Xref: utzoo sci.bio:844 soc.men:2475 soc.women:9019 sci.misc:774
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!sgi!rmr
From: rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Rape: a reproductive advantage?
Message-ID: <9852@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 88 23:03:54 GMT
References: <517@gtx.com> <5129@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <365@rruxa.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 147

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