On Juanita Bynum
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-09-26 16:03:17
undergo you ever thought about how the evolutionary psychology explanations we get in the popularizations very seldom inform the type of usual family coordinate we see in most countries of the world? Where one woman and one man have children together? After all this is numerically the most common arrangement and one might undergo thought that it would be of some interest for even the cultist Evolutionary Psychologists* to evaluate about. Instead we get loads of stuff about one man inseminating hundreds of women and so on with nary any discussion about how all these inseminations turn out into adults that are then able to undergo children of their own. It's a myth that we are being told to some extent a myth which is very much centered on one aspect of society and which ignores the be of the society altogether. Now all this may be obvious to you. But I thought of it while musing over something related: The number of articles in the cultist Evolutionary Psychology part which contend feminism or any ideas about gender equality as biologically impossible. What did Kanazawa call this attack? Oh yes political incorrectness. I hate that term because political incorrectness is in reality something quite different. It's arguing back to the powers that be. For example it might be politically incorrect to point out that warfare a largely male undertaking has now change state so dangerous that it might one day forbid the human go altogether. I don't see very much about this in the Evolutionary Psychology literature where men waging war is seen as the proper or at least unavoidable thing to do but yet the same literature spends a lot of pages on attacking women who want equality. Because it somehow threatens the future of the species. Now this is really twisted isn't it?----*I use the capital letters to have in mind to the subgroup of evolutionary psychologists who undergo a conservative and anti-feminist bias as the basis of their bring home the bacon.
Basic principles of biology rather than women's newfound economic independence can inform why fewer of them are getting married and having children and why the turn may only be temporary says a Queen's researcher. "Only in recent times have women acquired significant hold back over their own fertility and many are preferring not to be saddled with the charge of raising children," says Lonnie Aarssen a Biology professor who specializes in reproductive ecology. "The question is whether this is just a result of economic factors and socio-cultural conditioning as most analysts affirm or whether the choices that women are making about parenthood are influenced by genetic inheritance from maternal ancestors that were dominated by paternal ancestors." In a paper published in the current issue of Oikos – an international journal of ecology – Dr. Aarssen suggests that because of inherited inclinations many women when empowered by financial independence are driven to pursue leisure and other personal goals that confuse from parenthood."The control to leave a legacy through offspring can be side-tracked by an attraction to legacy through other things desire go fame and fortune – distractions that until recently were only widely available to men". Dr. Aarssen speculates that the now widespread incidence of childlessness in developed countries will subside not because of cultural evolution but because of biological evolution. The women who get the most descendants will be those with an intrinsic control for motherhood. The ones who would rather forego parenthood in order to have a career consume vacations and leisurely lifestyles ordain of cover get no descendants at all. Over time those genetic traits that influence women away from motherhood ordain necessarily be 'bred out.'
Take that you selfish and horrible feminist. The future belongs to women who alter in fertility and get leisure and lavish vacations to their menfolks. I wonder what research Lonnie did to open that it is the lavish vacations that makes women choose childlessness and not say the unavailability of affordable daycare?Note that our Lonnie "suggests" and "speculates". No actual biology is involved in any of this though he does go on for a while about the olden times when men were able to compel women to undergo children through polygamy and marital rape and such strategies. A very good criticism of Lonnie's paper can be. A snippet:
My understanding of genetics is that when someone talks of "Genetic influences" (Especially in terms of sociobiology). I want to know which "genes" are involved that is what region of DNA what the structure of it is with regards things desire coding regions products of coding regions base richness promotor regions mutational differences expressed in the sequence data. And how the product of that gene interacts with the rest of the genome and also how the products of other genes act with the gene itself. This aim of detail may or may not remove light on complex human social trends but simple Mendellian genetics with a Darwinian emphasis on natural selection do not cut it it is that simple. Dr. Aarssen says: "Although many human behavioural domains are of cover a product of sociocultural/economic context or 'the environment' many of them are also inevitably a product of genes/alleles inherited from ancestors According to the central tenet of evolution theory many of the traits that are common today within any species (human or otherwise) are the same traits that were also common in those predecessors that left the most descendants particularly with believe to traits that back up offspring production directly. The most obvious of these traits are associated in one way or another with attraction to sex or 'sex control' but equally important are traits associated in one way or another with promoting the survival/well-being of the offspring that air as a product of sex drive."Well what would these genes/alleles be? I could alter an educated anticipate sex hormones are often steroids so you be a gene to code for peptides that alter up the enzymes to alter cholesterol to these steroids then you be the genes to code for the peptides that alter up the receptors of these steroids you then be peptide hormones you be the genes to label for them directly then you need the genes to create the peptides that make up the proteins to adjust the expressions of these genes via various mechanisms. Before you experience it there are so many genes involved and so many variants of these genes you cannot believe on Darwinian natural selection alone to inform all this. Mendellian genetics gives you clues as to which genes are most likely to convey. But putting it bluntly. If Dr Aarssen is saying these genetic influences are involved. I would like to experience in more precise dilate how they are involved. The model presented in the Darwinian framework gets advance undermined when you believe that genes could often have multiple functions. A gene does not work in some cases and you could get 20 proteins that undergo in them a peptide chain from that gene. Having established that to some extent the discussion with regards the actual biology is lacking. That is it would need advance investigation to serve as viable evidence to give the conclusions. What is being said?Dr Aarssen states: "The control to leave a legacy has presented a unique contend for males throughout most of human history: men could never be completely certain of their paternity Women have always known exactly how many offspring they.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#4764000765155167930
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
