This article represents, to my mind, the worst of sociobiological bumf. It says that “our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago”. True enough. But supposedly what follows from that is that human nature is static and human “choices” are largely a product of our biological inheritance, not any thinking we might happen to do. So, for example, men prefer young women (greater reproductive success), blondes (because blonde hair meant, in the past, that the woman was young), long-haired women (because long hair indicates several years of a woman’s health), and big breasts (because big breasts will droop with age, so, if not droopy, they indicate that the woman is young). This seems to me to be mostly invention. It also suggests that men are the dupes of their biological drives. And that men who like short-haired, dark-haired, small-breasted, or even (goddess forbid) non-young women are reproductive dead ends.
This is a useful database!
Choose a category to get relevant articles, or use the search engine.
Categories
Got something to send the Feminist Philosophers?
Click on 'contact' (at the top of the page), or select our 'contact' category.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
| Rachel McKinnon on “It was exhausting… | |
| A on What’s The #1 Killer Of… | |
| MM on The Saturday cat is so privile… | |
| jemima101 on What’s The #1 Killer Of… | |
| gabriele contessa on What’s The #1 Killer Of… |
Top Posts
- Gender-neutral interventions
- Alison Wylie 2013's Distinguished Woman Philosopher
- The average face of women across the world
- "It was exhausting"
- Here's hoping the Michael J Fox Show is awesome
- 2012 Gender Inequality Index
- Afar region, Ethiopia, abandoing female genital mutilation
- Kakenya Ntaiya and the Kakenya Center for Excellence
- The Saturday cat is so privileged that he totally disrespects the Sunday cat's space
- What's The #1 Killer Of Girls Aged 15-19 Worldwide?
Pages
Blogroll
- A Collage of Citations
- Abyss 2 Hope
- Alas, a Blog
- All About My Vagina
- Amptoons
- And Another Thing
- APA Committee on the Status of Women
- Arab Woman Progressive Voice
- Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice
- Atoms Arranged
- Bangladesh From Our View
- Barbara Ehrenreich’s Blog
- Bideshi Blue
- Bitch PhD
- Bite-Sized Subversions
- Black Looks
- Blogging For America
- Border Thinking
- Broadsheet
- cardiff feminist network
- Carnival of Feminists
- Certain Doubts
- Collegium of Black Women Philosophers
- Colored Demos
- Composite
- Condomologist
- Conservatory Girl
- crooked timber
- Cruella Blog
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Disabled Philosophers
- diversity@spp
- Dolly Mix
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Engage: Conversations in Philosophy
- Engender
- Experimental Philosophy
- F Watch
- F-Words
- Female Science Professor
- Feminist Aesthetics
- Feminist Allies
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Feminist Philosophers
- Feminist Response in Disability Activisim
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Feminocracy
- Fit, Feminist, and (almost) Fifty
- Florida Philosophy Student Blog
- Geek Feminism
- Gender, Race and Philosophy
- Genius NZ
- Gone Public
- Halfie
- Hi My Name Is…
- Hook and Eye
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Irresponsibility
- Jean Kazez
- Just Another Angry Black Muslim Woman?
- Knowledge and Experience
- Language Log
- Law and Letters
- Lemmings
- Lilith Attack
- London Feminists
- London Pro-Feminist Men
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Metamorpho-Sis
- Mind the Gap
- Miss Crip Chick
- Ms Magazine Blog
- Ms Magazine Online
- Multiplicative Identity
- Muslimah Media Watch
- My Fault, I'm Female
- Natalia Antonova
- New APPS: Arts, Politics, Philosophy, Science
- Nine Pearls
- No Cookies For Me
- No Snow Here
- Objectify This
- Oh No a WoC PhD
- On The Issues
- Packaging Girlhood
- Pandagon
- Pandemian
- Pea Soup
- PennyRed
- Philobiblon
- Philosophy, Etc
- Public Reason
- Questioning Transphobia
- Rachel’s Musings
- Racialicious
- Red Jenny
- RH Reality Check
- Rozena Maart
- SAFER
- Sex In The Public Square
- SGRP The Blog
- Shakesville
- Sheffield Fems
- Siris
- Sister Song
- Slap Upside the Head
- SM Feminists
- Social Justice Feminist
- Staff of Ra
- Symposia on Gender, Race, And Philosophy
- The Brooks Blog
- The Curvature
- The F Word
- The Forbidden Sister
- Thoughts Arguments and Rants
- Thus Spake Zuska
- Ultra Violet
- Unapologetically Female
- Unapologetically Female
- Viva La Feminista
- Wages of Ignorance
- What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?
- What Sorts of People
- What We're Doing About What It's Like
- Where's the benefit?
- Women Count
- Women Philosophers

I think the link to the article is missing.
Hey! I suggested this article to you (http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/critical-thinking-exercise/#comment-483) – an acknowledgement would be nice!
Sorry about that, Nandini! Introvertica found it on her own and didn’t realise you’d mentioned it in comments. Our new ‘contact’ system should help prevent this from happening again.
Peter Singer is willing to accept sex-based hierarchies in business and politics as the expected social result of biology, and describes a “Darwinian left” that posits:
“Since women are limited in the number of children they can have, they are likely to be selective in their choice of mate. Men, on the other hand, are limited in the number of children they can have only by the number of women they can have sex with. If achieving high status increases access to women, then we can expect men to have a stronger drive for status than women. This means we cannot use the fact that there is a disproportionately large number of men in high status positions in business or politics as a reason for concluding that there has been discrimination against women.”
Reference: Peter Singer, A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation (1999), at 17-18 (citing with approval another book in the “Darwinism Today” series, Kingsley Browne, Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work.
Thanks, Lee Hall, for this interesting quotation from Singer. Here’s what shocks me about the whole approach: It assumes that human beings’ major motivation in life, whether conscious or not, continues to be reproduction. And, moreover, that virtually all of our behaviour, especially with regard to members of the “other” (main) sex category, can be explained in terms of that drive. I just don’t buy it. I think the explanations are shockingly ad hoc. Here are some examples.
Let’s say that women are indeed motivated to be selective in their choice of mate. Why wouldn’t that lead to WOMEN’s being highly motivated to achieve, so that they would have the power and freedom to make their own choices of mate, rather than having a mate forced on them by a patriarchal father or a rapacious conquerer? Instead, the assumption is that if men achieve “high status,” then doing so will increase their access to women. What happens to women’s choice then, and their tendency to be slective? I know, I know, women supposedly then fall for corporate executives. But if women are genuinely motivated to be choosy for reproductive reasons, why wouldn’t women be looking for young, healthy, glossy-haired men? The corporate executives are less likely to have healthy sperm, after all.
Conclusions: 1) Women are selective, but, on this theory, selective for the wrong reasons, choosing “high status” older males when they should be choosing young healthy ones. 2) Maybe women don’t even get to be selective, because the high status men use their status to gain cohersive access to the women.
See, I can make up this stuff too. But where are the empirical limits on this pie-in-the-sky speculation?
Okay, Jender, no problem.
By far the most ridiculous part of this article was the authors’ insistence that “polygamy is good for women”, just like that, no qualifiers attached. They obviously meant women TODAY as well as through the ages. Polygamy is good for women TODAY because it’s better for a woman to share a wealthy man than to marry a loser. AARRGGHH.
Oh, I don’t know. I find it very difficult to figure out what’s worst about that article.. E.g. there’s the very racist and deeply implausible claim that a preference for blue eyes is universal, there’s the amazing Islamophobia, the claim that sexual harassment is an instance of equitable treatment…. Lots of competition!