The fallacy of “cis.”

In order to be “cis” I would have to believe that gender is anything more than an invention used to create a hierarchy amongst the sexes (with females at the bottom). I am female, everything else is made up stereotypes linked to my female sex that I don’t identify with in any way. I don’t identify with a gender.

My assumed “gender” is an aspect of the oppression I face as a female. I cannot derive privilege from my oppression.

The problems with genetic determinism.

Before I stopped reading the Jacobin for being anti-women, I took note of a few of their articles. This one on genetic determinism (like evolutionary psychology, although it’s not specifically addressed) is pretty interesting.

Biological determinism seems plausible precisely because it gives the illusion that it is grounded in scientific observation. No scientist disagrees that the basic building blocks of an organism are encoded in its genetic material, and that evolution, through some combination of genetic drift and selection, has shaped those genes. But trying to ascribe human behavior, whether eating a whole bag of potato chips or waging war, to a set of genes is clearly a quixotic exercise…

The appeal of biological determinism is that it offers plausible, scientific explanations for societal contradictions engendered by capitalism. If Type II diabetes is reduced to the problem of genetics (which it surely is to some degree), then we don’t have to think about the rise of obesity and its underlying causes: the agro-business monopoly, income inequality, and class-based disparities in food quality. Combine this with the prevalence of drug-based solutions to disease pushed by the pharmaceutical industry and it is no surprise that we are left with the impression that complex social phenomena are reducible to simple scientific fact.

Evolutionary psychology: the confront of the bully.


From ebbits (click to enlarge).

The “results” of evolutionary psychologists (which has nothing to do with either actual evolution or actual psychology) are full of just-so stories referring to a Pleistocene era about which they know very little in order to justify their belief in the naturalness and immutability of the traditional Western and neo-liberal values they enshrine. They start with an imaginary hunter-gatherer society out of the Flintstones, make up an imaginary solution to a problem they assume these imaginary people might have had, and call that scientific evidence.

But those are not the most important stories they tell. Here are what I think are the two greatest stories made up by evolutionary psychologists:

1. They are dispassionate scientists looking for the truth about human action, and they are the only ones who can do it because they wield the “cold light of scientific realism.”

2. Their opponents are evil socialists or “blank slaters” who want to inject their corrupt and unrealistic values in what should be the “cold light of scientific realism.”

These two stories are woven together into one conclusion: the evolutionary psychologist is the light of reason, science triumphant, and his opponents are demagogues who, deep down, hate science.

Evolutionary psychologists characterize themselves as a beleaguered minority. In language that resonates with that of the conservative right, they see themselves victimized by what Harvard Professor Steven Pinker calls “an establishment” of “elite” “intellectuals.” Evolutionary psychology is the “real” science, seemingly the only real human science that is capable of dealing soberly with the obvious and cold hard facts of the human situation. Pinker contrasts evolutionary psychologists with their opponents, who are “biased by politics” or “romantics” in the thrall of “feel-good moralism.”

Susan McKinnon, Neo-Liberal Genetics

Edward Hagen, after answering the criticism that evopsych cannot explain change in human societies:

[E]volutionary psychologists are keenly interested in the cognitive abilities that underlie the rich political behavior of people everywhere. The considerable research on ‘cheater detection modules’ represents the first baby steps in this direction. Further, the ‘politically incorrect’ assertions of evolutionary psychologists (e.g., that youth is a component of female mate value) are based on considerable empirical evidence. Critics are welcome to challenge the evidence or provide testable alternative explanations for it.

The founders of evopsych, Cosmides and Tooby:

Three decades of progress and convergence in cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience have shown that this [social constructionist] view of the human mind is radically defective. Evolutionary psychology provides an alternative framework that is beginning to replace it. On this view, all normal human minds reliably develop a standard collection of reasoning and regulatory circuits that are functionally specialized and, frequently, domain-specific. These circuits organize the way we interpret our experiences, inject certain recurrent concepts and motivations into our mental life, and provide universal frames of meaning that allow us to understand the actions and intentions of others.

The little problem with these grandstanding assertions is that the scientific inquiry done outside of evopsych’s little domain, like anthropology, neurology, sociology and evolutionary biology, all stunningly disprove evopsych’s foundational premises. Anthropology tells us that the traits that evopsychs take as universal and immutable (such as the sexual double standard or kinship as genetic closeness) are actually non-existent in many non-Western societies. Neurology tells us that the brain does not have fixed “circuits,” but is highly plastic. Sociology tells us that social constructionism is the correct view, and that the evopsych assumption that gender, race and class are “natural” is incorrect. Evolutionary biology disproves the evopsychs’ spurious analogies between humans and other (carefully selected) species.

But there is something more here beyond pseudo-science; there is a sort of bravado that evopsychs take when their conclusions are found aberrant (e.g. when they try to justify spousal murder, rape or racism as healthy adaptations). They get in your face and tell you that they’re scientists and have the reputation of science behind them, so if you find them “politically incorrect,”
what are you going to do about it, punk? Provide better evidence? I don’t think so (although it doesn’t seem hard to provide better evidence than no evidence).

Evolutionary psychologists argue that, however tough it is to acknowledge the darker side of that nature, someone has to do it, and their job is to shed the cold light of scientific realism on human nature, including its more unsavory bits… The “disturbing side of human mating [jealousy, rape, incest, violence, etc.] must be confronted,” Buss argues, “if its harsh consequences are ever to be ameliorated.”

Susan McKinnon, Neo-Liberal Genetics

Buss views evopsych not only as a “candle in the dark” against the harshness of the unsavory part of human nature, but as the only real possible solution to human woes! Take note of the mental contortion now; the way to end sexism is not to attack the social construction of gender and how it creates a hierarchy which hurts the people who aren’t on top. No, that’s a naive “blank slate” view, because gender is engraved in our brains. Instead, we must naturalize jealousy, rape, spousal murder, male promiscuity and the female virgin/whore paradigm, the double standard, and so on, and doing so will…

Will what? What’s the game plan here? Alcoholics who join AA have to believe they’re powerless and that they can’t be cured, which is self-defeating. Making the silly argument that evopsych is the only solution to the social woes that evopsych itself naturalizes and justifies is equally self-defeating. Having a just-so story on why men kill their wives does not help us stop men from killing their wives. There is absolutely nothing that one can do with this fabricated “information.”

What we can do to help eradicate social woes is to change the social context: mentalities, ideologies, institutions, laws, and yes, armed conflict. Those methods, while still fallible, do occasionally work in bringing about social change. No social change has ever been brought about by evopsych, which only started in the 1970s as a reaction to the sexual revolution and mainly persists as a way for older professors to con their students into fucking them; if evopsych is necessary for social change, then how did all that change before the 1970s happen? As I’ve also pointed out before, the biggest change in the history of human societies, the agricultural revolution, took place after the Pleistocene era: this fact alone is enough to prove the ultimate absurdity of this dogma.

My main point, however, is not that evopsychs are hucksters, but that they are bullies. Every single failure of evopsych is a reason for them to get in people’s faces and gloat that they don’t care about the “politically correct,” only about pure, hallowed science. And their pretensions about being scientists mean they don’t even have to address mainstream criticism, because after all those critics are not scientists and therefore cannot possibly know anything about how to disprove such a scientific field as evopsych.

But most importantly, they bully women, people of color, poor people, and everyone else whose exploitation is “explained” by evopsych as a human adaptation, but this bullying is done under the guide of science and cloaked in scientific lingo.

In this and other ways, it reminds me of Creationism, who are also bullies who use pseudo-science to dazzle and confuse uneducated people. And Creationism supports the ideologies which state that God created men and women to form a gender hierarchy, that God creates the human races to form a race hierarchy, and so on. A pitiless god is replaced by an imbecilic natural process, which is about standard for non-religious whackjobs.

Creationists also use just-so stories. They tell us, for instance, that before the Fall animals were made to chew grass, and that the Fall somehow changed their DNA so they’d develop pointy teeth, digestive systems, and so on. Well isn’t that convenient. God, like imaginary conceptions of the Pleistocene era, is a slot machine of stories that just happen to exactly fit what you believe.

But this is not the only similarity between evopsychs and Creationists. Creationists also accuse their opponents of being afraid of “real science” (which they call “observational science”). Creationists also follow ridiculously invalid fundamental premises. Creationists are also, by and large, right-wing bigots who seek to naturalize their bigotry.

But even if there are many similarities, Creationists are motivated primarily by religious beliefs, and their bigotry is secondary. In this way, Creationists are actually morally superior to evopsychs.

Despite their claims to be on the side of “real science” and of their ability to confront uncomfortable facts, neither of them are really able to confront the truth, and they both confuse bullying for confront. Evopsychs are unable to confront the real science which disproves their cherished beliefs, they are unable to confront that their just-so stories are the products of their imagination, and they are unable to confront the fact that their work is political in nature and, like all other human activities, value-laden.

Like all intellectual bullies, evopsychs have to paint their opponents as disingenuous agents of a conspiracy to suppress the great truths they are “discovering”: Creationists have “scientific materialism” (see the Wedge Document) and evopsychs have the “blank slaters” and “feel-good moralists.” Like all crackpots, they rail against the “orthodoxy” and the “scientific establishment” because science is not on their side.

Over the years, the technological metaphor used to describe the structure of the human mind has been consistently updated, from blank slate to switchboard to general purpose computer, but the central tenet of these Empiricist views has remained the same. Indeed, it has become the reigning orthodoxy in mainstream anthropology, sociology, and most areas of psychology.

Also like many crackpots, they use the “they laughed at Galileo!” argument. Of course they think they’re Galileo fighting the evil establishment (no one to my knowledge has ever claimed to be like the Catholic Church, except I guess the Catholic Church).

In 1632, Galileo’s Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic & Copernican was published in Florence. The Dialogue effectively argued that Copernican theory was the factually superior theory of cosmology. Because the major moral/political power of the day, the Catholic Church, had grounded its authority in a Ptolemaic (i.e., Aristotelian) view of the physical world, Galileo’s Dialogue was obviously quite threatening…

Today, apparently, a number of thinkers have, like the Catholic Church, also grounded their moral and political views in certain scientific assumptions about the world. In this case, these are scientific assumptions about human nature (mainly that there isn’t one). Consequently, any body of theory and research which calls these assumptions into question will be seen as quite threatening.

You may notice the heavy projection; they portray their opponents as a sinister cabal threatened by the rise of real science, but this is an accurate description of evopsychs themselves. They accuse their opponents of lacking confront, but evopsychs are unable to confront reality.

Bullies are bullies precisely because they are unable to confront reality or dealing with others; in the case of ideological bullies, they are unable to gain respectability because their ideology is fundamentally irrational, therefore they use non-intellectual arguments (like projection, playing the victim, ad hoc replies, just-so stories, claiming they have the “real truth,” and so on and so forth ad nauseam) and use intimidation in order to appear stronger than they really are. Again the comparison with Creationists comes to mind here.

Just so I’m clear, my point in this entry was not to refute evopsych (I have done a summary of the case against it in a previous entry). I don’t think evopsych is worth refuting because it is not scientific and demonstrates a complete ignorance of actual science. I think evopsych needs to be analyzed at the level of its motivations and techniques, because it is a right-wing movement which leads (whether unconsciously or consciously, but their intent does not concern me at all) to the naturalization of neo-liberalist and traditional Western social constructs, and therefore supports institutional tyrannies, the Patriarchy, racism, capitalism, and so on.

Anarchy – AWESOME Speech

Radical Feminism: think slumber parties!


From Total Lez-Mean.

The Rapist Checklist

Reposted from the Biting Beaver.

1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.

3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is no excuse.

4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

5. If she’s alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you’re a rapist.

6. If she’s sleeping and you have sex with her you’re a rapist.

7. If she’s unconscious and you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.

8. If she’s taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.

9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say ‘Yes’ then you’re a rapist.

10. If you drug her then you’re a rapist.

11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you’re a rapist.

12. If you don’t bother to ask her permission and she says neither ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ then you could be a rapist.

13. You are a rapist if you ‘nag’ her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual ‘yes’ from a weary victim doesn’t mean it’s not rape. You are a rapist.

14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her “No” by talking her into it. She’s not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it’s not YOUR responsibility to ‘get’ her. You’re still a rapist.

15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn’t otherwise want it. If you say, “If you loved me you’d do X” then you’re a rapist. If you say, “All the other kids are doing it!” then you’re a rapist.

16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you’re threatening her then you’re a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to ‘talk’ her into sex then you’re a rapist.

17. You are a rapist if you don’t immediately get your hands off of her when she says ‘no’. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually ‘gives in’ to this tactic.

18. You are a rapist if you won’t let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.

19. If you’re necking with her and you’re naked and you’ve already gone down on her and she says ‘No’ to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you’re a rapist.

20. If you’re engaged in intercourse and she says ‘No’ at ANY point and you don’t immediately stop then you’re a rapist.

21. If she said “Yes” to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you’re a rapist.

22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn’t WANT sex and you continue then you’re a rapist.

23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don’t immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you’re a rapist.

24. If you don’t hit her and she says ‘No’ you’re still a rapist.

25. If you don’t have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says ‘No’ then you’re still a rapist.

26. If you’re a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.

27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn’t want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you’re a rapist.

28. If you’re her husband you can still be a rapist.

29. If it’s your wedding night and she doesn’t WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you’re a rapist.

30. If she’s had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn’t want to on the 101st time then you’re a rapist.

31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.

32. Women do not owe you sex.

33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.

34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.

35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.

36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn’t mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.

37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.

38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.

39. If she ‘turns you on’ you’re not entitled to sex.

40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn’t want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you’re a rapist.

41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she’s wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.

42. If she’s a prostitute and she says “No” then you’re a rapist.

43. If she’s a stripper and she says “No” then you’re a rapist. Likewise, if she’s a stripper and she’s been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.

44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you’re as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.

45. If you don’t fight rape then you accept rape.

46. If you don’t believe a woman when she says she was raped then you’re encouraging rape.

47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.

48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.

49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.

50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won’t know it.

51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn’t trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don’t wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.

Comparing self-ownership and self-objectification.

A discussion in the comments between myself and cyanidecupcake led me to consider the differences between self-ownership and self-objectification.

Ownership is, fundamentally, a relation between one individual and society as a whole regarding control over some man-made object (ownership cannot logically be derived from a state of non-ownership, therefore it is logically impossible to justify ownership of natural resources). Using the power inherent in society, we all make a deal that anyone who tries to usurp that control may be violently stopped. Depending on the scope of the control, we may call this system property, rent, commons, and so on.

Objectification means to abstract human beings as purely physical objects of desire, and to evaluate women based on the sole standard of how much they fulfill socially constructed male desires, a process which we call the male gaze. In short, it separates oneself as a subject and the other as an object, as long as one sees oneself as a human being. Objectification is a process which inscribes itself within Patriarchy as a form of devaluation of women and exploitation of women’s bodies.

At first glance, there does not seem to be any connection between the two concepts. But remember that I argued that hierarchy is property, and the Patriarchy is, amongst other things, the expression of gender hierarchy, meaning that men as a class claim ownership over women as a class. This claim used to be legal and literal; nowadays in the Western world it thankfully has no more legal status, although we still operate under most of its corollaries (e.g. the rape culture, pressure to marry and have children, near-universal objectification).

I’ve already extensively discussed self-ownership, so I will not start another such discussion here. Self-ownership, briefly put, is the logically impossible concept of a human being owning emself, and is used to justify property rights and the absence of positive rights (therefore the absence of actual rights for the individual, since actual rights require positive rights) under ideal capitalism.

Self-objectification is the result of an individual woman integrating the male gaze and adapting herself to its requirements. This means that the woman starts seeing herself as an sexual object and evaluating herself based on the fuckability mandate.

Because objectification is a class phenomenon, self-objectification arises because women are told how to conform through a mediation system composed primarily of parenting and its gender mania, the mass media and its constant objectification, and authority pressure. These factors are all consistently far more oppressive than the society they exist in, because they all have vested interests in preserving gender roles, even if there may be disagreement on how exactly those roles should be apportioned.

Further muddling the issue is that self-objectification in a patriarchal society creates its own reward system (secondary gains for being an obedient inferior).

I bet there are plenty of women who have, from time to time, felt flattered by a look or compliment in the street. There are many more who have felt threatened, unsafe, and angered by being yelled at out the window of a passing truck or stared down on public transit. Whatever Lees feelings and experiences are is fine — what isn’t “fine” is to write an entire article about how great being objectified makes her feel without acknowledging that these feelings aren’t about “mating calls” so much as they are about patriarchy.

Being admired by men for one’s own body can be very gratifying, but it comes at the price of one’s full person (including one’s desires, feelings and intelligence) being rejected. This is a no-win situation for all women: the women who actively pursue the male gaze cannot win because they will never be recognized as full human beings (no matter whether you’re a porn actress, a scientist, or prime minister), and the women who do not pursue the male gaze cannot win because they will automatically be classified as marginal. This is a crummy game where the table is rigged and the dice are weighted.

Competition between women is another obvious effect of self-objectification. If the individual woman is an object and the role of that object is to attract male attention, then other (self-objectifying) women are necessarily competitors. And this will be magnified in male-dominated areas, the areas where women need to cooperate the most.

This leads me to market competition. Women already start at a disadvantage, since they get paid less and are generally seen as less competent than the men in their field. I have little to add on these topics that hasn’t already been said before.

But there’s another issue, and here is where self-ownership and self-objectification join up. If we understand self-ownership as an economic process (I look at myself as an object which produces and is controlled by that process of production), then we can understand that we’re simply looking at two facets of objectification: the human being as a sexual object (object of desire) and as a commodity (object of profitability).

As a worker, you are conceived as a resource (a “human resource”) which must be exploited optimally in order to generate a maximum of profits. As an individual, you must internalize this conception and see yourself as an object of profitability in order to appear valuable to your employers. Failing to do so means you are more likely to lose the game.

Permit me to extend this reasoning even further. As some readers may have noticed, evolutionary psychology is one of my pet topics when we’re talking about explanations for human action, and I think it’s relevant here as well.

I have already pointed out that evopsych is incompatible with individuality, because it is predicted on the (unjustified) assumption that the individual is merely a vehicle for genetically transmitted behavioral strategies which are hardcoded in every human brain. The individual, in this view, is not an active subject but a passive robot, as Richard Dawkins eloquently tells us:

We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

This is an extremely bleak view of human existence. It’s also inaccurate. For one thing, sequences of genes are not selfish, or even entities for that matter. For another, there is a gigantic leap between the fact that certain sequences of genes have an extremely tenuous connection to the organism’s survival and stating that our identity revolves around preserving genes. We are blindly programmed survival machines, sure, but that has little to do with preserving genes.

According to evopsych, men are programmed to objectify women and cheat on them, women are programmed to be attracted to men who have more resources, men and women are programmed to seek different kinds of work, and so on. It universalizes the worse of conditioned Western gender roles as innate human impulses. As I see it, the psychological objectification inherent in evopsych leads to justifying sexual objectification and commodification as well.

Incidentally, there is evidence that self-objectification correlates with women being less likely to engage in feminist activism. To me this seems to lead into a vicious circle: objectification leads to lower activism, which leads to less voices speaking counter to the mediation system, which leads to more objectification.

Maybe we should say objectification is selfish too. That makes about as much sense as selfish genes.

BDSM is rape culture.

A radfem joined Fetlife to see what their culture is like. The results are, well…

To me the most problematic group was on that talked about raising their daughters to be submissives. Men and women both saying that if they have daughters they would teach them from an early age that they are inferior to men and that they need to be submissive to males sexually and otherwise. Some even talk about how it’s their fantasy to have their “own little fucktoys in the house.” And this is seriously a response I got for speaking out against it. “Honestly if he is going to fuck my daughter it wouldn’t make much of a difference. I’d rather know about it and be there to make sure everything is safe!!!” Disgusting mentality.

The most active group I had discussions in was one saying women should have no rights. Most posters think that women shouldn’t even have the right to say “no,” when it comes to sex. “A woman should NEVER have the right to say no. It’s her duty to be sexually available to men whenever.” Some say that the only value women have is to be a “cook, maid, and whore to her man.” Viewing women as nothing but property was the reoccurring theme here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers