The Green Party and Science

I have been looking a bit into far left parties. Writing these posts, despite their lack of a big audience to date, has made me think more seriously about my political views and my reluctance to take strong political stands, a reluctance whose roots lie in my naturally deep and profound skepticism toward all claims of knowledge. This may look like an abrupt turn from many of my earlier posts from just a few weeks ago that criticized progressives, but, as I noted then, it wasn't so much progressivism that I disagreed with as it was a certain attitude endemic in progressivism that I (still) find annoying.

Anyway, now I am indulging my leftist tendencies. Seeing the total corruption of the Democrats makes me more and more skeptical that capitalism and democracy can co-exist, so I have been looking even further left.

I may have more to say about that in the future. In the meantime, one of the leftist parties I was looking at is the Green Party, and today I ran across this post. The author points out that the Green Party's platform is in favor of mandating insurance coverage for alternative healthcare such as acupuncture and homeopathy. The author's objection is that these things are "quack medicine." I agree that homeopathy in particular is nonsense; some, like acupuncture, have some limited evidence of their efficacy. Either way, the question should clearly be whether a particular medical practice is backed up by evidence. In a capitalist society, unfortunately, therapies that do not make a lot of money for corporations do not receive enough research, so I'm not sure how (again, in a capitalist society) combining a focus on evidence-based medicine with universal health insurance would improve things for promising alternative therapies.

Either way, the fact that the Green Party takes this position is quite disappointing for me, since I like its emphasis on environmentalism. This isn't to say that I would never support a Green candidate. On the other hand, in many ways the Green Party seems to be simply a more progressive version of the Democrats, including its capitulation to working in a capitalist society, so I am doubtful how much good they could do if the they supplanted the Democrats or became a major third party.

Radical Feminism in Wicca

I recently read a blog post by a male Pagan who is upset by those radical feminists whose embrace of Neopaganism makes them the female embodiment of the sexism and misogyny of traditional religions. He is particularly disturbed by the accusation that men are robots acting out "sperm wars." I instantly recognized this phrase as either coming out of or being related to evolutionary psychology. I haven't read much specifically on that subject, but we did discuss it a bit when I took philosophy of science.

I think evolutionary psychology and evolutionary explanations for human behavior are fine, as long as they don't become reductive. Let me explain. A common explanation given for human mating behavior (= who you are likely to want to sleep with) is that men can basically give sperm away without any consequences, while a woman who has sex with a man is potentially going to be giving up, at a minimum, nine months of her life, not to mention the energy costs of childrearing. So men are, so it is alleged, "programmed" to be promiscuous, and women are "programmed" to be picky. Women may be so picky that they won't be satisfied with the husband they're stuck with, but "sleep around" to get the best sperm.

I don't find this particularly offensive, especially because this hypothesis is just dealing in trends, trends which, I assume, are fairly well-established. I've known women who loved sex and weren't particularly picky. And there are many men who are truly happy with just one woman.

Of course the assumption that these trends are well-established may be false! I don't know. I do think that this sort of thing can sound suspiciously like a just-so story. But anyway, this trend, assuming it's real, should not cause us trouble until we begin stereotyping people or excluding people from our social circles based on it.

Why? Well, let's look at other prejudices. There are all sorts of racial and cultural stereotypes, and most of them are frowned upon in modern, free societies, even when there is a factual foundation for them. After all, they just represent trends (real or false), and it is important that we approach each human being as a unique individual. She or he may belong to a group that (is alleged to) tend to be X, but prejudging them based on X is harmful and unfair, since there is a strong possibility that they aren't X at all.

So evolutionary psychology is pretty worthless when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if men are as a rule more likely to have certain undesirable traits, that doesn't mean all or even most men have those traits. This particular male Pagan is really upset by the radical feminists in e.g. Dianic Wicca or other Neopagan groups who "don't need men" and are extremely sexist, in the same way that traditional religions were sexist against women. I don't know what to think about that. I have seen and heard about so many idiots in my life that I don't have any strong hope that ideals, like male-female polarity and equality in Wicca, will actually translate into real behavior. It certainly was hardly the case in the Christian communities I frequently for a decade or so. Why should it be any better among Neopagans? The radical feminists who despise men probably have some reason for their hatred. I'll be blunt and say that such hatred is just as idiotic and myopic as the misogyny a friend of mine clings to. But I can't control anyone, and if Paganism is truly a free approach to religious values, then I can't get personally miffed about the stupidity of other Pagans -- certainly not the way I used to get angry when I saw bad Christians.