Higamous, hogamous, woman monogamous

Amanda Rees’s 2000 article in Feminist Theory, titled after the satirical verse attributed to Dorothy Parker or William James—“Hogamous Higamous / Man is polygamous / Higamous Hogamous / Woman monogamous”—offers a sharp feminist critique of evolutionary psychology’s claims about gender differences. As a scholar in the sociology of science, Rees reveals how these seemingly objective scientific narratives serve gender politics.

Core Claims of Evolutionary Psychology

First, let’s understand the evolutionary psychology discourse that Rees critiques:

“Male Promiscuity, Female Choice” Narrative

The standard evolutionary psychology narrative:

• Male strategy: Maximize number of mates to spread genes
• Female strategy: Select high-quality mates to ensure offspring survival
• Result: Males “naturally” inclined toward polygamy, females toward monogamy
• Inference: Contemporary gender differences (male infidelity, female chastity) have evolutionary foundations

This narrative claims to explain everything from extramarital affairs to dating violence.

Parental Investment Theory

Robert Trivers’s parental investment theory:

• Whichever sex invests more in offspring is choosier
• Females bear pregnancy, lactation—massive investment
• Males need only provide sperm—minimal investment
• Therefore females are choosy, males promiscuous

This theory is widely used to explain sexual selection patterns across species.

Stone Age Minds

Another core assumption of evolutionary psychology:

• Human minds evolved during the Pleistocene (roughly 2 million-10,000 years ago)
• Contemporary humans still carry “Stone Age” minds
• Mismatch between modern and evolutionary environments causes problems
• Gender differences reflect adaptations to hunter-gatherer societies

This “evolutionary time lag” argument explains why modern humans behave seemingly irrationally.

Rees’s Feminist Critique

Rees systematically critiques these claims from multiple angles:

Methodological Problems

Circular Reasoning: Evolutionary psychology often falls into circularity:

1. Observe contemporary gender differences (e.g., males more inclined toward polygamy)
2. Assume these result from evolutionary adaptation
3. Construct “just-so stories” explaining why this is adaptive
4. Use these stories to “prove” observed differences are innate

Rees points out this reasoning lacks independent evidence, merely “explaining” contemporary phenomena with hypothesized evolutionary history.

Selective Evidence:

• Focus only on animal studies supporting preset conclusions (e.g., male chimpanzee violence)
• Ignore species not fitting the narrative (e.g., female-dominated bonobo societies)
• Ignore enormous diversity of human societies
• Treat Western middle-class behavioral patterns as “human universals”

Unfalsifiability: Many evolutionary psychology claims are difficult to falsify:

• Cannot observe Pleistocene human behavior
• Fossil evidence can’t tell us ancestors’ mating systems
• Any contemporary phenomenon can be explained with invented evolutionary stories
• When counterexamples appear, can add exceptions and modifications

Rees argues this makes evolutionary psychology more ideology than science.

Reproducing Gender Essentialism

Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes: Evolutionary psychology narratives reinforce:

• Male active/female passive
• Male high sex drive/female low sex drive
• Male infidelity is “natural”/female infidelity is “aberrant”
• Male competitive/female cooperative

These stereotypes are granted biological authority.

Ignoring Power Relations: Evolutionary psychology often:

• Naturalizes male dominance
• Ignores patriarchy as social structure
• Rationalizes rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence as “evolutionary holdovers”
• Denies possibility of social change

“If it’s natural, it can’t be changed” becomes scientific defense of political conservatism.

Denying Female Agency: In evolutionary psychology narratives, women are often:

• Portrayed as passive prizes in male competition
• Lacking sexual initiative and desire
• Reduced to reproductive functions
• Assumed to care only about resources and commitment

This ignores women’s complexity as sexual subjects.

The Politics of “Nature”

Naturalistic Fallacy: Rees emphasizes evolutionary psychology commits the classic naturalistic fallacy:

• Deriving “ought” from “is”
• Even if behavior has evolutionary basis, doesn’t mean it’s moral or desirable
• Many “natural” things (disease, violence) we still try to overcome
• Human morality cannot be reduced to evolutionary adaptation

Yet evolutionary psychology often implies “natural = normal = acceptable.”

Selective Naturalization: Interestingly, which behaviors get naturalized is itself political:

• Male infidelity naturalized, female chastity norms also naturalized
• Patriarchy naturalized, but feminist resistance seen as “unnatural”
• Heterosexuality naturalized, homosexuality treated as “evolutionary puzzle”
• White middle-class behavioral norms naturalized as “human nature”

Rees reveals “nature” is often a political tool serving the status quo.

Deconstructing Evolutionary Narratives

Rees deconstructs several key evolutionary psychology narratives in detail:

“Male Sperm Cheap, Female Eggs Expensive”

Standard narrative:

• Males produce millions of sperm, low cost
• Females produce one egg per month, high cost
• Therefore males pursue quantity, females pursue quality

Rees’s critique:

• This ignores males’ enormous mating investment (time, resources, risks)
• Sperm competition means males can’t mate indiscriminately
• In many species males bear substantial parental care
• Reducing human sexuality to sperm-egg logic is oversimplified

Human sexual behavior’s complexity far exceeds this simplistic model.

”Female Choice, Male Competition”

Standard narrative:

• Sexual selection theory: females choosy, males display and compete
• Females assess male quality (genes, resources)
• Males gain mating opportunities through competition

Rees’s critique:

• This ignores that males also choose mates
• Females also compete with each other
• In many species males are choosy, females competitive
• Human mating involves bidirectional choice and complex negotiation

Sexual selection isn’t unidirectional but mutual.

”Stone Age Mate Preferences”

Standard narrative:

• Males prefer youth, beauty (fertility indicators)
• Females prefer status, resources (provisioning ability indicators)
• These preferences evolved during hunter-gatherer era

Rees’s critique:

• These “preferences” are highly culturally specific
• Different societies define beauty and status differently
• Mate selection profoundly influenced by social structures (patriarchy, capitalism)
• Projecting contemporary Western dating markets onto “Stone Age”

Archaeological and anthropological evidence doesn’t support such simple projection.

The Appeal of Evolutionary Psychology

Rees not only critiques but analyzes why evolutionary psychology is so appealing:

Scientific Authority

• Biology enjoys high cultural authority
• “Genetic determinism” explanations seem objective, ultimate
• Borrowed prestige of evolutionary theory
• Technologies like neuroimaging add credibility

People tend to believe “scientifically proven” claims.

Seduction of Simple Explanations

Evolutionary psychology provides:

• Simple explanations for complex social phenomena
• Clear causal narratives
• Intuitive “common sense” packaging
• Satisfying sense of certainty

Compared to sociology’s complex analyses, biological explanations are more concise.

Status Quo Justification

Evolutionary psychology:

• Naturalizes existing inequalities
• Reduces personal and social responsibility
• Implies “this is our nature, can’t be changed”
• Provides guilt-free defense for the privileged

“Biology is destiny” is perfect scientific packaging for conservative ideology.

Popular Culture Influence

Rees emphasizes evolutionary psychology’s mass dissemination:

• Bestsellers (like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus)
• Media reports (“Science discovers male and female brains differ!”)
• Dating advice and relationship guides
• Self-help literature

This dissemination shapes public understanding of gender.

Feminist Science Critique Tradition

Rees’s critique continues feminism’s rich tradition of science studies:

Critiquing Biological Determinism

Since the 1970s, feminist scholars have critiqued:

• Biologization of gender differences (like brain sex difference research)
• Political ideology of sociobiology
• Hormonal determinism
• Genetic determinism

Key figures include Anne Fausto-Sterling, Ruth Bleier, Ruth Hubbard.

Critiquing Objectivity

Feminist science studies reveal:

• Science isn’t value-neutral
• Research agendas influenced by social interests
• Scientific language and metaphors carry ideology
• “Objectivity” often masks subjective biases

Haraway, Harding, and others advocate “strong objectivity”—objectivity acknowledging positionality.

Gender Rewriting of Primatology

Feminist primatologists (like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy) revealed:

• Male bias in early primatology
• Female primates’ agency and complexity
• Diverse mating systems
• Female alliances and power

This changed understanding of primate societies.

Alternative Scientific Narratives

Rees not only deconstructs but points toward alternative narrative possibilities:

Evolutionary Complexity

More nuanced evolutionary science acknowledges:

• Multiple selection pressures and trade-offs
• Phenotypic plasticity and developmental flexibility
• Complexity of gene-environment interactions
• Evolution doesn’t preset single “optimal” strategies

Human behavior is complex product of evolution, development, culture.

Cooperation and Reciprocity

Alternative evolutionary narratives emphasize:

• Central role of cooperation and reciprocity in human evolution
• Social learning and cultural transmission
• Evolution of altruism and moral emotions
• Flexible social organization

Human success based not just on competition but cooperation.

Gender Diversity

Anthropology and cross-cultural research show:

• Enormous diversity in gender roles and sexual norms
• Existence of third genders and non-binary gender systems
• Diversity of mating systems (monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage)
• Variability of power relations

This diversity is difficult to explain with simple evolutionary stories.

Implications for Sociology

As a sociologist, Rees is particularly concerned with evolutionary psychology’s challenge to sociology:

Disciplinary Competition

Evolutionary psychology claims:

• Provides more “fundamental” explanations than sociology
• Sociology only describes surfaces, biology reveals essence
• Culture is merely expression of evolved mind
• Sociology should be replaced or absorbed by biology

This poses existential threat to sociology.

Sociology’s Response

Sociology needs to:

• Defend autonomy and necessity of social explanation
• Demonstrate independent causal power of culture and structure
• Critique biological reductionism
• Develop more complex nature-culture interaction models

Rees’s work is part of this response.

Possibilities for Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Despite critique, Rees might acknowledge:

• Need for bio-social integrated research
• But must avoid reductionism
• Develop critical biosocial science
• Feminism can bridge natural and social sciences

Key is equal dialogue, not one side swallowing the other.

Contemporary Relevance

Rees’s critique from over 20 years ago remains sharp today:

Neurosexism

Contemporary versions include:

• Neuroscience research on “male brain vs. female brain”
• Genetic studies of gender differences
• Prenatal testosterone exposure theories
• Autism’s “extreme male brain” theory

Feminist scholars (like Cordelia Fine) continue critiquing these discourses.

Dating Apps and Algorithmic Determinism

• Dating apps designed based on evolutionary psychology assumptions
• “Big data” claims to reveal “scientific laws” of mate selection
• Algorithms reinforce traditional gender norms
• Technology naturalizes socially constructed preferences

Revival of Gender Essentialism

In recent years:

• Conservatives use biology to oppose gender equality policies
• “Biological sex realism” opposes transgender rights
• “Innate differences” used to justify gender segregation
• Feminism again needs to respond to biological determinism

Conclusion

Amanda Rees’s “Higamous, hogamous, woman monogamous” provides powerful feminist critique of evolutionary psychology’s gender essentialism. By revealing methodological problems, circular reasoning, and political ideology in these seemingly objective scientific narratives, Rees demonstrates the ongoing necessity of feminist science critique.

Rees’s core contributions reveal:

1. Science isn’t value-neutral: Evolutionary psychology narratives reflect and reinforce existing gender orders
2. “Nature” is political: Which behaviors get naturalized is itself a site of power struggle
3. Reductionism’s limits: Human sexual behavior’s complexity can’t be reduced to simple evolutionary logic
4. Alternative narrative possibilities: More nuanced science can challenge rather than reinforce gender stereotypes

In an era of increasing scientific authority and popular culture saturated with biological explanations, Rees’s critique reminds us to remain vigilant. When we hear “science proves men and women are naturally different,” we need to ask: What kind of science? Based on what evidence? Serving whose interests? Obscuring what realities?

Feminism isn’t anti-science but for better science—science that acknowledges positionality, guards against power, embraces complexity, and serves justice. Rees’s work is an important contribution to this ongoing struggle.

This article was written by AI assistant based on Amanda Rees’s 2000 essay in Feminist Theory, incorporating her work in sociology of science to explore feminist critique of evolutionary psychology and gender politics in science.