Contemporary feminist theory - which is an offshoot of Marxist critical theory - relies heavily on the idea that gender differences are 'socially constructed.' Evolutionary psychology contends that gender differences are hardwired into us as the result of millions of years of psychosocial/sociobiological factors.
What is interesting is that I have NEVER heard of any evolutionary psychologist claiming that our hardwired sexual characteristics are 'desirable' or 'unchangeable.' Most of these people are SCIENTISTS who are not making any judgment one way or another. They are simply putting forth their findings as the result of research and scholarship.
The common backlash against evolutionary psychology from leftist ideologues is the general statement that, 'Well, just because that's the way it is, that doesn't make it good.' NO ONE is saying that our evolutionary makeup is good or bad. They are simply attempting to explain WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE.
Likewise, I have never heard of an evolutionary psychologist completely denying the idea that we may be socially constructed to a greater or lesser extent. To deny that we might be, at least in part, influenced by our environment would be a stupid assertion. In fact, evolutionary psychology is an assertion that we ARE socially constructed, but that this 'construction' takes place over millions of years and eventually becomes hardwired into us on a DNA level.
The problem that feminists have with evolutionary psychology is PURELY IDEOLOGICAL. Contemporary feminist theory relies COMPLETELY on the idea that we are socially constructed, with the added notion that we can somehow engineer this 'construction process' to achieve more desirable results - according to whichever results feminists consider desirable. In fact, this desire to 'engineer' society is the lodestone of much of LEFTIST thought.
Evolutionary psychology basically says, 'Yeah, nice try with that! Human beings are the way they are because of millions of years of evolutionary programming at a DNA LEVEL.'
To deny the theory of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM on any level is a thought-crime to the intellectual/ideological left. A case in point is the academic left's reaction to Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature." Pinker was vilified in many academic circles for even SUGGESTING that some aspects of human nature might be 'innate,' or hardwired into us. He was called everything from a right-wing zealot to a Nazi. (Which is funny, because he's the furthest thing from a right-winger, and he's Jewish.) Social constructionism is the RULE OF THE DAY in the academic left, which is MARRIED to the idea of social constructionism. Pinker's ideas do a lot to dismantle lefty social constructionism and all the po-mo, Marxist critical theory nonsense that goes along with it. Basically, if you DO believe what Pinker says, you can throw out your Marx, Foucault, Derrida, et al, because such writers wind up being worthless. That's what happened in my case.
And if that happened on a large scale, a lot of lefty academics and intellectuals would be out of jobs. The government grants would dry up, the cushy, tenured positions would disappear. The lofty sinecures at liberal think-tanks would go away. Which is why these people are terrified of evolutionary psychology. If the greater public realized that the emperor of Social Constructionism had no clothes, they'd be in big trouble.
And some people are just emotionally attached to a particular train of thought. People of a very leftist bent, like hardcore feminists (as only one example) do not like the idea that PEOPLE ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, despite all attempts at social engineering. Evolutionary psychology does not paint a very comforting picture on an emotional level. People who want the TRUTH, despite how it makes them feel, usually buy into evolutionary psychology much easier. (And it doesn't have to be ALL of evolutionary psychology.)
Really, if you put Steven Pinker - a Harvard Neuroscientist - against Amanda Marcotte - a feminist blogger, which do you think would have the most sound argument?