25 November 2011

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism

Feminists don’t take too kindly to being given a rational explanation for the alleged oppression of their sex. As a rule being told that the reason for something is down to a natural precondition does not fit into the narrative of woman as victim. It doesn’t matter what type of feminist you are; Sex+, Radical, Marxist, Cyber, et al – they all start from the inherently flawed foundation that women are owed something due to past oppression.

Evolutionary psychology can tell us a lot about the inconsistencies of the feminist goliath that steamrollers all opposing views into submission. This field is controversial to some, not least because it blasts feminist theory into smithereens and forces leftists to look into the abyss of mendacity. The first video below is an interview with Gad Saad, evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University, and author of the book “The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature” (I love pretentious titles):

Saad’s book focuses on the consumer patterns of human beings, and how they relate to evolutionary psychology. He looks at cases of consumer habits and relates them to his field of research. The first criticism feminists have with evolutionary psychology Saad indirectly clears up early on, namely the idea that it is based on social constructs (isn’t that the criticism of everything with leftists?). However, this argument comes right out of the relativist handbook, and is as predictable as day turning to night. There are elements of human behaviour, and indeed aspects of the natural world, that transcend history and regions around the world,

What’s more many of these patterns occur independently of one another, thus making it nigh on impossible to claim that certain things aren’t inherent or objectively true. One apt example is femininity and masculinity. It would be easy to strawman me at this point with ambiguous examples of social constructs, but the fact is that there are biologically male and female traits that are more common to each sex. That is not to say that other factors can’t affect this, but ignoring central tendencies is not only bad science, but also a pernicious tactic employed by those wishing to manipulate the facts.

In the video Saad describes the four key Darwinian modules, or “meta-drives”. These are survival, reproduction, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism. Saad explains that McDonalds burgers are driven by the survival module given that this food has been adapted to taste good to the human palette. What I would add is that survival can make us yearn for the easiest and most immediately gratifying source of food, sometimes to disastrous effect. However, humans have the ability to understand that taking the easy option is not always the best one (like fast food), while wild animals fed by picnickers are practically unable to turn down “easy food”, and come to conclusions like necessary self-reliance or only eating food that their digestive systems have adapted to tolerate.

Saad then describes how Ferraris are driven by our reproductive drives given that they can serve exactly the same purpose as the tail of a peacock. Is anyone really going to argue against this given that it’s practically an unspoken taboo that women are often attracted to a display of power and wealth by men? This is because this openly exhibits the ability for a man to provide for a woman, and Saad discusses an experiment he carried out where the testosterone levels of men were measured when driving a beaten up Sedane and a Ferrari. Sure enough levels were higher with the Ferrari, and this is exactly the same principle as a peacock with the most colourful and elaborate feathers.

The consumer patterns of women can also be measured, though this would not be shocking to anyone living in the real world. Feminists rarely react well to anything that doesn’t fit gender neutrality, unless it plays to the male blame mentality. Typically feminists and their enablers argue that men pressurise women to look beautiful because the so-called patriarchy sees them as nothing more than sex objects. However women, like men, are strongly driven by their psychological programming.

Over a thirty-five day menstrual cycle Saad conducted an experiment where he tracked the consumer behaviour of women. He found that during the luteal stage (non-fertile) women engaged in a lot more food based behaviour. During the fertile stage (ovulation) women engage in far more beautification, or sexual signalling. It is unsurprising that women are less inclined to concern themselves with sexual activity when their bodies are going through the non-fertile phase of their cycle. It is equally unsurprising that the increase in ooestrogn during ovulation has a powerful effect on the sexual desires of women, who are more inclined to sexually express their availability under this influence.

The interviewer asks Saad about the necessity to provide warnings and information on products and services, especially in our present culture of hyper-consciousness. It turns out that Saad doesn’t feel that these things correlate with the reality of human psychology, using smoking for young boys as an example given that they are far more inclined to stop smoking if they feel it can make them impotent, as opposed to harming their lungs. He does however go on to explain that advertisers are aware of the triggers for our innate desires, even if our culture of left-wing dogma tries hard to hide it.

As we can see by the smoking example it is possible to use this information to our advantage with the right message. At the same time we should start to realise that, while feminism tries to blame everything on men, it is actually natural behaviour that has generated sex preferences and roles in history, like the example Saad uses involving romance novels, which are hugely popular with women in spite of what feminism tries to teach them about the evils of old-fashioned chivalry.

Ironically feminism plays right into the hands of chivalry being blind to male suffering and hyper-conscious of women, and this is partly how feminism was able to attain such power. Every now and then, though not often, a woman understands this:

It fills me with hope to hear a woman talk about the plight of men without reverting to jargon about females’ drawing the shortest straw. To hear a woman (let alone a man) describe how men have always been the most disposable sex, putting the needs of women first for the survival of the species is an inspiration, not least because most women remotely sympathetic of men fall short of this practically every time.

Evolutionary psychology is not “fatally deterministic”, as Saad describes, because we have the propensity to change our behaviours if we try, though feminism has done nothing new – it puts women first, almost to the point of juvenile unaccountability, and then has the audacity to attack the men who bent over backwards to help them – and all because men will do anything to keep women happy.

This is RockingMrE - over and out!


  1. behaviorism sux and peacock's tails are beautiful and not human-made while a trabant also rides,
    and, naturally life is beautiful thus pregnancy, delivery and breastfeeding are alike which doesn't mean that making gender-issues to empower low made esteems is not ugly ..

  2. awesome post dude. great info, added to my collection ;)