Dig it: Daniel Kruger, a researcher at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, has found that there's an evolutionary basis for the discrepancy between the sexes' skill at shopping. Explains ScienceDaily,

From an evolutionary perspective, it all harkens back to the skills that women used for gathering plant foods and the skills that men used for hunting meat. The contrast emerges because of the different foraging strategies for hunting and gathering used throughout human evolution.

Hunting versus gathering, if you will. And, as he puts it, "Evolved foraging psychology underlies sex differences in shopping experiences and behaviors." Women are good at taking the time to find the right stuff; men, not. Your stereotypical woman lives to shop; her husband holds down the "husband chair" and leafs through Teen Vogue.

Interesting as this is, it poses a major dilemma for Payless Shoes: for the past few years, they've advertised their BOGO sale with nature-documentary style narration about women "hunting" for shoes and deals. What will they ever do now?

Male And Female Shopping Strategies Show Evolution At Work In The Mall [ScienceDaily]

• New data from Britain shows that the number of violent crimes committed by women has risen 81% in the last decade. Conservative politicians suggest that this is directly linked to a rise in binge drinking, which doesn't fully explain why the article is illustrated with a picture of a woman passed out drunk on a park bench. •  A woman spent her wedding night in a Spanish jail cell after she grabbed a cop by his neck and slapped him. The police officer was attempting to break up a fight that had broken out between members of the bride's family and relatives of the groom. We think this would make a great (read: horrible) rom-com, very Bridezillas meets Romeo and Juliet. • According to a recent study, pregnant lesbians are sick of being treated differently than heterosexual mothers. Researchers found that most lesbian couples have felt frustrated at some point or another with the uncomfortable way that midwives and doctors dealt with them. • Experts have disproved claims that Ida, a fossil recently discovered in Germany, was the missing piece that would link the evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes, and humans. In fact, Ida is the "about as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be." • 

Part of Speidi's problem is that Heidi wants children now, and Spencer doesn't. He's afraid she'll be "one of those women" who pokes a hole in the condom with a pin, to trap him.


"That's why reality is so big. It's real." - Heidi Montag, 2009


Babs hates their schtick.


Heidi's ideas on creationism and evolution test Barbara's patience.

While, as Angier puts it, "observers of human mating customs have long contended that serial monogamy is really just a socially sanctioned version of harem-building," in fact, she suggests, perhaps women are, by nature, also inclined to live polygymously.

In a report published in the summer issue of the journal Human Nature, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder of the University of California, Davis, presents compelling evidence that at least in some non-Western cultures where conditions are harsh and mothers must fight to keep their children alive, serial monogamy is by no means a man's game, finessed by him and foisted on her. To the contrary, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, among the Pimbwe people of Tanzania, whose lives and loves she has been following for about 15 years, serial monogamy looks less like polygyny than like a strategic beast that some evolutionary psychologists dismiss as quasi-fantastical: polyandry, one woman making the most of multiple mates... "We're so wedded to the model that men will benefit from multiple marriages and women won't, that women are victims of the game," Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said. "But what my data suggest is that Pimbwe women are strategically choosing men, abandoning men and remarrying men as their economic situation goes up and down."

In addition, the researcher found, these multiple-marriers are not deemed the flighty "bolters" of Western perception, but, rather, "considered high-quality mates, the hardest working, the most reliable, with scant taste for the strong maize beer the Pimbwe famously brew." While this is obviously a specific study of a certain group's practices, as Salon's Judy Berman puts it, these are "Darwinian extremes," and as such it's tempting to extrapolate about a society not mired in our constructs. I'm wary of this, as a rule; because a society doesn't have our mores doesn't mean it can't have its own, surely equally entrenched and capable of altering a society's shape? To suggest anything else seems both reductive and patronizing. But let's say we take the argument to this far-fetched extreme and start the perennially-popular par;or game of "what-if." What if this says something about basic human nature? What do we learn? That women are security-minded? Angier's circumspect, saying only, "the results underscore the importance of avoiding the breezy generalities of what might be called Evolution Lite, an enterprise too often devoted to proclaiming universal truths about deep human nature based on how college students respond to their professors' questionnaires." I'm inclined to concur: if we choose to regard this as some kind of triumph for evolutionary equality, the results lead themselves equally open to far-flung "gold-digger" interpretations. The best conclusion to draw, to my mind, is what I'll call the creationist's paradox: you can use loosely-interpreted evolutionary arguments to back up as many arguments as a Bible-thumper can find Good Book justification for his.

If we need proof, keep in mind that the "husband-snatcher!" furor is still going strong. A rather cavalier piece in the Houston Chronicle sports the same sort of reductive headline that's been snaring views since the rather more complicated Journal of Experimental Social Psychology results came out. In short, she reports that "mate poaching" is real, and that it says a lot of bad stuff about women. Then readers, who also haven't read the research and are drawing their own conclusions based on this rather sketchy pop-summary, say things like, "fellas if your wife has hot looking girlfriends, leave the house, cause those b—-h's are cheating to. ladies, if your husband has hot looking friends, chances are they are cheating with your hot looking girlfriends." And "THE ALPHA MALE, just like the lion of the jungle his role is to get as many lioness's pregnant." Does a moron need "facts" to bolster his grandstanding? No - but he'll use them.

"Facts" as we know can be dangerous things. It's not, obviously, an exactly analogous situation, but I thought of this earlier while reading a piece about Marriage Works USA, a campaign of the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative that promotes marriage by using statistics on its ads like "married people earn and save more money" and "married people enjoy better health." As Christopher Wanjek sagely points out on LiveScience, these stats derive, universally, from studies and surveys whose results are, unsurprisingly, far more complicated and less neatly reductive than the campaign would suggest, and as such, misleading. I'm not saying people who want to shouldn't get married (and be able to) but the decision shouldn't be dictated by pop sociology, and if that marriage ends, let's not invoke evolutionary imperatives, either. Sure, facts and studies are great. But a fact, noun, doesn't in itself bolster an argument, also noun. These various studies are fascinating, enrich the discussion and, when used as intended, can teach us a lot. But we've eschewed plenty of "evolutionary imperatives" to live as we do, and as a result have pretty much forfeited the privilege of using it as an excuse. Apologies to THE ALPHA MALE.

Skipping Spouse To Spouse Isn't Just A Man's Game [NY Times]
The First Husbands Club [Salon]
Are You Or Do You Know A "Mate Poacher"? [Houston Chronicle]
Marriage Works: An Exaggerated Message [LiveScience]

Researchers used data from the Nord-Trondelag Health study that included information about the drinking habits and mental health of more than 38,000 participants. They found that those who reported no alcohol consumption during a two-week period were more likely to report depression than moderate drinkers (defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as drinking no more than one drink a day for women, and no more than two for men. Of course, standards may be different in Norway).

The highest risk for depression was found among the group who called themselves "abstainers." Researchers are not sure how to explain this. Indeed, it seems strange that depression would be found among those who do not self medicate with alcohol. We have become used to associating alcoholism with depression, so it is surprising to have abstinence linked to mental illness as well. Researchers also found that 14% of the abstainers had previously been heavy drinkers, which kind of makes sense, but does not explain the connection for the other 86%. The only explanation suggested by the authors of the study is that, in societies where drinking is common, even normal, abstinence may be associated with the socially marginalized, or with particular personality traits that are associated with depression.

But all hope is not lost for the non-drinking depressed folk: Some scientists believe that depression may serve an evolutionary function. Various studies have found that people in a depressed mood are better at solving problems, both social and mathematical. An article published last week in Scientific American expounds on the theory that the tortuous ruminations that characterize the severely depressed may in fact aid in problem solving. The critical thinking involved in depression may have lead our brains to evolve with a predisposition toward sadness. "The capacity to feel presumably helps us solve problems and survive, and is essential for group living, and perhaps inconsolable depression is simply emotional baggage that tags along with the good stuff. Or maybe unhappiness and a tendency towards suicide is the product of the uncontrolled nature of our quicksilver minds," wrote Meredith Small in an article for LiveScience last year.

Alcohol Abstinence Linked To Depression [UPI]
Why Did Evolution Produce Depression [LiveScience]
Depression's Evolutionary Roots [Scientific American]

According to the Guardian, the British Humanist Association has recently asked that the zoo, run by husband and wife Anthony and Christina Bush, be removed from the materials of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and other visitors registries, on grounds of concealing its Creationist bent and misleading visitors by trying to discredit scientific fact. In the past, British Centre for Science Education has lodged complaints, too.

The owners say that, while they're Christians, what they offer is merely a range of perspectives, an approach that admits "both God and evolution", saying,

We...have much material on our website, which is not disguised or hidden, as well as being on our leaflet. Our education policy is purely based around the national curriculum. At no point is religion taught in the classroom, unless requested, as that would go against the national curriculum...We are offering our visitors the chance to look at the evolution/creation debate. As it is a free country, that is within our right. Contrary to a small minority of people's claims, we do not teach false science. This is clearly shown within the zoo with one exhibition talking about Darwin and another offering another point of view."

In the past, however, Anthony Bush has been more plainspoken, stating,

From the outside, our farm is not overtly Christian. But, from the inside, we are very strongly Christian. I am a Creationist, and we see the farm as a mission station to give people scientific permission to believe in God

It's this sort of rhetoric that has people worried about Noah's Ark being...less than direct.

The North Somerset council has, apparently, dismissed the complaints, telling the Guardian, "The licensing of zoos does consider education in so far as a zoo must promote an understanding of, and concern and respect for, biodiversity, animals and the natural world. The zoo licensing system therefore does not comment on or is involved in personal beliefs."

Obviously no secular "educational" facility can teach stealth creationism - even some bizarre, watered down version that presents the Earth's age as somewhere between the two views - and present it - especially to children - as science. At the same time, a private organization can do whatever it likes, and can have a rock petting zoo devoted to the history of leprechauns if it wants - as long as they're not presemtong themselves as a government sanctioned authority. My primary questions would probably be:
-Does Noah's Ark make it clear that it's a creationist organization?
-Does it actually promote pseudoscience?
-And, is it possible to enjoy and learn from the animals without being exposed to any said pseudoscience?

The answer is, sort of. Their website, from the outset, seems like any other zoo's. And then you see the "Creation Research" tab. Yes, there are allowances made for both evolution and creationism, but in a sense the very reasonable tone is more worrisome: like the best propaganda, it concedes enough points to avoid the polemical, but still drives its message home.

After looking at the current scientific explanations for origins and evolution; it is our view that the evidence available can be accurately explained using an evolution framework with an initial Creation by God. This is treated as controversial by some and welcomed by others: but our aim remains the same. We do not profess to have all the answers, but we will search for them with an open mind and publicise our theories.

For instance, there's a whole section on Darwin, but the biographical sketch emphasizes the negative.

Robert Darwin was one of 14 children of a somewhat profligate doctor, Erasmus Darwin who had children by 3 women. One of these he did not marry, another of them was married when he began an affair with her. His first wife died of cirrhosis of the liver brought on by alcohol abuse, along with a large overdose of morphine administered by Erasmus.

Later, "Some speculate that part of Darwin's mental problems were due to his nagging fear that he had devoted his "life to a fantasy" - and to a "dangerous one" at that."

While the writers don't state Biblical truth with off-putting fanaticism, there's enough "questions" asked , in serious-looking sections like "How Old Is The Earth?" about carbon dating and the fossil record - and a "they're both wrong" tone - that's insidious. And the "educational materials," with questions like "From which of Noah's sons are the nation of Israel and Jesus Christ, descended?" are explicitly Christian (or, at any rate, Biblical.)

So, yeah, no one should be recommending this as a "zoo" without a caveat. Public schools should probably not be making field trips here. That said, were I a parent, I don't think I'd worry that one day at a spot whose web site contains craftily-worded pseudoscience would brain-wash my kid forever. And, at the end of the day, you're perfectly able to enjoy the animals (who are humanely and kindly treated) the hay ride, the maze, etc. without a side of creationism - which is important for those families who might not have another zoo nearby. The zoo is also committed to conservation issues, and this portion of their literature seems blessedly lay. Indeed, I think in a sense this could be the best kind of educational trip for the thinking kid: a lesson in distinguishing between real and false, and in taking the good from something without losing yourself.

Humanists Accuse West Country Zoo Of Pushing Creationist Agenda [Guardian]

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

A Fun Day Out For All The Creationists [Guardian]

Interview: Anthony Bush Co-Founder Of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm [Church Times]

According to Salon's Laura Miller, author Brian Boyd gives a two-pronged explanation of the influence of fiction on human evolution:

First, fiction — like all art — is a form of play, the enjoyable means by which we practice and hone certain abilities likely to come in handy in more serious situations. When kittens pounce on and wrestle with their litter mates, they're developing skills that will help them hunt, even though as far as they're concerned they're just larking around. Second, when we create and share stories with each other, we build and reinforce the cooperative bonds within groups of people (families, tribes, towns, nations), making those groups more cohesive and in time allowing human beings to lord it over the rest of creation.

The second part is more convincing than the first (Madame Bovary showed us what happens to people who learn how to behave from books), and Miller expands on it in a sensitive and thought-provoking way:

The affection we feel toward fictional characters like Dorothy Gale or Tom Sawyer is akin to the warm belonging we seek among friends and family, drawing us into the kind of group affiliation that can spell the difference between life and death. The late novelist David Foster Wallace once told me that reading fiction made him "feel unalone — intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. I feel human and unalone and that I'm in a deep, significant conversation with another consciousness." That profound sense of comfort he described is, as he correctly perceived, quintessentially human, an incentive to keep connecting with each other despite our inevitable conflicts and tensions.

The idea that fiction reinforces human community seems like an interesting one, but it has its limits. When Boyd tries to expand his theories into "evocriticism," a way of looking at works of literature through an evolutionary lens, he goes astray. In his analysis of the Odyssey, he writes that Homer uses narrative techniques like "focusing on a larger-than-life yet sympathetic protagonist with a distinct goal" because he "understands that he must seize and hold his audience's attention." "But come on," writes Miller, "who doesn't know that?"

Looking at fiction as a vehicle for communal values may encourage this kind of simplistic criticism. Homer (if there even was one single Homer who composed the Odyssey, which is far from certain) likely knew that he had to be entertaining in order to get people to pay attention to his story, but the story itself is far more than a particularly effective social-togetherness machine. And literary criticism, at its best, is far more than an explanation of why art is useful. Really good writing about writing is an art in itself, a practice that adds to our enjoyment of words and the world in a way that has nothing to do with our ability to hunt or share food. It's interesting to think about how art might influence our evolution and vice versa, but this thinking is no substitute for the complex and joyful examination of literature that great criticism can provide. Boyd's ideas are interesting as anthropology, but anyone who's really interested in literature would do better to pick up a copy of Mimesis or Helene Cixous's Coming to Writing and Other Essays — they're a lot more fun, and, in the end, they might be truer.

The Evolutionary Argument For Dr. Seuss [Salon]
On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction [Amazon]

Earlier: Is Art Adaptive? The Evolution of Creativity
Science Discovers What Books Are For: Evolution

The initial study was conducted in 1948 by Angus J. Bateman, who showed that female fruit flies had fewer mating partners and their overall offspring had less genetic diversity than male fruit flies' overall offspring.

Bateman concluded that, because a single egg is more costly to produce than a single sperm, the number of offspring produced by a female fruit fly was mainly limited by her ability to produce eggs, while a male's reproductive success was limited by the number of females he inseminated. These studies supported the conventional assumption that male animals are competitive and promiscuous while female animals are non-competitive and choosy.

No one disputes the accuracy of Bateman's work, just its indiscriminate application to human behavior without any regard to social of cultural factors. A new study by Dr. Gillian R. Brown at the University of St. Andrews seeks to provide more depth to our understanding of human sexuality.

"The conventional view of promiscuous, undiscriminating males and coy, choosy females has also been applied to our own species," says lead study author Dr. Gillian R. Brown from the School of Psychology at the University of St. Andrews. "We sought to make a comprehensive review of sexual selection theory and examine data on mating behavior and reproductive success in current human populations in order to further our understanding of human sex roles."

That's a rather generous explanation for the acceptance of a model that conforms to cultural norms and expectations of men and women's roles in society and reinforces the idea that women who aren't seeking to settle down with one sex partner are somehow dysfunctional, but ok.

Brown's study, as The Telegraph reports, actually looks at, you know, human behavior.

The study of more than 10,000 people in 18 countries seems to throw on its head the generally accepted expectations that men tend naturally towards promiscuity and women are more particular when it comes to choosing a mate.

Hooray!

What else does it say? Plenty, according to Live Science writer Sally Law.

However, Gillian R. Brown, a professor at the School of Psychology at the University of St Andrews and the study's lead researcher, says that the research also found big differences among populations on the patterns of reproductive success for men and women.

For example, the study cites societies in Botswana, Paraguay and Tanzania in which women – not just men – conceive children with multiple partners.

As is sometimes the case even in America, what with divorces and single parenthood not exactly out of the question.

But there's more!

"Evidence for sex differences in variation in reproductive success alone does not allow us to make generalizations about sex roles, as numerous variables will influence [Bateman's findings] for men and women," Brown writes.

Population size is one such variable: both men and women will be selective about mates when there are lots of options - in a large city, for example. Conversely, neither gender will be choosy in low-population areas. In such a scenario, both men and women will take what they can get.

That probably explains why every woman in every major city I know complains about how their city is the worst to date in.

But Brown's research does show that overall, across the 10,000 subjects in 18 countries, men tended to have more children by different women than women did by men. That, though, requires a fairly basic statistical explanation.

Brown's research also addresses the issue of reproduction within a monogamous partnership; while only 16 percent of societies have monogamous marriage systems, they make up a large percentage of relationships in the developed world. In such societies, variances in male and female reproductive success were similar. Furthermore, in half of the world's polygamous marriages - which account for 83 percent of the world's societies - less than 5 percent of men take more than one wife.

You might be wondering why Brown only looks at reproductive success (the number of mates by whom people have children) versus the number of sex partners. Well, it turns out that's because we all lie about it.

Here is why: the studies reporting these statistics are scientifically unsound, she said, which helps explain the mathematical difficulties in research that finds that men have more sex partners than women. (One such study, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, claims that men have an average of seven sex partners during their lifetime, while women have four.)

"[The reported numbers are] logically impossible if we're assuming these are heterosexual interactions and that all individuals have been questioned," Brown says. "We were particularly interested in asking whether the variance (not average) in mating success differs between men and women, but questionnaire studies don't seem to be a sufficiently reliable source of evidence."

In other words, men may be exaggerating upwards, but women are probably also exaggerating downwards, contributing to the expectation that men will have more sex partners and women fewer.

And it's not just women who are being judged. The social expectation for men to sleep around — particularly in the developing world, where Brown's research shows the greatest variance in reproductive success between men and women — is toxic for society at large and the people in it.

Newswire IRIN is running an interview with Purmina Mane, an executive director of the UN Population Fund, who says the idea that men should have multiple sexual partners, take risks, are resilient to disease, reject contraception and be too strong to ask for help continue to affect access to healthcare and reproductive health services and is increasing exposure to the HIV virus for both men and women.

"Late diagnosis and treatment means that many continue to practice unprotected sex, running the risk of reinfection and of unknowingly infecting their partners," said Mane.

I guess the Pope's abstinence-in-Africa-you-don't-need-condoms is working?

Others agree with Mane.

The story also quotes Graca Sambo, an executive director of Forum Mulher, a women's rights NGO in Mozambique, which said the idea that men should have many different sexual partners was a major contributing factor to the country having one of the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world – 16%.

"A lot of men have many sexual partners because this is what is expected of them," she said. "Masculinity is very much instilled by culture and by tradition, which say that men have to be studs."

Which, of course, backs up Brown's findings that promiscuity in men is by no means biological — but it does fit into preconceived notions about expected and appropriate behavior for men and women, which, it turns out, is good for none of us.

Evolution Of Human Sex Roles More Complex Than Described By Universal Theory [EurekAlert]
Men Are No More Promiscuous Than Women, Survey Finds [Telegraph]
Basis for Male Promiscuity Questioned [Live Science]
How Can We Change 'Macho' Attitudes To Sex? [The Guardian]

McCarter is reviewing a new book called The Art Instinct, in which evolutionary psychologist Denis Dutton says that art has played a role in both natural and sexual selection. Dutton argues that storytelling abilities helped our ancestors imagine the possible consequences of their actions, thus making them more likely to survive the various challenges of their lives. Storytelling also helped them get laid. McCarter paraphrases: "a big vocabulary and a creative streak would have improved a man's chances of wooing a lover (and thereby passing on his genes to a child) — just as an amusing woman would have been more likely to entice the guy to stay (thereby boosting the child's odds of survival)."

If this seems kind of reductive to you, you're not alone. McCarter quotes biologist Jerry Coyne, who says, "The fact is, you cannot give me a human behavior for which I can't make up a story about why it's adaptive." Ooh, let's play! Twittering probably evolved from early humans' tendency to update others on their status, so someone would notice if they got eaten by a bear. And my mom's habit of leaving used tissues everywhere probably has its roots in some primordial territory-marking.

Silliness aside, assigning an evolutionary purpose to every activity ignores the fact that, as Stephen Jay Gould said, many activities may arise by chance. It also ignores the complexity and variety of the human race. McCarter writes,

Much of evolutionary psychology deals with universals. It works backward from some shared trait to puzzle out an underlying cause and help us to understand ourselves better. But when a human activity doesn't lend itself to universals, evolutionary psychology begins to sound dubious. And no field of human endeavor has less to do with universals than the arts.

Actually, many fields of human endeavor are poorly explained by universals, when you get right down to it. Evolutionary psychologists love to talk about the biological roots of gender differences and sexual behaviors (or at least the media loves to report on it when they do). But people vary widely within each gender, and not everything we do sexually is procreative or even adaptive. Chalking everything up to our caveman roots may seem elegant, but human behavior really isn't elegant at all. Evolutionary psychologists could learn something from literature: people are unpredictable, and we don't always do things for a reason.

Rage Against the Art Gene [Newsweek]

In Hrdy's new book, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, which will be published next month, she argues that human babies are so dependent on adults for such a long time that humans could not survive under the ape model of child-rearing, as the NY Times explains. While chimpanzee and gorilla mothers can care for their children by themselves, human babies require so much attention that mothers must be assisted by other adults. This caused human evolution to favor traits that facilitate cooperative child rearing.

When human babies smile and coo they are demonstrating the tremendous social skills they are born with that attract even non-related adults to care for them. While most biologists agree that the need shared child care influenced human evolution, Hrdy says that this need, rather than having complex brains, is what caused humans to develop behaviors such as sharing, cooperation, and empathy, which are not as evolved in other species.

In an interview with the Times, Hrdy explains that she rejects the popular theory among her peers that humans' extremely social nature grew out of the need to cooperate within a group to wage war with outsiders.

Sure, humans have been notably violent and militaristic for the last 12,000 or so years, she said, when hunter-gatherers started settling down and defending territories, and populations started getting seriously dense. But before then? There weren't enough people around to wage wars. By the latest estimates, the average population size during the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that preceded the Neolithic Age may have been around 2,000 breeding adults. "What would humans have been fighting over?" Dr. Hrdy said. "They were too busy trying to keep themselves and their children alive."

Hrdy says that the human focus on group child rearing also contradicts the long-standing belief that humans are a patrilocal species, with women moving away from their families to join their husbands. She has concluded from analyzing new research in anthropology, genetics, infant development, and comparative biology, that in traditional societies women stayed near their female relatives, the people they could trust to care for their babies the best, meaning that, if Hrdy is right, a mother's need to care for her children, rather than conflict, is the driving force behind the development of the human species.

[Image via Monsters and Critics.]

In A Helpless Baby, The Roots Of Our Social Glue [The New York Times]

I mean, other than the potentially obvious reason that scientists haven't yet figured out how to safely and easily kill sperm while maintaining a man's potential to continue creating it. Laden says it's about control.

Evolutionary Psychologists often take the circumstance of nearly zero male investment as the starting point for theorizing about human sexual strategies and social organization. "Males are selected to inseminate as many females as possible," is a stock phrase.

Well, it is a starting point, but only in the way that a nice red rock and some mineral oil is the starting point for an expensive tube of lipstick. The male as gladiator and sperm donor (and little else) might be the most common trope among mammals, but it is also true that a lot of mammalian species exhibit male parental care to varying degrees, and humans are this sort of mammal. More paternal care, longer periods of investment, and the greater reproductive value of each individual offspring means there will be more serious risk to males making bad investment choices.

Laden is suggesting that human males, like some other mammals, have evolved not to spread their seed and be kept from parenting, but to parent their offspring — i.e., that parenting is not a function of society but of biology.

He explains that, in most mammals, it's actually the women who biologically have reproductive control.

When I say that female mammals are in [direct] control of reproduction, I mean this in reference to every part of the process. In most mammal species, females choose with whom to have sex to a much greater degree than any male aardvark or high school student would like to admit. Females choose whether or not the egg will be inseminated. Females choose to allow the egg to be implanted. Females choose whether or not a fetus will grow or be aborted. Females choose how much to nurse their offspring. Here, I take liberties with the word "choose." We could be talking about a physiological response to maternal condition that biases the likelihood of fertilization by an X- vs Y- toting sperm (in elk), or a conversation among friends that supports a decision to go out on a second date with a particular suitor (in humans).

With the men out of reproductive control and yet still biologically designed to parent, Laden suggests that human males then design social systems to exert control.

In 'monogamous' mammal species, this may be in the form of total exclusion of all other reproductive males from a territory, and constant attendance to the female. In social mammals, a male's indirect control of the reproductive process may be much more varied to meet the circumstances.

Human males can rape. They can coerce. They can arrange for the marriage between their kin and the kin of an ally. Male judges can order the sterilization of individual females or a whole class of females, and male generals and privates can carry out a little genocide here, a little rape and murder there. Males can pass laws that limit a woman's access to day-to-day birth control methods, to abortion, and to possession of property (resources). These are the ways that males can determine, at several different levels, the outcome of female reproductive activities.

He's in fact suggesting that male insecurity about their lack of biological control of women's bodies leads directly to them imposing social controls over women.

He points out that the female birth control pill, to a degree, has upended some of those social controls by strengthening a woman's ability to maintain biological control of reproduction.

The female birth control pill is an excellent way of controlling reproduction, but it has some costs, which are all borne by the female. It allows females to be sexually receptive with less risk for making bad decisions, which is beneficial to the strategy of both the male and female. But it interferes with only the female's physiology and it has health risks only for the female. The male remains fecund. The male can still philander, but he cannot be a cuckold.

A man, he's saying, can spread his seed — which he's often socially encouraged to do due to tropes about how he's so biologically determined to do so — without worrying about raising some other man's child. Thus female birth control, even as it allows women more control biologically, helps maintain the social situation under which a man exerts more control over reproduction than is biologically determined by a woman's direct control.

Laden suggests, then, that male birth control will actually be the thing which undermines the social structures men have built to supposedly even the playing field with regards to direct control of reproduction. It will allow men to assume certainly biological risks that currently only women can assume; it will give men the same biological control of their reproductive processes as women, reducing their (one might call it existential) insecurity and the need to impose social structures on women to control their reproduction.

Is it a stretch? Probably. But it's nice to see an evolutionary argument that doesn't start from the position that women want one sperm donor and men wish to donate to many women. It's also nice to think that maybe the burden of not reproducing might be shared with the men who also don't wish to do so.

Why Is There No Birth Control Pill For Men? [Science Blogs]

A study proves - conclusively - that women and men view "beauty" differently. A group of scientists used magnetic imaging - a process called magnetoencephalography - to look at the brain activity of 20 volunteers "while looking at pretty paintings and ugly pictures of cities," as Reuters puts it. Women, apparently, use their whole brains to absorb beauty, whereas men use their right brains.

What does this mean? Well, for one thing, that women are more capable of appreciating the details in something attractive, where men look at the whole image. And that these differences may have an evolutionary basis, breaking down along the lines associated with labor division amongst hunter-gatherer men and women. While an appreciation of beauty may have been an unintended side effect, it's something that separates us from our ancestors. Says one scientist, according to The Guardian, "The differences between the decorative objects found in Neanderthal and modern human sites support that idea of a 'modern brain' capable of appreciating beauty and its uses in different ways." And where we regard beauty as a largely societally-driven concept, it's interesting to see how ingrained certain perceptions are. While the idea of "beauty" seems to be confined to ideas of shape and color here, it's impossible not to wonder how easily they can be manipulated by outside forces - or how hard we've had to work in order to do so. And if so, the implications of controlling acquired characteristics.

Women appreciate beauty better than men, says study [Guardian]
Men and women see beauty differently [MSNBC]
Beauty is in the sex of the beholder, study finds [Reuters]
Women use the whole brain to enjoy beauty, for men, only half of brain is involved [AP]

• So, about the rape kits thing. Are you saying you didn't know what your hand-picked police chief was doing in a town of 5,000 people, or were you just fibbing about it?
• What is your exact position on comprehensive sex education?
• What is your position on teaching creationism in schools? How do you think evolution should be taught?
• Are Cole Haan boots that much more comfortable than, say, Naturalizer so as to justify the price tag?
• Why do you insist on teasing your hair up so much?
• Have you been to the part of Alaska that you can see Russia from?
• What does moose meat taste like?
• Please explain your enjoyment of aerial wolf hunting.
• Do you think you could have pulled off the Poehler rap?
• Why did you always hug John McCain at events, but never shake hands?
• Is there a reason that the Secret Service nicknamed your husband "Driller"?
• Do you really think it's a good idea to escalate tensions with Russia?
• Why do you think you've been involved in so many firing scandals when in executive office?
• Do you feel the coverage of you has been sexist? What in particular did you find sexist?
• Did you vote for Ted Stevens?
• What would you say to the girl in the rape survivor ad that felt she needed to have an abortion?
• Why did you end up attending so many different colleges?
• What about the campaign was the most unexpected to you?
• What's it like to own — at least briefly — $150,000 worth of clothes?
• Who was the biggest asshole in the McCain campaign, in your opinion?
• Do you really not believe in global warming?
• Name a community organizer you do respect.

What do you wish you could ask her, since you know she's coming back?

Katie Couric Corrects Sarah Palin On Reading Question [LA Times]

Earlier: Rachel Maddow: Sarah Palin "Is Lying To You — Enthusiastically And Repeatedly"
Debunking The Sarah Palin Rape Kit "Debunkers"
Palin Rap: "I Built Me A Bridge, It Ain't Going Nowhere!"
A Look At the Rape Survivor Ads Against McCain And Palin

Don't get me wrong: these studies are fascinating, and I'm sure they illuminate a great deal about evolutionary psychology, development, and doubtless have implications for medicine, product development and other, sinister things I don't know about. From a layman's perspective, it's always interesting to know to what extent we are at the mercy of ancient forces, and can even provide a welcome measure of relief in cases. Certainly the science of attraction has resulted in any number of fascinating discussions — not least of them why Love Potion Number Nine is not on cable far more often.

Of course, studies like this one are almost never purely based on biology; societal influences cannot be ignored. In the case of the color red, Dr Jo Setchell, an anthropologist from Durham University, tells the BBC that red — the color of blood — is "the easiest signal for an animal to produce externally, and had become a handy method of advertising fertility," such as in the case of monkeys' "bright red sexual swellings" during ovulation. Adds Andrew Elliott to the Telegraph, "It could be this very deep, biologically based automatic tendency to respond to red as an attraction cue given our evolutionary heritage."

In the study, the hundred young subjects were asked to rate pictures of a woman on prettiness, kissability, and sexual attractiveness. In some images she was pictured in a blue top, in others red. They were also shown pictures of the same woman bordered by different colors. Not only did the men gravitate towards the red-clad dame, they said they'd be more inclined to spend money on her in a dating situation. (Women, natch, didn't favor one color over the other.) "The researchers noted that the color red did not alter how men rated the women in the photographs in terms of likeability, intelligence or kindness — only attractiveness," adds the Beeb.

But what about the fact that red is associated with the devil? And that blue is the traditional color of the Virgin Mary? Is there a virgin-whore complex at work here? And how powerful is this unconscious attraction? Can it blind a man to a woman's flaws? Would he choose a red-clad date who was abusive to a waiter over a nice lady in turquoise? And what if red's not your color (and it's trying, ironically, for many blonds.) Would he pick you in red even if it washed you out more than the blue top? What if the red top was, like, a Christmas sweater with a big snowman on it, and the blue top was really cute? These are the follow-up studies I want to see.

The basic point of all these studies, at the end of the day, is that people are attracted at some level to those who seem like fit mates — no news there. Yes, men are attracted to ovulation, we're drawn to height. We're animals. We reproduce. We know this. And yes, we like science that has something to do with poppy human interest. But do people listen to these studies — change their behavior or grooming based on these biological findings to increase their attraction? Seriously, I want to know. To the extent any body language study or even the most elementary makeup or clothing tutorial is founded on basic principles of "maximizing best points" I guess we are all on some level at the mercy of this kind of thinking. I wear blush like the next pale person — which I guess on some level is intended to mimic good reproductive health and (in the case of NARS) orgasm. Even in a non-romantic context, we're certainly encouraged to manipulate perceptions all the time — in a job interview, for instance — so I guess manipulating nature wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

So, no judgments: can we get an informal poll on whether any of us have consciously used these studies that fill our inboxes on a slow news day, to alter our behavior? I'll admit, that pheromones thing made me feel a little better about being too cheap to get regular bikini waxes. After all, in a world in which we seem at the mercy of all sorts of external forces (global economy, anyone?) I can certainly see the appeal of trying to take matters into one's own hands so to speak. Are we glad or not to be essentially creatures of biology? To embrace or overcome? Gives 'back to nature' a whole new meaning.

Men prefer women in red [Telegraph]
Wearing red 'boosts attraction'

Earlier: Fake Scientist Finds Real Humor In Crappy Cosmo Content