Read on Twitter
This course has generated interest, so I've decided to share our readings each week to invite new suggestions/reflections, & hopefully demonstrate to our awesome students the good in academic twitter: incl @ZhianChen4 @MayaSzafraniec @JosephKilgallen @aniamarynia @hannah_frog 
. https://twitter.com/DavidWLawson/status/1304942764774182912
. https://twitter.com/DavidWLawson/status/1304942764774182912
Week 1 - 'The Woman that Never Evolved'. This week we covered the emergence & controversy of sociobiology; & introduced the relationship between Darwinism & Feminism(s) -- as a foundation to build on in future weeks.
Key readings: Chapters 1-3 of the highly recommended
Sense & Nonsense by Laland & @GillianRBrown1 (2011). Provides a great introduction to evolutionary approaches to human behavior - I hope a 3rd edition of this book comes along soon!!
Sense & Nonsense by Laland & @GillianRBrown1 (2011). Provides a great introduction to evolutionary approaches to human behavior - I hope a 3rd edition of this book comes along soon!!
Followed up by @professorperl's 'Darwinian Feminisms' (2017), which provides a historical overview of feminist interactions with evolutionary thinking from the publication of On the Origin of Species to today... https://www.english.upenn.edu/sites/www.english.upenn.edu/files/articles/Brilmyer_2017_Darwinian%20Feminisms.PDF
...special mention to Helen Gardener (1853â1925), who famously donated her brain to science in effort to prove her lifelong conviction that women's brains are not inferior to men's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_H._Gardener
Finally, we read the preface to the 2nd edition of Sarah Hrdy's 'The Woman that Never Evolved' (1999) - 'On Raising Darwin's Consciousness'. A great personal essay reflecting on the importance & legacy of this classic.
Lots more to come, & lots of optional readings on the side (including some pictured here) - too much to tweet. But we welcome any recommendations now & each week going forward. I hope this thread might also connect folks with similar research interests...
Week 2 - 'If we're all Darwinians whats the fuss about?'. This week we explored the key differences between Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) & Evolutionary Psychology (EP), & their differing relationships with feminist scholarship.
Key readings: Laland & @GillianRBrown1's Sense & Nonsense Chapters 4-5 on HBE & EP. A balanced characterization of each field - warts & all! Interesting to discuss here at UCSB given the centrality of Santa Barbara to EP...
Followed by Liesen's (2007) provocative & under cited review 'Women, Behavior, & Evolution', which argues that EP has historically(
?) exhibited a 'chill toward feminism', while in HBE feminist evolutionists 'have found old biases easy to correct & new hypotheses easy to test'..
?) exhibited a 'chill toward feminism', while in HBE feminist evolutionists 'have found old biases easy to correct & new hypotheses easy to test'..
& for balance, @ProfDavidBuss & @PsychoSchmitt's 2011 'Evolutionary Psychology & Feminism' which attempts a more conciliatory relationship with feminism (although sadly glosses over differences between EP & HBE traditions)... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
As optional reading, we also considered Campbell's (2012) 'The Study of Sex Differences: Feminism & Biology'. Pictured here - is Campbell's book (too long for class!) - 'A mind of her own: the evolutionary psychology of women'. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-14784-010
Finally, Burch's (2020) 'More than just a pretty face: the overlooked contributions of women in EP textbooks' which argues that women's bodies, rather than behavior, have received a disproportionate amount of attention in texts defining & introducing the field...
As always, more to say here than a twitter 
can do. But welcome any other suggested readings... next week we turn to the Bateman-Trivers paradigm...
can do. But welcome any other suggested readings... next week we turn to the Bateman-Trivers paradigm...
Week 3 - The Rise & Fall(?) of a Paradigm. This week we review the incredible legacy of Bateman's 1948 study of Drosophila melanogaster purported to ultimately explain âan undiscriminating [sexual] eagerness in the males & a discriminating passivity in the femalesâ across nature.
We begin with @cyborgphilosoph's highly recommended& provocative 2020 overview of the history, critiques & lasting impact of Bateman's 1948 article. Can not recommend this enough to anyone interested in sexual selection / history of science! Go read it! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347219303975
& provocative 2020 overview of the history, critiques & lasting impact of Bateman's 1948 article. Can not recommend this enough to anyone interested in sexual selection / history of science! Go read it! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347219303975
Along with covering the recent failed replication of Bateman, leading Gowaty et al (2013) to memorably conclude âthe modern bedrock of sexual selection may have been quicksandâ, @cyborgphilosoph highlights the ways in which Bateman has been misrepresented/miscited over the years.
For a more optimistic take, we also read @TimJanicke's 2016 paper 'Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom'... 'We demonstrate that, across the animal kingdom, sexual selection... is indeed stronger in males than in females'... https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500983.abstract
Turning to humans - we then read @GillianRBrown1's 2009 review challenging the general applicability of Bateman's principles... Along with highlighting poor data, the equivalence of male & female reproductive success among monogamous societies is striking. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001128
Next up @bascelza's review of the benefits of multiple mating for women - "the last 30yrs of research have served to question much of the traditional wisdom about sex differences.. illuminating the many ways that women can & do engage in multiple mating" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/evan.21373
Finally we read Borgerhoff Mulder's (
) 2020 chapter in @AnthroPsycho & @RebeccaSear forthcoming edited volume on Evolutionary Demography. Probably the most up to date assessment of the applicability of Bateman's principles to humans..lots to unpack here! https://osf.io/64js5/
) 2020 chapter in @AnthroPsycho & @RebeccaSear forthcoming edited volume on Evolutionary Demography. Probably the most up to date assessment of the applicability of Bateman's principles to humans..lots to unpack here! https://osf.io/64js5/
As always, Monique takes no prisoners making absolutely clear that, despite decades of research, variability in male & female reproductive/mating success remains poorly understood & current methods inadequate- see also her recent work with @mindismoving... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2019.1516
As a last reflection, we noted that debates about the applicability of the Bateman's paradigm to human sex roles seem to have filtered into evolutionary anthropology more so than evolutionary psychology... indicative of wider emphasis on variability vs. universals??
Week 4 - 'Becoming Men & Women'. This week we slowed down the readings to focus on a basic theoretical orientation for how #culture is best integrated into an evolutionary perspective on human behavior... & full disclosure - we bit of more than we could chew for single class!
Key Readings: Chapters 6 & 7 of Laland & @GillianRBrown1 Sense & Nonsense (2011) - on Cultural Evolution, & Gene-Culture Co-Evolution. Great accessible overview of key concepts, case studies & critical evaluation... this table is also neat!
@amesoudi's 2011 book (pictured) is also recommended! Cultural Evolution is not well represented here at UCSB, & I keep toying with the idea of starting a dedicated undergraduate course. Would likely use this, along with usual suspects (Boyd & Richerson, Henrich), if I do...
We then briefly considered how gender norms & their social construction can be best tackled by modeling social learning. No set readings, just a brainstorm (as we will return to this later)- but students took inspiration from some of the suggestions here.. https://twitter.com/DavidWLawson/status/1305938298402009088?s=20
Week 5: 'The Battle of the Sexes'. Leaving aside sex differences & general theoretical orientation on evolution & behavior, this week we got stuck into sexual conflict - beginning with classic by Barbara Smuts (1992) - Male Aggression Against Women: An Evolutionary Perspective
Perhaps most striking to me is how deftly Smuts moves from comparative observations about non-human primates, to issues of socioecological variation across human societies, to big questions of gender ideology - demonstrating the potential of an evolutionary approach.
Realizing that potential however is a different matter -- & much of Smuts' writing is speculative. Would
to see a systematic review of the evidence presented for & against the hypotheses proposed in this pioneering work 30 years later. Maybe a journal special issue? Any takers?
to see a systematic review of the evidence presented for & against the hypotheses proposed in this pioneering work 30 years later. Maybe a journal special issue? Any takers?
In the meantime, Borgerhoff Mulder & Rauch (2009) get close to this goal & highlight the explosion of evolutionary research on sexual conflict theory since Smuts. Not just on 
coercion, but 
counterstrategies, & sexual conflict over other traits such as growth or family size...
coercion, but counterstrategies, & sexual conflict over other traits such as growth or family size...
We also read Palombit's expansive chapter on sexual conflict in non-human primates... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128002865000055
Particularly useful here are the summary tables reviewing different forms of sexual conflict... with individual case studies fleshed out in the main text for different 
s. And some great quotes, like this one from Tregenza, Wedell & Chapman (2006)...
s. And some great quotes, like this one from Tregenza, Wedell & Chapman (2006)...
"the evolutionary dance that has been used as a metaphor to describe the process of sexually antagonistic coadaptation may be better regarded not simply as a couple moving across a dance floor, but as a couple who leave a trail of destruction that they must negotiate as they move
Finally, we read Vandermassen's "Evolution & Rape: A Feminist Darwinian Perspective" 2011 which covers reactions to the controversial book-"A Natural History of Rape 2000" by Thornhill & Palmer, which "set back by years the relationship between feminism & evolutionary psychology"
This is fair & balanced review! Highlighting, that while some feminist reactions were off the mark, ANHR truly fails in its arrogant opposition of (non-evol) social science knowledge, & in pitting staw (wo)men models of rape as ALL about power vs ALL about sex against each other.
Bringing us full
, Vandermassen redirects the reader back to Smuts, & her explicit focus on sexual conflict, power inequalities & the formation of gender ideologies that restrict female power as a broader framework to address rape. I leave the final word then to Smuts...
, Vandermassen redirects the reader back to Smuts, & her explicit focus on sexual conflict, power inequalities & the formation of gender ideologies that restrict female power as a broader framework to address rape. I leave the final word then to Smuts...
Week 6: The Origins of Patriarchy. Building on the early writings of Hrdy, Smuts & others (classic 95/96 essays pictured here) we interrogate the (hypothetically) critical role of subsistence mode in shaping gender relations - turning to research in both anthropology & economics.
Our 1st 
is characterizing foragers as a model for our evolutionary history. As this 
recent work attests (Hass et al), forager gender roles/relations are perennial hot topics in anth, not least because of patchy data on both ancestral & extant foragers. https://theconversation.com/did-prehistoric-women-hunt-new-research-suggests-so-149477
is characterizing foragers as a model for our evolutionary history. As this recent work attests (Hass et al), forager gender roles/relations are perennial hot topics in anth, not least because of patchy data on both ancestral & extant foragers. https://theconversation.com/did-prehistoric-women-hunt-new-research-suggests-so-149477
Key readings: We first read @DybleMark et al (2015), which argues that an unusual tendency towards bilocal residence in foragers, compared to other primates, coevolved with a transition to pairbonding & increased sexual egalitarianism. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796.abstract
We paired this with 
a classic by Patricia Draper (1975), arguing against (then prevalent) stereotypes of dominance in foragers "the point to be developed at some length, is that in the hunter gathering context, women have a great deal of autonomy & influence"...
a classic by Patricia Draper (1975), arguing against (then prevalent) stereotypes of dominance in foragers "the point to be developed at some length, is that in the hunter gathering context, women have a great deal of autonomy & influence"...
& 
Vandermassen's (2008) more recent argument that 'wishful thinking' has led some Darwinian feminists to overegg the extent to which foragers have/had true political agency & autonomy... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-008-9478-3
Vandermassen's (2008) more recent argument that 'wishful thinking' has led some Darwinian feminists to overegg the extent to which foragers have/had true political agency & autonomy... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-008-9478-3
There is a lot more to be said here (recommendations welcome!) - much of it coming down to how we might comparatively define & measure gender (in)equality... but it is striking to reflect on just how much both stereotypes & wishful thinking continue to muddy the picture.
Turning to recent work in economics, we then read 3 papers on the roles of agriculture & pastoralism in shaping gender ideology. Each of these papers owe a large debt the great interdisciplinary scholar Ester Boserup (1910-1999) 
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/51/21963.full
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/51/21963.full
1st up - consistent with Boserup's ideas about the lasting impacts of farming-based labor divisions, Alesina et al. (2013) presents evidence that descendants of societies that traditionally practiced plough agriculture have less equal gender norms today. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/128/2/469/1943509
2nd - Hassen et al. present data showing that the timing of historical transitions from foraging to agriculture predict contemporary gender roles - consistent with the notion that agriculture puts societies on a predictable path to patriarchal norms... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-015-9119-y
& finally, @AnkeBecker_ tackles the idea that pastoralism promotes patriarchal norms because it is associated with extended periods of male absence, implying larger payoffs to imposing constraints on womenâs sexuality. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3432818
The scope for greater synergy between evolutionary anthropological models of gender & recent work in economics here is really exciting!!
I would 
to see more interdisciplinary workshops, meetings, journal special issues addressing these themes!
I would to see more interdisciplinary workshops, meetings, journal special issues addressing these themes!
