Do Women Want to Be Oppressed?

Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world

In principle, evolutionary psychology, which seeks to understand our behavior in light of the fact that we are products of natural selection, can give us deep insights into ourselves. In practice, the field often reinforces insidious prejudices. That was the theme of my recent column “Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists.”

The column provoked such intense pushback that I decided to write this follow-up post.

h/t RM

Share
  • Watchman

    Both articles can be assessed based on John Horgan’s admission in his seance article, “Political scientist Charles Murray complained that Scientific American “has been adamantly PC since before PC was a thing,” which as someone who began writing for the magazine in 1986 I take as a compliment.

    His admission that he is proudly writes from a PC position makes his unsupported assertions highly suspect as objective science.

  • Watchman

    “Studies suggest that our pre-civilization ancestors, who were nomadic hunter-gatherers, were relatively peaceful and egalitarian.”
    What a surprise! Unfortunately a lack of the discovery of a written history of a family/tribe’s wars against a neighbouring family/tribe is not altogether surprising in a society where there is no need for writing or recording history. Was he expecting a Trajan’s Column built every time there were disputes over hunting and gathering rights in an area?

    Has he looked at the modern examples of primitive hunter gatherer societies such as New Guinea, which are as far from peaceful and egalitarian as you could possibly be.

    The author seems to be a fan of the myth of the Noble Savage, living in harmony with nature and each other.

  • Waffle

    Time to rewatch “Swept Away” — Wertmuller’s ’70’s original.

  • simus1

    Womens’ basic preference is to breed with healthy aggressive type alpha males and then pair off in permanent living arrangements with much more easily managed male “breadwinners”. Other primates are quite similar.

  • Watchman

    “Hence modern gender differences are more likely to stem from discrimination and other cultural factors than from females’ alleged biological inferiority.”

    So overt and covert peacock ‘discrimination’ is the reason why male peacocks have the fantastic plumage and the females don’t? I would invite the original author to look up ‘Sexual Dimorphism’ but I suspect that he would say that humans weren’t actually animals and are not subject to the same evolutionary pressures.

    I don’t see any scientists claiming, “females’ alleged biological inferiority”. I do see them claiming biological differences, which is not the same thing as inferiority, unless you are talking about group averages in things like physical strength. It’s such an SJW approach to deny all differences, even scientifically verifiable or provable differences so as to be able to claim there are no differences and that everything can be solved by mere choice or explained by sexism.

  • Martin B

    I propose that 53% of white women voted to put an alpha male into the White House – where he belongs – after 8 years of Obama’s beta male faggotry, and we’re all better off for it.

  • Watchman

    I could spend hours refuting this author’s rubbish and unsupported allegations, but life is too short and it might be his attempt at clickbait for Scientific American now they seem to be leaning towards a more accurate publication name of SJW American.

  • Self loathing liberal nonsense. Men and women, as groups, are complimentary not competitive.

  • Crap like this is why I cancelled my SA subscription in ’98.

  • shasta

    This guy sure has a lot of bs to spout about science for someone who has a BA in English and a MS from Columbia School of Journalism. One of the reasons I dropped reading Scientific American in the late 70s. I would be surprised if he has spent one day doing any real science, but he feels entitled to interpret the work of others. I find that the better science writers for general audiences at least have an undergraduate degree in science, hopefully more.

    • Watchman

      Just because you don’t have a STEM degree doesn’t mean you can’t argue using science, reason and logic, but from this guy’s background it would seem that he believes more in the superiority of SJW Narrative over Objective Evidence. And that is why his stories are rubbish. Writing articles is not about picking a position and finding evidence to support it: it is examining all evidence, evaluating it all, and making conclusions based on this, even if the conclusions are diametrically opposite to your original assumptions. Without understanding the Scientific Method: observation, models, null hypotheses and testing, you don’t really advance your knowledge or understanding.

      • shasta

        science= included in STEM

        reason= a justification or explanation
        logic = Included in STEM (mathematics) for the most part

        I don’t think you get much instruction in english class for any of these except maybe reason and I’ll also grant some basic logic. This guy is writing for a “science” journal, and while I am not a stickler for credentials he has none that remotely tie in to science. Even if he was objective, his schooling has provided him no means to apply any objectivity to the subject, and I would need some form of evidence that he has some competency before I would give much weight to his ramblings. On that I think we agree.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I think they want to be part of mob, at any rate, and that’s hardcoded.

  • WalterBannon

    Do Women Want To Be Oppressed?

    Unfortunately women generally lack the ability to think rationally, which is why they don’t even know what they want…