AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Verbena

form_srcid: Verbena

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Verbena

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Verbena%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2011/11/17 11:28:12, Link
Author: Verbena
Hello. I'm a Darwinian feminist.  Can define that a bit later. For now - can anyone tell me how to attach PDF's?? This is my protoblog, though it needs updating. My Webpage



Date: 2011/11/17 11:30:34, Link
Author: Verbena
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Date: 2011/11/17 14:27:11, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Quote
Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p


Ha, yes a bit. Especially the feminist and evolutionist bit.

Quote
Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley


Thanks

Date: 2011/11/17 14:46:17, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Wow, I'm having some trouble getting to grips with the board layout.  

Quote
I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.


DGS is a term I use as I have struggled with Darwinian feminist in the past.  There is already a great deal of work that one could label DGS; the work of David Buss for instance.  I sometimes prefer it because my interest is in sexual selection and the way men and women make their way through life wanting essentially the same things from an evolutionary perspective (to survive and procreate) but have different proximate strategies to those ultimate goals. I see the study of women as meaningless without also studying men - and their offspring, and traditionally feminism is the study of women only. The term feminism has a huge amount of political baggage too. Like someone said further up the thread, its a bit of a tangled bank.

If its possible to attach pdfs though I could post a couple of the most recent papers on DGS/darwinian feminism/feminist darwinians.  There is a paper by Buss and Schmitt on my blog re EP and feminism which is current too.  

I wrote this in response to the thread and questions re a feminist expert - apols for length.  Will be better to just respond to individuals after getting this out of the way..!



I am not a feminist in the orthodox sense. For one,  I am a Darwinian feminist, and as such represent everything orthodox feminism stands against  - biological determinism, male superiority, female passivity -  (I know that Darwinism doesn't stand for any of these things, but most feminists still do  unfortunately.)

The first problem with defining feminism (which today means 2nd wave feminism – a very different movement from the  1st wave) is that any feminist will tell you that there is not one feminism – but many feminisms; Marxist feminism, socialist feminism, post-modern feminism, standpoint feminism, black feminism to name a few. The multiplicity of standpoints in feminism represents female intrasexual competition to me as a Darwinist, but feminists themselves struggle with this idea, as  it appears to be at odds with a utopian sisterhood.

One thing they do seem to be able to agree on is that patriarchy is the enemy. Each has slightly different conceptions of what patriarchy is, but all agree that it is a socially constructed phenomena which is enforced by socially constructed notions of sex and gender which equate to male supremacy and female inferiority and that the dismantling of patriarchy is central to the metafeminist project.

The only feminist excpetion to this rule is liberal feminism (alla Betty Friedan - see Falaudi's Backlash for what radical feminists think of her) who do not advocate social revolution (the over throwing of a patriarchy for a matriarchy) but social improvements for all.  To this end they are generally labelled conservative feminists – see critcs of Christina Hoff Sommers (the conservative meant to be a pejorative, especially in the UK) or just antifeminists. Evolutionary psychologist Anne Campbell is a feminist Darwinian, as is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (though I think she prefers 'distaff darwinian'; evolutionary philosopher Helena Cronin is also a feminist darwinian. (See hopefully soon to be attached paper by Vandermassen re the distinction between feminist darwinians and darwinian feminists.) My phd is going to be in the evolutionary origins of patriarchy – I won a place at Durham this year but funding fell through so I'm back as an independent for the moment.

So, I am probably a specialist in Darwinian feminism and Darwinian gender studies, though I'm not PhD level. I have studied a lot of orthodox feminist theory along the way, but I am a rationalist not a construtivist and so would probably be labelled antifeminist by an orthadox feminist, even though my interests are in examining evolution via a female perspective and better understanding female dilemmas within the context of sexual selection, etc.
Nice to be here by the way.

Date: 2011/11/17 15:24:50, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,15:11)
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...

Quote
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...


Thanks. So what's with the 'after the bar closes' side forum? Is this just for late night boozy chats??

Date: 2011/11/17 15:28:19, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,15:19)
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.

Quote
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.


Well...one of my hypotheses is of patriarchy as a human 'lek'.  An culture for men to compete with other men - what happens when women enter the lek? They have to compete roman rules, just like the men - or can the lek be feminised?? How to bloody test it!

Date: 2011/11/18 04:28:44, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,17:19)

Quote
I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...


The phylogenetic line can give a lot of insight into mating strategies as the theory of matri/patrilocality in proto-species is thought to be fundamentally linked to mating strategies manifest in contemporary species, including humans.  Patrilocality is thought central to theories of male resources control, male alliances and female vulnerability to oppressive sociocultural practices ( see Smuts, 1995). Lion females live in their natal groups which is more matriarchal. The males are basically just there to protect offspring from rogue males, they get mating rights for this, but its a pretty short, brutal life compared to the females.  (I'm not a lion specialist, so this is a laymans opinion!)

Quote
Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.


In our history? How far back? Sexual dimorphism is I think thought to be driven by sexual selection. Ridley hypothesises sexual division of labour is to be one of the reasons homo sapiens success over other hominid species. Hunting and gathering targets 2 specializations which results in the group being bigger than the sum of its parts and enables food sharing and cooperation. Calories provided by female gathering form the majority of calories in contemporary h/g societies, men hunt for meat (which is more perishable that gathered food so must be consumed quickly and so food sharing and trade takes place). Food sharing - the way humans indulge in it - is unique  among primates which have strict dominance hierarchies.

I don't doubt that some women have hunted, but I don't recall reading anything which stated that this was the norm and the men gathered. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.  The sexual division of labour occurs universally in the most egalitarian of societies.   Anthropologists tend to agree that hunter-gatherers are less sexist than agriculturalists. In the Ache and Hadza hunter-gatherers, males are keen hunters and  appear relatively more sexually permissive society than the Hiwi and the !Kung who are intermittent hunters and are less permissive.

I'm not sure what you mean about technology and tools.  What field did they even – between men and women? Not that I'm aware.  Female autonomy and leadership in 'primitive' egalitarian societies such as hunter-gatherers has always been a hot topic for feminists. The late Marxist feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock tried to assert that she had found such societies (17th century Montagnais Native Americans and among the Iroquois), but the evidence for this has been found to be spurious. Women can and do exert influence in their own realms in such societies, but don't generally gain formal political power over group decision-making, though they can informally via kin, etc. A good example of the lack of formal power is seen in marriage arrangements where “in many societies free partner choice for women is virtually unknown or severely constrained. Marital alliances are negotiated by parents or male relatives. Although women may informally make their preferences known, it is often basically men who decide upon the marriage options of not only their mates, but their daughters, sisters, and nieces.” (Low 1987).

Dunno if that makes any sense. I'm trying to write a blog piece at the same time!

Date: 2011/11/18 08:27:24, Link
Author: Verbena
Heres a link to a recent paper by David Buss and David Schmitt - EP and Feminism

(I have permissions to dissemminate it)

Buss and Schmitt

Also a paper by Darwinian Feminist Griet Vandermassen
A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial Just click on the download link and its free. Griet also wrote Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin

Date: 2011/11/26 17:59:24, Link
Author: Verbena
Hi, wanted to add this link http://www.epjournal.net/filesto....525.pdf
"A review of Alan R. Rogers, The Evidence for Evolution in 100 pages". University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2011" bt not sure where to put it on the 'wider' board - sorry, a newbie so still finding my feet.

I have noticed though that I've had a bit of traffic from this site to my proto-blog. Please feel free to ask me any questions or give feedback (positive or negative). I'm developing my voice, but it's not there yet!

There aren't many Darwinian feminists about, we're a pretty rare species, so any feedback is great. (also want to tred carefully here - humans are funny, especially online!)

Date: 2011/11/29 16:19:42, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 26 2011,20:59)
Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

I agree. When it comes to the principles of natural selection men and women differ little  - it’s under the principles of sexual selection that the differences begin to become manifest and these are all to do with procreation, not survival. As I'm sure you're all aware.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – with a particular interest in proximate mechanisms of how men oppress women and how this oppression can be countered.

At the moment I’m wrestling with the idea that females (on averge) pay a proximate price (in quality of life as males attempt to control female choice) for possessing the ultimate advantage (in fertility terms  with women being the more fecund of the sexes, contrary to popular opinion!) Not that it needs be this way, as the West demonstrates.

Anyone seen this before? It’s quite entertaining.
Is there anything good about men?

Date: 2011/12/01 01:49:36, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2011,19:55)
You can post a link to a PDF hosted elsewhere. There's currently no provision for file upload here.

I've checked and I can't post Griet's papers as they are copyrighted by the university. I can post abstracts and extracts though so will when I get the time.

Date: 2011/12/01 01:59:59, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 01 2011,01:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,17:26)
I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

It's an image that has been part of the cultural background for all of our lives. A meme on steroids if you will.

On a separate but related note, one of the things I find the most frustrating when discussing feminism (or any question regarding privilege really) is the refusal of the privileged to acknowledge that privilege. The illusion of being self made seems awfully important to people.

I was born a male in a patriarchal society, part of the local ethnic majority, in a stable family living in a middle class neighborhood with a low crime rate and given access to free education. To claim that I'm a "self made man" is laughable.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Don't mind the personal non sequitur and I'll just enjoy the papers that have been posted.

I'm not sure that is is cognitively silly.  I would think its more likely a cultural meme with roots in the gene.  In our evolutionary history, a man who couldn't provide for his family would be at a fittness disadvantage to those that could, or risked being cuckolded by better 'providers'. Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Date: 2011/12/01 14:04:08, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 30 2011,23:59)
(snip) Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Protein content? Or because the men do it? Or because killing is associated with removing threats?

Chicken, meet egg.  (?)

Bit of both, but mostly it appears - because men do it.  Definitely a bit of a sexual doule standard going on. This paper is a good overview. For those who don't have access, I will post some snippets.

Date: 2011/12/01 14:08:38, Link
Author: Verbena
HTML here.

Date: 2011/12/01 14:11:40, Link
Author: Verbena
Vandermassen's target article is here.

Date: 2011/12/01 14:15:15, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

Date: 2011/12/01 15:32:42, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:51)
Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,14:15)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.

The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.

Date: 2011/12/06 09:41:15, Link
Author: Verbena
Did someone mention Fausto-Sterling and sexual dimorphism in this thread? I'm looking but can't see it, but that might just be becasue I'm dim/in a hurry.

Date: 2011/12/07 16:13:15, Link
Author: Verbena
Hi, sorry to barge in but with reference to the original question (on mechanisms of evolution) ((I'm guessing for non-evolutionists)) has anyone seen this? The Evidence for Evolution in 100 Pages

Date: 2012/01/14 05:16:25, Link
Author: Verbena
Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!)  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X

Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data.  I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men  (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..

Date: 2012/01/14 05:19:15, Link
Author: Verbena
Forgot to add

... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!

Date: 2012/01/23 08:11:37, Link
Author: Verbena
Hi, check out my new darwinian gender studies cartoons!
/My Webpage

Date: 2012/01/25 12:50:29, Link
Author: Verbena
I've been wondering for a while now just how much in the way of behaviour, or attributes (besides the naughty bits), is innately male or female, and how much is arbitrary/social/historical.

Women accused of "acting like a man" -- Thatcher springs to mind -- maybe they're just acting like the diversity of people can, now that they have slightly more liberty to do so, rather than being programmed to "act like a lady".

??[/quote]

illustration - Jill & John

the link leads to a compact illustration of average sex differences (and similarities) found in pan-cultural studies (wouldn't let me embed the pic sorry!)

Of course environment affects behaviour - the term evolutionary is basically re everything at the intersection of environment/biology.

Women in high power positions (that are typically held by men - another pan -cultural phenomenon) need to play a mans game as a matter of survival.  This is because their biggest threat comes from men; a states biggest threats come from other men; patriarchy's biggest threat comes from other patriarchies.  Women's influence in lower level politics can be more persuasive: see this link

Why patriarchy - why men, and not say, a matriarchy? Men stand guard against other men, not against women. The threat comes from men, not women.    All female head of states learn this lesson very quickly - from Thatcher to Golda Meir. Politics is a deadly game.  

Men tear each other to pieces to attain power. A woman asking men to be more 'feminine' isn't going to cut it. Alls fair in love and war - which just about covers everything.

Date: 2012/01/25 12:55:53, Link
Author: Verbena
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

Date: 2012/01/26 07:26:12, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)
Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

Sexual Strategies Theory

This includes inclusive fitness stuff and various other stuff

Date: 2012/01/26 11:48:03, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 26 2012,14:44)
Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,05:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)
Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

Sexual Strategies Theory

This includes inclusive fitness stuff and various other stuff

Saved in favourites under "sciency stuff" with ERV and others. Thanks, V!

Just come across these videos of David Buss and Richard Dawkins in conversation - part of a series here

Date: 2012/01/31 02:28:52, Link
Author: Verbena
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2012,06:31)
Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,03:55)
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

The term 'Brutish' has some interesting overtones other than just being large and a risktaker. It also assumes someone who is not very articulate or sensitive etc. Would the drones have these secondary characteristics as well?

It must be a tough job teasing out what is environmental and what is caused by genes.

Like most modern liberal parents, I was surprised how quickly my son went from baby blob to 'male' and my daughter to 'female' with very little influence.

Actually, to be honest I thought that kids were born blank slates, instead, at least for our kids they were born with their current personalities and I feel that all we can do as parents is to try to encourage the good and discourage the bad

Yeah it does. I was thinking of ants - female soldier ants - when I wrote that, if that helps.

You can't tease out what caused by genes and what is environmental. There is no dichotomy. Here's a vid about epigenetics

Also this book is great The Blank Slate

 

 

 

=====