The article does point out scientifically based refutations of some simplistic eve-psych explanations rape, abuse of stepchildren and so on. Doesn't your point about the motives of feminism and liberalism use political name-calling to counter the scientific arguments?
I agree that evo-psych in general is an interesting field - and certainly all human behavior is somehow rooted in evolution. So of course rape also have some kind direct or indirect evolutionary explanation, just as love, music, wine-tasting, pole-sitting and so on. But the explanation is probably a lot more complex than "rape helps spread genes".
Pop-evo-psych have gotten great exposition in the popular media lately, so it is quite refreshing to see a debunking.
"refutations of some simplistic eve-psych explanations"
That's one of the classics, though. For the same reason creationists think they have refuted evolution theory if they find some bone in some hidden corner of the world that some random biologist had a wrong hunch about.
Some of the claims of "evo-psych" often seemed simplistic to me (like the hip-waist ratio), but then these were often the ones spread by journalists in popular newspapers, not by scientists. I wouldn't assume that they were as universally accepted among scientists.
For a long time "strange" variations of sexual preference have been known, for example the mutilations some people seem to prefer (small feet in chinese women, elongated necks in some tribes where they put rings around their neck during growth and so on). I can't imagine any serious scientist would not know about them.
Many of the "refutations" seem a bit weak, too. For example the rape gene: let's accept that for the average member of society rape makes no "economical" sense. But is the typical rapist an average member of society? If rape is your only chance at spreading your genes, the economics might be different. From the article it did not sound as if that was taken into account in the "refuation".
Another thing I am 100% sure: evo-psych did not predict that women would prefer to be monogamous. So refuting that is just a strawman.
The final straw for the article is when they describe how evo-psych can now only fight back by getting personal and unscientific. Followed up by a personal and unscientific quote by the anti-evo-psych guy.
I agree, I used to bash evolutionary psychology myself, but then I realized: We know how "accurately" the media portray research in physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry; how do we figure that the way they represent evolutionary psychology is any better? Instead of arguing against strawmen like the article does, why not first listen to what evolutionary psychologists actually have to say?
I don't know how representative Steven Pinker is for the field of evo-psych in general, but I found that he explains his reasoning very clearly and understandably.
I agree that evo-psych in general is an interesting field - and certainly all human behavior is somehow rooted in evolution. So of course rape also have some kind direct or indirect evolutionary explanation, just as love, music, wine-tasting, pole-sitting and so on. But the explanation is probably a lot more complex than "rape helps spread genes".
Pop-evo-psych have gotten great exposition in the popular media lately, so it is quite refreshing to see a debunking.