mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (01/20/88)
The discussion of animal analogues of rape unfortunately continues. In article <7760@sunybcs.UUCP>, Mark Crovella (crovella@sunybcs.UUCP) writes: > I believe that behavior such as this is fairly common among > species that do not develop lasting pair bonds. If one parent > has no requirement to invest energy in the offspring (in the form of > feeding, nurturing), it is to that parent's advantage to attempt to > reproduce as often as possible. Since females cannot do this in the > limit, so-called "rape" behavior occurs only in males. But there _are_ species in which the male carries most or in some cases all of the burden of rearing offspring. But no one looks for female- purpetrated "rape" in these species -- I wonder why? Could it have to do with the low probability of such an event among Western humans (i.e., if we can't anthropomorphize, we're not interested)? Could it have to do with the reluctance of predominantly male scientists to claim that there is a biological predisposition toward acts that might threaten them? In fact, there are instances of female-purpetrated rape among certain human cultures (and, characteristically, they involve humiliation of the male victim, just as male-purpetrated rape upon women does in our part of the world). But again, there seems to be little interest on the part of biologists in these events. Why is the "scientific" study restricted to that subset of the available behaviors which happens to correspond to male oppression of women in the society in which that "science" is undertaken? The types of behaviors that are considered to "come naturally" are highly selected. I do not mean this in the Darwinian sense of selection. Rather, I am referring to people who look selectively only at those "facts" that suit their belief structures. The general lack of interest in species in which the father rears the young is a good example. A better example occurs in infanticide. This is a well-known phenomenon in many, many species, from insects through primates. To understand how this works in a biology-is-destiny context, let's examine the duck argument again. Superficially similar behaviors were grouped together under a single term ("rape") with other human terms entering the discussion ("husband," "wife," and discussions of "boyfriends," "courts," etc.). (I maintained in earlier postings that these are spurious terms: that sexual events among animals have little in common with complex social and power-based acts of violence among humans. So let's see what happens if we apply the same "logic" to infanticide. Various ethologists have proposed "rationales" for infanticide which are based on the notion that an individual can increase its reproductive fitness through killing certain immature individuals of its species. Therefore, the duck "rape" style argument for biological advantage appears to be just as supportable for infanticide among chimps as it was for rape among ducks: both can be claimed to improve an individual's reproductive success. Still following the logic of the duck "rape" argument, I look for an analogous human behavior: how about child abuse? Using the same argument as in the duck "rape" fantasy, we could say that child abuse must be a "natural tendency" among humans. Something that is "natural" appears somehow more inevitable, less punishable -- the defense that is often made for rape, or for sexism in general. Of course, this is a heinous thing to say (of child abuse _or_ of rape), and I don't suggest that it is true even for a moment. My point is that the arguments supporting the alleged "naturalness" of rape are equally valid to support the alleged "naturalness" of child abuse. Both are violent acts; both have animal analogues; both may be superficially argued to increase reproductive fitness. But, while the biological fantasy of male dominance and aggression never seems to lack for supporters, by contrast no one is trying to justify child abuse with the same "reasoning." _Both_ justifications are -- or should be -- repugnant. Why is it that a predominantly male field (and the male researchers within that field) finds that one justification (i.e., for rape) comes so easily (I am tempted to say "naturally") to them, while the other justification (i.e., for child abuse) never crosses their minds? Proponents of sociobiology take their male-dominance, male-aggression stories into high schools ("Sociobiology: Doing What Comes Naturally"). Why are they only interested in sharing theories in which women and minorities (and occasionally lesbians and gay men) are victimized through statements of alleged biological necessity? Why do they only find justifications for the oppression of people who are already disenfranchised? Why are they blind to equally "logical" analyses -- based on their own theoretical methods -- which would put males at a disadvantage? My point in previous postings was that the biology-is-destiny types of analyses (including sociobiology and some aspects of behavior genetics) are biased toward support of on-going inequities in contemporary society -- that they excuse or exonerate violence and discrimination against people who are already disenfranchised by society. In this posting, I have tried to show an example of this type of thinking at work. I've described two human behaviors which many people consider to be the result of complex social and power-related dynamics: rape and child abuse. I've shown how the rather popular analysis of the "biological advantage" of rape can be applied with equal "logic" to the analysis of the "biological advantage" of child abuse. And I've asked why the rape analysis is so much more accepted than the child abuse analysis. The rape analysis is consistent with the exploitation of women in Western society. The child abuse analysis is not consistent with any positive cultural myths of Western society. In my view, the "biological analyses" are clearly biased by the culture in which they occur. And the bias puts people in danger. By this analysis, rape appears more "natural," and therefore more forgivable. Men can, under this analysis, blame women who are victims of rape for "causing" the rape through allegedly provocative behaviors or styles of clothing. After all, the assailant was only doing what comes "naturally" for men, right? If we allow the assertion that rape is biologically "natural", we allow men to put women's lives in danger. This is a misuse of science, and ought to be challenged wherever it occurs. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann) (01/21/88)
In article <365@rruxa.UUCP>, mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > sexual events among animals have little in common with complex social > and power-based acts of violence among humans. This is true, especially the further you stray from the higher primates. It is also true, however, that the area of the brain which controls agression and similar base reactions in humans, the hypothalamus, has remained nearly unchanged from that area found in reptiles. One must be careful in separating rituals and other specialized behaviors from ones of a more direct hypothalamic nature, but careful studies (involving direct brain experimentation), could yield helpful information in mapping out similar behavioral tendencies in humans. > So let's see what happens if we apply the same "logic" to infanticide. > Various ethologists have proposed "rationales" for infanticide which are > based on the notion that an individual can increase its reproductive fitness > through killing certain immature individuals of its species. Therefore, the > duck "rape" style argument for biological advantage appears to be just > as supportable for infanticide among chimps as it was for rape among ducks: > both can be claimed to improve an individual's reproductive success. > > Still following the logic of the duck "rape" argument, I look for an > analogous human behavior: how about child abuse? Using the same argument > as in the duck "rape" fantasy, we could say that child abuse must be a > "natural tendency" among humans. Something that is "natural" appears > somehow more inevitable, less punishable -- the defense that is often > made for rape, or for sexism in general. Of course, this is a heinous > thing to say (of child abuse _or_ of rape), and I don't suggest that it > is true even for a moment. Child abuse is not the same as infanticide, and in my opinion can not be likened to that behavior. But, if you want to look at a case of infanticide you can, in the People's Republic of China. There is a large problem with female infanticide in China due to the laws there regarding population control. Couples are allowed very few children so if a female is born, it is often murdered so the couple can try again for a *male* child. China is hardly a Western culture, yet the problem exists on a large scale, and it was hardly what was intended by those in power. Certainly the behavior arises from traditional attitudes found in the population, but what is at the root of these attitudes? There is clearly a biological *aspect* to the behavior; one sex is singled out. I don't believe it is the primary cause, but I wanted to point out that biological influences operate in human behavior on many levels, some more overt than others. > Proponents of sociobiology take their male-dominance, male-aggression > stories into high schools ("Sociobiology: Doing What Comes Naturally"). > Why are they only interested in sharing theories in which women and > minorities (and occasionally lesbians and gay men) are victimized > through statements of alleged biological necessity? Why do they only > find justifications for the oppression of people who are already > disenfranchised? Why are they blind to equally "logical" analyses -- > based on their own theoretical methods -- which would put males > at a disadvantage? Necesssity? No. As you say, human behavior is heavily influenced by environment (social and otherwise), and is in many cases easily modified through environmental means. Ethology and like fields propose that certain biological tendencies *underly* more complex human behaviors, and certainly do not suggest that the end results are fixed in stone. The whole point of these fields of study is that by understanding the biological factors of human behavior, a greater understanding of human social interactions will follow. Justifications? No. An explanation (and a partial one at that) is not the same as a justification. Science is not in the business of providing morality; it just attempts to explain observation. If certain irresponsible individuals incorrectly choose to take unproven theories as justification for discrimination, it is important to set the facts right, but it is not appropriate to condemn the entire field and its researchers. Males at a disadvantage? I think you are confusing terms here. Biological "advantage" applies to individuals, and is not the same as social "advantage" (the usual use of the term). This confusion leads to Social Darwinism. > My point in previous postings was that the biology-is-destiny types > of analyses (including sociobiology and some aspects of behavior > genetics) are biased toward support of on-going inequities in > contemporary society -- that they excuse or exonerate violence and > discrimination against people who are already disenfranchised by > society. Well, as I've said previously, those who view ethology and similar theories as saying biology=destiny are either in ignorance of what these theories are actually proposing or are deliberately trying to discredit or abuse them. Human beings are obviously capable of altering even deeply ingrained behaviors. And as for supporting inequities in society, ethology does no such thing. It does seek to describe *some* of them in biological terms. Biologically speaking, ethnic distinctions are so small as to be negligible; by far the greatest difference in purely genetic terms is between males and females. Again, no biologist in his right mind would suggest that social inequities between ethnic groups could be related to genetics at a non-social level. The role that biology plays in influencing sex roles and sex-related behavior is an open question that neither you nor I is qualified to expound upon. > In this posting, I have tried to show an example of this type of > thinking at work. I've described two human behaviors which many people > consider to be the result of complex social and power-related dynamics: > rape and child abuse. I've shown how the rather popular analysis > of the "biological advantage" of rape can be applied with equal "logic" to > the analysis of the "biological advantage" of child abuse. And I've asked > why the rape analysis is so much more accepted than the child abuse > analysis. The rape analysis is consistent with the exploitation of > women in Western society. The child abuse analysis is not consistent > with any positive cultural myths of Western society. In my view, the > "biological analyses" are clearly biased by the culture in which they > occur. Your argument is logically flawed. You lump rape and child abuse together as caused by "social and power-related dynamics" but you do not (and cannot) define what that actually means. Then you complain because ethologists do not choose to lump these two behaviors together. Perhaps they do not have a similar cause. Contrary to your beliefs about the field, ethology does not suggest that all current human behaviors are biologically advantageous. From an evolutionary standpoint such a suggestion is clearly absurd; it assumes a static environment. What it does suggest is that the underlying biological influences on current human social behaviors were biologically advantageous *at some point in our evolutionary past*. > By this analysis, rape appears > more "natural," and therefore more forgivable. Men can, under this > analysis, blame women who are victims of rape for "causing" the rape > through allegedly provocative behaviors or styles of clothing. After > all, the assailant was only doing what comes "naturally" for men, right? > If we allow the assertion that rape is biologically "natural", we > allow men to put women's lives in danger. This is a misuse of science, > and ought to be challenged wherever it occurs. All human behaviors are equally "natural". What other sort of behavior is there, "artificial"?? For AI's, maybe :^). Your complaints are (unfortunately) largely valid, but please blame them on those who seek to abuse the air of authority that comes with a scientific theory (proven or not), rather than the serious biologists investigating this field. > Michael Muller Robert Reimann rmr@olympus.sgi.com
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (01/21/88)
In article <365@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >... The child abuse analysis is not consistent >with any positive cultural myths of Western society... But you weren't talking about "child abuse" - you specifically announced the topic as "infanticide". And this IS connected with what you call "positive cultural myths", as the Baby Doe case clearly shows. The deliberate killing of infants perceived as "unfit" has a long history in the West, going back to Hellenic Greece, where it was widely practiced, and widely perceived as a proper thing to do.
baxter@navajo.UUCP (Ray Baxter) (01/22/88)
In article <365@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: portion deleted... >A better example occurs in infanticide. This is a well-known phenomenon >in many, many species, from insects through primates. To understand >how this works in a biology-is-destiny context, let's examine the duck >argument again. Superficially similar behaviors were grouped together >under a single term ("rape") with other human terms entering the discussion >("husband," "wife," and discussions of "boyfriends," "courts," etc.). >(I maintained in earlier postings that these are spurious terms: that >sexual events among animals have little in common with complex social >and power-based acts of violence among humans. > >So let's see what happens if we apply the same "logic" to infanticide. >Various ethologists have proposed "rationales" for infanticide which are >based on the notion that an individual can increase its reproductive fitness >through killing certain immature individuals of its species. Therefore, the >duck "rape" style argument for biological advantage appears to be just >as supportable for infanticide among chimps as it was for rape among ducks: >both can be claimed to improve an individual's reproductive success. > >Still following the logic of the duck "rape" argument, I look for an >analogous human behavior: how about child abuse? Using the same argument >as in the duck "rape" fantasy, we could say that child abuse must be a >"natural tendency" among humans. Something that is "natural" appears >somehow more inevitable, less punishable -- the defense that is often >made for rape, or for sexism in general. Of course, this is a heinous >thing to say (of child abuse _or_ of rape), and I don't suggest that it >is true even for a moment. By what criteria have you decided that child abuse is analogous to infanticide? It seems to me that there are fairly large differences between the two: infanticide ends in death, child abuse does not necessarily (although if it did you might well call it infanticide), infanticide decreases the population, child abuse does not, females who have lost a child to infanticide normally reenter estrus shortly (depends upon the species), this does not seem to apply to child abuse. In other words, there is no analogy to be drawn. What I really do not understand is why there has to be an analogous behavior? What don't you just discuss infanticide in humans? >My point is that the arguments supporting the alleged "naturalness" of rape >are equally valid to support the alleged "naturalness" of child abuse. >Both are violent acts; both have animal analogues; As I say, I dispute this. You say that because infanticide is analogous to child abuse, then child abuse in humans is analogous to infanticide in other animals. How about discussing child abuse in animal, then you might have an analogy. > both may be superficially argued to increase reproductive fitness. The argument is very superficial if so. You show no way in which child abuse in any species may increase reproductive fitness. >But, while the biological fantasy of male dominance and aggression never >seems to lack >for supporters, by contrast no one is trying to justify child abuse >with the same "reasoning." What does any of this have to do with "the biological fantasy of male dominance and aggression?" Who is supporting it? >_Both_ justifications are -- or should be -- repugnant. Why is it that you insist upon arguing that because someone says that a behavior occurs in other animals besides humans, that person is trying to justify anything? Why does anybody need to justify anything? >Why is it that a predominantly male field (and the male >researchers within that field) finds that one justification (i.e., for >rape) comes so easily (I am tempted to say "naturally") to them, while >the other justification (i.e., for child abuse) never crosses their minds? There is no justification being made. That is why it never crosses anyones mind. >Proponents of sociobiology take their male-dominance, male-aggression >stories into high schools ("Sociobiology: Doing What Comes Naturally"). >Why are they only interested in sharing theories in which women and >minorities (and occasionally lesbians and gay men) are victimized >through statements of alleged biological necessity? Why do they only >find justifications for the oppression of people who are already >disenfranchised? Why are they blind to equally "logical" analyses -- >based on their own theoretical methods -- which would put males >at a disadvantage? I take it "Sociobiology: Doing What Comes Naturally" is some sort of text book. I would be interested to learn what statements are made to victimize women and minorities (and occassionally lesbians and gay men). Please tell me about them. >My point in previous postings was that the biology-is-destiny types >of analyses (including sociobiology and some aspects of behavior >genetics) are biased toward support of on-going inequities in >contemporary society -- that they excuse or exonerate violence and >discrimination against people who are already disenfranchised by >society. My point is that an incorrect analysis of facts, drawing of false analogies and the refusal to even consider whether certain behaviors might have a genetic component will result in the disenfranchised remaining so. If the rich and powerful feel that they obtain any advantage by raping the poor and weak (economically, politically or sexually) they will. They are not paying any attention the the cries of those who say they are not obtaining any advantage, and they have no concern whether their behavior is "natural" or "genetic". But there can be advantages to the poor in knowing their opponents.
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/24/88)
In article <365@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >I've described two human behaviors which many people >consider to be the result of complex social and power-related dynamics: >rape and child abuse. I've shown how the rather popular analysis >of the "biological advantage" of rape can be applied with equal "logic" to >the analysis of the "biological advantage" of child abuse. Not convincing. I see no evolutionary advantage to merely hurting a child, which can only increase the parent's burden, not lighten it. There might be an evolutionary advantage to selectively killing children, though. You might wish to redo your analysis with the focus on killing one's child. Child sacrifice has often been considered quite honorable, going all the way back to the biblical example of Abraham being promised untold riches because of his willingness to perform one. Besides, analogies cannot prove. They can only explain. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi