First Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schlafly's niece, wrote a very nice "think piece" for Fox News that was only trying to explain to women for their own good that the way they were comporting themselves (like men's equals) was making men not want to marry them, because they (women) are angry hairy mannish whores. This made men angry, she said, but for some reason she did not tell the men to stop being angry? Only the women? That's so weird! Then she got flooded with hate mail and
Evolution is indeed fact, but that does not imply that evolutionary psychology is. It's also a plainly false choice to say that anyone who does not believe in evolutionary psychology believes in tabula rasa. Far too much of evolutionary psychology is rooted in the myth of intent; far too much of it seeks to justify the shitty things we do to each other; it's also plainly impossible that evolution can explain the way humans have adapted psychologically to industrialized urban life, much less the information age. If evolution was the primary explanation for our behavioral patterns, a profound shift in cultural attitudes about sex occurring on a timescale of years or decades simply wouldn't make any sense at all.
Glad <em>I</em> could clear up <em>your</em> confusion, including about whether or not I was confused.
I&#039;m a man, but I&#039;ve considered myself a feminist (Basic tenet: &quot;Women are human beings&quot;) for some years now. I can&#039;t recall ever being taught that &quot;equality means sameness&quot;. Venker has willfully confused feminism with the Handicapper General.
<blockquote>Modern day urban-industrial single women prefer guys who are average or above average weight? <br /><br />Why? <br /><br />Because on the African savana if they saw a skinny guy, they would think: bad hunter. A chubby guy, good hunter.</blockquote><br /><br />Strange, because the people paid to exploit female attraction for financial gain by producing, say, CK commercials appear to be rather at odds with your conclusion about who&#39;s more attractive. Of course, if I were into evopsych, I could quite easily flip this entirely around and say \"Ah, but the skinnier guy can run faster and is therefore likely to be the one that has children who can get away when a lion attacks\". Oh look, I just used this supposed \"science\" to justify entirely contradictory conclusions. That is why it&#39;s bullshit.<br /><br /><blockquote>You can&#39;t prove \"intent\"</blockquote><br /><br />Evolution has no intent, period.<br /><br /><blockquote>there are quite clever explanations for why people&#39;s \"instinctual\" behaviors have not changed, well back beyond our pre-human ancestors. </blockquote><br /><br />Just because they&#39;re \"clever\" doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re \"scientific\", also too, you&#39;d be well served to learn the difference between behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology. The latter is far too prone to making up \"clever explanations\" which lack testability.<br /><br /><blockquote>Your genes can change as a result of when your grandmother or grandfather starved to death, for example... </blockquote><br /><br />Good grief, on its surface this statement appears to exhibit about as profound a lack of understanding of genetics as I&#39;ve ever encountered from someone who seemingly believes in it. Please please <em>please</em> tell me you mean only to imply that your grandparents&#39; death had some effect over their child&#39;s choice of mate. Also, please please <em>please</em> tell me that you understand that such micro choices still take multiple (and I mean <em>way</em> more than two) generations to result in macro-detectable shifts in species makeup, and that the phenotypic effect of such a shift is not necessarily predictable since individual genes express themselves in multiple ways.
It&#039;s always funny to see people who reject the theory of evolution peddling in the most transparently bogus forms of the crappy pseudoscience known as &quot;evolutionary psychology&quot;.
It&#039;s also funny to see women like Phuckface Shlafly and her idiot niece here make careers out of telling women not to have careers.
But men are latent killers, so it&#039;s the White Woman&#039;s Burden to work extra hard at appeasement. Suzanne says It&#039;s just science.
Fux News writers, in general, are stupid. They like to gather and nurture each other&#039;s delusions.
Ah yes, that well-known Maoist thinker, Aristotle.
We should hook up!
Evolution is indeed fact, but that does not imply that evolutionary psychology is. It&#039;s also a plainly false choice to say that anyone who does not believe in evolutionary psychology believes in tabula rasa. Far too much of evolutionary psychology is rooted in the myth of intent; far too much of it seeks to justify the shitty things we do to each other; it&#039;s also plainly impossible that evolution can explain the way humans have adapted psychologically to industrialized urban life, much less the information age. If evolution was the primary explanation for our behavioral patterns, a profound shift in cultural attitudes about sex occurring on a timescale of years or decades simply wouldn&#039;t make any sense at all.
Glad <em>I</em> could clear up <em>your</em> confusion, including about whether or not I was confused.
I&#039;m a man, but I&#039;ve considered myself a feminist (Basic tenet: &quot;Women are human beings&quot;) for some years now. I can&#039;t recall ever being taught that &quot;equality means sameness&quot;. Venker has willfully confused feminism with the Handicapper General.
<blockquote>Modern day urban-industrial single women prefer guys who are average or above average weight? <br /><br />Why? <br /><br />Because on the African savana if they saw a skinny guy, they would think: bad hunter. A chubby guy, good hunter.</blockquote><br /><br />Strange, because the people paid to exploit female attraction for financial gain by producing, say, CK commercials appear to be rather at odds with your conclusion about who&#39;s more attractive. Of course, if I were into evopsych, I could quite easily flip this entirely around and say \"Ah, but the skinnier guy can run faster and is therefore likely to be the one that has children who can get away when a lion attacks\". Oh look, I just used this supposed \"science\" to justify entirely contradictory conclusions. That is why it&#39;s bullshit.<br /><br /><blockquote>You can&#39;t prove \"intent\"</blockquote><br /><br />Evolution has no intent, period.<br /><br /><blockquote>there are quite clever explanations for why people&#39;s \"instinctual\" behaviors have not changed, well back beyond our pre-human ancestors. </blockquote><br /><br />Just because they&#39;re \"clever\" doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re \"scientific\", also too, you&#39;d be well served to learn the difference between behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology. The latter is far too prone to making up \"clever explanations\" which lack testability.<br /><br /><blockquote>Your genes can change as a result of when your grandmother or grandfather starved to death, for example... </blockquote><br /><br />Good grief, on its surface this statement appears to exhibit about as profound a lack of understanding of genetics as I&#39;ve ever encountered from someone who seemingly believes in it. Please please <em>please</em> tell me you mean only to imply that your grandparents&#39; death had some effect over their child&#39;s choice of mate. Also, please please <em>please</em> tell me that you understand that such micro choices still take multiple (and I mean <em>way</em> more than two) generations to result in macro-detectable shifts in species makeup, and that the phenotypic effect of such a shift is not necessarily predictable since individual genes express themselves in multiple ways.
No wonder secession is so attractive.
Bullies.
Proximity does not equal propensity ?
It&#039;s always funny to see people who reject the theory of evolution peddling in the most transparently bogus forms of the crappy pseudoscience known as &quot;evolutionary psychology&quot;.
It&#039;s also funny to see women like Phuckface Shlafly and her idiot niece here make careers out of telling women not to have careers.
Just, not funny ha-ha.
Genuaspirinism.
So I asked for a second opinion - and he said, &quot;Okay, you&#039;re ugly.&quot;
Maybe Fox Lady should also explain how liking to kill things makes men uniquely qualified for office jobs.
Sock libel!
If you&#039;d just sacrifice and capitulate, you&#039;d be happier.
Or at least the menfolk around you would be...
Don&#039;t say you <a href="http:\/\/www.booksmith.com\/book\/9781936227020" target="_blank">weren&#039;t warned</a>.
But men are latent killers, so it&#039;s the White Woman&#039;s Burden to work extra hard at appeasement. Suzanne says It&#039;s just science.