203.
47 See S. Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women (London: Chatto and Windus, 1991), chs. 9 10.
48 For accounts of media reception and use (especially in the US) of the biological evolution of sex difference see Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', p. 89; Tang-Martinez, 'Curious Courtship', p. 139; Allen, 'Inextricably Entwined', pp. 515-16; 519-20; Rhode, 'Ideology', p. 79. Political propaganda based on evolutionary psychology can be found in R. Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination, (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1992); N. Davidson (ed.), Gender Sanity (Lanham: University Press of America, 1989).
49 Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', p. 89; Rhode, 'Ideology', pp. 81 3.
50 Allen, 'Inextricably Entwined', p. 517; Sork, 'Quantitative Genetics', pp. 87 8, 103.
51 Rhode, 'Ideology', p. 89.
52 Staying home: Wilson, Sex Divide, p. 63; Caring for children: Wright, 'Feminists', p. 46; Wanting aggressive partners: Browne, Divided, p. 61.
53 Wright, 'Feminists', p. 34.
54 The biological paradigm of individual advantage and inevitable competition fits with the predominant capitalist calculus. Cf. Brown, Darwin Wars, p. 78; Dupr, 'Reductionist Explanations', p. 154.
55 There is a need to be sensitive to the long history of using pseudo-biology theories to justify exclusion of women from education and professions (Rhode , 'Ideology', pp. 74-5).
Copyright, www.women.it, 2000-2004