No Job? No Date for You!

[caseymoz]

3. Of course I agree with that.

Except I have a problem calling that "objectification." Feminists boards are pissed at me about that. I don't think objectification correctly describes the process, nor does it encompass all the psychological processes that have been assign to it. It's a defective term.

I quibble with the notion that it's their evolutionary roles that they're demanding to be freed from. What I see is they don't acknowledge evolutionary forces because they don't trust that male interests haven't slanted the data and corrupted the results. They reject sociobiology because its purported determinism is similarly suspect. In other words, I believe the most widespread opinion in feminism is that evolution is correct, but the implications of it, explained to them by male scientists, cannot be trusted. Unfortunately, feminists have no scientific data themselves, and while they wait forever for the "real" data to come in, they inform their beliefs, or bolster them, rather, with social science. That's what I think the widest opinion about evolution might be.

It comes down to fear and paranoia, and these are never emotions conducive to clear intellect.

So where does that leave you discussing the shackles of men's evolutionary roles? It's fruitless to argue about roles in the context of evolution with feminists, because to them the information is suspect. Culture and society, for a large part, do create the environments by which genetically influenced behavior is expressed, and that is what you're talking about with gender expectations. I would try to keep discussions to things which aren't so directly related to sexual selection, especially when there's no good solution except forcing women to accept men they aren't attracted to, or vice versa. That doesn't go anywhere good because modern sexual morality is based on consent.

Sadly, I see that the two sexes have different genetic interests. These interests influence us through our unconscious minds.

It's okay in any respect to point out the absurdities in patriarchal theory and the problems with the term "objectification."

I did read the whole article and I knew that far fewer men demand that their potential partners be wealthy or make a living. I'm saying that if it's wrong at all to have that standard, then it's wrong for anyone to have that standard no matter how the gender demographics break down. There are still enough men demanding that standard that you can take gender out of it and just say "This standard is wrong."

And you'll probably be told in one way or another, "Hey, I didn't make the rules. A partner having wealth and power somehow turns me on." If they think it through rationally, it's more than likely after-the-fact.