CHAPTER
4
Towards Theory of Feministic Social Evolution: Feminine Politics
T |
The paper further integrates chaos theory into sociological analysis, conceptualizing revolutionary societies as nonlinear dynamic systems, in contrast to evolutionary change, which is seen as following a more linear and stable trajectory. Within this framework, the author argues that genuine feminist social transformation must be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature. The paper concludes by forecasting several outcomes of this ongoing evolutionary trajectory, including the decline—or "extinction"—of the archetypal "rough man," the emergence of a feministic power shift, and the eventual arrival of a Feministic "Shock" of the Future.
Background
Since the introduction of evolutionary theory [1], extensive research has been undertaken to better understand the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. With regard to human evolution, a compelling question remains: Is human evolution ongoing, and if so, what elements of the human organism continue to be shaped by evolutionary pressures? While advances in medicine have arguably altered the traditional mechanisms of natural selection, recent studies suggest that aspects of human evolution—particularly those related to brain development—are still in progress [2]. Moreover, scholars have proposed that recent evolutionary pressures may be increasingly cultural rather than purely biological. Notably, Whiten and van Schaik [3] advanced the Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis, suggesting that cultural dynamics may have influenced the evolution of brain size in non-human great apes.
Building upon these and other interdisciplinary studies, the current paper integrates findings from evolutionary biology and sociology with theories developed within mainstream social science to propose an impending societal transformation, that is more evolutionary in nature rather than a "future shock". This phenomenon, which the author terms the Hypothesis of Feministic Social Evolution, suggests a biologically and culturally driven shift in the balance of power between the sexes.
End of edited part
The significance of “Feminine Politics”: Women in politics and military
Before we start our review of the scientific research in biological and social science that support the hypothesis of Feministic Social Evolution, we discuss “Feminine Politics” and its significance. In the next sections, we will discuss the issue of feministic social change and the revolutionary and evolutionary paths towards women empowerment and final feministic powershift. Here we discuss the representation of women in two of the major fields in the structure of power: representation of women in the politics and in the military. "Feminine politics" or “feministic politics” that is referred to in the current paper is not necessarily about "female politicians" but the presence of many female politicians as witnessed in recent years for sure is a good starting point towards feminine politics. As we will see, this presence may create a "feministic future shock". In several decades, a new generation of girls are brought up that have grown without presumptions of male-dominated political and defense organizations. It will be just so natural for them to accept no limitations in what they can achieve in the world of politics, in the military, in the society or in the business.
As mentioned, Feminine Politics is not the same as having female politicians. A feministic powershift means a shift in the rough policies of the male dominated organizations. We can have male politicians with feminine politics. On the other hand, and as mentioned later, we have a good number of female politicians who have learned their policies from a rough type of male-oriented school of thought. The author believes that the presence of this situation is due to “revolutionary feminism” that seems to be the norm between mainstream feminist activists. In future sections, we will discuss the chaos theory and the characteristics of revolutionary systems in contrast with the evolutionary ones. To make this clear make note of one of the main characteristics of a revolutionary system, the sudden change. As we will see, the word “sudden” means that the socio-cultural environment has not been prepared for the change based on natural or social selection. For example, consider forcing the idea of “positive discrimination” in an environment that is not evolved enough to respect “equal opportunity”. Such a “revolutionary act” may or may not help with long-term improvement of women's condition in the environment. In fact, such a revolutionary act may at times be undertaken only as a public relations practice or propaganda. On the other hand, If there are fewer women in the environment but they all have passed the same selection criterion as the males, and are more capable than some of their male counterparts, that would help more with correcting the culture and the biased sentiment against capabilities of women.
There are “revolutionary feminists” who copy male behavior because, in fact, they don’t have enough confidence and trust in the capabilities of the female brain. No confidence to believe those female politicians are equipped with a brain that in social and biological evolutionary terms are more advanced than the male brain as the author will discuss in the next sections.
Maybe this effort in copying the rough style of male politicians is an effort to be “equal” with them. However, the reality is that in the political literature of “liberal democracy” we talk about equal opportunity rather than equality. No matter how idealistic or realistic is the goal of being “equal”, just as it is the case on the class struggle scene, it is not clear if being “equal” by itself has any merits in a liberal democracy. For some revolutionary feminists becoming “equal” to men means to behave like them and make the mistakes they have made for thousands of years. Instead of trying to become “equal” with men in copying their rough version of politics (for example what a “female” politician, Margaret Thatcher, did very well during the conflict with Argentine), maybe the “evolutionaries” of future shock should create their own brand of feministic politics. By accepting such socio-cultural evolutionary processes as described later, they will become self-confident by exercising soft power rather than rough power.
To clarify the point of view of the author on what he calls “revolutionary” social changes favored by some of today's feminists, just consider this next fictional situation. Stanley Kubrick, a brilliant director, and the author’s favorite has a movie called “Dr. Stranglove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”. There seems a little bit of the usual British Anti-American propaganda present in the movie that probably has something to do with the movie being produced in the UK and shows the British to be the “wise men” of the crazy world. In that sense, it is similar to the British propaganda of “The Quiet American” by Graham Greene in which another British is the “wise man” of the story, criticizing and ridiculing the “bad Americans”. But let’s forget about that propaganda and consider this scene is happening in any undemocratic country under a military siege. Or as this author calls it, a “Militarization”. A bunch of “mad men” are sitting around a table to manage a nuclear annihilation scenario. There is this crazy former Nazi whose “right” hand is out of control and supposedly unwillingly “salutes” fascism from time to time against his efforts to control it.
Now imagine a revolutionary feminist who becomes upset about this situation: “why there is no proper representation of women among this group”. In the real world, they may even want to suggest “positive discrimination” to add some women to the group, not having the self-confidence to believe that women not being represented there maybe was neither discrimination nor a weakness: They didn’t belong there.
Extinction of the “Rough Man”
During history, there always have been those denialists of the scientific theories whose denial had ideological roots. An example is an excuse called “missing link” used by some of those denialists against the theory of evolution, not still deterred to this day by recent compelling evidence that evolution is a branching process. The term “missing link” has simply fallen out of favor with biologists. The idea of the existence of a kind of African “Eve” as the starting point for the evolution of modern humans as well as the branching process have been discussed by several researchers including Bryan Sykes. In two of his books called “Seven Daughters of Eve” [4] and “Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men” [5], he explains more about the above theory, the branching process, the role of SRY gene in sex determination and the continual atrophy of the Y chromosome.
What he mentions in the above books is that the Y chromosome carries the Sex-determining Region Y, or SRY in humans, that is a gene that leads to the determination of the gender (whether an embryo will develop as male or female). The Y chromosome contains very few other genes. Women, after all, manage without having the Y chromosome. Sykes describes that many of the ‘useful’ parts of the Y chromosome are also located on X chromosomes and this is making the Y chromosome more and more “unnecessary”.
Regarding violence tendencies, we will see later that if there are any problems on the X chromosome, any such tendencies on one of the X pairs can be braked on by the other pair. For the males, however, the problem is that there is only one X chromosome. In the above sources, Sykes mentions the genetic reshuffling or genetic recombination which means the exchange of genetic material between different organisms, during which new “combinations” are created. These new combinations may be different from those found in either parent. Genetic reshuffling helps to eliminate damaging gene mutations like the case of violent tendencies mentioned above. Genes on the Y chromosome cannot undergo genetic shuffling. Without benefits of reshuffling, Y chromosomal genes degenerate over time eventually ending with atrophy of the Y chromosome.
Based on his hypothesis, within hundreds of years men shall become extinct. He argues that the male Y chromosome is getting weaker and, as the generations pass, the female genome is taking over. In other words, as he explains, “Women are winning the battle of evolutionary biology”.
What makes these results even more interesting are the parallels found between these findings and those on the social evolution front as we will see later. Just imagine what the terms like “The Y chromosome becoming more and more unnecessary” can be translated to on the social scene. Or “Women as the winners of the evolutionary battle”. Or “inevitable atrophy of the Y chromosome”. We will find that in fact there are similar processes underway on the social scene too.
The author of the current paper believes there is enough previous research that confirms the hypothesis regarding the gradual decrease in violent tendencies among men. He argues the biological, social and cultural evolution are taking us towards a final stage of extinction of the “rough man”. The research by Bryan Sykes is only one sample of the research that supports this author’s wider hypothesis.
In this paper, results by some researchers in the field of biology will be used that support the hypothesis of a “feministic powershift”. But before that let’s see if there are other non-biological mechanisms that can affect the balance of power between men and women and weaken the men in other ways rather than through biological evolution. The other root that we need to consider here is sociocultural evolution. As we know, sociologists often assume that human beings have natural social tendencies and human social behaviors have non-genetic causes too. One question is that if there is such a thing as sociocultural evolution, are there any mechanisms like mutation and natural choice involved? For example, does science support the idea of a kind of “cultural choice” or “social choice” that can define the basis for a so-called socio-cultural evolution?
Robert Winston mentions [ 6] that for the modern women the traditional visual stereotypes in choosing a male partner more and more have been replaced with financial stability and generally the “social standing”. The above-mentioned source suggests that in the evolutionary sociology terms there could be something like a kind of social choice in favor of males with social standing rather than those with muscular features. We can call it a “social choice” to mimic the “natural choice” in evolutionary biology. So, if a social-natural choice existed for the cave women that favored the masculine or more violent men, in new age it may have changed to favor other qualities in a potential male partner as we will discuss later.
Next issue to be investigated is that if we accept the hypothesis by Bryan Sykes regarding continual atrophy of the Y chromosome, does it mean that gradually the men are becoming less violent? Is there any proof of risk factors of violence being located on a particular chromosome which then supports such a hypothesis? In trying to answer these questions one very important question that needs to be answered first is if evolutionary biology can confirm that males are more violent than females, genetically?
In chapter 6 of his book titled “human instinct”, Robert Winston in detail describes the violence tendency among males [6]. He argues that violence and anti-social behavior are more active on the X chromosome and any such tendencies on one of the X pairs can be braked on by the other pair. For the males, however, the problem is that there is only one X chromosome. This proves that males have more tendency for violence. This is a kind of scientific proof for the hypothesis that at any given time males are generally more violent than females. But during sociocultural and biological evolution, considering the sociocultural choice of women and referring to the previously mentioned hypothesis by the above two researchers, it seems that the “rough man” is on the path towards extinction both in biological evolutionary term and socio-cultural evolutionary term.
Who “listens” to the world better and who “sees” the world better, the man or the woman?
It is the general knowledge that men are more likely to be color blinded. They are also more likely to be autistic. Is it just a coincidence that both autism and color blindness are more frequent in males? In this section and next, we will discuss some scientific facts about differences in the brains of male and female humans to see how the above deficiencies among the male population may have something to do with the structural differences between the brains of men and women. But here we mention first why these differences are important. The importance of these differences is in the way that male and female brains understand and interact with the world. The male “violence” is a reaction to the outside world. Now consider if it could be proven that men, compared to women, have deficiencies in both “listening” to the world as well as some visual deficiencies in “seeing” the world properly. In the next sections, we will see how this may have something to do with very advanced parts of the brain in females, responsible for dialogue, empathy, and love, being “superior” to the ones in males. The same is true regarding color vision which we discuss here.
Color vision is one of those advanced capabilities that makes humans different from many animals and has its roots in a complex history of evolution, both in eyes and in the brains of different lines of animals. For example, it is suggested that dogs do not have color vision and see the world in black and white. It is left to the reader to investigate this and easily find online materials that explain how the color vision in humans is related to the temporal cortex and other more advanced parts of the brain which were mentioned before. To emphasize the relevance of each brain part to different ages in history, we can consider two following scenarios. For a caveman or a man in “agricultural age” (a first wave man) to kill another man or to rape a woman, there were no requirements for the capabilities these parts of the brain are responsible for (color vision, dialogue, empathy, and love). However, with the modern definition of love, for a woman in the information age (the third wave), both color vision and dialogue play particularly important roles in finding a partner.
The Feministic Shock of Future
Alvin Toffler is an American expert in social science who is mainly famous for his “trilogy” that we will discuss in more detail later. He describes how the tools of power have changed from agricultural age through the industrial revolution and finally into the age of information technology or "the third wave" as he calls it. This author has adopted his ideas, adding a few elements from other branches of science, to argue that women are now in a much better position to acquire the modern tools of power and to contribute to what can be called a “feministic powershift”. One of the most important aspects of the third wave is the communication revolution. As we will discuss, female brains are much more sophisticated and advanced than male brains when it comes to language and communication. Our male brains are heavier, but the bad news is that the heavy weight is just concentrated in a part of the brain which is the most ordinary part. Yet it remains to be proved in a scientific way if, in fact, it is this part of the brain (like the crocodile brain) that contributes to males being more inclined to violence as a root of resolving conflict.
Before “the third wave” and “powershift” [8,9], Alvin Toffler wrote a book titled “shock of future” [7], in which he “predicted” the 1979 revolution in Iran. With all efforts of the revolutionaries in Iran to emphasize a kind of “permanent revolution” or “continuous revolution”, it seems that in recent years the dynamics of social change in Iran are more in line with an evolution rather than a revolution. And more interestingly it seems more like a feministic evolution. For example, there has been an explosion in the number of female university students in Iran, taking over the male numbers. More interestingly, the percentage of female science and engineering students is claimed to be even more than 50% [10] that is not rivaled by any western democracy. In a clever observation, Huntington says in his book Clash of civilizations [11], that Iran is the only Muslim country in the world in which fundamentalism has been in continuous decline during the last 3 decades or so.
Toffler describes [8] three types of societies, based on the concept of waves: Agricultural age, Industrial age and Information age. He then describes [9] in detail the tools of power in each of these waves. There, he expands on how physical power was the main tool of power in the agricultural wave, while after the industrial revolution wealth replaced it as the main tool of power. Finally, he goes on to predict that in the information age or “the third wave”, knowledge will gradually overtake as the main tool of power. So, physical power, wealth and knowledge have been the main tools of power in each of these waves. Lots of his predictions can be easily validated for example by noticing how knowledge-based giants such as Facebook and Google have gradually replaced first wave defense and second wave oil companies as the largest corporations.
In his view, one of the major characteristics of the industrial wave was mass production. So, modern methods of the third wave manufacture are different in the way that they create much more variety of choice for the end-user. But then he makes an “observation” into what makes the new technology more advanced and more relevant to the “third wave”:
“Finally, while Second Wave manufacture was Cartesian in the sense that products were broken into pieces, then painstakingly reassembled, Third Wave manufacture is post-Cartesian or “wholistic.” This is illustrated by what has happened to common manufactured products like the wristwatch. Whereas watches once had hundreds of moving parts, we are now able to make solid-state watches that are more accurate and reliable— with no moving parts at all. Similarly, today’s Panasonic TV set has half as many parts as the sets of ten years ago. As tiny microprocessors— those miracle chips again— turn up in more and more products, they replace impressive numbers of conventional components. “
What Toffler is missing here is that there is no such a thing as “reduction of part numbers” as he refers to. The numerous parts of the old technology have become smaller and smaller but also more compact. So even a much larger number of “parts” have been compacted and assembled inside electronic chips. It has been argued [12,13] that not only more and more of the technological and scientific problems will be solved by methods like FEA but also we are in fact on the path to break the finite element into even smaller and smaller finite elements, contrary to the “holistic approach” idea proposed by Toffler.
Now, why is that relevant to the subject of the current paper? Toffler has been comparing characteristics of old and new technology to explain the characteristics and requirements for the true third wave manufacturing. In fact, he is writing about a “social choice” that favors the third wave’s method of manufacturing over the older methods. Here we face a similar dilemma. We can investigate the differences between the male and female brains to find out if there are sociocultural choices favoring one sex over another in “the third wave”. In addition, and in a very interesting parallel, just like the case of comparison between second and third wave technology in terms of how “compact” they are, there could be made a similar comparison between the structures of male brain and the female brain.
It is general knowledge that the male brain is heavier than the female one but there are reports of some parts of the female brain being more compact than the male brain as we will discuss. This author leaves it to the reader to look for easily available information that describes the differences in the structures of the brains of men and women. As a summary, it is now almost a consensus that the heavier part of the brain in men is a very primitive part of the brain (that can be described as similar to a crocodile brain ) while some parts of the brain that are relevant to more sophisticated aspects of modern human life are more developed in women [14], such as parts of the brain involved in the dialogue, socializing, care, empathy, and love. It is very important to note that although there are some other parts of the male brain that are more advanced than the female one, they are not responsible for aspects of modern human life. In fact, dialogue and socializing, for example, are what differentiates human beings from other kinds of animals. It is also general biology knowledge that the female brain in some of those more advanced regions is more “compact” and with more neurons [14]. So, a very important part of the brain that separates human beings from animals is more advanced and more compact in female brains compared to male ones.
If we accept Toffler’s hypothesis regarding the tools of power, then it is clear that if women were left behind in the first two waves, now and in the era that “knowledge” is the tool of power, they have a much better chance to compete with males for power. It can be imagined that at the interface between two waves, there is a period that simply those in power initially use their power to control the new tools of power. It seems that every time that a new “wave” has risen, the social choice in the selection of men over women has started to diminish after a while by women starting to use the new tool of power. Those with physical power in the agricultural age would be richer and continue their power into the industrial age. The same is true in the interface between the second and third waves. There will be a delay before those who were not part of the power structure, can start using their modern tools of power. The author leaves it to the reader to research the available data regarding the increase in the number of rich women during the second wave and then more recently the increase in numbers of female politicians during “the third wave”.
If dialogue becomes the tool of power instead of violence and physical power, then clearly women would be in a much better position as the female brain has been equipped with more advanced tools during its biological and social evolutionary path and that can support them in transition through a “feminine powershift” creating what this author calls “feministic future shock”.
But in addition to the above hypothesis of feministic powershift, further analysis of Toffler’s ideas can also confirm our previous hypothesis in regard to the rise of new “sociocultural choice” in favor of less violent men. The social standing of a third wave man now more depends on their “knowledge” compared to “masculinity” for a first wave man. And this takes us back to what Robert Winston reported regarding the “social standing” of men as a social choice, as discussed before. That is more reason to believe the “powershift” hypothesis of Toffler also supports the idea of the emergence of new sociocultural choice in “the third wave” that may contribute to the extinction of the “rough man”.
Theory of Chaos: Revolution Versus Evolution
In this section, we discuss why while talking about the revolutionary path versus evolutionary one, we are comparing one non-linear dynamic system with a linear static system. The Persian scholar and founder of algebra, Khwarizmi, presented the first systemic solution of linear and non-linear equations. Algebra went on to be transformed into differential and integral calculus becoming the basis for almost every aspect of the modern technology around us today. The reason simply is that it concerns “change”. Almost every theory of physics can be translated into a differential equation and it can be argued [12,13] that the “unified theory” when found, is in fact in the form of a differential equation. It is all about predicting the future of a physical system and its change. And that is where the chaotic systems come to the picture represented by differential equations that their solution, or behavior, is very complex to predict. But it is not only the physical systems that experience “change” and “chaos”. As we will see, the social science also makes use of this theory.
Chaotic systems are nonlinear and dynamic systems that their behavior is very dependent on the initial conditions, in contrast with linear and static systems that are mostly considered as being deterministic or predictable. It seems obvious that there is a resemblance between the revolutionary path of change with characteristics of a non-linear dynamic system. Social science researchers have tried to use chaos theory in describing the social change. As the authors of Chaos, Complexity, and sociology [15] write:
“Complexity theory’s view of rupture and discontinuity revolves around the concept of phase transition or bifurcation point….systems that are going along in a more or less stable, the deterministic way can suddenly be pushed into a state of chaotic dynamics, and at such times dramatic changes are possible”.
In other words, in a chaotic system, there are bifurcation points that passing through them makes dramatic change possible, but the problem is that the outcome couldn’t be predicted.
As we know, major revolutions of recent history were somehow violent. So, it seems that revolution is an idea that has its roots in a kind of “first wave” mentality. But what we just discussed from the application of chaos theory into the field of social science is that there is the problem of the revolution and the “dynamic sudden change” turning into something completely unpredictable, unstable and non-linear. Considering this unpredictability and the inherent “violent” nature of revolutions, there seems to be no such a thing as a revolutionary solution the same way that it is difficult to call the outcomes of a mathematical or physical chaotic system, “solutions”. The history of the 20th century and all its major revolutions are good proofs for this hypothesis.
The reader of Toffler’s “trilogy” could be tempted to think of him as the ideologue of the evolution that he called “the third wave”. Toffler in his “trilogy” makes mention of the social science figures who were the ideologues of previous “ages” or at the forefront of the “industrial revolution”. He particularly mentions Marx as the ideologue of the industrial revolution or the second wave. John F Kennedy once addressed to the American Newspaper Publishers' Association and his opening anecdote referred to “an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx” who stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished constantly appealed to the managing editor for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment.
According to President Kennedy, when all his financial appeals were refused, ” Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full-time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, Revolution and The Cold War”. President Kennedy goes on to suggest in humor that “If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different”.
What President Kennedy is referring to is a second solution to what the early day Marxists and Bolsheviks thought had only one solution: revolution. After a detailed analysis of workers' condition in Europe, Marx concluded that a proletarian revolution would be the result. There were revolutionaries such as Lenin who jumped on the idea calling for a revolution and then there were smarter people who noticed the hidden “if” in Marx’s theory: “What if we change the working conditions for better?”. And so, another brand of socialism was born that instead of calling for a revolution, all its struggle for social justice is, in fact, an effort to remove all pre-conditions of a revolution as described by Marx.
And then there are those revolutionaries who confess the shortcomings of their revolutions but then talk about the “continuous revolution” or “permanent revolution” as the solution. In fact, there seems to be a contradiction in two terms of "continuous” and “revolution". Being "sudden" and being "Continuous" simply do not add up. It seems that the problem of a revolution or a sudden change not being able to resolve social problems as promised by revolutionary leaders, goes back to the fact that a real and progressive change can be done neither violently nor suddenly. The only real continuous change can be an evolutionary one.
With all scientific proof that was provided before regarding evolution, violence, and gender, if there wants to be any kind of real and continuous social change, it should be evolutionary, and it should be feministic. For this reason, the author believes all “revolutionary” approaches for such change such as “positive discrimination” or the efforts to increase the number of female personnel in the armed forces may not work or even may backlash against a real feministic social change.
Conclusion and the Author’s Final Remarks
Evolution and natural selection in both the agricultural and industrial era were in favor of a violent and muscular man, a caveman or the "rough man". Centuries of social and cultural evolution have ended with a new information era. In this new “age”, the phenomenon of natural-social-cultural selection has replaced natural selection. This simply means that the modern man or the "soft man" is going to win over the "rough man". The author calls the proposed hypothesis “feministic social evolution”. In the new era of information and in evolutionary terms both natural selection and social selection favor females over males and less violent men over the violent ones. There is a “feministic shock of future” on its way that will lead to a new brand of feminism and “feminine politics” that is based on self-belief rather than older versions of feminism which were trying to copy male behavior.
Understanding the psychology of violence and the role of a true third wave citizen in stopping the cycle of violence is important. When violence between those in power against those chasing a powershift breaks, like a game of table tennis, the harder one side hits the ball, the harder the response would be. The non-violent powershift can only be achieved by evolutionary partisans. These are well-informed intellectuals who believe in nonviolence philosophy. In dialogue instead of violence and in evolution instead of revolution.
This is an “evolution” underway by the evolutionary partisans of the new century, those men and women who every day create a new form of non-violence resistance. There are so much creativity and intelligence in this evolutionary shock of the future that it is going to transform the social networks of the glob into the neurons of the goddess of “change”. With the continuous explosion of bright non-violence ideas, this is the only kind of social change that can be continuous: A political, cultural, social and feministic evolution.
List of References:
1. Darwin, Charles (1859), “On the Origin of Species”, John Murray, London
2. Whiten A, Van Schaik CP. The evolution of animal ‘cultures’ and social intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2007;362(1480):603–20.
3. Muthukrishna, Michael et al (2018), “The Cultural Brain Hypothesis: How culture drives brain expansion, sociality, and life history”.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006504
4. Sykes, Bryan (2002), “The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry”, W.W. Norton.
5. Sykes, Bryan (2003), “Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men”, Bantam.
6. Winston, Robert (2003), “Human Instinct”, Bantam Books.
7. Toffler, Alvin (1970), “Future Shock”, Bantam Books.
8. Toffler, Alvin (1980), “The Third Wave”, Bantam Books.
9. Toffler, Alvin (1990), “Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century” , Bantam Books.
10. Shavarini, Mitra K. (2005), "The Feminisation of Iranian Higher Education". International Review of Education.
11. Huntington, Samuel P, (1996), “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” SIMON & SCHUSTER
12. Farvashany, F , “Parametric Studies on Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: An Engineering Response to Einstein’s Riddle?”, ACI Structural Journal, V.114, No.5, September-October 2017, pp 1099-1108
13. Farvashany, F, “Introduction of a new RC finite element: FEA of infinitesimal?”, To Be Published.
14.Witelson SF, Glezer II, Kigar DL(1995), “Women have greater density of neurons in posterior temporal cortex”, J Neurosci, 15(5 Pt 1):3418-28
15. Eve, Raymond A, Horsfall Sara, Lee Mary E (1997), “Chaos, Complexity, and sociology”, SAGE Publications, Inc.
