I wonder what Lynn Margulis would have thought of the anti-science feminists.

[Bonobo]

Lynn Margulis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

She is best known for her pioneering of the endosymbiotic theory of evolution. A brilliant mind who had incredible insight into the nature of the world and the way in which organisms evolved through symbiotic evolution, I am sure she would be right up there in recognizing the way in which men and women evolved symbiotically throughout millions of years to complement each other.

The amount of science denial in feminist circles is akin to climate deniers. Those who want to pretend that there is no difference between human males and females despite the clear evolutionary differences in ALL OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES, is shocking to see among otherwise intelligent folk.

Just bring up the word "socio-evolution" and you will be treated to an eye-opening experience in ignorant denial from some.

[rrneck]

1. Feminism can be a religion just like any other. nt

[Bonobo]

2. No, "feminism" is beyond criticism in my opinion.

As long as you actually just stick to "feminism" as in the goal to seek equality for women.

What some do here under the banner of "feminism" is something entirely different. It is a form of rhetorical one-upmanship having more to do with striking out and earning points to satisfy some kind of emotional need than it does with actual rights.

[MadrasT]

3. Gender is not binary

I find this branch of "science" to be narrow-minded and somewhat transphobic

[MattBaggins]

4. Symbiosis does not apply to members of the same species.

Biological differences does not equal gender roles.

[Bonobo]

6. You believe evolution plays no part in the way

In which the two primary sexes develop dimorphic characteristics?

Okay, you go with that.

[MattBaggins]

7. Dimorphic characteristics are not gender roles

you go with that

[Bonobo]

8. The selection of partners based on behavior

implies means that evolution would work hand-in-hand with the development of gender roles.

Do you really want to pretend that women don't have breasts in order to feed babies? Okay, of course not.

Do you really want to pretend that men are not stronger and more aggressive in order to defeat competitors for mating reasons? I doubt it. Right?

So what are you saying then?

That physical differences that have evolved over millions of years have no affect on gender roles?

LOL, you go with that!

[MattBaggins]

9. The best part of humanity is our self awareness and adapt by using intelligence

Women having breasts to feed babies does not mean they have to go down that road or should have any bearing on their life decisions. Men can be the primary child care takers in todays society and do so quite well.

Men having more muscle mass does not mean we are forced into silly outdated roles. We don't have to be the soldiers and women can be soldiers if they want to. On average, men are stronger. So what? What does that have to do with modern life?

Biological Determinism should be examined with a healthy does of skepticism.

How we acted 10,000 years ago isn't very important now.

[Bonobo]

10. I agree that culture can mediate the behavior of gender roles.

But that is all it does --offer a choice.

It does not eliminate millions of years of evolution.

Glad to see you have backed off your initially irrational and dogmatic position.

[MattBaggins]

11. I didn't back off anything

but if you feel the need to "have won" or something go ahead then.

[Bonobo]

12. Sure, whatever.

You set out to school me on how evolution plays no role in gender roles and then you backed off and made a tepid statement about how culture can offer a choice.

Not exactly controversial. Hardly worth discussing in fact.

Some posters on DU absolutely deny sociobiology as having any relevance in the gender discussion or even any grounding in science.

[MattBaggins]

5. Interesting that you would wonder what Margulis would think of anti science?

She herself was quite a purveyor of anti science woo and pure nonsense.