Further Thoughts About the Next Post Below

Have you ever thought about how the evolutionary psychology explanations we get in the popularizations very seldom explain the type of usual family structure we see in most countries of the world? Where one woman and one man have children together? After all, this is numerically the most common arrangement and one might have thought that it would be of some interest for even the cultist Evolutionary Psychologists* to think about. Instead, we get loads of stuff about one man inseminating hundreds of women and so on, with nary any discussion about how all these inseminations turn out into adults that are then able to have children of their own.

It's a myth that we are being told, to some extent, a myth which is very much centered on one aspect of society and which ignores the rest of the society altogether.

Now, all this may be obvious to you. But I thought of it while musing over something related: The number of articles in the cultist Evolutionary Psychology part which attack feminism or any ideas about gender equality as biologically impossible. What did Kanazawa call this attack? Oh yes, political incorrectness.

I hate that term, because political incorrectness is in reality something quite different. It's arguing back to the powers that be. For example, it might be politically incorrect to point out that warfare, a largely male undertaking, has now become so dangerous that it might one day stop the human race altogether. I don't see very much about this in the Evolutionary Psychology literature, where men waging war is seen as the proper or at least unavoidable thing to do, but yet the same literature spends a lot of pages on attacking women who want equality. Because it somehow threatens the future of the species. Now this is really twisted, isn't it?
----
*I use the capital letters to refer to the subgroup of evolutionary psychologists who have a conservative and anti-feminist bias as the basis of their work.