Manosphere grifters misuse evolutionary psychology to promote anti-feminist views | Boing Boing
boingboing.net
New research in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, from University of Kent researchers Louis Bachaud and Sarah Johns, explores how members of various manosphere communities (think Andrew Tate…

New research in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, from University of Kent researchers Louis Bachaud and Sarah Johns, explores how members of various manosphere communities (think Andrew Tate and his ilk) misuse research and concepts from evolutionary psychology to bolster their own misogynistic views.

  • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    20·
    1 year ago

    Their recommendations include, first, removing sexist language from academic writing. They cite reputable, published academic work still using terms such as “cuckold,” and argue that “The standards of scientific writing should dictate the abandonment of a term which has traditionally been gender-biased and morally loaded, and is now increasingly politically charged.” Other morally-loaded terms they suggest that academics should abandon include “genetically superior men,” “infidelity,” and “promiscuity.”

    “Genetically superior men”? I can’t imagine how that could be taken out of context.

    • jopepa@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 year ago

      lol and I’m here trying to imagine how there could ever be a valid context for that.

      • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
        62·
        1 year ago

        This is only one example, but a lot of people are interested in studying top performers like Olympians etc. and what things are different about them. In studies like those, genes are relevant, as are performance results.

        • jopepa@lemmy.world
          141·
          1 year ago

          I see what you mean and I’m not trying to stir shit, but that’s not superior genes those are specialized genetic traits. Superior is such a loaded word, why even use it in an academic sense when there are plenty of near synonyms that don’t have that eugenics baggage?

          • Azzu@lemm.ee
            3·
            1 year ago

            Because they are likely talking in context of that one activity, and it is indeed accurate to describe certain people as genetically superior in that context. Not everyone thinks about every implication of every word choice and which effect that would have on the larger society.

            • jopepa@lemmy.world
              51·
              1 year ago

              I’d bet most people can probably think of three words for superior. If you’re in the same field that shares some unfortunate history with eugenics then it’s definitely better to be a little more intentional with specifically words like that. I’m just surprised that’s still vernacular in genetics research still is all I’m saying.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            Exactly, michael Phelps is genetically superior by dolphin standards, but for the standards of calorie limited pursuit predators with high plant consumption relying on high intelligence and social skills on land, meh he’s not impressing me.

              • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                2·
                1 year ago

                Certain things that may be considered “genetically superior” in contexts of extreme outliers, especially of athletics are more optimization for certain tasks and can contain drawbacks for other tasks that our species actually evolved for.