In this space we have the problem of whether or not advocating 'the selfish gene' was a way of advocating the political agenda of social darwinism, as it was any form of 'science' or 'secularism'.
What comes to mind is the idea of secularists adopting the selfish gene extensions, as they try to work out a way to work and play well with nature. Yet never really resolving how they can adopt the notion of 'working and playing well with nature' - when all is STRUGGLE! How many adopted the 'not religious option'; that was defined by those who painted this horror as the excuse for opposing the evils of secularism. Or in a more fomulaic way:
p1: there are only two propositions in the universal set
p2: Either socialDarwinism or religiousStuff
What if there is a third proposition in the set - namely that some other method can be constructed, wherein co-operation is the natural state of affairs, and it can allow for competition and threat behavior, but ultimately seeking to resolve issues to a Nash Bargained Solution. ( cf Nash Bargaining Game )
In this context one can arrive at a 'not religiousStuff' space that does not require one to adopt the full tilt silliness of the socialDarwinist Red in tooth and claw.
Granted, that way would end the battle of the sexes by adopting a policy position in which conflict is a secondary and derived mechanism to the natural policy of negotiation. Which would mean that boys would have to learn to cope with girls, and that the role of reasoning was to work with the necessities of the complex social system that allows for more than the simple boolean of conflict - "I win, You Die!".
I am not going to make the radical left wing leap and assert that nonMalePerkin should be granted any special rights, such as being allowed to be natural rush limbiots draft dodgers, because they are, well, nonMalePerKin! But i will suggest that I may be open to a negotiated compromise on the topic.