In the course of a discussion about an article by a feminist attacking transgendered folks like “Caitlyn” Jenner, saying that these men can never know what it is to be a woman, Andrew Klavan makes the point that evolution and feminism are incompatible. Which made me realize that evolution is incompatible with lots of other ideas of the liberals who believe in it.
UPDATE: I do not intend to confuse “what is” with “what should be” or to try to deduce from evolution any moral conclusions. I do see the problem with that, but let me frame this differently. If behaviors limit reproduction, aren’t those less likely to contribute to natural selection? Wouldn’t there be natural selection against them? Wouldn’t ideologies and policies that result in individuals not reproducing be an evolutionary deadend? I am not asking whether this would be good or bad, and am quite willing to be instructed on the matter.
The original post was not so much about evolution but about liberalism, so perhaps we could ask this: Isn’t it true that “traditional family values”–that is, beliefs and practices that result in more children being born and cared for–have an evolutionary advantage over “progressive values” such as those supporting feminism and non-reproductive sex? Not as a moral position but as a “what is” description?
From Andrew Klavan, The Dreadful Wages of Feminism | Klavan On The Culture:
She argues — against all science except feminist “science,” which is no science at all — that women’s and men’s brains aren’t different. Really? How fascinating that left-wingers elevate evolution to the godhead when arguing against Genesis, but when arguing for feminism, they make the whole logic of evolution disappear. What interest has evolution in womanhood beside child-bearing and mothering? None. And does she think this great natural machinery has passed over the 10-thousand generations of her gender without shaping them to its purposes? It’s ridiculous.
If, according to Darwinism, natural selection favors traits that help in reproduction, how can an evolutionist account for homosexuality? (How can an evolutionist say that the condition is genetic, given that the trait works again an individual having children?)
If Darwinian evolution has to do with the survival of the fittest, how can an evolutionist favor “liberal” ideas about caring for the poor, disadvantaged, and powerless?
It seems to me that Darwinian evolution, if taken seriously, would result in policies that liberals would consider stereotypically-conservative–laissez faire capitalism, no social safety net, sex for reproduction only, women bearing children and taking care of them at home, etc.–even though people that conservatives would likely reject Darwinism!
Can you think of other problems that Darwinian evolution poses for contemporary thought?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In