RE: Thoughts on "Impossible" Beauty Standards and Their Origin
Ah, this one should stir up some controversy. I can hear my friends now, "He sounds like an MRA, spouting unproven evolutionary psychology talking points!" Who's right? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have some ideas on a nature vs. nurture post I'll hopefully get to eventually.
This means that traditional or stereotypical expressions of masculinity or femininity are NOT a consequence of the improper or differing socialization of males and females
are not strictly societally-imposed but rather often genetically determined.
Do you have citations for these claims? I've only read one (Sex at Dawn) of the three books you recommended in your original post. Which should I read first to get more support for these claims (Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters or Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us)? Have you read any counter arguments to these claims and if so, what have you found them to be lacking?
I'm intrigued that you also added this:
and environmental influence
While saying these are not caused by culture or soceity. To me, the nature vs. nurture discussion is essentially answered with "Yes." Our culture and environment (even in vitro) impacts our gene expression and development which then impacts the culture we grow up in. This is one of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of peaceful parenting. If we prepare our children for a world of violence in the first five years of life, they will then create a self-fulfilling prophecy by creating a violent world (see http://bombinthebrain.com for more on that... and yes, I know, Molyneux is off the rails on some issues, but I think he gets this one right).
Both society and the individuals that comprise it would experience far more peace if they lived in harmony with their innate nature--that is, if they didn't feel shamed by politics or religion into living other than as their natures call them.
But what if our study of human development argues that rape was an evoluntionarily beneficial practice? Do we just throw up our hands and say, "Sorry girls, it's in my nature." I agree we should be focusing on truth, but we also can't deny that, when it comes to society and culture, we create our own "truths" there. As much as we'd like to pretend this is a hard science like math or physics, it isn't. Human psychology and "brain stuff" is really squishy. How can we make definitive claims about "what is" while also acknowledging we have the power to change "what is" by what we value and the inputs we feed back into the system to create new outputs?
If these "truths" you're claiming do lead to more rape and more systemic oppression against women, shouldn't we do something about that? Shouldn't we acknowledge that we, as conscious beings, are more than the sum of our primitive urges?
I guess I'm looking at this from both angles. 1) Yes, we should not deny our very nature and should work to constrain it towards building the world we all want to live in. And 2) Our "genes" are impacted by our environment and the inputs we give ourselves. We are no longer under primitive natural selection and have the control to adjust what we value as a species.
So who's right? What combination of nature or nurture makes the most sense? What will lead to an increase in human well-being and a decrease in human suffering?
What creates the world we all want to live in?
First, @lukestokes, I love this comment. I love that you're pointing out places that need better support, really engaging with the central point, and setting a high level of conversation in every way. I am so glad you're here.
In answer to your question:
I think vegans have this problem where their morals say eating meat is bad for the human body but studies show that the human brain grew to the size it now is partly due to meat eating. So, if we hadn't eaten meat, we wouldn't be capable of thinking it's a a bad idea. Back to the example at hand: Even if it is determined that rape was once a necessary aspect of human development, it does not follow that it must continue to be. It's possible to view the origin of impossible beauty standards as biological without saying they are a social good.
But you ask two really important questions.
The answer from the article is clearly Yes. I'll pull this quote from the article on Yoga to explain:
So, Yes, obviously we should try to be more than the sum of our primitive urges.
An even more important question is:
My sense is that this is simply a larger question than the article's topic intends to address. For the most part, women with body issues aren't becoming rapists (leaving a little wiggle room there). Personal empowerment doesn't extend to changing others. I can become conscious of my body issues, come to love my body etc and that does, theoretically, little to protect myself or my loved ones from rape. In that sense, it's a broader topic, and one I'd be curious about the author's answer to. Thanks for stimulating my brain!
Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters would be the better choice, I think. but I would encourage you to look beyond evolutionary psychology. My claims about masculinity and femininity being largely inherited traits are backed up by essentially every relevant scientific discipline. I will post some links here later.
You bring up a very valid point. It does sound like an excuse for misbehavior.
I am looking at it from both angles, as there is no other way.
We are motivated by our experience, as well as what is in our genes. ;)
:)) It's so strange that I like your comment more than the article.
Nevertheless why everybody insists in polarizing these linked parts of every human's life ? Why is important the result of nature vs nurture? They are interdependent. Forever interdependent and even if we want to understand better the human evolution throughout the old cause-effect recipe it's not right. Guys, you are talking about something refined in hundreds of thousands of years throughout thousands iterations. As you know better than me, actually it's one of the big questions of our evolution and we still use the old X vs Y. There are different layers of interpretation, different perspectives, many correlations between biological, psychological, cultural and we stick to a mathematical perspective?
I understand that we need to use the scientists output in our analyses and to be careful with the logical fractures that we have some predisposition to make but I think more importantly is: the relevancy of the "battle".
Why is important who's the winner when the winner is interchangeable with the second place ?
I don't knkw if I'm coerent at all.