Have Only Men Evolved?

Hubbard, R. Glenn

doi:10.1007/0-306-48017-4_4

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If women seek more connection and attend more to others, it is because they hold lower status within society. This strain of literature has roots in the feminist social construction of reality literature focusing on how collective knowledge bases are constructed and maintained (e.g., Flax, 1983;Harding, 1983;Hartman & Messer-Davidow, 1991;Hubbard, 1983). These authors revealed ways that even scientific knowledge is shaped by the beliefs, values, and ideals of those who have the power to define what is "real" and what is "true."…”

Section: Focusing On Power Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Gender in Family Therapy

Knudson‐Martin

1997

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of the political implications of various approaches to gender within the clinical literature. It emphasizes the process of therapy within the social context of gender relations and identifies the political consequences of various clinical responses. Issues surrounding the appropriate role and stance of therapists relative to gender are identified, ethical issues such as neutrality and client welfare are re-examined, and suggestions for practice are addressed.

show abstract

Section: Focusing On Power Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Gender in Family Therapy

Knudson‐Martin

1997

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The critique of androcentric bias dates back to Darwin's (1871) account of sexual selection (Brown Blackwell, 1875;Gamble, 1894;reviewed in Hamlin, 2014). In the 1970s and 1980s, as part of their resistance to sociobiology's apparent inscription of oppression in biology, biologists, humanists, and social scientists challenged theories, assumptions, and methodologies related to sexual selection theory, particularly its application to humans (e.g., Bleier, 1984;Hubbard, 1979. Biologists critiqued practices that deemphasized the study of female behaviors or that resulted in stereotypical representations of female and male relationships.…”

Section: Critique Of Sexual Selection Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and Rational: The Presentation of Nature of Science and the Uptake of Change in Evolution Textbooks

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature of science (NOS) as described by education scholars is a critical component of scientific literacy and includes both rational and social aspects taught best in an explicit and reflective manner. NOS is frequently tied to a critical contextual empiricism (CCE) framework for knowledge production. Central to CCE is that objectivity is attained only with an integration of the rational and social within a diverse community of scholars that is open to criticism. The field of sexual selection theory is ripe with opportunities to present NOS in an explicit and reflective context that promotes the understanding of knowledge production as simultaneously social and rational. We examined the presentation of sexual selection theory in college evolutionary biology textbooks to evaluate the extent to which textbooks demonstrate uptake of change in the field and use socially driven critique to present science as both social and rational. All of the textbooks incorporated new research in the field and some provided context about how and why the field has changed but not to the degree warranted by the rich literature available. We provide recommendations for the integration of NOS and social embeddedness of science, and posit that a portrayal of science as both social and rational has the potential to promote more inclusive science teaching and a more accurate representation of science.

show abstract

“…Over the past 2 decades, however, feminist theorists have demonstrated that many theories are permeated specifically by androcentric biases missed entirely by earlier investigators. These feminist theorists have been especially concerned with identifying the androcentric biases that pervade arguments that purport to demonstrate a biological basis for malelfemale differences in cognitive ability or personality (see, for example, Fausto-Sterling 1992; Hubbard 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

But Fingerprints Don't Lie, EH?

Carroll

1998

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than a decade, feminist theorists have found fault with studies that purport to find significant gender differences with regard to cognitive ability and personality. This article demonstrates the continuing validity of these critiques by considering a series of recent studies that report a higher incidence of dermatoglyphic asymmetry (DA), that is, asymmetry with regard to fingerprint patterns, among females and homosexual males compared to heterosexual males. This analysis suggests that at least some of the key findings reported in these studies are an artifact of the methodology used. It is argued that this case supports the feminist claim that studies whose results reinforce gender stereotypes that prevail in society at large (in this case, the societal construction of male homosexuals as effeminate) are subjected to less scrutiny by the scientific community than those that do not.

show abstract

Have Only Men Evolved?

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

The Politics of Gender in Family Therapy

The Politics of Gender in Family Therapy

Social and Rational: The Presentation of Nature of Science and the Uptake of Change in Evolution Textbooks

But Fingerprints Don't Lie, EH?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About