-
no, we simply haven't evolved beyond them. just because we've evolved intelligence enough to form societies and create art and write essays on social conditioning doesn't mean that the underlying biological realities have disappeared!
social factors do influence our behaviour in big ways, but social factors are built on millions of years of biological processes that have got us to the (very recent) point where 'civilised' human society was able to appear at all. go and read some sociobiology and evolutionary psychology books - Cosmides and Toobey aren't bad.
Actually, this dispute is ultimately about what is the primary explanatory science, out of biology and philosophy (leaving out theology for the moment).
Many philosophers would argue that a lot of this simply lacks a proper explanation from first principles--i.e., the whole shebang, from metaphysics to ethics to epistemology, etc. A biologist would invoke other explanatory methods.
Too big a question to debate on the forum. :)
-
Another factor to consider is not just the determining factors of how and why men view the female form, but also the societal view of reciprocation. Would there be such a high degree of "feminist" objection if the same female action were to be viewed equitably?
-
So VP had photos in FHM. I thought she looked good. I think she is a great bike rider. I am male, I find her atractive, so what.
-
Actually, this dispute is ultimately about what is the primary explanatory science, out of biology and philosophy (leaving out theology for the moment).
there is no need to invoke a metaphysical/epistemological debate about which branch of understanding has the greatest explanatory power to see that biology has a solid claim here. philosophy has its uses (not least of which is the philosophy of science) but at some point you have to admit that the scientific method is a very powerful explanatory tool when applied correctly - such as understanding biology.
Many philosophers would argue that a lot of this simply lacks a proper explanation from first principles--i.e., the whole shebang, from metaphysics to ethics to epistemology, etc. A biologist would invoke other explanatory methods.
Too big a question to debate on the forum. :)
debating metaphysics and epistemology here would achieve little more than obfuscation of the well demonstrated, well understood, observed facts - namely that in the real world biological entities are subject to biological processes, and these include hormones which cause different features in male and female animals (and people).
gender politics must accept that.
-
no, we simply haven't evolved beyond them. just because we've evolved intelligence enough to form societies and create art and write essays on social conditioning doesn't mean that the underlying biological realities have disappeared!
social factors do influence our behaviour in big ways, but social factors are built on millions of years of biological processes that have got us to the (very recent) point where 'civilised' human society was able to appear at all. go and read some sociobiology and evolutionary psychology books - Cosmides and Toobey aren't bad.
I think this is where we'll end up differing. I base my understanding of society on social stratification and social constructs, with little or no reference to biological difference. There may be a biological or psychological foundation to these developments - i.e. the instinct to reproduce, the human as a social animal etc. but that's not what interests me - what interests me is the sheer (social) diversity in the species that can't be reduced to a few consituent (biological) parts. I may have misunderstood what you've been saying, but there are too many social variations to suggest that a biological response is the key determiner for someone's actions.
Going back to TT Tom's comment that I still absolutely love:
I wonder what else these lucky women can do as well as being beautiful. Maybe something *almost *as good as a man.
The biggest issue for me is the broader one of why it is that so many female athletes feel there is this need to validate themselves by stripping off for lads' magazines, when male athletes seem to be appreciated purely for their skills or athletic ability. It's the disparity that bothers me - not the fact that she's done it. Very few women are able to stand on their own merits, which is a shame.
The worst thing though is that FHM feel they have to airbrush her to be 'acceptable'. No wonder everyone's body image is fucked up...
-
The biggest issue for me is the broader one of why it is that so many female athletes feel there is this need to validate themselves by stripping off for lads' magazines, when male athletes seem to be appreciated purely for their skills or athletic ability. It's the disparity that bothers me - not the fact that she's done it. Very few women are able to stand on their own merits, which is a shame.
The worst thing though is that FHM feel they have to airbrush her to be 'acceptable'. No wonder everyone's body image is fucked up...
Sorry but this is shit. Male footballers are often used as models for fasion shoots. David Beckhan is often lusted over by women. I have seen many 'hunky' athletes of all sports go down this route. They get a bit of extra cash and pubicity.
-
I think this is where we'll end up differing. I base my understanding of society on social stratification and social constructs, with little or no reference to biological difference.
I don't think it's possible to ignore biology, if you're trying to do explanatory work of understanding how people work as a society. the point of sociobiology is that it grounds social stratification and social constructs in biological explanations, which then provide a foundation for the more human-led understandings (sociology, philosophy, political studies etc). many species of animals have quite complex social behaviours and social structures, without invoking social theory.
There may be a biological or psychological foundation to these developments - i.e. the instinct to reproduce, the human as a social animal etc. but that's not what interests me - what interests me is the sheer (social) diversity in the species that can't be reduced to a few consituent (biological) parts.
to be honest, i'm fine with you being interested in social diversity, but i think you'd have a better understanding if you were also interested in the root causes of it. if you can show me a society where beards, big muscles and deep voices are considered feminine, i will concede that there might be more social variation than i am admitting, but you seem to want to reduce biological explanations to some sort of behavioural determinism, which is not the right approach.
I may have misunderstood what you've been saying, but there are too many social variations to suggest that a biological response is the key determiner for someone's actions.
Yeah, you have misunderstood. Suggesting that human behaviour has biological causes is not the same thing as saying that our actions are determined by the way our genes are expressed. it's obviously far more complex than that, but I'm just saying you can't ignore biology as you seem to want to do!
seriously, go and do some reading in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. my supervisor at uni was a lesbian political/ethics/gender studies philosopher with an enormous interest in all of this stuff (along with cognitive psychology). she's the person who put me onto this stuff, and she was fucking ace!
-
there is no need to invoke a metaphysical/epistemological debate about which branch of understanding has the greatest explanatory power to see that biology has a solid claim here. philosophy has its uses (not least of which is the philosophy of science) but at some point you have to admit that the scientific method is a very powerful explanatory tool when applied correctly - such as understanding biology.
debating metaphysics and epistemology here would achieve little more than obfuscation of the well demonstrated, well understood, observed facts - namely that in the real world biological entities are subject to biological processes, and these include hormones which cause different features in male and female animals (and people).
gender politics must accept that.
See, Tim, what you wrote there is exactly what I meant when I said what the debate is about--you're advocating one of the points of view that I outlined. For the record, philosophy is in an atrocious state right now and biology is punching well above its weight. But as I said, it's too big a debate to have on the forum. :)
-
+1
-
well Chaps (chaps in a completely gender-free sense!),
I got totally absorbed in this thread (more fun than working), even the bits with long words in.
Then I slipped several miles down the evolutionary scale and laughed like a chimp at the tags! Now getting some very funny looks in stuffy office...
Thanks to all for a classic ldnfgss moment! -
If you can show me a society where beards, big muscles and deep voices are considered feminine, i will concede that there might be more social variation than i am admitting, but you seem to want to reduce biological explanations to some sort of behavioural determinism, which is not the right approach.
I kind of see where you're going with this now. For me, biological characteristics, such as beards, breasts, body fat, voice etc. are a given (although as an aside, I work with a lot of trans people who would argue that in spite of having male or female biological characteristics, they are in fact female or male...), whereas behaviours and traits (aggression, submission, competitiveness...) are not.
From my own perspective, I'm biologically male, but don't feel that I show many behaviours that are stereotypically 'male'. I accept that these characteristics were the result of centuries of traditionally learned gender roles that came about as a result of biological characteristics (such as strength, the role of the hunter-gatherer etc.) but feel that the way that society has developed over the past hundred years in such a way that the traditional gender roles are no longer as relevant.
In short, I just don't feel that my brain's wired up that way.
-
Just like that.
Oliver Schick
The_Seldom_Killer
PinkGottiMobbs
Balki
badtmy
rik
mooks
Eingang
Mettie
StandardPractice
gralegav
wibble
-
Post a reply
About
Victoria Pendleton
Posted by
@Poppy
no, we simply haven't evolved beyond them. just because we've evolved intelligence enough to form societies and create art and write essays on social conditioning doesn't mean that the underlying biological realities have disappeared!
social factors do influence our behaviour in big ways, but social factors are built on millions of years of biological processes that have got us to the (very recent) point where 'civilised' human society was able to appear at all. go and read some sociobiology and evolutionary psychology books - Cosmides and Toobey aren't bad.
why do we need to blame anyone? besides, biological causes could show the same variance as social ones, anyway, we don't all share the same genes.
this is just hand-wringing liberal arts claptrap (I know it when I see it, i have a philosophy degree). but you're right, it has nothing to do with whether Victoria Pendleton should've posed for FHM.