Evolutionary Biology and Feminism
There has been an ongoing uneasy relationship between evolutionary biology and feminism(s) due to highly differing perspectives about objectivity in science, issues of sex differences, and the role of biology versus social and cultural construction.
The tension between evolutionary biology and feminism(s) is palpable when it comes to understanding and explaining human behavior. At times, there seems to be no space for integrating the two perspectives: for example, Birke (2017) discusses how biological sex (i.e., anatomically female or male) and more generally the “ghost of biology” still remains problematic for feminist thought. Typically, feminists often view evolutionary based research as anti-feminist, reductionist, and neglecting the inclusion of social and cultural influences. This tension has been documented for at least four decades by a range of scholars (Fausto-Sterling 1997; Fedigan 1986; Fisher et al. in press...
- Birke, L. (2017). Bodies and biology. In J. Price & M. Shildrick (Eds.), Feminist theory and the body: A reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1999). The truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love. Princeton: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Fausto-Sterling, A. (1997). Feminism and behavioral evolution: A taxonomy. In P. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminist and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- Fisher, M., Garcia, J., & Burch, R. (in press). Evolutionary psychology: Thoughts on integrating feminist perspectives. In L. Workman, W. Reader, & J. Barkow (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of evolutionary perspectives on human behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gowaty, P. A. (2013). A sex-neutral theoretical framework for making strong inferences about the origins of sex roles. In M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, & R. Sokol Chang (Eds.), Evolution’s empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hager, L. D. (1997). Women in human evolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Heywood, L. L. (2013). The quick and the dead: Gendered agency in the history of Western science and evolutionary theory. In M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, & R. Sokol-Chang (Eds.), Evolution’s empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Janicki, M., & Krebs, D. L. (1998). Evolutionary approaches to culture. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook on evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2001). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar