Ah, "difference feminism." It's just bad science. I suppose technically you could argue that women being different doesn't make them inferior however, the truth really is that the majority of actual differences between the behavior of men and women can be traced to social expectations and cultural environment, not evolution or biology.

I think it goes beyond how society punishes women differently -- a powerful man who is intimate with a strange woman is seen as having that woman under his power; she is no threat to his public trust. But a powerful woman who is intimate with a strange man is seen as BEING under the power of that man (even if he's the car wash boy); he, no matter who he is, is seen as taking power unlawfully -- and she is seen as the "slut" that gave it to him.

For some reason, this seems more about power to me than about sex. Bill Maher has said all sorts of stuff on his show about how Spitzer is needing to satisfy sexual urges because he's basically "not getting any" at home. I doubt that has anything to do with Spitzer's motivation. It probably has very little to do with his marriage at all and much more to do with his own ego and need to get away with something and feel powerful.

Well, I'm a feminist and I agree with Robin Morgan. She didn't say women never would do such a thing, just that they don't as much, which is simply true. They don't, so why not admit it and grapple with the meaning of it? It's a good point about the historical (well, and still fully prevalent) consequences being worse for women. But I think it's true that men seek sex impulsively more on average than women.

Specifically, have you seen that Romanian movie, 4 months, 2 weeks, 3 days? [Caution, spoilers] Well it was a really fantastic and intense movie, but the exchange with the doctor was particularly poignant to me. It was so painful. I just can't imagine a female doctor exploiting them the way he did. Not that female doctors couldn't do really awful and exploitative things, but demanding an exchange for sex with someone who is completely at your mercy and as a resolution of a debt is particularly male.

I beg to make no claims about whether that's genetic or socially crafted, just that it is.

I think feminists have had a weird relationship with essentialism. I remember reading Adrienne Rich, in particular, and a lot of other feminists from the last three decades, and what strikes me is a back and forth between the "women are X" school and those who see the differences as socially constructed. It shows up in ostensibly feminist fiction in particular. It's like there's this need to validate some basic difference to explain something.

I think the only big-time feminist fiction authors from the 70s I can think of who've really grappled with this are Joanna Russ and Ursula LeGuin.

The rest of the time I always got this sense that all the nattering about how women were more nurturing or whatever came from frustration with the way men did things (not that that wasn't well earned frustration).

But the down side is that if you buy the essentialists' position, you remove any reason for men to change.

If men are basically, irredeemably evil by their nature -- and that's what you end up with when you say "men are ___ " or "women are ____ " -- then there isn't any reason for men to even try. And that strikes me as too bad, and rather dispiriting. What's the point then?

Humans are pretty flexible -- it's that flexibility, especially of social norms, that makes us able to adapt to many environments. (African social structure isn't much help in the Arctic, for instance -- that's one reason why those cultures are different).

"society punishes [women who stray] more harshly than men who stray."

It should be noted that there is a solid evolutionary reason why this would tend to be the case: unlike men who stray, until the very recent advent of DNA paternity testing women who strayed often were tricking their husbands into raising "cuckoo's eggs": children they incorrectly believed to be biologically their own but were not. Men who stray are not doing the same to their wives.

Alan

SlackerInc, that may have been the case until the advent of highly effective birth control methods and prophylactics, but I wouldn't call it "evolutionary" per se, since in the research of social structure, one does not find such stringent limits on women's sexual behavior until the the establishment of an agricultural society in which a man now has land with which to pass down to his offspring and wants to ensure that his land is actually going to his spawn.

I dont know, its been a long time since Early Human civilizations class, I could be misremembering.

I agree with lilaeden.

SlackerInc: If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

So your batshit crazy argument of evolutionary biology is invalid. And your sentiment is untrue.

Let's talk theory! I don't buy into this "difference feminism," or even to some extend, "cultural feminism" BS. Why can't we just say that "people are different," instead of the genders are different?

Some people cheat because they're horny. Some people cheat because they need attention. Some people cheat because they need an ego stroke. It makes me uncomfortable when a feminist writer starts to put women and men into these categories - it makes women into asexual beings who are all about vadilating their own feelings, and men into heartless horndogs. Neither is good.

I doubt Bill Maher - or anyone else - has the insider as to why Spitzer cheated - the fact is he did, though, and whatever reason it might have been, there is little excuse.

the assumption that men will be "naughty" is built into phrases like "boys will be boys." "Do you hear 'girls will be girls'?"

"Boys will be boys, but girls will be women" is the complete phrase I think.

Alan, all that shows is that society is, in fact, more oriented towards men's needs than women's. Many of the men who cheated would bring home awful diseases. The women that men would cheat with would get pregnant, have children, and have absolutely no social system to help them raise their children, thus leading to a lot of people starting out at a serious disadvantage in every way that was difficult (if not impossible) to overcome. Consequences like that are far more serious and terrible than a man raising someone else's child as his own. Which consequences are worse, after all: chronic disease, death, and/or social shunning of massive amounts of innocent people, or raising a child that isn't yours? So why do we still punish women more for cheating than men?

This need to verify paternity to pass on property, name, etc is also only valid in a patrilineal society. When the mother can be easily known and the father cannot, it does not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to put so much importance on paternity. It is a social construct that developed at some point in human history and has been very widespread, but not universal.

I only hit "enter" once, I am sorry for the multiple post. My computer is being stupid. Forgiveness pppleasssseeeeeeee!

Alan: This is true of our culture, but in cultures where the property is passed down mother-to-daughter, women enjoy a lot more sexual freedom (because it's usually obvious who someone's mother is). So, you're right, but it's a social construct and not biological.

I don't have any theories, but I'd like to note how damaging that whole "men want sex more than women do" thing is. It caused problems in my relationships until I realized what was going on.

I think the observed difference in female politician's behavior and male politician's behavior is a statistical anomaly.

There are far fewer women in political positions, especially powerful ones like Senate, Governor, Representative..etc..than in the general population. I think it's less than 20% of the government (I could be wrong on that number).

By and large, most politicians do not get caught up in scandals, do not get caught cheating on their spouses, do not wind up in jail. Most male politicians are faithful to their wives.

If it is unlikely to hear about a male politician cheating (who make up most politicians) it is extremely unlikely to hear of minorities doing the same thing.

That's a good point, Angelo. You're dealing with a question of ratios as well.

But the double-standard is all over the place, even in things like HPV. Girls are whores for needing to be protected from it, but where the flying fuck do people think they're GETTING it? Ducks? Both sides accept responsiblity, everyone wins. Instead though, we fall back on slut shaming.

As for Spitzer, his was really I believe a question of control, especially in light of his 'demands' about unsafe sex and the like. He's in a profession that holds ultimate power, and he never could get enough of it. I honestly believe Bill Clinton maybe just liked nookie, but Spitzer wanted control.

Ew.

You know, I read an interesting book about evolutionary psychology once and it argued that men are less forgiving when women cheat b/c the thought of using their resources to raise another man's children is unacceptable to them. But for women, a man may still use his resources to raise your children even if he cheats, so they are more likely to forgive. Clearly the issue isn't this simple, but I thought it was an interesting take on it. I find evolutionary psychology fascinating, but it's important to keep in mind that we're not SLAVES to our biology, so it's not some sort of a "free pass" for bad behavior or something.

I can't quite grasp Morgan's actual reasoning from that quote. Is she really saying one reason women don't cheat is "And women tend to regard sex differently. They like to at least like the person."?

Why would that lead to less cheating? A woman can like lots of people while married to one. In fact, I suspect most women who cheat do so with someone they "like."

I have a feeling this quote was taken out of context.

MyBabyPanda, I would think that a major factor in that would be that women have HAD to depend on men for much of recorded history, so they HAD to forgive the man who cheated, or lose their economic stability.

Evolutionary psychology is essentially complete bullshit. Honest.

And I second the "people are different theory" thing. I doubt it's true that women cheat less than men. Perhaps they are better are hiding it. I think the statistics on cheating in general are actually pretty staggering, it seems to have become sort of common. (Perhaps women politicians are unlikely to cheat because a- it's not in their personalities or b- they don't want to put the careers they worked so hard for in jeopardy.)

Waxghost - that is a good point too. Like I said, the reasons behind any human behavior are so complex. It's not even purely in the past - even today many women would not have an income if they left their husband because they don't work. I'd assume they would be less likely than working women to leave their husbands if they cheated but haven't seen any statistics on it.

The only way I could even see a shred of argument for any biological explanation would have to do with the consequences of casual sex--any casual sex, cheating or non--being greater for women, unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy they can't support. But ultimately, that's bullshit, since pregnancy would be a plus evolutionarily.

MyBabyPanda,

You are coming from the same place I am, definitely. I agree that while EvPsych has a powerful effect, it is not immune to modification by reason and social forces. However, I do think whenever we go against its "preferences", it's a hard slog upstream, and any relenting of effort results in getting swept away. Male lust and desire to "spread our seed" is one such primeval urge that is very hard to overcome. (Though it is also true that women have a strong desire to be promiscuous so as to not put all their reproductive eggs in one basket.)

Pillarsofsalt,

You make a good point about patrilineal passing of property. But in straight up genetic terms (and, I should make it clear, I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins' _Selfish Gene_ for years before his recent fame as an atheist bestseller), people--male or female--always instinctually "want" to pass on their genes regardless of property or any of that. Genes "like" to survive and be copied throughout the population, and "dislike" dwindling.

Religiarchy said, to me:

"If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

So your batshit crazy argument of evolutionary biology is invalid. And your sentiment is untrue."

No, because (as Dawkins repeatedly demonstrates) evolution does not go on at the species level, with our species competing against other species like basketball teams. It happens at the individual level (or even the gene level). If it only happened at the interspecies level and not intraspecies, we'd not find people who live near the equator having darker skin to protect against the sun (but which provides less vitamin A at northern climes), sickle cells to fight malaria but which are a net disadvantage in other regions...etc.

But though your understanding of natural selection is deeply flawed, I'll not return fire with insults like you directed at me.

Although if you meant it is evolutionarily advantageous to the woman to get her husband to raise her biological offspring which is not actually his, of course that's right. But I thought that was obvious and part of my point. It is for him that this is a very bad deal evolutionarily speaking.

(I'll post this and then deal with other objections in a subsequent post.)

Alan

If a woman was procreating, and found another man more suitable genetically to be the father of her child, but her husband to be a better partner or whatever, that is still "solid evolutionary reason". The species goes on.

Evolution, inasmuch as it can be said to care about anything, does not give a whit for the the continued existence of species. But individuals *do* care about the continued survival of their own line. The male in our little scenario here will not be consoled by the continued existence of the species. It does not matter whose child your mate is caring for as long as your own child survives and thrives. Group survival is almost completely the wrong way to approach this problem.

I'm with ProFemMale. Humans are different.

All this talk about biology seems mostly irrelevant to me. It just serves to reinforce that since men and women are biologically different, certain behaviors can be excused and/or justified. And women have historically been given the short end of the stick with it. I'm not really interested in someone's agenda driven biological study, although you all make very interesting points about evolution.

This is one where people are just people. It's true that women are more stigmatized for expressing themselves sexually, but that just reinforces the ridiculous notion that women don't want or need sex the way men do.

I love sex. Amen.

SlackerInc,
In regards to your response to me, I am not sure how this statement, people--male or female--always instinctually "want" to pass on their genes regardless of property or any of that." has anything to do with specifically controlling the sexuality of women more than the sexuality of men. Of course people "want" to pass on their genes, and of course the genes "prefer" (in as much as one can call it that) not to dwindle, but all that proves is that men and women are just as likely to desire to reproduce, not that women are evolutionarily more likely to be monogamous,and men are more likely to be promiscuous.

If I missed where that all fits in(which is quite possible, YAY for lack of caffeine) please let me know.

SlackerInc - It can be hard to "swim upstream" against biological drives, but I don't think it's impossible, or even hard in all cases! It might be advantageous for siblings to try to kill each other to get more resources from the parents, but that is not acceptable in our culture (or any other I can think of off the top of my head...). Rejecting people with deformities or genetic disease might be a natural drive to avoid passing down these traits, but we know that is morally wrong and many of us fight against that kind of discrimination.

I think we're on the same page, though, that evolution does effect us both physically and psychologically. It's hard to say how much. It seems that some people think that admitting that these things have an influence on our behavior means (a) they can't be consciously overcome and (b) we should just accept them.

But a woman would have an interest in keeping her mate from cheating, also, since she would not want to share whatever protection and resources her man provides with another woman and the other woman's potential offspring. And a husband's straying could lead to the husband abandoning the wife altogether.

Which, I guess, would be the evo-psych explanation for why women often engage in vociferous slut-shaming.

(I'm not a believer in evo-psych, myself, just thought I'd point out a different angle.)

Ithika, right on--glad to see some more of us who understand the basics of natural selection.

Lilaeden claimed:

Evolutionary psychology is essentially complete bullshit. Honest.

Honestly, it is not bullshit at all. Which is not to say they have settled every issue (or even most issues) to the point where it's nailed down scientifically. It's a new field, and one with many inherent challenges. Plus they could do well to blend their theories with sociological ones (just as the sociologists would do well to do the converse).

But it's hardly "bullshit" to assert that we, like other primates (other mammals for that matter) have developed certain predictable behavioral tendencies in response to our ancestral environment (some of which are maladaptive today, but evolutionary time takes many many generations to play out, and our culture changes so fast now it can never catch up except to remain as flexible as possible).

EG, there's a very simple reason why "casual sex" is, in fact, riskier for women (particularly in the environment in which we all evolved, one that lacked modern contraception). I'll illustrate with a metaphor.

A man is like Johnny Appleseed, except that his bag of seeds is nearly inexhaustible. He can throw his seeds into any field, even a sorry-looking one (indeed, those may be all he can find to accept his seeds if they are not of great quality). Planting seeds in one infertile field does not impact much on his ability to plant elsewhere, so quantity (the "shotgun approach") is a viable strategy. At the same time, though, he does like to spend more time around the better land and really help cultivate certain apple trees. His optimal evolutionary strategy is to cultivate some carefully and throw others any spot he can find.

The woman is like the possessor of a certain small plot of land. She only has the space and the fertility to grow a certain amount of trees. If she allows any old Johnny A. to wander in and throw low quality seed in her plot of land, she won't get much in the way of good apples to eat, and if a guy with some primo seed comes along while she's "full up" with others (that is, pregnant) she loses the chance to have a top-quality planting (mating).

Alan

Ok SlackerInc, I almost laughed at your analogy. Seriously- you just went on about a man spreading his seed and a woman saying "hey now, no seed over in this plot, this is my plot."

And this is my problem with breaking human beings down with a strictly biological view. Of course we can't rationally dismiss science, but looking at in that way only leaves the door open to say that differences between men and women are irrefutable scientific fact. That doesn't mean there isn't something to your argument, maybe I just found the visual absurd. Like a little Dutch girl out in the field turning away some boy in clogs and a basket of seeds.

I just find it a bit narrow to explain human behavior with wide generalizations, whether they be biologically or socially constructed.

No really, bullshit.

Ok ok, I should elaborate and say that it's more like MyBabyPanda described. Whatever drives we might have leftover from generations past (as highly unlikely and lacking in empirical evidence as these theories might be) probably have a *miniscule* effect on actual behavior. There's no evolutionary instinct so strong that it could really override, say, common sense and cause someone to cheat. Men don't desperately need to sow their wild oats and women don't crave to stay home because of some hunter/gatherer distinction. (In reality behavior in nomadic tribes probably wasn't broken down in this way as people tend to believe, anyway.)

But it's much easier to just say "bullshit." You know, because...it's bullshit.

Well, and also, even if we think that there's some benefit to breaking it down to such an absurd biological level, there's advantage there, too- if a woman has slept with multiple men in an attempt to get pregnant, there hasn't, traditionally, been a way for those men to tell who the actual father of the child is. If the goal is ensuring offspring, it's to those men's benefits to assume that it could be theirs, then, and to help care for those children. One could quickly come to the conclusion that a social group is the strongest, biologically speaking, when nobody knows who the father of any particular woman's child is, because then all members have a vested interest in working together to ensure the well-being of all of a group's offspring.

Or, you know, we could acknowledge that the mating habits we participated in several thousand years ago may not really apply today, and stop trying to use crap-science to justify out-dated models of human sexuality.

Lilaeden - I don't think we're seeing eye to eye because I don't think the effect of evolution is "minuscule". I think it makes sense that an effective strategy for a man to successfully pass along his DNA would be to sleep around. That doesn't mean they are will always feel that urge, will always be unable to control that urge, or should be excused for acting on such an urge. And there are DEFINITELY cultural/societal factors that influence behavior like this as well.

I definitely DO agree with you about how people create "hunter gatherer" situations in their minds to say that women are destined to stay at home. Live in the caveman days was not so easy that the caveladies could stay at home, sweep the cave, bathe the children and look pretty for when the hunter man came home. Both sexes most likely had to work extremely hard to survive, so other depictions are a big misrepresentation. I think it's important to remember this isn't about gender roles or social mores, but rather the core issue is about passing along ones's DNA to an offspring who will survive to sexual maturity.

And Roymac - No one is arguing that the mating habits of 2000 years ago are a desirable model for today's society. Shit, the mating habits of 50 years ago aren't desirable to us, which is why we're feminists. But genetics don't change as quickly as culture, as SlackerInc said, so we may be left with drives and behaviors that are unacceptable today.

PillarsOfSalt,

I don't believe women are more likely to be monogamous. But they are more likely to be choosy about whom they are non-monogamous with, for the reason I laid out in my (admittedly funny, but I think accurate) analogy of Johnny Appleseed etc.

MyBabyPanda:

It seems that some people think that admitting that these things have an influence on our behavior means (a) they can't be consciously overcome and (b) we should just accept them.

Exactly!! So well put. Explaining things and justifying them are not the same. EvPsych can be used to explain an evolutionary motive for rape, for instance; that hardly in any way excuses it morally. I'm very glad that we are rational beings who can rise up above mere instinct. But we can't always rise as far as we like to pretend, is all.

LynstHolin:

But a woman would have an interest in keeping her mate from cheating, also, since she would not want to share whatever protection and resources her man provides with another woman and the other woman's potential offspring. And a husband's straying could lead to the husband abandoning the wife altogether.

All true (though these are weaker forces than those operating on the other side). And we'd certainly agree that most women aren't super jazzed by the idea of their men being with other women. But I'd dare say women get much more concerned about whether their male partners are "in love" with another woman. If it's "just sex", I don't think they freak out nearly as much as men do when their female partners have "just sex" with another man.

T-Monster,

Do you not think any differences between men and women are "irrefutable scientific fact"? I guess I think some are, some aren't, and some are in a grey area.

Lilaeden,

Why is it "common sense" "not to cheat"? (I don't actually accept that loaded term "cheat", btw, as I don't accept the idea that humans or any other creature is voluntarily monogamous.)

Did anyone see the recent NY Times article about how the animals we used to think were monogamous (like swans) actually sneak nookie on the side? Turns out the only completely monogamous animal is some weird sea critter: the female and male physically fuse together to mate.

Spitzer didn't "cheat" because his wife didn't fulfill him (in fact, if more women understood this there would be a lot less hurt feelings: men simply crave variety). He didn't do it out of some weird ego trip or compulsion to take risks. He did what he did because these online services offered him an endless variety of attractive young sex partners who were discreet (remember: they didn't turn him in) and which he had enough money to afford. Period. End of story.

I submit that if there were not already a gene that caused men to have a strong tendency to wish to "sow their oats" one would eventually develop because of its strong adaptive nature. Those lacking such a gene would be at a considerable disadvantage.

I'm sorry, but it's not just (or even mostly) socialisation that causes men to crave nubile flesh in endless variety. In fact, men in modern society sublimate and hide this urge to a greater degree than most women remotely suspect, is my sense of things.

I said nothing about women "craving to stay home" btw. You seem to be throwing that in as a straw man. We're talking about sex drive, which is along with hunger and thirst among the most basic biological drives--for good reason.

BTW, RoyMacIII, the points you make in your first paragraph are valid. There are many different kinds of successful evolutionary survival strategies. Your ambiguous group dynamics (where most people would be cousins anyway) is another one. But strict monogamy and nuclear families fly more directly in the face of evolutionary forces.

Alan

SlackerInc. Please. What I wrote does not remotely indicate I believe humans are androgynous cyborgs.

I simply think that reducing the complexities around human sexual behavior gender specific generalizations has its dangers. I agree completely that we have certain instincts, and that some are different between men and women. But again, I think using this line of thinking to prove differences in sexual behaviors is dangerously general and does more harm than good in reinforcing negative societal gender norms.

Excuse me, I have an apple tree field to monitor.

"Spitzer didn't "cheat" because his wife didn't fulfill him (in fact, if more women understood this there would be a lot less hurt feelings: men simply crave variety)."

Women also crave variety, at least the women I know. (Since you used antecdotal evidence, I assume you'll allow me to do the same).

I noticed you did not reply to roymac's point that during the time our mating habits evolved, men could not tell which offspring was their's genetically. Many non-agricultural cultures reflect this in their social structure. For instance, one group of Polynesian islanders have a setup in which a woman's offspring is supported by herself and her brother, and hence women can mate wi