Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T09:44:33.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminist Engagement with Evolutionary Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Carla Fehr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I ask feminist philosophers and science studies scholars to consider the goals of developing critical analyses of evolutionary psychology. These goals can include development of scholarship in feminist philosophy and science studies, mediation of the uptake of evolutionary psychology by other academic and lay communities, and improvement of the practices and products of evolutionary psychology itself. I evaluate ways that some practices of feminist philosophy and science studies facilitate or hinder meeting these goals, and consider the merits of critical engagement with some of the scientists themselves. Finally, I describe a community of feminist evolutionary psychologists with whom it might be both fruitful and interesting to engage, and identify ways that these interactions may benefit the science and the study of the science.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 50 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann, Jeanne. 1974. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 49 (3/4): 227–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barash, David. 1979. The whisperings within. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Birke, Lynda. 1986. Women, feminism and biology: The feminist challenge. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1986. Sex differences research: Science or belief? In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Buller, David. 2005. Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Burrow, Sylvia. 2010. Verbal sparring and apologetic points: Politeness in gendered argumentation contexts. Informal Logic 30 (3): 235–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, David. 1994/2003. The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, David. 2000. The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Buss, David. 2005. The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Buss, David. 2007. Jealousy, the necessary evil. Los Angeles Times, February 14.Google Scholar
Buss, David, and Malamuth, Neil, eds. 1996. Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John. 1997. Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Center for Evolutionary Psychology. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Cronin, Helena. 1991. The ant and the peacock: Altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Helena. 1992. Sexual selection: Historical perspectives. In Keywords in evolutionary biology, ed. Fox Keller, Evelyn and Lloyd, Elisabeth A.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, Martin, and Wilson, Margo. 2005. The “Cinderella Effect” is no fairy tale. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (6): 507–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeNoon, Daniel. 2003. Promiscuity differs by gender: Men and women are hard‐wired for short‐term sex—but must we obey our brains? WebMD, August 12. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender (accessed August 31, 2010).Google Scholar
Dotinga, Randy. 2010. Infidelity rises when she makes more than he does: In such couples, “gender identity threat” may make men less faithful, study suggests. Business Week, August 16. http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/642146.html (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, policy, and the value‐free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2010. Engagement for progress: Applied philosophy of science in context. Synthese 177 (3): 317–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, Stephen. 2008. Evolutionary psychology. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/evolutionary‐psychology/ (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Dupre, John. 1999. Review of Steven Pinker, How the mind works. Philosophy of Science 66: 489–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, John. 2001. Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 1985. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 1997. Feminism and behavioral evolution: A taxonomy. In Feminist and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections, and frontiers, ed. Gowaty, Patricia. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
FEPS. 2010. Feminist evolutionary psychology society homepage. http://fepsociety.org/ (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Geher, Glenn. 2009. The launching of the Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society: FEPS (July 18, 2009). http://evostudies.org/blog/?p=215 (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Gowaty, Patricia. 1996. Field studies of parental care in birds: New data focus questions on variation in females. In Advances in the study of behavior, ed. Snowdon, Charles T. and Rosenblatt, Jay S.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gowaty, Patricia. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in reproductive behavior. In Feminist and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections, and frontiers, ed. Gowaty, Patricia. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasswick, Heidi. 2010. Scientific and lay communities: Earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese 177 (3): 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul. 1996. The historical turn in the study of adaptation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4): 511–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist‐feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah. 1999. The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1990. The politics of women's biology. Piscataway, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2009. Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil: Feminism is the radical notion that women are men. Psychology Today (August 2). http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn. 1992. Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender and science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1987. Vaulting ambition: Sociobiology and the quest for human nature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard. 1998. The evolution of cognition: Questions we will never answer. In An invitation to cognitive science, volume 4: Methods, models, and conceptual issues, ed. Scarborough, D. and Sternberg, S.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1999. Evolutionary psychology: The burdens of proof. Biology and Philosophy 14 (2): 211–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 2003. Violence against science: Rape and evolution. In Evolution, gender, and rape, ed. Travis, Cheryl. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen, and Doell, Ruth. 1983. Body, bias, and behavior: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. Signs 9 (2): 206–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Emily. 2003. What is “rape”?— Toward a historical ethnographic approach. In Evolution, gender, and rape, ed. Travis, Cheryl. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Men's Health. 2009. The pain of lost love: The science of heartbreak. (March). http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/pain-lost-love (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Moulton, Janice. 1983. A paradigm of philosophy: The adversarial method. In Discovering reality, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
Richardson, Robert. 2007. Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1999. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smuts, Barbara, and Smuts, Robert. 1993. Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: Evidence and theoretical implications. Advances in the Study of Behavior 22: 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, Randy, and Palmer, Craig. 2000. A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tierney, John. 2007. The whys of mating: 237 reasons and counting. The New York Times, July 31. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/science/31tier.html. (accessed December 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Tooby, John. 1984. Reply to M. Blute, “The sociobiology of sex and sexes today.” Current Anthropology 25 (2): 193–212.Google Scholar
Travis, Cheryl. 2003. Evolution, gender, and rape. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, Robert. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971, ed. Campbell, B.Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2010. Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: New opportunities for philosophy of science. Synthese 177 (3): 471–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On human nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, David S., Dietrich, Eric, and Clark, Anne B. 2003. On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy 18 (5): 669–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margo, and Daly, Martin. 1998. Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives and the evolutionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In Violence against women: International and cross‐disciplinary perspectives, ed. Emerson Dobash, R. and Dobash, Russell P.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar