Letters to the Editor
-
How about a genetic explanation for "yellow fever?"
The fixation many American men have on tiny, small breasted women from Asia?
I'll give it a shot: small breasts and short height equals youthfulness, and thus child-bearing ability...
Except that Asian women have small breasts and short height regardless of age or child-bearing ability.
Well, that didn't quite work.
But science is fun and anybody can do it.
-
ok, so it isn't true that more men than women are interested in casual sex?
oh yeah, right, they would be equally interested if men weren't so much uglier than women. I forgot.
-
Carol Lloyd, what are YOUR qualifications to critique evolutionary psychology
We can tell this article has you twisted in knots, but apart from your name calling, exactly what are your qualifications to dismiss not just this article but the entire field of evolutionary psychology?
AND SPECIFICALLY,
What makes evolutionary psychology intellectually better or worse, intellectually more rigorous or less rigorous than women's studies?
What Carol Lloyd, are your degrees in?
How is evolutionary psychology and less falsifiable than your theory of a Patriarchy that controls society? Do you have evidence to back your claim up? Can you describe how one measures "Patriarchy" and distinguishes it from "Sexism?" Can you describe a society without the Patriarchy? What would it look like and how would a society without Patriarchy differ from a society without sexism?
Come on Carol, spill the beans. Show us the resume.
-
Irresponsible dismissal of important area of inquiry
As a research psychologist (although clinical, not evolutionary), I bristled at your sweeping dismissal of evolutionary psych as a "cultish pseudoscience". It is foolish to think that the pressures of natural selection so drastically altered our physical functioning but that somehow our mental functioning is separate and exempt. Behavioral tendencies specific to our species have no doubt been shaped over time, as is the case with all other animals. It is important to take this into account when explaining human behavior, including sex differences.
That said, there is definitely a tendency among some proponents of evolutionary psych to go way beyond their data. As a psychologist who primarily focuses on modern learning theory, I have my own beefs with this camp. One of the most important things we've gained through the evolutionary process is the ability to be very good at learning and adapting to our environment. The authors of the psych today article seem to have made sweeping generalizations that go beyond the published data (although there is no link to the article so I haven't read it), and a good, informed critique of this is needed. However, the author here provides a very weak critique and in the process irresponsibly dismisses an important area of scientific inquiry without adequate justification.
I love reading Broadsheet, but this was horrible.
-
feminist ev-psych haters and their opponets are in complete agreement
the findings of this field of study render much less credible the claim that all differences of opinion or approach between men and women are the result of a patriarchial conspiracy.
-
I suppose women should never speak at all.
At first, reading Brightstar's defensive ranting, I was a little disturbed that anyone could truly hold the tired, sexist/racist/everything-ist notion that a belief in equal rights is somehow a raid on men's bounty. Women fight for equality because they want to take "goodies" from men? Genius! Never mind that, as human beings, we all---men, women, and every other gender and aspect by which we are defined---stand to benefit from universal human rights. Never mind that we who believe in equal rights are siblings, parents, wives, mothers and friends of men. Never mind that many, if not the majority, of men believe in equal rights themselves. I suppose it's easier to ignore all of these things and simply believe that the selfish gals are at it again, trying to put men down and damage their self-esteem (and by the way, what exactly does it do to women to read yet again that their fertility is their most valuable asset?). And I suppose it's easier to lash out than to consider with anything resembling intellectual honesty one woman's critical reading of a questionably authored article featuring flagrant abuse of the scientific method. Why think about anything she has to say at all when Carol Lloyd and those of us who roll our eyes at the manipulation of evolutionary psychology are merely rabid with castration complexes?
But then I began to feel sorry for Brightstar. Citing greed as the motivation for subscribing to the belief that all genders should be paid equally for equal work, that women ought to have access to sex education and reproductive health care, that young women shouldn't be stoned to death in Iraq for daring to be seen with a man of a different faith, is shockingly ignorant and demonstrates only a deep antipathy toward human beings in general.
If you indeed want to embrace the "revelations" offered us by evolutionary psychology, how about this: I suggest that men and women who believe that the struggle for equal rights is something more than an attempt to steal from those who are, so to speak, "more equal than others," simply dismiss the sexist rants that have yet again overtaken the Broadsheet comments section as the feeble and desperate lashings out of animals backed into a corner by creatures (of all genders) stronger than themselves.
-
the funny thing is ...
... that I'm as red-blooded a male as they come, and I actually prefer small-breasted brunettes with shortish hair to Barbie blonds. To me, Pamela Anderson is a turn-off, as was that other bimbo who died recently (can't remember her name).
-
Foolish question, Anon above
"What makes evolutionary psychology intellectually better or worse, intellectually more rigorous or less rigorous than women's studies?"
That's a dumb thing to ask. Women's studies-- which replies mainly upon literature criticism methology-- is far easier to grasp and it gives her reasons to feel all huffed-up and truculent.
Evolutionary psychology, on the other hand, makes her feel offended therefore it's a baseless cult. It just so happens that The Truth corresponds exactly with Lloyd's emotional reactions.
Funny how everyone who pushes-forward the whole "gender is a social construct" hypothesis never even attempts to prove it, as if repeating the assertion over and over is equvalent to proving it.
Gee, if gender was so obviously a social construct, you'd think there be... uh... a scintilla of EVIDENCE for that hypothesis. Right? Maybe something which could be scientifically verified?
Or, even better, maybe the hypothesis would actually PREDICT something, right? That's what hypotheses do. Maybe there's some tribe in the Amazonian jungle where only women hunt wild animals, right? If there is, anthropologists have yet to observe such a tribe. Because that's exactly what you'd expect to find if the "gender is a social construct" hypothesis had any speck of predictive power whatsoever.
Carol? Your thoughts on this? Any at all? These are some good questions we'd like to see on Broadsheet in future.