Fitness Indicator Theory refers to the idea that all physical and mental traits which one might see as favorable or unfavorable in a potential partner (fitness indicators) are the result of sexual selection during the whole of human evolution.
The parallel and in deed, final step of Evolutionary Selection, Sexual Selection states that both men and woman further shaped each others evolution through their preferential mating choices and strategies amongst those who were able to survive the myriad of other challenges to live to reproductive maturity.
In short, it states that our worst traits as men and women were at one point, sexually selected/rewarded by the opposite sex as the best traits for that bygone era. It gives evolutionary backing to those traits you hate most of the opposite sex and in fact those traits we hate in humanity at large. Because of this, it is not publicized and rarely spoken of, it is however a fairly easy conclusion to reach which continously holds up structurally against criticism and nearly always fits in with newly descovered information.
Attached is a description of why most of us hate to hear this, mainly because it is often used as an excuse, it is never the less, very likely the truth.
What isn't true is that explaining these things excuses them. We as a society created rules of law to further bind the actions allowed under the rules of nature, we made these decisions through intelligence, also sexually selected and evolved, which allowed us to take hold of our own evolution to an extent, though it is slow going. In understanding this we see that it is not "one or the other".The, likely true, fitness indicator theory does not mean that our actions are all predetermined by evolution and thus morally correct. We define morality as a society, not as a species, this is evident as you cross cultures and times where the differences in morality can be easily seen. We do so specifically to place constraints in what is allowed under strictly evolutionarily neccesarily mandates.
So next time someone gives the excuse that they were just acting the way God or evolution intended, concede that to them, they're correct. They are however incorrect in thinking that that truth absolves them of any crime or indecency, it simply states that they are an individual who is unable to accept societal conditioning over evolutionary conditioning and that they are one of society's failures.
On the flip side, demanding that a societal movement of moral splendor is not fully finished until all traces of disent and non-adherence are removed from all detractors (here's looking at you feminism) is simply not plausible. We cannot change fast enough that we will ever come to complete equality within 100 generations even. Just as the civil rights movement settled down and now rises up when large affronts are made, so should all other morally righteous movements. It's not to me to judge of this is feminisms time to back down, but I can say that that time should not be marked as the point in the future when men and women are COMPLETELY equal in all areas. This will likely lead only to over-correcting.
The final point is this. Societal conditioning is NOT always to blame for the behavior of individuals, nor does a lack of self control speak to inherent wickedness. It can be understood to be evolutionarily ingrained. As such, we must show patience and compassion to our youth who are ignorant of higher level moral philosophy, yet born with instinctual evolutionary programming. Young men and women will hurt each other. The world will remain unequal in one or another race, nation or gender's favor, though we can aim to get damn close to that median. We must not go for the complete victory however, or we risk turning what was beautiful into something ugly and allowing the ugliness to give moral cause for an otherwise amoral enemy to undo some of the good that has been done.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
This is a good take
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!