What do you think?
Rate this book
The Caveman Mystique
Has evolution made men promiscuous skirt chasers? Pop-Darwinian claims about men's irrepressible heterosexuality have become increasingly common, and increasingly common excuses for men's sexual aggression. The Caveman Mystique traces such claims about the hairier sex through evolutionary science and popular culture. After outlining the social and historical context of the rise of pop-Darwinism's assertions about male sexuality and their appeal to many men, Martha McCaughey shows how evolutionary discourse can get lived out as the biological truth of male sexuality. Although evolutionary scientists want to use their theories to solve social problems, evolutionary narratives get invoked by men looking for a Darwinian defense of bad-boy behaviors. McCaughey argues that evolution has nearly replaced religion as a moral guide for understanding who we are and what we must overcome to be good people. Bringing together insights from the fields of science studies, body studies, feminist theory and queer theory, The Caveman Mystique offers a fresh understanding of science, science popularization, and the impact of science on men's identities making a convincing case for deconstructing, rather than defending, the caveman.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
5 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 24, 2013
An important book, but will men who need to read it do so? Not all men are socialized the same, although I had to admit seeing some reflections of myself at points. Still, a vital message to correct a worldview that allows for men to get away with far too much. See further comments here: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.
May 24, 2009
Suspicious of evolutionary just-so stories about gender roles in the popular press? Able to deal with post-structuralist queer-theory sociology of science lingo? There are some excellent points in here, though I wonder if they'll get through to everyone she'd like to persuade. Requires too much background knowledge for undergraduates, but good for academics who care about the topic.
March 2, 2025
A quick read but I can’t say I remember much about it honestly
January 6, 2011
At the end of this book, it's still not entirely clear what McCaughey wants. 13 pages before the end, she does say "We must demand not only better science from the HBE theorists, but a better understanding of science in our culture at large." Well who doesn't agree with this?
She does make some compelling arguments. For one, the notion that men can embody some false narrative about their caveman tendencies (i.e. what she refers to as the Caveman Mystique) is no doubt a problem. Furthermore, that the science behind evolutionary psychology is often male-driven, tenuous, and worth critical examination is a point made by many many people. What, then, is the solution??? She offers very little insight, leaving her criticism without substance in an unfortunate number of cases.
Indeed, in many parts of this book, McCaughey commits the same crime of which she accuses HBE scientists and popularizers alike: she ignores variation. For one, I think that it is a stretch to claim that evolutionary biology has stepped in as the secular basis for morality in America. When less than half of Americans even believe in evolution or that humans descended from apes, this claim is farfetched to say the least. Secondly, I will not deny that the caveman mystique exists, but aside from frat boys and the frat-minded playboy subscribers, how extensive is this embodiment? Surely wide enough to merit a critique, but so pervasive that it even represents a significant chunk of men? Finally, where are the scientific dissenting voices arguing against the vapid claims of sex differences evolving in the pleistocene? She brings up a few, but dismisses them all. Some HBE researchers may have simple, evolutionary untenable and typological, views of the sexes, but McCaughey has a simple, typological view of HBE scientists! Many, many voices of scientists (many self-identifying as feminists) are shut out of her critique.
It's hard not to get the feeling that she is anti-science. Sure she defends science and HBE scientists, but it isn't clear how genuine this is. What kind of evidence would convince McCaughey of adaptive human behaviors, perhaps some of which are sex linked? I would have liked to see her confront this question, but have the feeling the answer would be "none whatsoever." Her alternative "hypothesis" that there may have been a bisexual free-for-all in human history, and that this narrative is as valid as the heteronormative one that she criticizes is one such example. Surely, diversity in sexuality is often ignored by scientists (but not always, either…there are plenty of books discussing such diversity), but to ignore all comparative research and ethnographic knowledge of human and animal behavior to suggest something as asinine as a bisexual orgy is groan-worthy and exactly the type of claim that makes her out to be against scientific inquiry into the evolution of human behaviors in the first place.
Maybe what we need is popularization of a detailed understanding of the naturalistic fallacy…science ought to be silent on morality. She gives plenty of examples of scientists overstepping their bounds, and I of course agree that science is created by individuals with biases, preconceptions, etc. That voices from science studies should be able to step up and critique the findings of science and the popularization of these findings is completely fair. But how? How to go about addressing popularization of scientific findings? How to go about popularizing the "homo textual" masculine identity she espouses in the last chapter? This book feels like a bread sandwich, with two slices of haughty critique and not a thing in the middle.
She does make some compelling arguments. For one, the notion that men can embody some false narrative about their caveman tendencies (i.e. what she refers to as the Caveman Mystique) is no doubt a problem. Furthermore, that the science behind evolutionary psychology is often male-driven, tenuous, and worth critical examination is a point made by many many people. What, then, is the solution??? She offers very little insight, leaving her criticism without substance in an unfortunate number of cases.
Indeed, in many parts of this book, McCaughey commits the same crime of which she accuses HBE scientists and popularizers alike: she ignores variation. For one, I think that it is a stretch to claim that evolutionary biology has stepped in as the secular basis for morality in America. When less than half of Americans even believe in evolution or that humans descended from apes, this claim is farfetched to say the least. Secondly, I will not deny that the caveman mystique exists, but aside from frat boys and the frat-minded playboy subscribers, how extensive is this embodiment? Surely wide enough to merit a critique, but so pervasive that it even represents a significant chunk of men? Finally, where are the scientific dissenting voices arguing against the vapid claims of sex differences evolving in the pleistocene? She brings up a few, but dismisses them all. Some HBE researchers may have simple, evolutionary untenable and typological, views of the sexes, but McCaughey has a simple, typological view of HBE scientists! Many, many voices of scientists (many self-identifying as feminists) are shut out of her critique.
It's hard not to get the feeling that she is anti-science. Sure she defends science and HBE scientists, but it isn't clear how genuine this is. What kind of evidence would convince McCaughey of adaptive human behaviors, perhaps some of which are sex linked? I would have liked to see her confront this question, but have the feeling the answer would be "none whatsoever." Her alternative "hypothesis" that there may have been a bisexual free-for-all in human history, and that this narrative is as valid as the heteronormative one that she criticizes is one such example. Surely, diversity in sexuality is often ignored by scientists (but not always, either…there are plenty of books discussing such diversity), but to ignore all comparative research and ethnographic knowledge of human and animal behavior to suggest something as asinine as a bisexual orgy is groan-worthy and exactly the type of claim that makes her out to be against scientific inquiry into the evolution of human behaviors in the first place.
Maybe what we need is popularization of a detailed understanding of the naturalistic fallacy…science ought to be silent on morality. She gives plenty of examples of scientists overstepping their bounds, and I of course agree that science is created by individuals with biases, preconceptions, etc. That voices from science studies should be able to step up and critique the findings of science and the popularization of these findings is completely fair. But how? How to go about addressing popularization of scientific findings? How to go about popularizing the "homo textual" masculine identity she espouses in the last chapter? This book feels like a bread sandwich, with two slices of haughty critique and not a thing in the middle.
April 16, 2009
I am slowly but surely making my way through this book, not because it is poorly-written, but because it is so dense! It is packed with information in every sentence, and this makes it tough to wade through. McCaughey is just the voice we need these days, because of her schooling in both HBE and social science makes her uniquely qualified to give critiques of both, though this book focuses on the disinterest of some HBE scholars to work alongside social scientists to account for the impact the social has on humans. The existence and verifiability of neuroplasticity (and how experience can influence it) is proof enough for me to find McCaughey's arguments compelling.
July 28, 2010
A good commentary on how aggressive male sexual behavior is excused with erroneous claims to a "caveman mystique," whereby acts such as infidelity, sexual harassment, ogling and rape can be excused as adaptive evolutionary behaviors designed to propagate the species. McCaughey does a good job of showing, first of all, that these behaviors are not necessarily adaptive as well as showing that scientific claims to evolution are steeped in a political, hetero-normative (and heterosexist) climate that makes impossible separating hard, objective science from cultural conditioning--and individual choice.
September 3, 2016
Well-cited examples point out why the caveman is both present today and obsolete. Gist: Think things through.
The author draws on diverse sources, using anecdotes, quotation, and logic to move forward. I would lose track of where is forward on account of the diversity of those sources. And, then, the next paragraph of logic would things back together for me.
Three instead of four stars because of my inability to follow the thesis in each paragraph / chapter / whole book. It was, however, enjoyable to read through.
The author draws on diverse sources, using anecdotes, quotation, and logic to move forward. I would lose track of where is forward on account of the diversity of those sources. And, then, the next paragraph of logic would things back together for me.
Three instead of four stars because of my inability to follow the thesis in each paragraph / chapter / whole book. It was, however, enjoyable to read through.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews