Women, Behavior, and Evolution: Understanding the Debate Between Feminist Evolutionists and Evolutionary Psychologists Author(S): Laurette T

Home , Anne Campbell (academic), Margo Wilson

Women, Behavior, and Evolution: Understanding the Debate between Feminist Evolutionists and Evolutionary Psychologists Author(s): Laurette T. Liesen Reviewed work(s): Source: Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 51-70 Published by: Association for Politics and the Life Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40072927 . Accessed: 10/03/2013 22:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Politics and the Life Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Politics and the Life Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women, behavior, and evolution Understandingthe debate between feminist evolutionistsand evolutionarypsychologists

Laurette T. Liesen, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Lewis University One University Parkway Romeoville, IL 60446 USA [email protected]

Abstract. Often since the early 1990s, feminist evolutionists have criticized evolutionary psychologists, finding fault in their analyses of human male and female reproductive behavior. Feminist evolutionists have criticized various evolutionary psychologists for perpetuating gender stereotypes, using questionable methodology, and exhibiting a chill toward feminism. Though these criticisms have been raised many times, the conflict itself has not been fully analyzed. Therefore, I reconsider this conflict, both in its origins and its implications. I find that the approaches and perspectives of feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are distinctly different, leading many of the former to work in behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology. Invitingly to feminist evolutionists, these three fields emphasize social behavior and the influences of environmental variables; in contrast, evolutionary psychology has come to rely on assumptions deemphasizing the pliability of psychological mechanisms and the flexibility of human behavior. In behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, feminist evolutionists have found old biases easy to correct and new hypotheses practical to test, offering new insights into male and female behavior, explaining the emergence and persistence of patriarchy, and potentially bringing closer a prime feminist goal, sexual equality.

the twentieth century, the feminist broaden evolutionary theory by examining selection movement was one of the major sources of pressures on females as well as males. Partly because of social change, with profound effects on both these feminists' contributions over the last thirty years, academia and society. Despite the many changes for sociobiology moved away from sexist stereotypes and women, tensions between older and more modern adopted a more dynamic, ecological, and historical 2 conceptualizations of females persist. These tensions approach to the study of female and male behavior.1' are particularly evident in the relationship between These contributions also influenced those scholars who evolutionary psychology and its precursor,sociobiology, moved on to human behavioral ecology, evolutionary as well as behavioral ecology, primatology, and evo- biology, and primatology. lutionary biology. Although evolutionary theory had its Nonetheless, though evolutionary psychology from and shares its intellectual roots in the Victorian era and incorporated dogmatic emerged sociobiology foundations with the other it retained sexual ideas about sex differences, a group of women socio- subfields,3 selection as it was used in the biologists, a number of whom were influenced by theory by sociobiologists later 1970s,4 which did not female feminism and feminist critiques of science, helped fully incorporate perspectives. As a result, it still struggles with its con- doi: 10.2990/21_l_51 ceptualization of women and its approach to feminism.

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 51

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen

Not only do some evolutionary psychologists not take Gowaty, Barbara Smuts, and Marlene Zuk - who feminist criticisms seriously, evolutionary psychology's definitely have brought new insights into the study of approach to human behavior in general contributes female behavior and various human social structures. to feminists' skepticism and criticism of evolutionary The term feminist evolutionist is the best description of approaches. Many feminists consider evolutionary the evolutionary biologist, sociobiologist, primatolo- approaches to human behavior to be detrimental to gist, or behavioral ecologist whose work is informed by women and their pursuit of equality. Not only do they female perspectives and/or feminist theory and who consider the literature to be biologically deterministic uses them to formulate testable scientific hypotheses.16 and reductionist, several feminists see it as inherently Feminist evolutionists have pointed out not only the sexist.5'6-7'8 male biases in evolutionary theory but also that Evolutionary psychology sees human behavior as evolutionary approaches to human behavior are not having evolved during the Pleistocene (1.7 million to inherently sexist.17 They have always called for the 10,000 years ago) as natural selection helped form the incorporation of female and feminist perspectives along human mind. According to evolutionary psychologists, with better science. Indeed, Gowaty addresses those the various psychological mechanisms that evolved in who claim that feminist evolutionists allow their our ancestral environments continue to guide our politics to direct their science: 10' n thoughts, emotions, and behavior today.9' By Science is the practice of systematic observation focusing on an ancient environment of evolved adap- and experiment as a means to test predictions from tation, evolutionary psychologists tend to downplay the hypotheses while reducing or eliminating (i.e. control- flexibility of humans to respond to their current envi- ling) the effects of perceived and possible biases on ronments and circumstances. Consequently, evolution- results and conclusions. So, what it means to be self- ary psychology portrays human behavior as extremely consciously political is that one is thereby in a scientif- slow to change. This premise that human behavior is ically better position relative to those who are unaware rooted in the (a that we do not know) past past really of the and social forces and not be has left political potentially affecting may changeable today evolutionary their science. In the best one can do is to to continued criticisms of deter- my opinion psychologists open institute controls one's biases . . . and from against perceived minism, reductionism, storytelling, especially Buttressed with better controls feminists.12' 13 For feminists outside the evolu- controls, against poten- many tial biases we are able to makes our con- this leaves little of perceive, tionary sciences, approach hope clusions more reliable.18 women's liberation and equality because evolutionary psychologists maintain that patterns of inequality and While maintaining a fruitful dialogue with other some biased behavior are rooted in human psycholog- feminists, feminist evolutionists have brought new ical mechanisms that will persist despite feminist insights into female and male behavior, have provided 15 attempts to change behavior and society.14' explanations as to why patriarchy emerged and persists, On the other hand, behavioral ecologists, primatol- and have contributed to the feminist goal of greater ogists, and evolutionary biologists see behavior as equality of the sexes. evolving. These scholars see females and males as active In contrast to more recent scholarship arguing that and strategic agents in pursuit of their own reproductive feminism and evolutionary psychology are potential success, using a variety of reproductive strategies in allies,19 the actual professional behavior of feminist response to contemporary environmental pressures and evolutionists themselves compellingly suggests that constraints. In terms of female behavior in particular, feminist insights and female perspectives are more behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary readily incorporated into behavioral ecology, primatol- biology tend to better integrate feminist and female ogy, and evolutionary biology, presumably owing to perspectives into their analyses and models, correcting a shared understanding of and approach to social past and even current biases and creating new and behavior and environmental influence. Whereas evolu- testable hypotheses. These developments can be tionary psychology assumes that humans' psychological credited to a group of feminist evolutionists - such mechanisms are currently unchangeable, feminist evo- as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Jane Lancaster, Patricia Adair lutionists see human behavior as responsive to its current

52 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution environment and capable of within-individual change. New Synthesis. Wilson defined sociobiology as the sys- These differences help explain distinctions in the analysis tematic study of the biological basis of social behavior of female reproductive choice and patriarchal structures across species. It is a hybrid discipline consisting of and practices, the centerpiece topics in gender politics. ethology, ecology, and genetics. Because sociobiology examines social behavior at the individual level, where Foundations of contemporary evolutionary particular social behaviors reflect the adaptive strategies natural is an sciences and evolutionary psychology shaped by selection, genetics important component of sociobiology. Behavior, though, is never The contemporary evolutionary sciences, including inherited directly from an individual's genes; it is the evolutionary psychology, are built upon Charles result of the development of genetic, physiological, and Darwin's theories of natural selection and sexual environmental factors. Rather than studying species in selection, both of which have profoundly changed a laboratory setting, sociobiology takes an ethological how we view and understand both animal and human approach to the study of social behavior. Finally, 21 evolution.20' Whereas Darwin and the evolutionists sociobiology integrates ecological variables into the of the early twentieth century focused on the devel- analysis, because variations in resources and habitats opment of species, the evolutionary theorists of the can affect the development and expression of particular 1960s and 1970s shifted their attention to how natural social behaviors.26 selection affected individuals and their behavior. During Overall, sociobiology attempts to explain the ulti- this period, several theoretical breakthroughs emerged mate causation of behavior, i.e., why certain behaviors to explain the evolution of social behavior at the level of have evolved and how they promote survival and the individual and to serve as the basis of contemporary reproduction within certain environments. Neverthe- evolutionary science. In 1966, George Williams pre- less, as scholars applied these new theories to human sented clear and convincing arguments that explained behavior in the 1970s and early 1980s, sociobiology that social behaviors - especially altruism - evolved aroused a great deal of controversy. Wilson and other not for the benefit of the species but rather because they sociobiologists were accused of doing "bad science" enhanced the survival and reproductive success of the that was allegedly ideological, reductionistic, and individual.22 In addition, William Hamilton's theory of deterministic. The work continued despite the kin selection drew attention to the fact that behavior criticisms, though frequently under labels other than besides actual reproduction can assist in the replication sociobiology. Thus, much of the work in behavioral of an individual's genes. Individuals who help their ecology, evolutionary psychology, ethology, and prima- relatives - with the appearance of self-sacrifice - tology employed the fundamental assumptions of essentially benefit themselves in terms of genetic self- sociobiology, though not the label.27 interest.23To address the altruistic behavior that occurs The earliest works by evolutionary psychologists among nonrelatives across species, Robert Trivers's examined male and female sexuality and relationships theory of reciprocal altruism provided an evolutionary across species. For example, in Sex, Evolution and explanation of why this type of behavior is advanta- Behavior, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson were among geous. Not only do these actions contribute to the sur- the first psychologists to examine sexual behavior across vival and reproduction of unrelated individuals, they species using an interdisciplinaryapproach consisting of eventually contribute to the survival of the altruist or contemporary evolutionary theory, animal behavior, its offspring.24 Finally, Trivers's parental investment sex-role development, and cultural anthropology. They theory expanded Darwin's theory of sexual selection. examined marriage patterns, love and jealousy, in- Trivers explained how natural selection acts upon both fanticide, incest avoidance, and sexual activities (i.e., males and females, how reproduction influences the how males and females pursue distinct reproductive behaviors of the sexes, and how both sexes use various strategies to maximize their fitness). Though attempting reproductive strategies.25 to avoid generalizations of the sexes and noting These various theories were brought together and exceptions, this early work tended to focus on the applied to social behavior across species - including reproductive strategy of the female as parent and male as humans - in Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The competitor, reflecting other sociobiological approaches

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 53

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen that were prevalent at this time. It is interesting to note the formation of evolutionary psychology was not mo- that when they originally published the text, Daly and tivated by the controversies surrounding sociobiology. Wilson did not use the terms sociobiology or evolution- Instead, "the long-term scientific goal toward which ary psychology; they claimed to present an "evolution- evolutionary psychologists are working is the mapping ary functional perspective." In the second edition, they of our universal human nature."33 In addition, they mentioned that their text could be used as an in- were motivated to create a new subfield because of troductory text to the study of sociobiology.28 developments in the computational sciences, advances Eventually, other psychologists interested in evolu- in paleoanthropology and primatology, new research in tionary perspectives began to distinguish themselves linguistics and animal behavior, and the new theories in from the other contemporary evolutionary sciences by evolutionary biology. Tooby and Cosmides maintain looking at various aspects of human behavior, feelings, that what makes evolutionary psychology distinct from and attitudes. By 1979, Donald Symons's The Evolu- human sociobiology and other similar evolutionary tion of Sexuality applied evolutionary theory to the approaches is that it rejects fitness maximization as analysis of human sexuality, behavior, and attitudes.29 an explanation for social behavior.34 In other words, According to David Buss, this was the first major work human minds are adapted to past environments and are of evolutionary psychology proper, in which Symons not currently pursuing fitness. argued that psychological mechanisms were adapta- With the naming of this new subfield in the evo- tions.30 Based on Bateman's theory of anisogamy,31 lutionary sciences came more evolutionary psycholo- Symons argued that the differences in human male and gists examining the various adaptive problems that female sexuality and behavior are rooted in the ob- humans faced that affected their past reproductive suc- served differences in size of male and female gametes. cess. For example, problems such as avoiding preda- Because females have larger and fewer gametes - tion, choosing nutritious foods, and finding a mate eggs - and commit time to gestation and lactation, they directly impacted individual survival and future repro- tend to be more selective or "coy" regarding mate ductive success. Evolutionary psychologists maintain selection. On the other hand, males' small and expo- that by understanding the selection pressures our hom- nentially more plentiful gametes - sperm - have led inid ancestors encountered, we can see the proximate them strategically to inseminate as many females as information-processing mechanisms of the brain that possible, spending most of their reproductive time and evolved to solve these challenges. These mechanisms energy competing with other males for access to females. emerged through natural selection and help explain These differences led the male and female to divergent how people acquire and evaluate information and adaptive strategies, as during human evolutionary how they use information in making decisions about 36' 37' 38 history. For example, because males spend considerable relationships.35' Therefore, the human brain time securing mates through male-male competition and is an integrated bundle of complex mechanisms (adap- resource acquisition, men have attempted to control tations) where each is "designed by natural selection female sexuality to insure paternity. Therefore, male in past environments to promote the survival of genes sexual jealousy evolved so that men could reduce the that directed its construction by serving some specific chances that they would invest their time and resources function."39 in children that may not be theirs. Symons maintained In regard to male and female reproductive behavior, that those men who exhibited sexual jealousy increased evolutionary psychologists study various sexual strate- the probability that their wives' children were also their gies that they maintain are adaptive solutions to mating children.32 Rather than looking at current fitness- problems, such as identifying a desirable mate and maximizing behavior, Symons and other evolutionary competing with others in attracting a mate. Perhaps one psychologists turned to humans' evolutionary past in of the most cited studies on human relationships in order to understand how the human mind works. evolutionary psychology is by Buss. He expanded on By the 1980s, psychologists interested in evolu- Symons's work, arguing that humans have evolved tionary theory began to distinguish themselves more underlying psychological mechanisms - such as pref- formally from sociobiology and other evolutionary ap- erences for particular mates, desires for sex, feelings proaches. According to John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, of love, or even jealousy - that are sensitive to the

54 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution environment, interactions with others, and what we evolutionary psychologists gather their data from ar- know about ourselves. Based on survey data from cheological records, hunter-gatherersocieties, observa- 37 cultures and over 10,000 people, he concludes that tions, self-reports, life history data and public records, for long-term relationships, human males express and human products. Though these are very good a preference for women who are youthful, healthy, developments for evolutionary psychology in general, attractive, and sexually loyal. These preferences have Buss still relies heavily on survey data, especially his persisted because they are considered to be adaptive for own, in the chapters on male and female short- and human males' reproductive success. In their long term long-term mating strategies.43 relationships, women tend to seek males who have In addition to the scholars who integrate psycholog- resources, status, and tend to be older, ambitious, and ical and anthropological data into their analyses, there dependable. The survey data also stated that women are evolutionary psychologists and science writers who want men who are healthy, intelligent, and strong. attempt to make the case that stereotypical male and According to Buss, these traits are universal because the female behavior is hard-wired and nearly immune to data comes from cross-cultural studies, reflecting the change. These scholars and writers have popularized common preferences that are related to men's and evolutionary psychology in such a way that overstates women's long-term reproductive success. Both men and the subfield's claims and is critical and dismissive of women can pursue both long-term and short-term feminist criticisms and perspectives. In the cases of 45 relationships, and these varying reproductive strategies Robert Wright,44' David Buss,46 Steven Pinker,47and 41 may conflict.40' Steven Rhoads48 in particular, they bolster their argu- Other evolutionary psychologists of the 1990s also ments for the evolved, biological basis of social behavior examined male and female relationships, but did not by arguing against feminists' claims that social behavior rely primarily on survey data as Buss did. For example, is changeable and flexible and that greater equality for David Geary discusses differences in male and female women is necessary. Not only are these evolutionary reproductive strategies and links these differences to psychologists and writers painting feminism with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral systems. He a broad brush, they fail to recognize the significant and maintains that the "mind and body of the organism on-going contributions that feminist approaches and have been fine-tuned by selection pressures to enable perspectives have made to the evolutionary sciences. the organism to attempt to gain control of the social, and resources in its habitat and to biological, physical Evolutionary psychology's relationship to organize these resources in ways that facilitate survival feminism and feminist evolutionists and reproduction."42In addition, Geary recognizes that male and female reproductive strategies vary across Over the past fifteen years, evolutionary psychol- cultures and contexts, and are sensitive to ecological ogy's relationship to feminism can be described as quite and social factors. He cites various anthropologists, critical, if not overtly hostile. Though evolutionary evolutionary biologists, and behavioral ecologists to psychology certainly examines female behavior, femi- support his arguments. nist perspectives and approaches have not been as By 1999 Buss published Evolutionary Psychology: welcomed as in other evolutionary sciences. Some The New Science of the Mind, in which he discusses evolutionary psychologists and their popularizers have what evolved psychological mechanisms are, how argued that feminism is ideological and that it has a evolutionary psychology is a science that generates weak, flawed methodology. For example, in the first and tests hypotheses, and the various problems that published article addressing evolutionary psychology evolved psychological mechanisms are supposed to and feminism together, the essay "Feminists, Meet address. He delineates the various methods evolution- Mr. Darwin," Wright argues that feminism promotes ary psychologists use to test hypotheses - comparative gender ideology and has a failed view of human nature. analyses of different species, males and females, He chastises feminists for refusing to explore evolu- individuals within a species, and the same individuals tionary psychology and its insights into male and in different contexts. Some evolutionary psychologists female behavior.49To make matters worse, Wright does also use experimental methods. Buss also states that not even recognize the vast contributions feminist

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 55

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen evolutionists have made to the contemporary evolu- accounting for what exists."57 This leads to two ques- 51' 52' 53' 54 tionary sciences since the late 1970s.50' tions: Can science ever examine feminist approaches or Indeed, Wright's hostility to feminist perspectives is also test feminist-inspired hypotheses? Do biases or social/ evident in his book The Moral Animal, in which he political agendas never influence the questions or in- questions a feminist evolutionist and her ability to be terpretations of evolutionary psychology? Buss and objective - "Hrdy has described herself as a feminist Malamuth give the impression that evolutionary sociobiologist, and she may take a more than scientific psychology can help save feminism from itself, making interest in arguing that female primates tend to be it more empirical and "enlightened."58 'highly competitive . . . sexually assertive individuals.'"55 Overall, Buss and Malamuth's attempt at converg- Needless to say, Wright did little to build bridges ing evolutionary psychology and feminism fails. They between feminism and evolutionary psychology. tend to lump all feminists together, only examining a Buss's The Evolution of Desire addressed feminism few radical critical examples. This calls into question as well. In his analysis of female oppression, he suggests their understanding of feminism in general. But more that women are to be partially blamed for their importantly, Buss and Malamuth do not understand oppression by men: or acknowledge what feminist perspectives have al- to the evolutionary sciences over the last Men's dominant control of resources worldwide can ready brought For example, they cite Hrdy's 1981 be in to women's in twenty-five years. traced, part, preferences choosing book The Woman That Never Evolved as a "recent" a mate. These preferences, operating repeatedly over work by a feminist evolutionist. This is just one ex- thousands of generations, have led women to favor men ample of how unaware they were of feminist contribu- who possess status and resources and to disfavor men tions in other and how late evolutionary who lack these assets. Ancestral men who failed to subdisciplines, arrived on the scene of recognizing feminist such resources failed to attract women as mates. psychology acquire contributions to science.58 Women's thus established a critical set of evolutionary preferences The new millennium ushered in several new books on ground rules for men in their competition with one Each of the following examples another.56 evolutionary psychology. acknowledges the work of feminist evolutionists, but From this perspective, these preferences then became either does not take their contributions to the evolution- innate psychological mechanisms over evolutionary ary sciences seriously or uncritically merges evolutionary time. Yet at the same time, Buss still states that women psychology with feminist approaches to evolutionary are not to be blamed for their own oppression by men. theory. Even though Pinker's book The Blank Slate is Which David Buss should we believe? seemingly less harsh in criticizing feminism and recog- Perhaps in recognition of the persistent feminist nizes that sex differences have been used against women criticism and the desire to showcase evolutionary psy- in the past, he does not address specific criticisms by chology as a new and better approach to the evolution feminist evolutionists or other feminists. He uses a few of human behavior, in 1996 David Buss and Neil examples of feminists who embrace the "blank slate" Malamuth's Sex, Power, Conflict attempted a conver- conception of human nature and who want to force gence between evolutionary psychology and feminism. gender-free policies on people. These few examples Yet, this appears to be a qualified convergence. They become "straw women," and he does not address past began their project by making the distinction between feminist concerns about sociobiology and present con- "is" and "ought," identifying evolutionary psychology cerns about evolutionary psychology. In order to support with what "is" and feminism with what "ought" to be. his argument, Pinker does list the names of feminist and They seem to argue that though feminism may deal female evolutionists who have contributed to evolution- with objective knowledge, it certainly has a political ary theory over the last 30 years. But that is all that he and moral agenda regarding the relationships between does- he provides names.59 He does not make any men and women. At the same time, they certainly do references to most of the feminist evolutionists' work, not mention the possible biases in evolutionary psy- and he does not use their research to support his chology. Indeed, Buss describes evolutionary psychol- argument that evolutionary perspectives can bring in- ogy as "a science geared toward understanding and sights to our understandingof male and female behavior.

56 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution

More recently, the failure to recognize the differences that look at environmental variables and social between feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psy- structures rather than blaming the victims and their chology is evident in Matt Ridley's latest book, Nature supposedly evolved psychological mechanisms. via Nurture. For example, Ridley refers to Hrdy as an Vandermassen also states that some evolutionists, evolutionary psychologist.60 She has never referred to including those who use feminist perspectives, have herself as such, and she has used the label sociobiologist serious issues with evolutionary psychology's method- and primatologist consistently. In fact, she has been ology and assumptions about female behavior. She cites very critical of the stereotypes and methodologies used various feminist evolutionists (such as Hrdy, Gowaty, 62 by evolutionary psychologists.61' This is just one of and Smuts) who point out evolutionary psychologists' a growing number of examples where evolutionary biases and shortcomings. Yet, she glosses over their psychology is becoming the de facto label for all concerns and continues her argument about how evolutionary approaches. This is also evident in evolutionary psychology will contribute to feminism.66 Rhoads's Taking Sex Differences Seriously, where Though she uses their research both to support and evolutionary psychology is deemed to be the evolution- cite problems within evolutionary psychology, she does ary approach. He too does not take seriously the not see the significance of the fact that these feminist contributions of feminist evolutionists. Although he evolutionists are sociobiologists, primatologists, and does acknowledge Hrdy's work in Mother Nature and evolutionary biologists. She also does not explain why that she is a feminist, he uses her work to support his feminist evolutionists are so critical of evolutionary argument against feminism in general and his argument psychology. that stereotypical male/female behaviors are rooted in evolved mechanisms. He makes no psychological Criticisms of evolutionary psychology reference to other feminist evolutionists, and he clearly does not address the criticisms of evolutionary psychol- Over the last fifteen years, there have been many ogy from within the evolutionary sciences.63 criticisms of evolutionary psychology, ranging from it Finally, and most recently, Griet Vandermassen'snew being inherently sexist67 to being methodologically book Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin? presents a de- flawed.68 Some of these criticisms are similar to those tailed argument of how evolutionary psychology can made against sociobiology in the late 1970s and 1980s. contribute to feminism by providing it with a meta- Feminists in particular were outraged that biolog- theory.64 Admittedly, there are several theoretical ical theories might once again be used to support points that feminist evolutionists and evolutionary patriarchal relationships of power, dominance, and 70) 71 psychologists would agree upon. However, Vandermas- control.69' While evolutionary psychology still sen uses feminist evolutionist arguments and insights receives some of these criticisms, most critiques come consistently to support, and to correct, evolutionary from feminist evolutionists and other scholars within psychology at the same time. Indeed, Vandermassen is the contemporary evolutionary sciences. hard pressed to find an evolutionary psychologist who Over the past thirty years, a group of feminist is also a feminist. For example, she states that evolu- evolutionists has emerged from sociobiology, evolutionary psychology provides insights into the develop- tionary biology, behavioral ecology, and primatology. ment of patriarchy. She cites Hrdy and Smuts, who are They have used feminist perspectives and approaches primatologists, and Buss, an evolutionary psychologist. to correct biases in evolutionary theory and to call for Whereas Hrdy's and Smuts's feminist evolutionist greater attention to the selection pressures on females. perspectives are well known, Buss's contributions are Rather than merely pursuing an ideological or political more controversial, especially because he is very critical agenda, feminist evolutionists incorporate female- of feminist perspectives. He has argued that women are focused perspectives into their research and propose complicit in the development of patriarchy because they testable hypotheses that take seriously the complexity have evolved preferences for men who have wealth, of social behavior (i.e., considering ecological, cultural, power, and status.65 Feminists have certainly not and developmental variables). As Gowaty explains, embraced this explanation of patriarchy. In contrast, "hypotheses sparked by feminist consciousness can be feminist evolutionists offer alternative explanations completely consistent with Darwinian explanations of

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 57

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen behavior and testable."72 Though they share criticisms adaptation-relevant properties of the ancestral en- of evolutionary psychology's methodology with non- vironments encountered by members of ancestral feminist critics, feminist evolutionists have been the populations, weighted by their frequency and their most vocal about how evolutionary psychologists make fitness-consequences."77Regardless of when and where stereotypical assumptions about male and female the EEA possibly occurred, the point that evolutionary behavior and how they have neglected to examine the psychologists stress is that the contemporary environ- complexity of social behavior. In this section, the paper ment humans encounter is much different from the will focus on specific criticisms by those scholars within environment in which their adaptive psychological the evolutionary sciences, several of whom are feminist mechanisms evolved. Therefore, according to evolu- evolutionists. tionary psychologists, there is no way of knowing To begin, evolutionists from other subfields have whether current behavior is adaptive. expressed concern and criticism of evolutionary psy- This EEA concept raises concerns for behavioral chology's concept of the environment of evolutionary ecologists, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary an- adapativeness (EEA). According to Tooby and Cos- thropologists, and feminist evolutionists. According to mides, "the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness Robert Foley, there are methodological problems in (EEA) refers jointly to the problems hunter-gatherers adopting the EEA. If the EEA exists and is a uniform had to solve and the conditions under which they solved background to which all humans adapted in the past, them (including their developmental environment)."73 then natural selection operates in a limited way on The environments that evolutionary psychologists refer humans. Consequently, the psychological mechanisms to are the organism itself, its physical environment, that evolutionary psychologists claim to have found are social environment, and the other species with which strongly genetic and are based in the past.78 This leads it interacts.74 Human brains were structured to solve evolutionary psychologists to neglect the immediate adaptive problems during our evolutionary history. and local responses humans have to their environment. This ancient and evolutionarily significant environment Foley also states that there are problems in using hunter- existed during the Pleistocene era when the human gatherers and their environments as the model for the mind underwent significant expansion and develop- EEA. It is not always clear whether the reconstruction ment. According to Edward Hagen, of the EEA is based on an actual assessment of the environment, or whether the environment is inferred Sunlight, acoustic oscillations, volatile compounds, from the adaptive characteristics of hunter-gatherers.79 foraging, mates, dangerous animals, children, kin, In addition, there is no one ancestral environment. social exchange, and group living have all been mapped have made it quite clear natural selection onto the structure of the human Evolutionary anthropologists by that there are a of societies with brain in the form of our and olfaction variety hunter-gatherer visual, auditory, diverse of life based on and cultural our to our sense of taste and ways regional abilities; ability navigate; differences.80 As states in her book Mother for our sexual our our Hrdy preference foods; desires; fears; Nature: love of children, relatives, and friends; our aversion to incest and our ability to detect cheaters and to form Rather than turning the EEA into a boilerplate for coalitions.75 a host of unverifiable assumptions about the lifestyles of humans in the last several hundred thousand years, Therefore, evolutionary psychologists generally behavioral ecologists recognize that a number of maintain that people cannot be adapted to the present possible environments might be evolutionarily relevant, or the future, only to the past. Yet, it is not always clear depending on which trait is at issue.81 when or where the EEA occurred. According to Wright, this was the period in which humans were hunters and At the same time, the EEA does not take into account gatherers, where people knew only their kin, and that human behavior has most probably evolved since relationships were monogamous or polygynous.76 In the Pleistocene era. William Irons argues that 10,000 contrast, Tooby and Cosmides stress that the EEA does years could be plenty of time for evolutionary change, not refer to a single particular habitat or time period. considering between 300 and 400 generations of They argue that it is a "statistical composite of the humans existed during this time.82 In addition, Gowaty

58 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution maintains that evolutionary psychologists do not have behavior. For example, if an individual's survival a testable hypothesis when they assume that the probability declines, the choice of mate will be in- Pleistocene is the EEA. Not only is their hypothesis discriminate because the possibility to encounter a more unverifiable, evolutionary psychologists do not really fit mate decreases. This directly challenges evolution- know what the selection pressures were then. She agrees ary psychology's fundamental assumption that, based with Irons that the last 10,000 to 15,000 years may be on anisogamy, females will be choosy and males will a better EEA with the advent of agriculture. Indeed, the be indiscriminate. Therefore, "regardless of parental last few generations of humans could be considered our investment patterns, not just females, but also males EEA, providing the data as well as testable hypotheses will be choosey under some circumstances."94This in- about human reproductive and social behavior.83 dividual flexibility in sex roles is now documented in Evolutionary psychology is also criticized for not many nonhuman organisms under both experimental paying enough attention to the role of both history and and field observational conditions. more recent, even present, environments and their Feminist evolutionists have been highly critical of effects on the expressions of behavior. Not only have evolutionary psychology's tendency to reinforce past feminists criticized evolutionary psychologists for and Western male and female stereotypes, especially this,84 but feminist evolutionists and behavioral ecolo- in terms of reproductive behavior and mate selec- 86' 87' 88' 89 96' 97' 98 gists have taken them to task as well.85' tion,95' and then stating that these preferences Though not addressing evolutionary psychology di- are universals across cultures, time, classes, and life rectly, Mary Jane West-Eberhard has maintained that history. From Darwin to the mid-twentieth century, the phenotype is affected by natural selection well be- many evolutionists assumed that females were highly fore the genes are. She defines "evolution as pheno- selective, if not coy, in their choices of mates. This typic change involving gene frequency change, not just selectiveness is supposedly rooted in females' large gene frequency change alone . . . The secret to under- and limited number of eggs and in the investment in standing evolution is to first understand phenotypes, time and energy that they (especially mammalian and including their development and their responsiveness primate females) give to each offspring in terms of 100'101' 102 to the environment."90 In regard to human behavior, gestation and lactation.99' In response to this evolutionary psychologists' focus on the EEA can lead theory of the "coy female," Hrdy's work on primates them to neglect the importance of current sociological, shows that primate females were anything but passive economic, cultural, and political factors that influence and coy in their pursuit of mates. In some cases, they human behaviors now expressed.91 would solicit sex from multiple males as a strategy This is particularly important as males and females perhaps to confuse paternity, to ensure conception, or 104' 105' 106 make decisions regarding reproductive strategies. In- to secure resources for their offspring.103' dividuals during their life times need to make calculated Zuk also provides evidence from many other species decisions regarding whether to be choosy or indiscrim- that females are not passive in mating, and that females inate in their choices of mates, taking into considera- can and do mate many times, often with different males, tion fitness differences among potential mates, time to even though these females' eggs are indisputably larger 93 reproduce, and other environmental cues.92' Patricia and more limited than males' sperm.107 Gowaty and Stephen Hubbell take these factors In addition, feminist evolutionists have also criticized seriously in a quantitative model called DYNAMATE, evolutionary psychology's stereotypes that women look which simulates individual behavior, mating success, for rich men as mates and that men look for young reproductive success, and survival. This model exam- women as mates. In his study of 37 cultures, Buss first ines the flexibility of reproductive behavior for both downplays the commonality that men and women have 109 sexes within the context of life history, probability of in looking for mates.108' Among those surveyed, survival, probability of encounters, receptivity, and both sexes want mates who are kind, understanding, different environments. Therefore, depending on the intelligent, and have exciting personalities, and these circumstances and the context in which individuals find were the top responses in the surveys. Instead, Buss themselves, both males and females theoretically can focuses on traits such as the physical attractiveness of flexibly express choosey or indiscriminate mating females and the good earning capacity of males, even

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 59

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen though they were not the highest ranked qualities for her models and experiments that each sex has counter- either sex. Using survey data of males and females in strategies that profoundly impact the other sex's their twenties, Buss only asked them their mate reproductive success. In "Sexual Dialectics, Sexual preferences and not their actual choices. In addition, Selection, and Variation in Reproductive Behavior," Buss did not examine how those choices may have Gowaty proposes a model of sexual dialectics that changed for these individuals over the course of their cogently explains the various relationships between the life histories.110 sexes and their effects on reproductive behavior and In her article "Raising Darwin's Consciousness," social organizations. When access to females limits Hrdy argues that Buss's claims about female mate male reproduction, males will be under selection choices are not supported with the evidence from other pressure to manipulate and control females' reproduc- primate species. Young, nonhuman, primate females tion. In other words, by using manipulation-control usually experience subfertility or miscarriage, and mechanisms, males will attempt to manage, restrain, therefore would not be an ideal choice for a nonhuman and command females for their own reproductive primate male looking for a mate. She suggests that it advantage. Such behavioral mechanisms can have both may be the case that the human males prefer young costs and benefits for females' survival probabilities. For females because they can be more easily influenced or example, males can force copulations, control females' controlled. Hrdy also argues that women's predisposi- access to resources, or restrain females from pursuing tion toward wealthy men is probably biologically other mates. At the other extreme, males may facilitate based, historically dependent, and situation dependent. female foraging success, protect them from predators, Primate studies show that male control of resources or assist in raising other offspring. Although these preceded female choice for such males. In the case of manipulations may be "nicer,"they may still manipu- women, they could be left with little or no choice but to late and control female reproductive choices. Whenever mate with men who controlled the resources necessary females fail to freely choose their mates, they are under for their own survival and reproduction. Hrdy main- selection to resist attempts by nonpreferred males to tains that such preferences emerge in the context of manipulate and control their mating decisions. For specific ecological, historical, marriage, and inheritance example, if females are more mobile, they may be able systems that men controlled. Rather than accepting the to better resist direct control of males, or as their size argument that the preferences are rooted in evolved, relative to males increases, direct male control becomes universal psychological mechanisms, Hrdy maintains more costly as females increase their ability to win that these preferences are flexible, influenced by the fights. Finally, in those environments with more refuge environment, and definitely open to change.111 for females, direct control by males should also Another alternative explanation of female mate decrease.118 choice involves male parental care. Smuts and Guber- Once females are successful at resisting direct nick suggest that long-term male parental care did not control, males are under selection to manipulate and evolve from natural selection, but from sexual selection. control female access to those resources necessary for Females preferred males who provided assistance with their survival and reproduction. If such control is offspring. As human infants demanded more care for deleterious to female fitness, females would then be longer periods of time, females would have chosen selected to resist again. Once females successfully resist males willing to provide this type of help. At the same male control of resources, eventually they will be free to time, males would have benefited too from this choose males that exhibit honest signals of their quality arrangement. Not only did they receive ongoing mating as mates. This sexual dialectics theory is not only opportunities, they also achieved better paternity testable in both natural and experimental situations, it certainty.112 also challenges the assumption that females would In a range of empirical studies over the last ten years, prefer only males who control resources.119 114' 115' 116 Gowaty113' and Gowaty and Hubbell117 Another issue that feminist evolutionists have with have demonstrated the importance of female choice and evolutionary psychology is that it tends to blame women females' abilities to control resources and their own for their own struggles with inequality and patriar- reproductive decisions. She has demonstrated through chal systems. For example, evolutionary psychologists

60 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution initially seem to agree with feminists that some male Lome Campbell argue, there has been an overreliance sexual strategies bear out major elements of the feminist on self-reports, and multiple research methods and analysis of patriarchy - that men control resources paradigms could certainly strengthen evolutionary worldwide, they oppress women's sexuality and their psychology.130 access to resources, and that women themselves can More recently, there are a handful of evolutionary 121' 122 participate in their own oppression.120' How- psychologists who have begun to take these criticisms ever, Buss argues that men's dominant control of seriously and are examining more variables and be- resources worldwide can be traced in part to women's havioral flexibility, particularly in terms of mating preference for such men, which he argues is expressed strategies. For example, Hillard Kaplan and Steven repeatedly and invariably in dozens of studies.123 Gangestad attempt to infuse life-history theory into Therefore, women's preferences set the ground rules evolutionary psychology to take into account how for male competition. "Modern men have inherited allocations of energy and time, along with cues from the from their ancestors psychological mechanisms that environment, impact mating and reproduction.131 In not only give priority to resources and status, but also addition, Gangestad and Simpson show that both males lead men to take risks to attain resources and and females display both short-term and long-term status."124 This would then include men's control of mating strategies within certain contexts. They argue resources women need and the establishment of pa- that there are within-sex variations in sexual strategies. triarchal systems. Evolutionary psychology maintains Although there are men who do pursue short-term that these preferences are inflexible because they are mating strategies, which some evolutionary psycholo- rooted in psychological mechanisms formed by sexual gists assume to be the most beneficial to males, they are selection. a small number, and this does not explain why men Finally, these issues therefore lead to questions about pursue a long-term mating strategy. Gangestad and evolutionary psychology's methodology in general, and Simpson state that a short-term mating strategy would 126 Buss's125' in particular. In regard to Buss's research, be a conditional strategy based on particular envi- he used questionnaires in his study of 37 cultures. ronmental conditions and females' preference for Participants were asked questions about their personal indicators of genetic fitness. On the other hand, in preferences regarding long-term mates. This methodol- environments where biparental care of infants was ogy has several flaws. First, self-reports of human crucial to their survival, females would have preferred behavior can be unreliable; individuals can lie and even males who pursued a long-term mating strategy, and give answers that they think the directors of the study those males that pursued it would have found greater want to hear.127 Second, the samples in Buss's study reproductive success.132 It is interesting to note were not representative of the populations within each that Gangestad and Simpson make reference to 134 of these cultures. Rural, lower-socioeconomic and less- Hrdy's133' and Gowaty's135 works that have criti- educated groups were underrepresented, while Buss cized evolutionary psychology's stereotypic assumptions focused on college-aged individuals.128 In another about male and female reproductive strategies and the critique of Buss's work, David Buller argues that Buss importance of environmental contingencies.136 Their only found averages of individual survey responses research has been informed by feminist evolutionists' conformed closely to his hypotheses. There are averages perspectives, which has led them and other feminist of populations of these 37 cultures, not those of evolutionists to challenge some of the assumptions and individual humans. According to Buller, "what Buss's research done within evolutionary psychology. survey results show is not that particular preferences but that are psychological universals, particular average The relationship between feminist are cultural universals"119 an- preferences Finally, evolutionists and behavioral ecology other problem with this methodology is that individuals are asked these questions outside the real Because feminist evolutionists tend to be very critical context of their lives. These are serious issues regarding of evolutionary psychology, it leads to the question, this research, and evolutionary psychologists usually what then is their foundational approach to the present this study as definitive. As Jeffrey Simpson and evolution of behavior? Many feminist evolutionists

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 61

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen have their intellectual roots in sociobiology, evolution- vestment.145 According to Low, behavioral ecology ary biology, behavioral ecology, primatology, and begins its study of animal and human behavior with the evolutionary anthropology. They are interested in following assumptions: behavioral outcomes, whereas evolutionary psycholo- • Organisms are generally well-suited to their environ- gists are more interested in the psychological processes 138 ments, acquiring resources necessary for their sur- that lead to reproductive decisions.137' Feminist vival and reproductive success. Those that are more evolutionists, like those scholars in these subfields, efficient at acquiring these resources will survive and argue that natural selection acts indirectly on the reproduce better than others. mechanisms (psychological or genetic) of evolution. In • Behavioral ecology tests heritable variations in gene other words, "what goes on in the mind is often less frequencies over time. Genes spread throughout significant than what results from the behavior."139 a population through reproduction and by assisting Over the past 25 years, evolutionary approaches and either kin or non-kin in a reciprocal way. feminism itself have complemented each other, offer- • Organisms, including humans, have not evolved to ing insights into female behavior and the relation- perceive or assess directly the spread of genes. ships between the sexes. In fact, those subfields that • Humans are like other organisms in that they have have roots in sociobiology - evolutionary biology, evolved to survive and reproduce.146 behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary anthropology - have built strong bridges with femi- The foundational research in behavioral ecology nism, and feminist insights have also been well received comes from animal studies where researchers examine within these fields. current variations in traits, behaviors, and reproduc- During the 1970s and 1980s, the influx of women tion. There are opportunities for these animal research- and feminist evolutionists into the fields of sociobiology ers to test hypotheses on actual populations about the and primatology challenged the male-centered theories adaptiveness of traits and behaviors. These researchers about reproductive behavior. They called for a are more interested in how social and ecological constraints impact individual behavioral options.147 biosocial perspective on women [that emphasizes] Humans throughout their history have encountered the context-dependent nature of both their biological a variety of environments and have used many different and behavior responses to the demands of reproduction. strategies to survive and reproduce. According to The evolutionary history of human female reproductive Borgerhoff Mulder, a behavioral ecological approach strategies has supported phenotypic and behavioral sees individuals as facultative They assess in that a woman's to opportunists. plasticity ways optimize ability their environmental conditions and choose the most access the resources necessary to produce and rear her strategies. From this per- children.140 optimal fitness-maximizing spective, individual behavior is definitely seen as more In other words, they emphasized the importance of flexible and variable.147Though human genotypes are ecological context, development, and life history in the considered to be similar across contemporary human evolution of social and reproductive behavior. Along populations, variations in behavior are considered to be with this new feminist perspective, feminist evolution- responses to various environmental influences. In other ists were able to see females as actively and strategically words, humans are adapted to a wide range of condi- pursuing their own reproductive success, calling into tions rather than to a specific environmental state, such question the assumptions of male dominance and as the EEA that evolutionary psychologists maintain.148 female passivity. In terms of research on human behavior, human In their analyses of male and female behavior, behavioral ecologists examine subsistence patterns, the feminist evolutionists have adopted behavioral ecolog- influence of resources, parental investment, and re- ical methods and assumptions. Like evolutionary productive strategies. In other words, behavioral psychology, behavioral ecology has its roots in Darwin's ecologists want to know what the relationships are theories of natural selection141 and sexual selection,142 among environmental cues, the phenotypes, and the 150 Hamilton's theory of kin selection,143 and Trivers's effect on fitness.149' They look beyond the question theories of reciprocal altruism144 and parental in- of adaptation and also examine the role of chance,

62 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution development, historical contingencies, and phyloge- movement, or behavior. These changes may or may not netic constraints.151 This tends to be a piecemeal ap- be adaptive.159 proach where, in terms of the study of human behavior, As stated earlier, there are many feminist evolution- complex socioecological phenomena are studied piece ists that have emerged from the various subfields of the by piece based on testable models and observable evolutionary sciences, and their interests in feminism 153'154 161'162 data.152' have corrected past biases160' and have provided Finally, a behavioral ecological approach to evolu- new hypotheses to be tested. Gowaty, an evolutionary tion focuses on phenotypes rather than genes or biologist and feminist evolutionist, has demonstrated cognitive mechanisms. According to Cronk, "Human that the evolutionary sciences and feminism share both behaviors are seen as phenotypes that ... are combined philosophical and practical concerns in their research outcomes of interactions between genes and environ- agendas. Feminism pays attention to the vast experiments. Our species' remarkable behavioral plasticity ences of women, focusing on the proximate causes of and its capacity for culture are seen as outcomes of our what happens to women, how men gain and maintain evolutionary history."155Unlike evolutionary psychol- control, and how women resist such control. At the ogists, behavioral ecologists are not concerned with the same time, evolutionary science focuses on the ultimate actual mechanisms (genes or psychological mecha- explanations of differences and similarities of behavior nisms) that lead individuals to their adaptive solutions. and variations in social organization.163 In fact, they choose to ignore genetic, phylogenetic, and It is important to stress that though feminist evo- cognitive constraints because they assume that they will lutionists are concerned about the lives of women and have a minimal influence on phenotypic adaptation. would like to see greater equality between the sexes, Behavioral ecologists believe that humans are capable they are scientists first. As Gowaty explains, feminist of rapid adaptive shifts in phenotype, adapting well to evolutionist hypotheses must be robustly tested us- most contemporary environments.156 ing observations and controlled experiments. It is Indeed, this phenotypic flexibility has been stressed this scientific robustness that helps them control for by evolutionary biologist West-Eberhard.She is critical biases - theirs as well as others. Feminist evolutionof sociobiology (and would be of evolutionary psy- ists see behavior resulting from an ongoing interaction chology) for focusing on genes at the expense of the between the organism and its environment. Rather environment and its impact on development. She states than assuming that human behavior is fixed within that "by imagining that there is a one-to-one relation- evolved psychological mechanisms, they see evolu- ship between genes and phenotype . . . biologists lose tionary change as dynamic and ongoing, with great sight of the role of the environment and polygenic potential for change for men, women, and their social influence in development and evolution."157 In addi- and political environments.164 tion, evolution and adaptive change work on the There are many points at which feminism and phenotype first and then on the genes. The changes evolutionary science converge. For example, both that occur during development are a result of both the evolutionary theorists and feminists are interested in genes and the environment. West-Eberhardalso argues the history of inequality and how interactions between that both animals and humans have phenotypic individuals and social environments influence distri- plasticity, which is the ability to "produce more than bution of characteristics and resources.165 In the one form of morphology, physiological state, and/or development of patriarchal systems, human females' behavior in response to environmental conditions."158 choices were probably constrained by social, economic, In the past, plasticity was seen as "nongenetic" and and ecological variables that were beyond their control, therefore unimportant to evolution. However, pheno- leaving them few options other than choosing men who typic plasticity itself is a trait that is subject to natural had status and resources.166In other words, selection and evolutionary change, guiding the direction and degree of responses to environmental factors. A woman's preferencefor a wealthy man can be Therefore, all organisms have plasticity, the ability to explained by the simple reality that in such societies react to both internal and external environmental males monopolizeownership of productiveresources inputs that may result in a change of form, state, (cattle, land, high-payingjobs); a woman gains access

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 63

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen

to resourcesthat she needs to surviveand reproduce reduced women's choices and created persistent sexual throughher mate.167 inequality. Overall, feminist evolutionists maintain that both In a more detailed analysis, Smuts offers several biological and environmental factors have contributed interrelated hypotheses on the origins of patriarchy - to the development of patriarchal structures and how men gained control over women's sexuality and oppressive practices against women. At the same time, the resources necessary for survival and reproduction. they recognize the importance of variation in human First, she suggests that among our early human behavior and relationships and see males and females ancestors, reduced social support from family and having potential choices and a variety of strategies female allies jeopardized a female's ability to resist emerging from different environments. In other words, male aggression - a point that applies across primates The logic of naturalselection suggests that individ- generally.168At the same time, human male alliances uals should vary their reproductive behaviors as became increasingly well developed. Not only did a function of the environmentsin which they find these alliances control male-male competition, they themselves.This way of looking at the evolutionary increased men's ability to control women, ranging process places the environmentat the center of the from physical force to laws, norms, and social Ratherthan blamingthe victimor her hapless structures. Another factor that contributed to the picture. genes,such an evolutionaryperspective finds fault with development of patriarchy is the development of her surroundings.174 agriculture. This system required more intense labor power, enabling men to gain more control over the Unlike evolutionary psychologists, feminist evolu- resources that women needed to survive and re- tionists take into consideration women's reproductive produce, further increasing men's ability to control interests as well as how the interaction of resource and coerce women.169 availability, social structures, and male behavior itself Smuts also states that the development of patriarchy can result in sexual inequality and oppressive con- can be attributed to the increased variance in male ditions for women. Instead of seeing these patterns of wealth and power during human history.170Not only behavior as unlikely to change, feminist evolutionists did this make some men much more politically and see human behavior as much more flexible, variable, economically powerful, it gave them greater access to and open to the possibility of greater sexual equality. In women.171 In exchange for the resources necessary for other words, human behavior is currently evolving. their survival and reproduction, many women surren- The feminist evolutionists' insistence that evolution dered their own freedom and submitted to greater currently influences organisms and their behavior is control over their lives. In societies with greater social supported by West-Eberhard'slatest work, Developmen- stratification and unequal distribution of resources, tal Plasticity and Evolution. This tremendous research males are preferred over females in terms of parental has profound implications not only for evolutionary investment, power, and inheritance rules.172 A fourth science, but for feminism itself. Even though she does factor contributing to the persistence of patriarchy is not identify herself as a feminist, her work directly that some women themselves promoted male control challenges the prevailing bias toward genetic selection as of resources and female sexuality. These women saw the driving force of evolution. She persuasively argues the support of these social, political, and economic that phenotypes are not only flexible but have a plas- structures as necessary to their own reproductive ticity that makes them responsive to a variety of envi- success as well as their children. Finally, Smuts states ronmental influences. In other words, the environment that the human capacity for language has further is an important agent of selection and evolutionary enabled men to control women and the resources they change. One of the most plastic traits is behavior, which need. Ideologies, laws, religion, and even science have can be an important initiator of evolutionary change. been used to promote male superiority and female Behaviors can produce favorable and adaptive varia- subordination.173 Consequently, all of these factors tions more quickly than changes in morphology, and have interacted with and reinforced each other to create behavior that occurs during development can influence social, political, and economic systems that have morphology. This approach to evolution certainly

64 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution takes into consideration the role of learning and On the other hand, behavioral ecological approaches culture in looking at behavioral plasticity.175 to evolution examine both organisms and their reac- Not only does West-Eberhard'swork directly chal- tions to the environment. Evolution is seen as current lenge many of the assumptions of evolutionary psychol- and a dynamic interaction between the organism and ogy, it also supports those feminist evolutionists who, for the various components of its environment - the the past twenty-five years, have argued that inequality, ecology, resource availability, and the behaviors of female passivity, and patriarchal structures are not other organisms. Feminist evolutionists have been adaptive and inherited behaviors from our Pleistocene trained in sociobiology, evolutionary biology, prima- past. Indeed, as women demanded more equal resource tology, and evolutionary anthropology, all of which use distribution by the late twentieth century, women have behavioral ecological methods. It is not just a matter of gained more power, status, and equality than they have feminist evolutionists adopting behavioral ecological had for most of their evolutionary history. perspectives for political reasons. The assumption of inflexible psychological mechanisms does not stand up Conclusion to the research that demonstrates the flexibility and plasticity of behavior in other species as well as humans. Feminist evolutionists have been critical of evolu- Humans respond to their environments and have tionary psychology and its analyses of human male and a variety of responses that can be beneficial to their female reproductive behavior since the early 1990s. survival and reproductive success. It is quite evident Although their criticisms have focused on persistent that humans are evolving. stereotypes, questionable methodology, and an overall Consequently, feminist evolutionists' work can chill toward feminists, there has been little analysis as to certainly be considered liberating for women. These why there is an ongoing conflict between these two feminists have provided a dynamic understanding of the approaches within the evolutionary sciences. This paper evolution of patriarchy and have shown that females argues that many evolutionary psychologists have not are strategically active in the pursuit of their own taken feminist criticisms seriously. Instead, feminists reproductive success. They have demonstrated that have been chided for not embracing evolutionary human behavior is flexible and that there are various perspectives and merely pursuing their own political environmental factors that reduce female reproduc- agendas. At best, the most recent works in evolutionary tive autonomy and choices. Not only do women not psychology mention the contributions by female and have to accept the status quo of sexism and sexual feminist evolutionists, but do not integrate this litera- inequality, feminist evolutionist research supports ture into their own analyses. women in their efforts to create those conditions This disconnect between feminist evolutionists and that can better promote and protect their reproduc- evolutionary psychologists continues today because of tive interests and sexual equality. their fundamental assumptions about the evolution of human behavior. Evolutionary psychologists maintain that human psychological mechanisms were set during LauretteT. Liesen is an AssociateProfessor of Political the Pleistocene era, and that these patterns of behavior Scienceat Lewis Universityin Romeoville,IL. Her areas of persist today, even though they may be maladaptive in interest include political philosophy,feminism, biopolitics, today's environment. Therefore, human behavior is femalereproductive strategies, and human-naturetheory. considered relatively inflexible, at least in the short term, and that the status quo is here to stay. Most feminists are not receptive to evolutionary psychology because it presents human behavior as unchangeable, References and no matter what social, economic, or political 1. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, The Woman That Never Evolved changes may be implemented, men and women will (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). tend to make the same choices. It is no wonder certainly 2. Laurette Liesen, "Feminism and the Politics of that feminists do not use evolutionary psychology to Reproductive Strategies," Politics and the Life Sciences, support their goal of greater equality for women. 1995, 14:145-162.

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 65

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen

3. MartinDaly and MargoWilson, "HumanEvolutionary 17. Liesen,"Feminism and the Politicsof Reproductive Psychologyand AnimalBehavior," Animal Behavior, 1999, Strategies,"p. 145. 57:509-519. 18. Gowaty,"Introduction: Darwinian Feminists and 4. SarahBlaffer Hrdy, The WomanThat Never Evolved: FeministEvolutionists," p. 14. Witha New Preface(Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity 19. GrietVandermassen, Who's Charles Press,1999), p. xix. Afraidof Darwin?Debating Feminism and Evolutionary 5. Anne Fausto-Sterling,The Mythsof Gender:Biological Theory(Lanham, MD: Rowmanand Littlefield,2005), Theoriesabout Womenand Men, seconded. (New York: p. 2. BasicBooks, 1992). 20. CharlesDarwin, The Originsof Species(New York: 6. RuthBleier, Science and Gender:A Critiqueof Biology CollierPress, 1859). and Its Theorieson Women(New York:Pergamon Press, Man and Selectionin 1984). 21. CharlesDarwin, The Descentof Relationto Sex (London:John Murray,1871). 7. ZuleymaTang-Martinez, "The Curious Courtship of Selection Sociobiologyand Feminism:A Case of Irreconcilable 22. GeorgeWilliams, Adaptation and Natural Differences,"in Feminismand EvolutionaryBiology: (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1966). Boundaries,Intersections, and Frontiers,Patricia Adair 23. WilliamHamilton, "Evolution of AltruisticBehavior," Gowaty,ed. (New York:Chapman and Hall, 1997), The AmericanNaturalist, 1964, 97:354-356. pp. 116-117. 24. RobertTrivers, "The Evolution of ReciprocalAltruism," 8. Sheila Determinism: Greene,"Biological Persisting The QuarterlyReview of Biology,1971, 46(4):35-57. Problemsfor the Psychologyof Women,"Feminism and Psychology,2004, 14(3):431-435. 25. RobertTrivers, "Parental Investment and Sexual Selection,"in SexualSelection and the Descentof Man, 9. LedaCosmides et "Introduction: ai, Evolutionary BernardCampbell, ed. (Chicago:Aldine, 1972). Psychologyand ConceptualIntegration," in The Adapted Mind:Evolutionary Psychology and the Generationof 26. EdwardO. Wilson,Sociobiology: The New Synthesis Culture,Jerome H. Barkowet aL, eds. (New York:Oxford (Cambridge,MA: The BelknapPress, 1975). UniversityPress, 1992), pp. 7-8. 27. JudyStamps, "Sociobiology: Its Evolutionand 10. David Geary,Male/Female: The Evolutionof Human IntellectualDescendants," Politics and the Life Sciences, Sex Differences(Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological 1995, 14:191. Association,1998), pp. 123, 151-152. 28. MartinDaly and MargoWilson, Sex, Evolution,and 11. AnneCampbell, A Mindof Her Own: TheEvolutionary Behavior,second ed. (Boston:PWS Publisher, 1983). Psychologyof Women(New York:Oxford Press, University 29. Donald The Evolution York: 2002). Symons, of Sexuality(New OxfordUniversity Press, 1979). 12. Tang-Martinez,"The Curious Courtship of Sociobiology 30. David in The Handbook and Feminism,"pp. 116-150. Buss, "Mating," of EvolutionaryPsychology, David Buss,ed. (Hoboken, 13. Anne Fausto-Sterling,"Beyond Difference: Feminism NJ:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005), pp. 251-253. and EvolutionaryPsychology," in Alas, Poor Darwin,Hilary Selectionin Rose and StevenRose, eds. (New York:Harmony Books, 31. A. J. Bateman,"Intra-Sexual Drosophila," 2000), pp. 216-218. Heredity,1948, 2:349-368. 14. David Buss,"Evolutionary Insights into Feminismand 32. Symons,The Evolutionof Sexuality. the 'Battleof the in Sexes,'" Sex, Power,Conflict: 33. JohnTooby and LedaCosmides, "Conceptual and Feminist DavidBuss and Neil Evolutionary Perspectives, Foundationsof EvolutionaryPsychology," in The eds. York:Oxford Malamuth, (New UniversityPress, 1996), Handbookof EvolutionaryPsychology, David Buss,ed. 296-318. pp. (Hoboken,NJ: John Wileyand Sons, Inc., 2005), p. 5. 15. StevenE. Sex Rhoads,Taking DifferencesSeriously 34. and Cosmides, Foundationsof Francisco:Encounter Tooby "Conceptual (San Books,2004). EvolutionaryPsychology," p. 14. 16. PatriciaAdair "Introduction:Darwinian Gowaty, 35. Cosmideset #/.,"Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology Feministsand FeministEvolutionists," in Feminismand and ConceptualIntegration," pp. 7-9. EvolutionaryBiology: Boundaries, Intersections, and Frontiers,Patricia Adair Gowaty, ed. (New York: 36. David Buss, The Evolutionof Desire:Strategies for Chapman& Hall, 1997), pp. 13-14. HumanMating (New York:Basic Books, 1994), p. 3.

66 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution

37. Daly andWilson, "Human Evolutionary Psychology and 59. Pinker,The BlankSlate, p. 342. AnimalBehavior." 60. Matt Ridley,Nature Via Nurture:Genes, Experience, 38. Toobyand Cosmides,"Conceptual Foundations of and WhatMakes Us Human(New York:Harper Collins EvolutionaryPsychology," p. 8. Publishers,2003), p. 246. 39. DonaldSymons, "On the Use and Misuseof Darwinism 61. SarahBlaffer Hrdy, "Raising Darwin's Consciousness: in the Studyof HumanBehavior," in The AdaptedMind: FemaleSexuality and the PrehominidOrigins of Patriarchy," EvolutionaryPsychology and the Generationof Culture, HumanNature, 1997, 8:2-4. JeromeH. Barkowet al., eds. (New York:Oxford University 62. SarahBlaffer Hrdy, Mother Nature, (New York: Press,1992), 138. p. Pantheon,1999). 40. David Buss,"Sex Differences in HumanMate 63. Rhoads,Taking Sex DifferencesSeriously. Preferences:Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures,"Behavioral and BrainSciences, 1989, 12:1-49. 64. Vandermassen,Who's Afraid of CharlesDarwin f, pp. 147-194. 41. Buss,The Evolutionof Desire. 65. Buss, into Feminismand the 42. 161. "EvolutionaryInsights Geary,Male/Female, p. 'Battleof the Sexes,'"p. 308. 43. David The New Science Buss,Evolutionary Psychology: 66. Vandermassen,Who's Afraid of CharlesDarwin?, the Mind and of (Boston:Allyn Bacon, 1999). p. 188. 44. Robert Meet Mr. New Wright,"Feminists, Darwin," 67. Tang-Martinez,"The Curious Courtship of Sociobiology Republic,28 November1994, pp. 34-46. and Feminism." 45. Robert The MoralAnimal: Wright, Evolutionary 68. DavidBuller, Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and York: Psychology EverydayLife (New VintageBooks, and the PersistentQuest for HumanNature (Cambridge, 135-137. 1994), pp. MA: The MIT Press,2005). 46. into Feminismand the Buss,"Evolutionary Insights 69. JanetSayre, Biological Politics: Feminist and 'Battleof the 296-318. Sexes,"'pp. Anti-FeministPerspectives (London: Tanstock Publications, 47. StevenPinker, The BlankSlate: Modern Denial of 1982). HumanNature (New York:Viking Press, 2003). 70. Bleier,Science and Gender. 48. Rhoads,Taking Sex DifferencesSeriously. 71. Fausto-Sterling,The Mythsof Gender. 49. Wright,"Feminists, Meet Mr. Darwin." 72. PatriciaAdair Gowaty, "Power Asymmetries betweenthe Mate and 50. Hrdy,The WomanThat Never Evolved. Sexes, Preferences, Components of Fitness,"in Evolution,Gender, and Rape, Cheryl 51. SarahBlaffer Hrdy, "Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth BrownTravis, ed. (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,2003), of the Coy Female,"in FeministApproaches to Science,Ruth p. 62. Bleier,ed. (New York:Pergamon, 1986), pp. 119-146. 73. Toobyand Cosmides,"Conceptual Foundations of 52. JaneLancaster, "A Feministand EvolutionaryBiologist EvolutionaryPsychology," p. 22. Looksat Women,"Yearbook of PhysicalAnthropology, 74. Edward "ControversialIssues in 1991,34:1-11. Hagen, Evolutionary Psychology,"in The Handbookof EvolutionaryPsychology, 53. BarbaraSmuts, "Male Aggression against Women: An David Buss,ed. (Hoboken,NJ: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., EvolutionaryPerspective," Human Nature, 1992, 3:1-44. 2005), pp. 145-175. 54. PatriciaAdair Gowaty, "Evolutionary Biology and 75. Hagen,p. 155. Feminism,"Human Nature, 1992, 3:217-249. 76. Wright,The MoralAnimal, pp. 38-39. 55. Wright,The MoralAnimal, p. 69. 77. Toobyand Cosmides,"Conceptual Foundations of 56. Buss,The Evolutionof Desire, p. 212. EvolutionaryPsychology," pp. 386-387. 57. Buss,"Evolutionary Insights into Feminismand the 78. RobertFoley, "The Adaptive Legacy of Human 'Battleof the Sexes,'"p. 297. Evolution:A Searchfor Environmentof Evolutionary the Gatherer: Adaptiveness,"Evolutionary Anthropology, 1996, 58. LauretteLiesen, "The Legacy of Woman 4:194-195. The Emergenceof EvolutionaryFeminism," Evolutionary Anthropology,1998, 6:111-113. 79. Foley,pp. 195-196.

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 67

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen

80. WilliamIrons, "Adaptively Relevant Environments 102. Trivers,"Parental Investment and SexualSelection." versusthe Environmentof EvolutionaryAdaptiveness," 103. Hrdy,"Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the EvolutionaryAnthropology, 1998, 6:195-196. Coy Female,"pp. 123-129. 81. Hrdy,Mother Nature, p. 101. 104. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness," pp. 8-22. 82. Irons,"Adaptively Relevant Environments versus the 105. "Male Women:An Environmentof EvolutionaryAdaptiveness," p. 195. Smuts, Aggressionagainst EvolutionaryPerspective." 83. Gowaty,"Power Asymmetries between the Sexes,Mate 106. Barbara "The of Preferences,and Componentsof Fitness,"pp. 68-71. Smuts, EvolutionaryOrigins Patriarchy,"Human Nature, 1995, 6:1-32. 84. Fausto-Sterling,"Beyond Difference: Feminism and 107. SexualSelections. EvolutionaryPsychology." Zuk, 85. Hrdy,Mother Nature. 108. Buss,"Sex Differences in HumanMate Preferences." 86. Hrdy,The Womanthat Never Evolved. 109. Buss, The Evolutionof Desire. 87. Gowaty,"Power Asymmetries between the Sexes, 110. Buller,Adapting Minds. Mate and of Fitness." Preferences, Components 111. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness," pp. 3-5. 88. and MaryJane West-Eberhard, "Phenotypic Plasticity 112. BarbaraSmuts and David Gubernick,"Male-Infant the of Diversity,"Annual Review of Origins Ecological Relationshipsin NonhumanPrimates: Paternal Investment or 1989, 20:249-278. Systems, MatingEffort?" in Father-ChildRelations: Cultural and 89. MaryJane West-Eberhard, Developmental Plasticity and BiosocialContexts, B. S. Hewlett,ed. (Hawthorne,NY: Evolution(New York:Oxford University Press, 2003). Aldinede Gruyter,1992). 90. West-Eberhard,Developmental Plasticity and 113. Gowaty,"Evolutionary Biology and Feminism." Evolution,p. 28. 114. PatriciaAdair Gowaty, "Battle of the Sexesand Origins 91. VictoriaSork, "Quantitative Genetics, Feminism, and of Monogamy,"in Partnershipsin Birds:The Studyof EvolutionaryTheories of GenderDifferences," in Feminism Monogamy,Jeffrey M. Black,ed. (Oxford:Oxford and EvolutionaryBiology: Boundaries, Intersections, and UniversityPress, 1996). Frontiers,Patricia Adair Gowaty, ed. (New York: 115. PatriciaAdair "SexualDialectics, Sexual Chapmanand Hall, 1997), p. 107. Gowaty, Selection,and Variationin MatingBehavior," in Feminism 92. West-Eberhard,Developmental Plasticity and and EvolutionaryBiology: Boundaries, Intersections, and Evolution,pp. 16-17. Frontiers,Patricia Adair Gowaty, ed. (New York: & Hall, 1997), 351-384. 93. PatriciaAdair Gowaty and StephenHubbell, "Chance, Chapman pp. TimeAllocation, and the Evolutionof AdaptivelyFlexible 116. Gowaty,"Power Asymmetries between the Sexes, Sex Role Behavior,"Integrative and ComparativeBiology, Mate Preferences,and Componentsof Fitness." 2005, 45:934-936. 117. Gowatyand Hubbell,"Chance, Time Allocation,and 94. Gowatyand Hubbell,"Chance, Time Allocation, and the Evolutionof AdaptivelyFlexible Sex Role Behavior." the Evolutionof AdaptivelyFlexible Sex Role Behavior," 118. "Sexual Sexual and p. 940. Gowaty, Dialectics, Selection, Variationin MatingBehavior," pp. 367-369. 95. Gowaty,"Power Asymmetries between the Sexes, Mate Preferences,and Componentsof Fitness." 119. Gowaty,"Sexual Dialectics, Sexual Selection, and Variationin MatingBehavior," pp. 369-378. 96. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness." 120. Buss, The Evolutionof Desire, pp. 211-214. 97. Hrdy,The Womanthat Never Evolved. 121. Smuts,"The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy." 98. MarleneZuk, SexualSelections: What We Canand Can'tLearn about Sex fromAnimals (Berkeley: University of 122. Gowaty,"Battle of the Sexesand Originsof CaliforniaPress, 2002). Monogamy." 99. Darwin,The Descent of Man and Selectionin Relation 123. Buss, "EvolutionaryInsights into Feminismand the to Sex, 'Battleof the Sexes,'"p. 308. 100. Bateman,"Intra-Sexual Selection in Drosophila." 124. Buss,The Evolutionof Desire, p. 212. 101. Williams,Adaptation and NaturalSelection. 125. Buss, "SexDifferences in HumanMate Preferences."

68 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Women,behaviour, and evolution

126. Buss,The Evolutionof Desire. 148. EricAlden Smith, "Three Styles in the Evolutionary Analysisof HumanBehavior," in Adaptationand Human 127. JonathanWaage and PatriciaAdair Gowaty, "Myths of Behavior:An AnthropologicalPerspective, Lee Cronkand GeneticDeterminism," in Feminismand Evolutionary WilliamIrons, eds. (New York:Aldine de Gruyter,Inc., Boundaries,Intersections, and Frontiers,Patricia Biology: 2000), p. 28. AdairGowaty, ed. (New York:Chapman & Hall, 1997), p. 606. 149. BorgerhoffMulder, "The Place of Behavioral EcologicalAnthropology in EvolutionarySocial Science," 128. MeredithSmall, "Are We Losers?Putting a Mating p. 256. Theoryto the Test,"New YorkTimes, 30 March1999, p. F5. 150. and of Genetic 129. Buller,Adapting Minds, p. 459. Waage Gowaty,"Myths Determinism," pp. 594-595. 130. JeffreySimpson and Lome Campbell,"Methods of 151. "The of HumanEvolution: Sciences,"in The Handbook Foley, AdaptiveLegacy Evolutionary of Evolutionary A Searchfor Environmentof David Buss,ed. (Hoboken, EvolutionaryAdaptiveness," Psychology, NJ:John Wiley 195. and Sons, Inc., 2005), pp. 119-144. p. 152. Lee "HumanBehavioral Annual 131. HillardKaplan and StevenGangstad, "Life History Cronk, Ecology," Review 20:26-28. Theoryand EvolutionaryPsychology," in The Handbookof of Anthropology,1991, David ed. EvolutionaryPsychology, Buss, (Hoboken,NJ: 153. Smith,"Three Styles in the EvolutionaryAnalysis of JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., 2005), p. 69. HumanBehavior," p. 29. "The 132. StevenGangestad and Jeffrey Simpson, Evolution 154. KevinN. Lalandand GillianR. Brown,Sense of Human Trade-offsand Mating: StrategicPluralism," and Nonsense:Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavioraland Brain 23:575-576. Sciences,2000, Behavior(New York:Oxford University Press, 2002), 133. Hrdy,The WomanThat Never Evolved,1981. pp. 114-120. 134. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness." 155. Cronk,"Human Behavioral Ecology," p. 27. 135. Gowaty,"Evolutionary Biology and Feminism." 156. Smith,"Three Styles in the EvolutionaryAnalysis of HumanBehavior," p. 30. 136. Gangestadand Simpson,"The Evolution of Human Mating:Trade-offs and StrategicPluralism," p. 574. 157. West-Eberhard,Developmental Plasticity and Evolution,p. 11. 137. BobbiLow, WhySex Matters:A DarwinianLook at HumanBehavior (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 158. West-Eberhard,"Phenotypic Plasticity and the Origins 2000), pp. 1-18. of Diversity,"p. 249. 138. Zuk, SexualSelections. 159. West-Eberhard,Developmental Plasticity and Evolution,p. 33. 139. Zuk, SexualSelections, p. 11. 160. Hrdy,The Womanthat Never Evolved,1981. 140. Lancaster,"A Feministand EvolutionaryBiologist Looksat Women,"p. 9. 161. Hrdy,"Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female." 141. Darwin,The Originsof Species. 162. Darwin'sConsciousness." 142. Darwin,The Descentof Manand Selectionin Relation Hrdy,"Raising to Sex. 163. Gowaty,"Evolutionary Biology and Feminism." 143. Hamilton,"Evolution of AltruisticBehavior." 164. Gowaty,"Introduction: Darwinian Feminists and Feminist 9-14. 144. Trivers,"The Evolution of ReciprocalAltruism." Evolutionists,"pp. 145. Trivers,"Parental Investment and SexualSelection." 165. Gowaty,"Power Asymmetries between the Sexes, Mate Preferences,and Componentsof Fitness,"p. 901. 146. Low, 2000. 166. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness," pp. 22-33. 147. MoniqueBorgerhoff Mulder et al., "ThePlace of BehavioralEcological Anthropology in Evolutionary 167. Hrdy,"Raising Darwin's Consciousness," p. 29. Social in Human Nature:Between Science," by Biology 168. Hrdy,The WomanThat Never Evolved,1981. and the SocialSciences, Peter Weingart et al., eds. (Muhwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc., 1997), 169. Smuts,"The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy," pp. 254-258. pp. 12-17.

Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i 69

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Liesen

170. Smuts,"The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy," FemaleReproductive Strategies," in Biopoliticsand pp. 17-18. Gender,M. Watts,ed. (New York:Hawthorne, 1984). 171. LauraBetzig, "Sex, Succession, and Stratification in the FirstSix Civilizations:How PowerfulMen 173. Smuts,"The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy," Reproduced,Passed Power onto TheirSons, and Used pp. 19-20. Powerto DefendTheir Wealth, Women, and Children," in SocialStratification and SocioeconomicInequality, 174. Anne Fausto-Sterling,Patricia Gowaty, and Marlene Volume1, L. Ellis,ed. (Westport,CT: Origin Press, Zuk, "EvolutionaryPsychology and DarwinianFeminism," 1993). FeministStudies, 1997, 23:6. 172. RogerMasters, "Explaining 'Male Chauvinism' 175. West-Eberhard,Developmental Plasticity and and 'Feminism':Cultural Differences in Male and Evolution,

70 Politics and the Life Sciences • 17 September 2007 • vol. 26, no. i

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:50:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions