Feminist Critiques of the Uses of the Prehistoric Past to Explain Sex and Gender Differences in the Present
Keywords:
sex differences, science communication, gender and science, feminist scientific philosophy, evolutionary psychologyAbstract
This paper examines and criticizes the use of the prehistoric past in evolutionary psychology studies to explain sex and gender differences. According to these studies, the differences between men and women can be traced to living conditions in the Stone Age, when human beings lived as hunters and gatherers. Based on a reading of a series of feminist works committed to the critical analysis of biology, genetics and neuroscience, this paper seeks to show that evolutionary psychology entails serious epistemological and political difficulties. Far from pursuing the abandonment of neuroscience and the theory of evolution, it defends the search for scientific models that, while still being rigorous and empirically sound, move beyond any essentialism, reductionism and gender and sexual determinism.Downloads
References
BARKOW, J., COSMIDES, L. y TOOBY, J. (2002): “Introduction”, en J. Barkow, L. Cosmides y J. Tooby (eds): The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Nueva York, Oxford University Press, pp. 3-15.
CODDING, B., BIRD, R. y BIRD, D. (2011): “Provisioning Offspring and Others: Risk-Energy Trade-Offs and Gender Differences in Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 278, pp. 2502–2509.
COSMIDES, L. y TOOBY, J. (1990): “The Past Explains the Present: Emotional Adaptations and the Structure of Ancestral Environments”, Ethology and Sociobiology, vol. 11, pp. 375-424.
DEL GIUDICE M., BOOTH T. e IRWING P. (2012): “The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality”, PLoS ONE, vol. 7, nº 1. Disponible en: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265. Consultado el 13 de junio de 2019.
DESFILIS BARCELÓ, E. (2003): “La biología del ‘sex–appeal’: elección de pareja en humanos”. Disponible en: https://web.archive.org/web/20030102152903/http://www.uv.es/metode/anuario2001/110_2001.html. Consultado el 13 de junio de 2019.
DUPRÉ, J. (2001): Human Nature and the Limits of Science, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
DUPRÉ, J. (2006): El legado de Darwin. Qué significa hoy la evolución, Buenos Aires, Kat.
ESQUIVEL, V. (2012): “El cuidado infantil en las familias. Un análisis en base a la Encuesta de Uso del Tiempo de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires”, en V. Esquivel, E. Faur y E. Jelin (eds.): Las lógicas del cuidado infantil. Entre las familias, el Estado y el mercado, Buenos Aires, IDES, pp. 73-105.
EINSTEIN, G. (2014): “When Does a Difference Make a Difference? Examples from Situated Neuroscience”, Neurogenderings III. Universidad of Lausanne, 8 de mayo. Disponible en: http://wp.unil.ch/neurogenderings3/podcasts/. Consultado el 13 de junio de 2019.
FAUSTO-STERLING, A. (2000): Sexing the Body. Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, Nueva York, Basic Books.
FINE, C. (2017): Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science and Society, Nueva York, W. W. Norton Company.
GERLACH, N., MCGLOTHLIN, J., PARKER, P. y KETTERSON, E. (2012): “Reinterpreting Bateman Gradients: Multiple Mating and Selection in Both Sexes of a Songbird Species”, Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23, nº 5, pp. 1078–1088.
GOMES CORONA, A. (2009): “Introducción a la Psicología Evolucionista”. Disponible en: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9LATQZrCVYfq8Dj_cGW-I4Ivk5MqgiVsSrnfMK3RlM/preview . Consultado el 13 de junio de 2019.
GOULD, S. J. y VRBA, E. (1982): “Exaptation-A Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Paleobiology, vol. 8, nº 1, pp. 4-15.
GUILLÉN-SALAZAR, F. y PONS-SAVADOR, G. (2002): “El origen evolutivo del comportamiento sexual humano: una aproximación desde el campo de la psicología evoucionista”, Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, vol. 55, nº 2, pp. 187-202.
HAMMER, M. F., WOERNER, A. E., MENDEZ, F. L., WATKINS, J. C., COX, M. P., y WALL, J. D. (2010): “The Ratio of Human X Chromosome to Autosome Diversity Is Positively Correlated with Genetic Distance from Genes”, Nature Genetics, nº 42, pp. 830–831.
HYDE, J. S. (2005): “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis”, American Psychologist, vol. 60, nº 6, pp. 581–592.
HOFFMAN, G. y BLUHM, R. (2016): “Neurosexism and Neurofeminism”, Philosophy Compass, vol. 11, nº 11, pp. 716–729.
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA Y CENSOS (2014): “Nota de prensa. Encuesta sobre Trabajo no remunerativo y uso del tiempo. Resultados preliminares. Tercer trimestre de 2013”. Disponible en: http://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/nota_tnr_04_14.pdf.
JOEL, D. et al (2015): “Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, nº 50, pp. 15468-15473.
LONGINO, H. (1987): “Can There Be a Feminist Science?”, Hypatia, vol. 2, nº 3, pp. 51-64.
LÓPEZ ROSETTI, D. (2017): Ellas. Cerebro, corazón y psicología de la mujer, Buenos Aires, Planeta.
LOVEJOY, O. (2009): “Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus”, Science, vol. 326, nº 74e, pp. 1–8.
PITTS-TAYLOR, V. (2016): The Brain's Body. Neuroscience and Corporeal Politics, Durham y Londres, Duke University Press.
SEGATO, R. (2010): Las estructuras elementales de la violencia. Ensayos sobre género entre la antropología, el psicoanálisis y los derechos humanos, Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
SEGATO, R. (2013): La escritura en el cuerpo de las mujeres asesinadas en Ciudad Juárez, Buenos Aires, Tinta Limón.
SOLANA, M. (2014): “El problema de la objetividad científica en la filosofía feminista de la ciencia” en M. Martini (ed.): Dilemas de la ciencia: perspectivas metacientíficas contemporáneas, Buenos Aires, Biblos, pp.131-154.
THORNILL, R. y PALMER, C. (2000): A Natural History of Rape. Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, Cambridge y Londres, MIT Press.
TRIVERS, R. (1972): “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection”, en B. Campbell (ed.): Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, Chicago, Aldine, pp. 136-179.
SYMONS, D. (1990): “A critique of Darwinian anthropology”, Ethology and Sociobiology, vol. 10, pp. 131-144.
WILSON, E. O. (1975): Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
ZELL, E., KRIZAN, Z., y TEETER, S. (2015): “Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis”, American Psychologist, vol. 70, nº 1, pp. 10–20.
ZIHLMAN, A. (1997): “The Paleolithic Glass Ceiling: Women in Human Evolution.”, en L. D. Hager (ed.): Women in Human Evolution, Londres, Routledge, pp. 91–114.
ZUK, M. (2013): Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Diet, Sex, and How We Live, Londres y Nueva York, W. W. Norton Company.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
