Letters to the Editor
-
When autistic men try to understand women
That's another name people should use for the field "evolutionary psychology."
For the most part it's a bunch of men who never got along with women, making up their own imaginary "science" in an attempt to resolve their hopeless confusion.
They would be better off studying themselves. How borderline autistic nerds managed to survive throughout human evolution is actually a very interestinfg question.
One wonders how they managed to eat back in the days before universities existed.
-
How much do you swallow?
So all you ev psych defenders and big boob lovers that feel oh-so-vindicated now, you must also agree with the genius author's previous findings that "Africans are poor and suffer chronic ill health because their populations are less intelligent than people in richer countries" Or do you only agree with ev psych findings that make men out to be slaves to the penis?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1939891,00.html
-
How much do you swallow, and how much do you catch on your face?
Actually what many of us are saying is that
a) claims that were made by J. Goodrich, an economist; Carol Lloyd a journalist, and many so called women in this thread that evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science driven by woman haters, or nerds, or autistics are non-scientific, anti-intellectual, misandric, anti-science claims. They are claims are bigoted on their face. The claims are wrong when you look at the many ph.d programs offered in evolutionary psychology and the many women involved with evolutionary psychology.
b) claims that one author and one article can be used to smear an entire field are ridiculous on their face and obviously politically motivated. Or are we to take from Janice Raymond and Andrea Dworkin that all feminists HATE and prescribe discrimination against transgendered men
c) claims that evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science, post-hoc, ad-hoc, and unfalsifiable may in fact be reasonable arguments and all seem apparently equally capable of being made against women studies especially with respect to the cult of the Patriarchy. Patriarchy theory is equally post-hoc, ad-hoc and unfalsifiable. In response to this challenge from earlier on in this thread, no one has made any claims that womens studies is more rigorous or more intellectually founded that evolutionary psychology.
d) Sexism exists and can be measured. A world without sexism can be described. Feminists like Twisty Faster, blogrolled by Carol Lloyd insist that Patriarchy is not Sexism, and yet, no world without Patriarchy can be described or has ever been described that is in any way different than a world without sexism. Patriarchy is simply a scapegoat to blame ills on men, mainly on white men while ignoring the contributions and participation and causation AND choices of women and other cultures throughout history.
Patriarchy theory is a bullshit bigoted sexist theory. If you can excuse my language, Patriarchy is a Kike. Patriarchy is a Jap. Patriarchy is a Wop. Patriarchy is a Nigger. Stop with your hate speech, and take the challenge.
Demonstrate why:
a) Womens Studies and Patriarchy Theory is more intellectually founded than evolutionary psychology
b) Patriarchy is different from sexism and is a falsifiable theory.
Carol Lloyd, I am looking at you.
Conclusion: None of this requires that we agree or disagree with the article in Psychology Today, a non-peer reviewed journal that Carol Lloyd devoted her rant to, yet couldn't bother to link.
Shame on you Broadsheet.
-
Blondes, yeah right
Catherine Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, Selma Hyack, Sophia Loren, Jacqueline Smith, etc. I'm getting bored. What a bunch of crap.
-
Men desire women more than women desire men ...
... so please, ladies, don't worry about being desired, even if you don't look like Barbie. I know it drives men nuts, but women can have sex whenever they want. The sociobiological underpinnings of this reality involve the egg being more valuable than the sperm. That's probably hard for men to accept, and it leads them to all sorts of erroneous conclusions that they offer up in the name of science. That's one reason why it's important to have both genders practicing science.
By the way: Yes, evolutionary psychology is a valid science, but that doesn't make the conclusions of the Psychology Today article valid. It's amazing how emotional men get sometimes!!
-
the creation of the universe, the sun, the earth is not subject to experiemental duplication
neither is ANY evolutionary biology, apart from some evolution of microbes, so I guess NONE of it is scientific and you are free to apply your preferred religious or political beliefs to the subject without constraint of any kind.
-
Creation?
Now there's a loaded word.
-
seriously all all you "anti-evo pscyhers" aware that all your arguments are exactly the same ones that creationists use
of course anything can be misapplied but just so you know tbe "evolution is a just so story" is a fundie soundbite going back decades, probably about a century and a half, so don't do the righties work for them by helping them "mainstream" this and PLEASE don't start using it yourself unless you actually ARE a right wing fundie lunatic. It makes it so much harder to keep track.
-
The women's study set shares an awful lot with right wing fundies
They are both cultists: God/Devil vs. Ovaries/Patriarchy
They are both anti-intellectual, against free speech, and check to make sure all comments within the fold are politically correct. Don't believe me? Check out Daphne Patai's works.
They don't like free speech OR freedom to research whatever topic one wants.
They are both for affirmative action and loyalty oaths for different privileged groups.
They both claim their opponents are privileged compared to them.
They both claim their particular sets of beliefs leads to their oppression, and yet neither can point to such oppression institutionalized in modern America.
They both are sexually repressed.
There are an awful lot of similarities between the women's studies set and rightwing fundies.
This is exactly why it's a losing venture for progressive liberals to go out of their way to appease these idiots.
-
Look...
Carol: referring to the entire field of ev-psych as a cult pseudoscience because of some hacks who use its results to justify misogyny and whatnot is no better than dismissing evolution as a whole because some nuts will take that theory on to things like eugenics. Just because there's an evolutionary reason for behavior doesn't make it OK. Suppose there is some evolutionary reason why most men in the Western world seem to prefer blondes (I prefer dark hair, but that's beside the point). So what if there is? To quote Sam Harris: ". . . everything we do is a natural outgrowth of human nature. Genocide is. Rape is. No one would ever think of arguing that this makes genocide or rape a necessary feature of a civilized society."
In fact, there's a pretty valid argument that rape is an effective way to spread ones genes widely, ensuring more offspring to pass on your specific traits into the population. That is a sound, scientific argument that fits right in line with all Darwinian thought. That doesn't make rape any less reprehensible. Ev-psych ceases to be science when people use its conclusions to infer right and wrong. We don't have to be slaves to traits that were useful to our distant ancestors, nor should we be such.
I for one will not waste my time with the Psychology Today article; it sounds like trash. It being trash is no reason to talk trash about the entire field of ev-psych, however.
Oh, and as a man, I am embarrassed on behalf of my sex by brightstar65. What a misogynist jackass. His last post shows he's not even reading through people's posts before replying and attacking them. I rarely read the comments on political blogs, and this is exactly why. What a pathetic flame war.