Xref: utzoo sci.bio:824 soc.men:2456 soc.women:8976 sci.misc:751 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!aurora!labrea!navajo!baxter From: baxter@navajo.UUCP (Ray Baxter) Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc Subject: Re: Rape: a reproductive advantage? Message-ID: <2045@navajo.UUCP> Date: 22 Jan 88 05:18:16 GMT References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <263@vsi1.UUCP> <365@rruxa.UUCP> Reply-To: baxter@navajo.UUCP (Ray Baxter) Distribution: na Organization: Biological Sciences, Stanford University Lines: 110 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.