Xref: utzoo sci.bio:842 soc.men:2470 soc.women:9012 sci.misc:771 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mtune!whuts!homxb!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!rruxa!mjm From: mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc Subject: Re: Rape: a reproductive advantage? Message-ID: <365@rruxa.UUCP> Date: 20 Jan 88 05:24:06 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <263@vsi1.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Bell Communications Research Lines: 114 Summary: similar "biological" justifications can be offered for child abuse -- how come nobody wants to own that one? 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.