Feminists
Related: About this forum"Why Won’t Evo Psych Nonsense Go Away Already?" - Interesting read - your thoughts?
"The latest feminist to write an incredibly satisfying pan of Naomi Wolfs new Vagina book is Lindsay Beyerstein, and I have special affection for Lindsays 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 handone thats attached to a manat 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 theyre 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 its 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.
Shes 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, its 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 its 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 doesnt really make sense.
Like, for instance, the concept of the biological clock, which is an invention of the late 20th century. Im 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, its 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 dont want children, like myself, are somehow unnatural or we just havent had that button pushed yet.
I believe the reason that weve taken to ascribing every urge, from wanting babies to evenand yes, there are evo psych claims about thiswanting 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 were 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 husbands name, and feminists who say that these choices were shaped by a patriarchy are meanie bears that dont 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, weve (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, weve 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 dont 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/
wryter2000
(47,509 posts)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)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
(47,509 posts)And the heritability statistic is no measure of genetic control of a trait.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I loved this post and am glad to see you here.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)"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.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Thank you.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Of course, no one bothers to point out that the measurement of "genius" was designed by men....
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)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!
obamanut2012
(27,822 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)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
Dash87
(3,220 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)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
(27,822 posts)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)If Wolf asserts that she had better have a lot of sciency, non evo psych evidence to back that up.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Just wondering.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)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.