Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:05 PM Sep 2012

"Why Won’t Evo Psych Nonsense Go Away Already?" - Interesting read - your thoughts?

"The latest feminist to write an incredibly satisfying pan of Naomi Wolf’s new Vagina book is Lindsay Beyerstein, and I have special affection for Lindsay’s because she takes a crack at The Beauty Myth, which is a book that I thought I was alone in feeling was kind of hackish and uninspired when I read it way back in college. (Indeed, it turns out that Wolf played loose with the facts then, too, botching a bunch of facts about anorexia.) Lindsay points out that Wolf is basically mining the same ground as the anti-feminist right now, with a mix of religious blather and evo psych-grounded biological determinism. Wolf spends a lot of time piling up fantastical rationalizations for what amounts to a belief that because vaginas fit over penises so very nicely, every woman has a deep, biological, dependent need to have a penis on hand—one that’s attached to a man—at all times. She is very contemptuous of vibrators or anything that gets away from her PIV-oriented model of how women should get off, a model that includes candles and being called “Goddess” and roses, some of which are things that would shut down many entirely pro-sex women.

But Wolf basically thinks said women are self-deluded, because Biology Says So. Of course, not actual biology, which tends to be opinion-free on the necessity of roses and candles for female orgasm, but evolutionary psychology, which is such a loose “science” that Wolf herself feels free to count herself amongst its members. As she should, because evolutionary psychology is simply a matter of preferring one human behavior over another, declaring that this is what Nature Intended, making up a just so story about how it evolved, ignoring countervailing evidence or theories, and telling people that because we evolved in a way that you just made up, we are required to act in the way you demand. As you can imagine, proponents of this kind of bullshit often butt up against each other, as is the case with Wolf and evo psych idiots who got into it because they’re frustrated Nice Guys®:

She argues that the elusive and unreliable female orgasm is really a screening mechanism to separate attentive mates from jerks. This is in stark contrast with another branch of pop Ev Psych that insists the world is overrun with jerks because women are hardwired to crave their sperm.

Of course, as Hanna Rosin pointed out on the latest Double X podcast, observing a behavior you prefer and declaring that it’s the One True Way and that everyone who goes against it is Denying Their Instincts* has become the lingua franca of our time, and that every other book and article of pop social critique engages in the assumption that because some or many people want something, that desire must be genetic in origin.

She’s right in this observation, though she seemed untroubled by it, and I find the whole situation infuriating. Casually redefining all sorts of behaviors that are often clearly socially constructed** as genetic in origin is a serious problem, for the reasons Lindsay lays out. More often than not, it’s used to bully people who reject the old social hierarchies or refuse to conform to some social expectation, and creates excuses for continuing inequality. A lot of people who perpetuate it clearly have nefarious intentions, whether it’s a matter of trying to bully women into lowering their standards for a mate or, in some really ugly cases, making apologies for sexual violence. But this sort of making-shit-up biological determinism has a lot of power generally in our culture, to the point where a lot of people who generally mean well just take for granted that certain things must be genetic in origin, even though it doesn’t really make sense.

Like, for instance, the concept of the “biological clock”, which is an invention of the late 20th century. I’m surprised how often it seems that people believe that women have some sort of deep need to procreate, a need that is separate and unique from the urge to fuck. If you think about that for even a second, it makes exactly no sense, as reliable contraception has really only been with us for what amounts to a second in evolutionary terms. And yet, if a woman strongly wants children, it’s assumed that some hormone is coursing through body and turning on the Baby Desire buttons. Which, in turn, causes people to assume that women who don’t want children, like myself, are somehow unnatural or we just haven’t had that button pushed yet.

I believe the reason that we’ve taken to ascribing every urge, from wanting babies to even—and yes, there are evo psych claims about this—wanting to go shopping to some deep biological and genetic need is perversely because of the American cult of rugged individualism. We all like to imagine we’re special snowflakes and that our choices and desires are not shaped by social forces. You see this ridiculous belief in everything from libertarianism to “choice feminism”, where women throw a fit and say that they freely chose to stay at home/shave their legs/take their husband’s name, and feminists who say that these choices were shaped by a patriarchy are meanie bears that don’t understand that they came to these socially conforming behaviors through a unique and totally independent thought process that was in no way reflective of larger cultural pressures. For some buttfuck reason, Americans have absorbed (oh irony) this belief that admitting that culture shapes your desires somehow makes you a weak and insipid person.

Because we collectively refuse to admit that culture shapes our desires, therefore, we’ve (oh irony) settled on biological determinism as a way to explain the desires that are obviously happening. So, in order to preserve our sense of independence from each other, we’ve decided instead to construct ourselves as enslaved by our biology. Naomi Wolf cannot accept that her love-neediness might be a product of culture, because that would interfere with her image of herself as someone who rises above such concerns. So instead, she declares that women are dependent on men for validation as a product of evolution. Evo psych idiots don’t want to admit that their desire to be able to screw around while expecting their female partners to stay faithful is a product of a culture that has instilled male entitlement in them, so instead they blame biology. And so on and so forth."


<SNIP>

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/27/why-wont-evo-psych-nonsense-go-away-already/

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Why Won’t Evo Psych Nonsense Go Away Already?" - Interesting read - your thoughts? (Original Post) Taverner Sep 2012 OP
I don't know Wolf's book and can't comment on it wryter2000 Sep 2012 #1
LOL I like that Taverner Sep 2012 #2
Either/or is a silly way to look at it wryter2000 Sep 2012 #3
Hi, wryter2000! Gormy Cuss Sep 2012 #12
My impression of Evo-psych is pretty much the same as Amanda's. JoeyT Sep 2012 #4
I like this take on it-- Starry Messenger Sep 2012 #5
I have so much love for this. MadrasT Sep 2012 #6
"Most geniuses are men" - I have HEARD this shit before!!! Taverner Sep 2012 #7
I've heard it too. Starry Messenger Sep 2012 #11
hahaha love this, and so true! obamanut2012 Sep 2012 #9
I'm stealing that!!! Odin2005 Jan 2013 #14
I almost started a new thread with it in here yesterday. Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #15
"Women like pink things because of berries in a forest." Dash87 Jan 2013 #18
The Human Brain One_Life_To_Give Sep 2012 #8
Evo Psych always makes me think of the Book of Mormon obamanut2012 Sep 2012 #10
If female orgasm is designed to separate attentive mates from jerks, it's a FAIL. Gormy Cuss Sep 2012 #13
Should I skip over reading "The Beauty Myth"? Neoma Jan 2013 #17
Excellent article. LisaLynne Jan 2013 #16

wryter2000

(47,460 posts)
1. I don't know Wolf's book and can't comment on it
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:14 PM
Sep 2012

I happen to know a bit about evolutionary psychology, and it's pretty much the way this author describes it. It reminds me of the old joke about the man who was so perfectly adapted that his legs were exactly long enough for his feet to meet the ground.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
2. LOL I like that
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:17 PM
Sep 2012

This does bring up the old, hackneyed, hoary yet unanswered question about nature vs nurture....

The only answer I have ever heard to that question that makes sense is "It depends...."

wryter2000

(47,460 posts)
3. Either/or is a silly way to look at it
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:21 PM
Sep 2012

And the heritability statistic is no measure of genetic control of a trait.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
4. My impression of Evo-psych is pretty much the same as Amanda's.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:06 AM
Sep 2012

"Theories" pulled from their asses to support whatever the person making them up wants to. If you can't test it, even indirectly, it ain't science.

Reading Pandagon was one of the things that solidified my support for feminism, so I'll rec any post that links to them. I just wish the comments section was like it used to be.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
7. "Most geniuses are men" - I have HEARD this shit before!!!
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:46 AM
Sep 2012

Of course, no one bothers to point out that the measurement of "genius" was designed by men....

Starry Messenger

(32,375 posts)
11. I've heard it too.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:24 PM
Sep 2012

If you do point that out, shit usually gets wild pretty quick. It's been awhile since I've been in one of those dust-ups--back in college it used to come up, especially since I went to art school. "There's a reason most famous artists are men..." and it's on!

Starry Messenger

(32,375 posts)
15. I almost started a new thread with it in here yesterday.
Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:59 PM
Jan 2013

I have biological determinism fan I made the mistake of tangling with this week on my six up in another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101651767#post27

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
8. The Human Brain
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:11 PM
Sep 2012

Our brains are very good at simplifying and recognizing patterns. Particularly when they reinforce our preconceptions. And that dictates how we see and subsequently interact with the world around us. e.g. Boys don't play with dolls. I am a boy therefore I have no interest in playing with dolls. And I can walk thru the playground and tell you about each girl there playing with a doll. But did I see the boys?

That preconception can influence what I notice about the world around me. Atleast what makes it thru to conscious thought.

obamanut2012

(27,806 posts)
10. Evo Psych always makes me think of the Book of Mormon
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:08 PM
Sep 2012

No, seriously: when modern history, DNA, and archeology proven the BOM was totally bogus, LDS academics "proved" why, gosh darn it, it was all true... even though their proof was just stuff they made up.

Good OP.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
13. If female orgasm is designed to separate attentive mates from jerks, it's a FAIL.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:03 PM
Sep 2012

If Wolf asserts that she had better have a lot of sciency, non evo psych evidence to back that up.

LisaLynne

(14,554 posts)
16. Excellent article.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:54 PM
Jan 2013

Thank you for sharing.

Evo Pychi is a way of trying desperately to maintain the status quo of oppression. It's painfully obvious in that. The idea that perhaps it's a reaction to American individualism is really interesting and makes a lot of sense! I'd never thought of that, but then again, that's why I read articles by smart people.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»"Why Won’t Evo Psych...