Sociology is as rigorous a science as any other. Just because not everybody agrees about things doesn't mean it's not rigorous. That’s the nature of all science. Scientists still disagree about the nature of gravity, for instance.
I don't agree that patriarchy is essentially gone, but I suppose it depends on the author's meaning of that term. Speaking as a social scientist, patriarchy is a male centric dominance based hierarchy that impacts all aspects of our culture (racism, homophobia, playground bullying, etc) and not just gender dynamics. The male dominance aspect is still actively taking place too, but doesn't look like it did 50 years ago when women were second class citizens by law. So, perhaps that's what he is referring to. But that's not the only metric or aspect of patriarchy.
Intimate partner violence is roughly gender equal, but the kind of domestic abuse that involves coercive control is almost exclusively practiced by men — but that’s due to patriarchal ideas of ownership of women and not some ancient dynamic. In addition, about 40% of women who are murdered in America are killed by current or former male domestic partners, vs. about 6% of men - at least some of whom are killed in self-defense. Women who defend themselves against abusive husbands also suffer much harsher penalties than men who hurt or kill their wives — once again due to patriarchal beliefs a man has the right to control and even “punish” his wife.
I'm enough familiar with Buss to be able to judge him not just from that article alone. All evolutionary psychology is nearly universally bunk - for the same reasons I've already cited. It looks at primarily Western dynamics that have only been around since the rise of patriarchy (just a few thousand years ago) and determines that they indicate ancient and world-wide gender dynamics. It's people trained as psychologists making shit up about topics they are not well versed in such as anthropology, ancient history and sociology, etc. I lump Steven Pinker into that group as well, even though he's a more traditional psychologist and doesn't (I don't believe) claim to be an evolutionary psychologist.
There is no anti-male stereotyping in divorce and since men do perpetrate the vast majority of all violence (some estimate 90%) it's only reasonable to lean that way in domestic situations - although there are instances where it is the wrong conclusion - that still doesn't make it anti-male.
“The statistic most often trotted out for this purpose is taken out of context to allege bias against men. For example, a quote from one such Arizona law firm, “Statistics show that women win child custody rights a staggering 90% of the time, even though fathers play an important role in their children’s lives pre and post-divorce.”
In her Huff Post article, Cathy Meyer does a stellar job breaking down exactly why this statistic is so misleading:
- In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed — on their own — that mom become the custodial parent.
- In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
- In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
- In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
- Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system.”
“Immediately deciding who is “at fault” allows for situations that are often a lot more nuanced than perpetrator and victim to continue. Perhaps imminent harm is sometimes interrupted, but without any method for self-reflection, mutual accountability, and negotiation, violence may ultimately escalate or continue in an endless cycle. Too often, someone needing support is left unhelped, and at times, someone who has been attacked ends up being pointed to as the villain.
Naturally, there are instances where someone is truly at fault and the other person is a blameless victim of abuse or violence, but without any widespread mechanisms for conflict resolution, where the state is often asked to mediate via the police, we don’t always get it right or end up improving the larger dynamics. Without getting to the roots of violence, or noting how sometimes mutual conflict can escalate, we’re only putting icing over mud.”
So, long story short, I don't necessarily agree with absolutely everything the author of that essay said, but I do agree with his critiques of Buss - which was the point in linking it to you.
