The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Female Chauvinist Pigs?
Penthesilea:
--- Quote from: Marge_Innavera on November 22, 2008, 03:32:50 pm ---It's generally tricky to use models from nature, or evolutionary models, for gender roles since for every example you can find to support Opinion A, there's likely an example to support Opinion B.
--- End quote ---
Yep, this is exactly what I wanted to convey with my counter-examples.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Penthesilea on November 22, 2008, 02:38:29 pm ---I have only a vague idea if people still do it very often in real life. I'd say yes, but it's no first-hand experience (and refers to Germany not the US). I've never been into the dating-business as an adult, I was seventeen when my hubby and I met.
Which brings me to the next question: yup, we did have sex on the first night, we had sex some weeks before we were officially a couple. And for the last 23 years we've lived happily ever after and I think we have a very good and loving relationship.
--- End quote ---
Way to go, Bud! I certainly didn't mean to imply this never happens. As I said, I have a couple of friends with similar experiences. Well, in one case, they divorced about a year later, but that had less to do with having sex too soon than getting married too soon.
--- Quote ---I have to admit that it adds the stereotype of "the prude Americans".
--- End quote ---
That's us! ;D
--- Quote ---Agreed this makes evolutionary sense. But it makes also evolutionary sense to stick with the female you had sex with and help her raise the joined offspring. The chances for the offspring to live to adulthood (and reproduce themselves) are much better if two adults care for the progeny. The less offspring a species produces in general, the more important it is to care for them. And humans and other higher mammals do not produce as much offspring as, say insects.
--- End quote ---
This makes sense from a species-wide perspective. But evolutionary psychology focuses more on how individual genes get passed along, through behavior that increases the likelihood of having surviving offspring with one's own genes. A man who raises a child not related genetically will not pass along his genes, so the behavior of wanting to raise someone else's kids (and, by extension, to stick with a woman who seems like she'd be likely to HAVE someone else's kids) does not get passed on as frequently.
--- Quote ---Evolutionary it can also make much sense for females to be promiscuous, and therefore let several males believe they are or at least could be the father of their offspring. Female lions and chimpanzees do this for example.
--- End quote ---
Yes, this could be a successful strategy. But apparently it's not the one that developed for humans, or we wouldn't have the word "slut." Or at least, we'd have a male equivalent. Human women who sleep around are often judged negatively, in most if not all societies -- from being called sluts to being stoned to death, even for the "crime" of being raped.
Evolutionary psychology often means working backwards, from observing the behavior to determining the logical Darwinian reason. Though that leads to the frequent criticism that evolutionary psychology is just about making up explanations for whatever you want. I don't agree with this, but I can see the point.
--- Quote ---And it's tricky. ;)
--- End quote ---
Yup.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Marge_Innavera on November 22, 2008, 03:32:50 pm ---I'm not sure about that with movies -- but I do know that on American TV, nobody ever, ever, EVER has an abortion.
--- End quote ---
That's for sure. Here's Slate's Dana Stevens on this very subject: "The Politics of Shashmortion."
http://www.slate.com/id/2168126/pagenum/all/
--- Quote ---Here's an admittedly nonprofessional observation about birds: people often note that the males of some avian species have bright, elaborate plumage while the females tend to be shades of gray, brown and black. And from a human perspective, it's easy to assume that nature is just more generous with the males; but the evolutionary reality is that this bright plumage serves no purpose other than to attract females. As far as survival is concerned, it's a handicap: the female's "drabber" coloring serves her well when she's sitting on a nest. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the species with gaudy male plumage are the same species where the male has very little role in raising the young. After all, under those circumstances, Nature would hold a male's life quite cheaply.
--- End quote ---
It's funny that, in humans, the plumage is generally on the other foot.
But then, the presence of a counterexample doesn't mean that evolution isn't responsible for the plumage. Any more than it the fact that some primates are omniverous and some are herbivorus disproves an evolutionary component. Different species just evolve in different directions.
lia:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 22, 2008, 03:45:01 pm ---...evolutionary psychology focuses more on how individual genes get passed along, through behavior that increases the likelihood of having surviving offspring with one's own genes. A man who raises a child not related genetically will not pass along his genes, so the behavior of wanting to raise someone else's kids (and, by extension, to stick with a woman who seems like she'd be likely to HAVE someone else's kids) does not get passed on as frequently.
--- End quote ---
Of course from an evolutionary point of view, the most efficient way of passing on individual genes is polygamy, no point in having sex with somebody who is already pregnant, best turn to the next wife in line. Too bad that most advocates of that particular practice most likely don't believe in evolution in the first place. ;)
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: lia on November 22, 2008, 04:07:55 pm ---Of course from an evolutionary point of view, the most efficient way of passing on individual genes is polygamy, no point in having sex with somebody who is already pregnant, best turn to the next wife in line. Too bad that most advocates of that particular practice most likely don't believe in evolution in the first place. ;)
--- End quote ---
True. But throughout history, this has been common practice for powerful men in many societies.
And incidentally, there is no known culture in which women commonly have multiple husbands.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version