Xref: utzoo sci.bio:772 soc.men:2339 soc.women:8743 sci.misc:700 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!sabre!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? Summary: exactly illustrates my point about biology-is-destiny "science" Message-ID: <358@rruxa.UUCP> Date: 11 Jan 88 04:08:28 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: Bell Communications Research Lines: 147 I wrote on the topic of the misuse of scientific approaches to support the status quo (e.g., sociobiology) in an earlier posting. I did not expect to see two such fine illustrations of my point appear so soon: In article <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> David Palmer (palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP) writes: > Rape among ducks is well documented. (The female duck does NOT want to > be raped, the male duck uses force.) When this happens, the husband of the > raped duck immediately rapes his wife, to reduce the chances of being > genetically cuckolded. Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu.UUCP) sensibly replies in article <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>: > > I have a very big problem with the use of the word "rape" (or "monogamy" > > and "polygamy" for that matter) in describing behavior in animals > > regardless of how close that behavior *appears* to resemble human behavior. > > Using "rape" to describe the behavior of crickets, ducks, and humans > > suggests that its cause is the same in each species. Humans DO NOT > > engage in forced copulation for the same reason ducks do. Forced > > copulation in humans and ducks are completely different phenomenon. So what's wrong with David's picture? 1. He is confusing forced copulation among one species of animal with forced copulation among another. 2. He is confusing sex-for-reproductive-fitness (ducks) with sexually-expressed _violence_ (humans). Rapists don't know that their targets will conceive, or are even fecund (see earlier discussions in soc.women regarding sexual violence targeted on elderly women). Some rapists don't rape vaginally: where is the reproductive fitness in violently coerced oral or anal sex?). 3. He is confusing what might be biologically useful behavior (ducks) with human power dynamics. 4. He is certainly confusing temporary pair-formation (ducks) with a statistically more stable pair-_bonding_ (humans) in his use of words like "husband" and "wife." 5. He is attributing purposiveness -- and a very specific, motivated, thought-out goal-orientation -- to the rape- by-"husband" behavior he describes in animals. 6. Taken all together, David's position can appear to support some alleged "biological necessity" of rape among humans, because of its superficial resemblance to what David chooses to call rape in ducks. David's position can even appear to support further sexually-expressed violence within a human "marriage" (the rape-by-"husband" goal-attribution of avoiding "genetic cuckolding"). I'm _not_ saying that David himself favors rape either inside or outside of marriage. I'm saying that his position can be used to make pseudo-biological justifications for this type of violence (see below). And I hope that David will think about where his line of argument can lead. Unhappily, Don (Lindsay?) (lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP) follows just this scenario in article <616@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, in rebutting Joseph's statement: > > > This simply isn't correct. > > > > Monogamy is a reasonable strategy for living and for child raising. Its > > > wide presence in both birds and mammals demonstrates that it has a > > > fundamental advantage. But, this implies the existence of bachelors, > > > who will not reproduce at all, unless they rape. Now that we have > > > this insight, field researchers have reexamined notes, and made new > > > observations, and sure enough, rape is seen. (But note that no one saw rape until it was socially convenient -- until people had a socially-motivated reason -- to label the superficially similar behaviors by the same term.) (Note also that Don has made a new -- and in this case quite inaccurate -- association of behaviors by his use of the word "monogamy." Ducks aren't, particularly. And does Don really believe that the complex of human social and religious values around the concept of monogamy is analogous to the by-constrast rather simplistic mating behaviors of ducks?) > > > It would be presumptous of us to think that we > > > stand apart from this pattern: "we aren't animals, after all!". (Sure, we're animals. But we do some things that animals don't do, too. You're doing one of them right now: you're reading my words on a computer terminal, and you're interpreting them in terms of their human social significance. If you write back to me, I think you're doing more than quacking.) > > > This is sad, and not too useful, until we notice the "rerape" that > > > mallards do. (The husband has a quick shot at getting his genes > > > in there before the invading ones have beat him to the egg.) > > > Suddenly, we have an explanation for the way that rape victims > > > are often treated, by police, by boyfriends, and by courts. And Don completes the biological justification for certain human behaviors with his "rerape" scenario. The human behaviors which have just been spuriously justified include rape by strangers, rape within marriage, and the further victimization of a woman who has been raped by society at large. Not a bad day's work for sociobiological analysis. I think it's important to examine the language in Don's last paragraph, especially in its third line. Where exactly is "in there"? By whose criteria are "the invading" genes considered to be "invading"? Is the "wife" duck present at all in that paragraph, except as object and battleground? So I begin to conclude that Don's interpretations are not exactly data-driven. Don's "science" appears to serve his world view: women are objects at men's disposal -- see, even ducks do it. (Don, please show me I'm wrong about this.) In an earlier posting, I tried to argue that certain scientific analyses are by their natures biased -- that they tend to support the current power relationships in society, and to continue the oppression of women, minorities, and other socially disenfranchised groups. Their approaches -- summarized in the expression "biology is destiny" -- tend to use the type of flawed analogical reasoning that David and Don used in their postings (a second, popular technique is to locate some claimed genetic inferiority in the out-group, and then to blame the victim for "having" this non-existent genetic trait). My point was that scientists choose their methodologies and analytical approaches on the basis of _concepts_, not just data, and that their choices reflect the social beliefs as well as their scientific beliefs. And my point was that scientists, like the rest of us, are responsible for the choices they make. The analytical choices made by David and Don have direct impact upon people's attitudes toward certain types of violence against women. These choices -- of theory, of analytical framework, of methodolgy -- matter. They have relevance to people's lives. They can affect people's attitudes regarding sexual violence against women. They can affect how people are educated, how laws are written. They can affect women's safety. They can affect women's rights. These choices are important. I am, in a manner of speaking, "indebted" to David and Don for illustrating my point so much better than I ever could have done. And I'm genuinely grateful to Joseph Wang for taking them to task over it. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.