Feminism in Science & John Maynard Smith

**StaceStastic** · 25th-February-2011

Hello all!

I was just doing some research for a paper I'm writing (on fruit flies, if you must know

) and came across these wonderful and fascinating videos at Web of Stories of a Richard Dawkins interview with the great evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith (RIP April 2004).

In one of the videos the great professor was asked of his opinion of feminism and its influence on science. While he claims to find them, at a conference, a broad group as well as "courteous and gentle" people (

which he defines as not "being attacked"), what caught my eye (or ear), in particular, was this:

But the people at the conference went all the way from that kind of what appears to me to be rational and desirable opinion, right across to the view that science is a male construct, and the only thing to do with it is to throw it away and start again. Newton's Principi is a rape manual. Well, I hadn't heard that phrase, but I mean, essentially that is the position. Now, that really does seem to me to be crazy, and I don't understand why people who believe that expect the light to turn on when they press the switch. And I certainly don't understand how they risk going up in aeroplanes and generally living in modern society, which is totally dependent upon this male construct. And there were a number of different sort of stations in between these extremes, and I felt a lot in common with the women at one end and very little in common with the women at the other.

source here

Unfortunately, this only reinforces my existing dismal opinions that modern feminism (which can most certainly be defined as the crazy type Maynard Smith speaks of) were to ever completely have their way with society, we would be collectively living in the Stone Ages or in caves. I'm sometimes amazed I got through my women's "studies" course without blowing my brains out! (Check out Dawkins' take on "women's studies," which he relates to "academic bullying"). Feminism is just illogical.

Anyway, the reason I found this fascinating is because Maynard Smith was one of then leading figures in biology and genetics for much of the 20th century and well into the 21st, particularly when it came to evolutionary game theory and the evolution of sexual reproduction. I have had the pleasure of reading his wonderful introduction to evolutionary genetics for my upper level biology courses. Dawkins said of Maynard Smith, "There is scarcely a branch of evolutionary or population genetic theory that has not been illuminated by his vivid and versatile inventiveness. He is one of that rare company of scientists that changes the way people think."

P.S. As an added treat, Maynard Smith also goes into some detail about the origins of two sexes: link here

I am especially fond of this line:

[M]ales are actually the first sex -- which is nice. We were there first and women only came along afterwards.

Maybe the feminists can think (if that's possible) on that one for a while.

**Marx** · 25th-February-2011

Yes, science is a male construct... nothing to do with reality at all.

Them evul menz!

I award the feminists the below badge:

Thankfully for this chap, in a matriarchy the usual lessons won't apply any longer so he'll finally get the bird.

**Zuberi** · 25th-February-2011

Never in my life have I heard of a rape manual nor has anyone informed me that science was a male construct.

**omegaflux** · 25th-February-2011

Quote from StaceStastic

Unfortunately, this only reinforces my existing dismal opinions that modern feminism (which can most certainly be defined as the crazy type Maynard Smith speaks of) were to ever completely have their way with society, we would be collectively living in the Stone Ages or in caves.

That's one thing that always got me in my sociology classes where the professor would do a lesson on matriarchal societies. We would be comparing them to one another and then to Western "patriachal" societies and were supposed to recognize how peaceful these few matriarchies were. The only thing I noticed was that they were all still living in huts with dirt floors and relied on tourists interested in seeing their culture to keep their village fed. No one ever brought up that point because, I suppose, to do so would be considered Western- or Euro-centric and possibly xenophobic, at least according to the speech codes that regulate our discussions in our "institutions of higher learning."

**StaceStastic** · 25th-February-2011

Yeah, the whole Newton's Principia as a "rape manual" thing threw me off, too. The fact that some feminists actually believe that shows just how ridiculous this 'movement' is.

Quote from omegaflux

That's one thing that always got me in my sociology classes where the professor would do a lesson on matriarchal societies. We would be comparing them to one another and then to Western "patriachal" societies and were supposed to recognize how peaceful these few matriarchies were. The only thing I noticed was that they were all still living in huts with dirt floors and relied on tourists interested in seeing their culture to keep their village fed. No one ever brought up that point because, I suppose, to do so would be considered Western- or Euro-centric and possibly xenophobic, at least according to the speech codes that regulate our discussions in our "institutions of higher learning."

Interesting how everything pro-civilization is "Euro/West-centric" and un-PC these days. I seriously doubt the "peacefulness" of such societies in the first place. Although I wasn't aware that true "matriarchies" actually existed. I understand that some societies inherit the family name from the mother (making them matrilineal), but not ones that could be considered "matriarchal" (at least in an anthropological context). Although, they are probably are female-centric societies, which as you point out have piss-poor living conditions. In one sense, a lot of poor, urban areas in larger cities can be considered "matriarchal" communities (the kids have no father, and the mother lives off social welfare programs), and they are pretty much backward slums. Indeed, successful and advanced societes are always patriarchies, a fact that drives feminists crazy.

Feminists hate civilization.

**Zuberi** · 25th-February-2011

Quote from omegaflux

No one ever brought up that point because, I suppose, to do so would be considered Western- or Euro-centric and possibly xenophobic, at least according to the speech codes that regulate our discussions in our "institutions of higher learning."

Yeah, that attitude closes resembles the one trouts have for rich men. If you are a rich man of any race who wants to get married, you're an oppressor. If you're a rich man who chooses to remain single because marriage is a raw deal, you're eccentric.

**Lady Catherine** · 25th-February-2011

science is a male construct, and the only thing to do with it is to throw it away and start again.

**Zuberi** · 25th-February-2011

Quote from StaceStastic

Indeed, successful and advanced societes are always patriarchies, a fact that drives feminists crazy.

Feminists hate civilization.

I say let the childish ingrates go out in a blaze of hatred and stupidity.
It takes a sorry specimen to call six decades of bitching, fraud and thievery, women's empowerment.

**Percy** · 25th-February-2011

Thanks for pointing to Maynard-Smith. Interesting observations.

'Tis pity his praises are sung by Dawkins, a man whose intellect and scientific depth are spoiled by his rigidity.

**ftumch** · 26th-February-2011

Damn, was gonna pull you up for getting it wrong... Keynes, not Smith........ but ....... never heard of him, but biology not a strong suit. Unless it means exchanging bodily fluids, I can do that.

Good post, but back to keynes:

bless yer