Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- From: William Morse <wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:16:58 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:dt90sq$bll$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
<whitesickle@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dt86s3$2tm1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PiP comment: Sounds interesting. Joan (formerly Jonathan)
Roughgarden has a unique perspective on how our own gender identity
colors our thinking about sexual selection.
Ragland: This is hilarious but entertaining, the idea cooperative
games to replace Darwinian sexual selection. The fact a transexual
contributed to this paper is perhaps indicative of the bias against
sexual selection.
It is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Game theory is in widespread
use in investigations of sexual selection, like all other interactions
between individuals. And the key assumption of traditional sexual
selection theory - that males contribute less than females because
eggs are larger than sperms - is frequently false. The total biomass
of ejaculate is usually larger than the mass of an egg, and not all of
that mass goes to waste. And I haven't even mentioned preying
mantises yet. Males contribute a lot in many species.
Roughgarden is not just any transexual. Google for the name in this
group and you will learn that he wrote THE book on population
genetics in the last generation. (Josh has repeatedly referenced it
in his occasional comments on "doing the math".) And she has published
a number of papers on the shortcomings of traditional sexual selection
theory. She is not saying that Darwin's ideas are fundamentally flawed
- she is just saying that there are a lot of fine points that have
been missed because the outlook of the authors has been mostly male.
[moderator's note: I must throw in an enthusiastic huzzah
for Roughgarden: her work has been consistently top-notch
over a professional career spanning, by now, several decades.
The fact that she's a transsexual is, to my mind, irrelevant:
what matters is the soundness of her work. I urge you to read
the paper. - JAH]
I'm not sure how true this is in sexual selection theory, but it is
absolutely true in theories of hominid evolution. Reading this group,
you would think that language was invented by males to help organize
hunting groups. And that women picked up the notion of language by
listening to the mighty hunters bragging about their exploits around
the campfire. Even if you are allergic to Aquatic Ape Theory, you
should read Elaine Morgan's book "The Descent of Woman" to gain
a bit of perspective.
I have commented elsewhere on the article itself. And I agree with you
on much of the "male centric" discussion on this newsgroup. Which leads
me to ask - why are there so few women posters on the group? We have had
a number of them, and generally their contributions have been interesting
both for their scholarship and their viewpoint - but they don't seem to
stay with the group.
Yours,
Bill Morse
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- References:
- Coy males and insatiable females.
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- From: whitesickle@xxxxxxx
- Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Coy males and insatiable females.
- Prev by Date: Re: Spliceosomal introns
- Next by Date: Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Previous by thread: Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- Next by thread: Re: Coy males and insatiable females.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|