~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminists are evolution denyers.

thetrollking

April 9, 2011

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/04/07/female-infidelity-its-different/#comments

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Feminists are evolution denyers.
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	0
Comments	15
Date	April 9, 2011 8:56 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gm2w3/feminists_are_evolution_denyers/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminists-are-evolution-denyers.1041216 https://theredarchive.com/post/1041216

Comments

[–]cryptogirl 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]cryptogirl 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I remember reading "Engines of Creation" long before nanotech had become the new buzzword. Even hollywood hadn't latched onto it yet. I assume you aren't talking about the lolcatz or yo-dawg type memes but the ones Drexler referred to.

Even with those type, I'm not sure if I'd consider memes quite a science either though.. but that's not to say they don't have value. Some of the stuff with emergent complexity is fascinating and related to that (like how simple local rules like for ants can lead to extremely complicated high level phenomena like self-organization). So at this point I'd say we just more or less don't understand memes or emergent phenomena very well... at least not well enough to manipulate them at the level we do things like molecules or genetics.

If we are discussing how ideas spread though, it is worth mentioning Chomsky's notion of "deep structure", which although not his best work - did set the stage for later discussion. If you've heard that phrase "People can only think in words that they know" - that's sort of what they are talking about - that words have "deep meanings" and things like translation is possible because of those deep meanings between them. In other words "red" is "red" in any language, because red as the color has a deep meaning.

I don't subscribe to that mentality though. To me words are just abstract symbols that often don't quite fit - a very messy attempt at communication really. Consider how slick willy got away with "It depends on what the definition of is, is".. that's the issue... just like how you and I likely don't define "feminism" as the same word, even though we do roughly.

Sorry.. that got kind of ranty and off-tangent.

[–]cryptogirl 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aetheralloy 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some of the stuff with emergent complexity is fascinating and related to that (like how simple local rules like for ants can lead to extremely complicated high level phenomena like self-organization). So at this point I'd say we just more or less don't understand memes or emergent phenomena very well... at least not well enough to manipulate them at the level we do things like molecules or genetics.

You claim you think evo psych is bullshit but what you just said about ants is one example of evo psych.

To compare the complex nature of specialization within human societies with ants doesn't mean we are ants or related to them. It is simply about looking at how a small set of rules, cultural norms in humans, can create a diverse and complex system (culture or society in humans).

Studying these patterns in nature doesn't mean we are ants or evolved from them, it simply is looking at how some of our evolutionary patterns aren't just human traits. We evolved next to all sorts of strange life forms on this small rock.

The problems comes from people anthropomorphizing human nature onto animal nature. One of the interesting things about human nature is how we project our own values onto our environment and basically call it god. I have seen some cultural anthropologists talk about how this evolved due to harsh conditions and how this might have been a catalyst that allowed greater social structure and cooperation in early human societies. I will find some links to some real evo psych and post later...I got to go out now..

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, you say you don't believe in evo psych but there is a anthropological theory for patriarchy that is born from evolution and biological theories. The idea is that patriarchy was a equalizing force for early humans. Female select mates and males compete or display to get selected. Female instinctually know they are the mother but males generally don't. For humans to go from the wild stages of running around and not having any sort of real cooperative social unit they had to develop a way of sorting out these biological and social realities. So, patriarchy was created to act as a equalizing force between the sexes to make men more equal to the biological aspects of women. So patrilineal social formations were created which gave rise to patrifocal social formations which then gave rise to exagamy. This created a more or less equal society up until agriculture allowed human societies to flourish beyond small groupings. It wasn't until agriculture that men gained the upper hand...or so goes one theory. Other point out that agriculture has always been dominant while small bands were the minority and if you look at pre-american history you see that there were mass plagues, even before whites colonized, and the reason that nomadic tribes survived was because they basically out ran the plagues.

Anyways, I am curious what your definition of oppression is within this context. Many feminists like you seem to see different divisions of labor as inherently oppressive to women of the time but you are projecting your current cultural standards onto a different culture and being ethnocentric.

[–]cryptogirl 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say yes and no. Almost all science that is reported on in the news is bullshit. Go and look at studies, not the news. There are a few comic strips that are really funny and loved by all the scientists I know and they basically show how some scientist performs a test, gives it to the scientific community for review and then it get's published in the media and it is completely different than the original test. It is kinda like that game of telephone that I played as a kid.

Evo psych is often crap in the same way that general psych and pop psych is. The theories used to model human behavior and evolution usually aren't that bad.

A lot of the really bad evo pscyh isn't even put out by sociobiologists or evolutionary biologists or anthropologists. Instead it is when a marketing or business school professor gets ahold of a study and reduces it down into what he/she knows....that is when you get men hunt and that is why they don't shop like women and women gather that is why they spend hours in a store type crap.

As far as the linked article goes, some of the guy(eric?)s arguments were shaky but I just wanted people to see how even bringing this stuff up with get you ganged up on by feminists. Some of the feminists on that site are professors...do you think they don't do the same to the evolutionary professors that their colleges? One of the problems with even trying to study evolution and related theories is how every one hates it. The two most powerful groups, christians and feminists, align to tear it apart.

The way you are presenting it is somewhat of a simplistic view. We may have behaviors and genes in common with bonobos but that doesn't mean we evolved from bonobos. One aspect of evo psych looks at the natural world and compares parts of it to the human world but other parts do test it out. There have been many tests done on sperm competition and the shape of the penis. Others on female selection and how the traits they look for change during their cycle. Others look at genes and immune responses in couples, we tend to be attracted to people with opposite immune systems.

If it weren't for evo psych we wouldn't have ideas like cuckoldry. Now, some of the arguments are fairly stupid but many arguments in science in general can be dumb and they usually don't last long. Most real sociobiologists don't believe men hunted and women gathered...we know that women engaged in hunts and in some cultures there were more than two sexes. I do agree that much of it is speculation but I would compare it to dinosaurs. We know they existed, we believe many had small feathers and we also believe that they were related genetically to birds....how do we know what they looked like or behaved? We can look at some fossil records but odds are that a T-rex didn't look the way it did in Jurassic Park. Odds are it was more likely to be a scavenger instead of a predator but even that is speculation. We do know that dinosaurs existed.

[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redfel -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]supercraptacular -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link