Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T22:18:57.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of puritanical morality has not always served to strengthen cooperation, but to reinforce male dominance and exclude women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2023

Konrad Szocik Open the ORCID record for Konrad Szocik [Opens in a new window]
Konrad Szocik*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA konrad.szocik@yale.edu Department of Social Sciences, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Puritanical morality regulates a range of seemingly insignificant behaviors, including those involving human sexuality. A sizable portion of the latter particularly burdens women, who are held responsible for the moral conduct of men. In my paper, I show that these norms have not necessarily served to evolve cooperation, but to subjugate and eliminate women from public life.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e316
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gowaty, P. A. (1992). Evolutionary biology and feminism. Human Nature, 3, 217–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. (2017). Biology and feminism: A philosophical introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Polity.Google Scholar
Rawlinson, M. C. (2016). Just life: Bioethics and the future of sexual difference. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who's afraid of Charles Darwin?: Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Vandermassen, G. (2008). Can Darwinian feminism save female autonomy and leadership in egalitarian society? Sex Roles, 59, 482–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Slyke, J. A., & Szocik, K. (2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 42(1), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar