en
Studia Iuridica

Evolutionary theory and feminism

2021, 90, No. 1

Wojciech Załuski

0000-0002-4860-0836

Jagiellonian University in Cracow

DOI

10.31338/2544-3135.si.2022-90.13

Publication date

27.06.2022

Publishing model

open access

License type

CC BY 4.0 Int.

Field

Law

Discipline

law

Language of publication

English

Downloads

PDF 364 KB

Article

Number of views:127

Number of downloads:67

Crossref citations:0

Altmetric score:0

Abstract

It is often argued that evolutionary theory and feminism remain in tension, since the evolutionary view of human nature is hard to reconcile with the feminist view. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that this thesis is false. This goal is realized by reconstructing a certain anti-feminist evolutionary argument (whose descriptive conclusion is the “patriarchal” picture of male and female nature, and the normative conclusion is the claim that given the deep differences between men and women the feminist postulates cannot be achieved) and providing its critique. The argument is based on three premises: a theory of parental investment, the assumption of a relatively large (compared with other species) men’s parental investment in ancestral environments, and the uncertainty of paternity. Its (descriptive) conclusion is the claim that men are “by nature” much more polygamously disposed, much more desirous of power (over the opposite sex), and much more aggressive than women. The paper presents several objections to this argument. The first objection questions its internal coherence. The second one points at its counterintuitive (not supported by empirical facts) consequences. The third one criticizes one of the assumptions of the argument, i.e. the assumption about a relatively large (compared with other species) men’s parental investment in ancestral environments.

Keywords:

feminism,evolutionary theory,moralistic fallacy,parental investment,human nature,conception of paternity,patriarchal ethos,feminizm,teoria ewolucjonizmu,błąd moralistyczny,inwestycje rodzicielskie,natura ludzka,pojęcie ojcostwa,etos patriarchalny

Bibliography

Bachofen J.J., Myth, religion and mother right (das Mutterrecht), R. Manheim (transl.), Princeton 1861, 1967

Bogucka M., Gorsza płeć. Kobieta w dziejach Europy od antyku po wiek XXI, Warszawa 2005

Buss D.M., The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire, (in:) C.B. Crawford, D.L. Krebs (eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications, Mahwah, NJ 1998, pp. 405-429

Buss D.M., Evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating, New York 2003

Buss D.M., Schmitt D.P., Evolutionary psychology and feminism, "Sex Roles" 2011, Vol. 64, No. 9, pp. 768-787

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3

Campbell A., Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intersexual aggression, "Behavioral and Brain Sciences" 1999, Vol. 22, pp. 203-252

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001818

Crawford C.B., Public policy and personal decisions: The evolutionary context, (in:) C.B. Crawford, C. Salmon (eds.), Evolutionary psychology, public policy and personal decisions, Mahwah, NJ 2004, pp. 3-22

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609892

Engels F., Origin of the family, private property and the state, A. West (transl.), Australia 1884, 2004

Fromm E., Miłość, płeć i matriarchat, B. Radomska, G. Sowinski (transl.), Poznań 1999

Gowaty P.A., Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolutionary biology, "Signs" 2003, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 901-921

https://doi.org/10.1086/345324

Hrdy S.B., Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female, (in:) R. Bleier (ed.), Feminist approaches to science, New York 1986, pp. 119-146

Hrdy S.B., Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding, Cambridge, MA 2009

Hrdy S.B., The past, present, and future of the human family, Tanner Lectures on Human Values 2001, pp. 57-110

Hrdy S.B., The woman that never evolved, Cambridge, MA., London 1981, 1999

https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674038875

Levy K.N., Kelly K.M, Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from attachment theory, "Psychological Science" 2010, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 168-173

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357708

Malinowski B., Sex and repression in savage society, Oxford 1927

Malinowski B, The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study, London 1913

Malinowski B., The father in primitive psychology, London 1927

Morgan L.H, Systems of consanguinity and affinity in the human family, Washington D.C. 1870

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.29577

Pulman B., Malinowski and ignorance of physiological paternity, "Revue française de sociologie" 2004/5, Vol. 45, pp. 121-142

https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.455.0121

Ridley M., The red queen, Hammonworth 1994

Russell B., Marriage and morals, London 1929

Schmitt D.P., Fundamentals of human mating strategies, (in:) D.M. Buss (ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology, New York 2005, pp. 258-291

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch9

Shackelford T.K., Goetz A.T., Pound N., C.W. Lamunyon, Female infidelity and sperm competition, (in:) D.M. Buss (ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology, New York 2005, pp. 372-394

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch12

Simmons R., Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls, Orlando, FL 2002

Smuts B., Evolutionary origins of patriarchy, "Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective" 1995, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-32

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734133

Trivers R.L., Parental investment and sexual selection, (in:) B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971, London 1972, pp. 139-179

Vandermassen G., Who's afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory, Lanhem 2005

Wilson, M., Daly M., The man who mistook his wife for a chattel, (in:) J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, New York 1992, pp. 289-322

Similar publications