{"id":3538,"date":"2013-01-05T10:50:34","date_gmt":"2013-01-05T09:50:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=3538"},"modified":"2013-01-05T10:50:34","modified_gmt":"2013-01-05T09:50:34","slug":"paper-evolutionary-psychology-and-feminism-david-michael-buss-david-p-schmitt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2013\/01\/paper-evolutionary-psychology-and-feminism-david-michael-buss-david-p-schmitt\/","title":{"rendered":"Paper: Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism (David Michael Buss & David P. Schmitt)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism 2011<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract This article provides a historical context of<\/span><\/p>\n

evolutionary psychology and feminism, and evaluates the<\/span><\/p>\n

contributions to this special issue of Sex Roles within that<\/span><\/p>\n

context. We briefly outline the basic tenets of evolutionary<\/span><\/p>\n

psychology and articulate its meta-theory of the origins of<\/span><\/p>\n

gender similarities and differences. The article then evaluates<\/span><\/p>\n

the specific contributions: Sexual Strategies Theory and the<\/span><\/p>\n

desire for sexual variety; evolved standards of beauty;<\/span><\/p>\n

hypothesized adaptations to ovulation; the appeal of risk<\/span><\/p>\n

taking in human mating; understanding the causes of sexual<\/span><\/p>\n

victimization; and the role of studies of lesbian mate<\/span><\/p>\n

preferences in evaluating the framework of evolutionary<\/span><\/p>\n

psychology. Discussion focuses on the importance of social<\/span><\/p>\n

and cultural context, human behavioral flexibility, and the<\/span><\/p>\n

evidentiary status of specific evolutionary psychological<\/span><\/p>\n

hypotheses. We conclude by examining the potential role of<\/span><\/p>\n

evolutionary psychology in addressing social problems<\/span><\/p>\n

identified by feminist agendas.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords Evolutionary psychology . Feminism . Sexual<\/span><\/p>\n

strategies . Gender differences<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I came across this study while reading this article<\/a>, which i think i will comment on later.<\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The fact that physical attractiveness is so highly valued<\/span><\/p>\n

by men in mate selection, and contrary to conventional<\/span><\/p>\n

social science wisdom is not arbitrarily socially constructed,<\/span><\/p>\n

does not imply that the emphasis placed on it is not<\/span><\/p>\n

destructive to women\u2014a point about which many feminists<\/span><\/p>\n

and evolutionary psychologists agree (e.g., Buss 1996;<\/span><\/p>\n

Wolf 1991; Vandermassen 2005). Many feminist scholars,<\/span><\/p>\n

evolutionary psychologists, and evolutionary feminists<\/span><\/p>\n

concur that the value people place on female beauty is<\/span><\/p>\n

likely a key cause of eating disorders, body image<\/span><\/p>\n

problems, and potentially dangerous cosmetic surgery. As<\/span><\/p>\n

Singh and Singh (2011) and others point out, it can lead to<\/span><\/p>\n

the objectification of women as sex objects to the relative<\/span><\/p>\n

neglect of other dimensions along which women vary, such<\/span><\/p>\n

as talents, abilities, and personality characteristics. Finally,<\/span><\/p>\n

in the modern environment, it seems clear that men\u2019s<\/span><\/p>\n

evolved standards of female beauty have contributed to a<\/span><\/p>\n

kind of destructive run-away female-female competition in<\/span><\/p>\n

the modern environment to embody the qualities men desire<\/span><\/p>\n

(Buss, 2003; Schmitt and Buss 1996).<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In our view, the key point is that feminist stances on the<\/span><\/p>\n

destructiveness of the importance people place on female<\/span><\/p>\n

attractiveness need not, and should not, rest on the faulty<\/span><\/p>\n

assumption that standards of attractiveness are arbitrary<\/span><\/p>\n

social constructions. Societal change, where change is<\/span><\/p>\n

desired, is best accomplished by an accurate scientific<\/span><\/p>\n

understanding of causes. The evolutionary psychological<\/span><\/p>\n

foundations of attractiveness must be a starting point for<\/span><\/p>\n

this analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

indeed, as is (nearly?) always the case: if one wants to change some state of affairs, then actually understanding WHY it is the way it is to begin with is of paramount importance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Adaptations to Ovulation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Ovulation attains special status within women\u2019s reproduc-<\/span><\/p>\n

tive biology because it provides the very brief window<\/span><\/p>\n

(roughly 12\u201324 h) during women\u2019s menstrual cycle during<\/span><\/p>\n

which conception is possible. Conventional wisdom in the<\/span><\/p>\n

field of human sexuality over the past century has been that<\/span><\/p>\n

ovulation is cryptic or concealed, even from women<\/span><\/p>\n

themselves (e.g., Symons 1979). Evolutionary psycholo-<\/span><\/p>\n

gists over the past decade have begun to challenge this<\/span><\/p>\n

conventional wisdom. The challenges have come in two<\/span><\/p>\n

forms\u2014hypothesized adaptations in men to detect ovula-<\/span><\/p>\n

tion and hypothesized adaptations in women to adjust their<\/span><\/p>\n

mating behavior around ovulation.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ancestral men, in principle, could have benefited (in<\/span><\/p>\n

reproductive currencies) if they could detect when women<\/span><\/p>\n

ovulated. An ovulation-detection ability would afford men<\/span><\/p>\n

the ability to selectively direct their sexual overtures toward<\/span><\/p>\n

women when they are ovulating, as male chimpanzees do.<\/span><\/p>\n

And already mated men might increase their mate-guarding<\/span><\/p>\n

efforts when their partners are ovulating. Both strategies, in<\/span><\/p>\n

principle, could have evolved in men. The key question is:<\/span><\/p>\n

Did they?More than 20 years ago, Symons (1987) concluded<\/span><\/p>\n

that such male adaptations to ovulation had not evolved:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe most straightforward prediction I could have made,<\/span><\/p>\n

based on simple reproductive logic and the study of<\/span><\/p>\n

nonhuman animals, would have been that . . . men will be<\/span><\/p>\n

able to detect when women are ovulating and will find<\/span><\/p>\n

ovulating women most sexually attractive. Such adaptations<\/span><\/p>\n

have been looked for in the human male and have never<\/span><\/p>\n

been found . . .\u201d (p. 133).<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

it seems to me that the authors need to learn more logic. the above case seems to be an example of an argument from ignorance, altho in a nonstraightforward way. heres how i interpret it:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1) Symons wrote that there is no evidence of such adaptations in humans.<\/p>\n

2) thus, Symons thought that there is no evidence of such adaptations in humans.<\/p>\n

3) thus, Symons thought that there are no such adaptations in humans.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(2) follows given normal conditions, that is, that he wasnt lying etc. it has a hidden premise stating that the conditions are normal, in a kind of default reasoning way.<\/p>\n

(3) however attributes an argument from ignorance inference to Symons, which is not warranted. it may be that the adaptations are difficult to find and that science had per 1987 just missed them.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Symons might not have held the view the authors attribute to him.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[…] And no other framework suggests that adaptations to<\/span><\/p>\n

ovulation might have evolved. Whatever the eventual<\/span><\/p>\n

evidentiary status of the competing hypotheses, it is<\/span><\/p>\n

reasonable to conclude that the search for adaptations to<\/span><\/p>\n

ovulation<\/strong> has been a fertile<\/strong> one, yielding fascinating<\/span><\/p>\n

empirical findings.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

dat pun<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The positive outcome for everyone is that evolutionary<\/span><\/p>\n

psychological hypotheses, sex role\/biosocial theory hy-<\/span><\/p>\n

potheses, and gender-similarity hypotheses all share the<\/span><\/p>\n

scientific virtue of making specific empirical predictions.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this sense, we see this special issue of Sex Roles an<\/span><\/p>\n

exceptionally positive sign that the discourse is beginning<\/span><\/p>\n

to move beyond purely ideological stances and toward an<\/span><\/p>\n

increasingly accurate scientific understanding of gender<\/span><\/p>\n

psychology.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

since evo psychs dont hav any ideological stance, this description is exceptionally nice to them. the only ones who need to move past any ideology are the marxist feminists.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

–<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism 2011   Abstract This article provides a historical context of evolutionary psychology and feminism, and evaluates the contributions to this special issue of Sex Roles within that context. We briefly outline the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology and articulate its meta-theory of the origins of gender similarities and differences. The article […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1746,1624,1850],"tags":[1508],"class_list":["post-3538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-evolutionary-biology","category-evolutionary-psychology","category-feminismequality","tag-fallacy-logic-philosophy-philosophy","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3538","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3538"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3538\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3540,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3538\/revisions\/3540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}