Maria Pawlowska calls out the hypocrisy in biologists’ defense of rape as natural.
There’s a tonne of ‘evolutionary psychology’ work explaining every human tendency from our fondness for music to our liking for jokes as simply products of sexual selection – i.e., traits developed by males to convince females to mate with them. It’s all very quaint, vaguely sexist (perpetually insisting that males are active and creative while women just sit there and passively decide whom to mate with) and in the grand scheme of things, rather harmless.
Rapists are commonly elevated to consideration by evolutionary biology, while everything from street gang warfare to ethnic violence to world wars is explained to the general public as human cruelty. I call this the ‘marmoset conundrum’.
|
The real issue, I think, is when we try to explain violence away as a natural tendency. Characteristically, we only try to explain individual acts of sexual violence (rape and domestic violence) as acting out our evolutionary tendencies (when have you last heard of a robbery at gun-point explained as the result of competition over resources?). There is considerably less interest in explaining acts of group violence, such as ethnic massacres and outright wars, as primarily spurred by our biology. Moreover, acts of group violence are denounced while victims of one-on-one violence get blamed for what happened to them and it’s considered an issue one can joke about…even in Canada.
“If rape is unavoidable, just lie back and enjoy it”. Now isn’t that a nice, empowering quote courtesy of Alan Saldanha, a Canadian politician. To be sure, he’s not the only politician out there with ideas about sexual violence that, at best, can be called outlandish. How is it that rape is one of the few horrible crimes, where victim-blaming is still rife, politicians have the nerve to suggest enjoying it and the perpetrator is always being excused on the basis of his supposedly uncontrollable sex-drive which was aroused by a female, who then out of the blue declined to actually do the deed. The ‘men will be men’ and ‘women are sexual prizes’ framework goes back to all sorts of arguments which can be summed up in the general ‘males in the wild’ having to fight for the right to reproduce and females choosing (in a small minority of species) males based on their potential as providers.
There is considerable research out there showcasing rape as an evolutionary strategy to impregnate more women—something Darwin’s natural selection supposedly lead to developing and is quietly promoting from the historical sidelines till this day. The theory goes that if a man can’t secure a mate (or even if he can) he’s got nothing much to lose and quite a bit to gain (in terms of offspring and hence evolutionary success) by raping women and trying to impregnate as many as possible. The evidence to support this idea is widely considered pretty sketchy. However, the concept has had a lot of traction among social scientists and in the popular media. A rapist no longer needs to blame his victim for being drunk or wearing a short skirt. It may not be her fault, but it was in his genes and he was prompted by instincts he couldn’t overcome. Just as humans have evolved to eat, drink and defecate, they apparently also have been moulded by millennia of natural selection to force women into non-consensual sex. It’s biology, it’s natural and look around us; every other species is at so why shouldn’t we be doing it? Right?
For good reasons, we’ve rejected a whole host of behaviours that are considered natural for other mammals.
|
Yes, there’s a lot of non-consensual sex among other mammals and it probably provides an evolutionary advantage in some cases. The thing is though that for good reasons we’ve rejected a whole host of behaviours that are considered natural for other mammals. For starters, we don’t usually have sex in public, we don’t eat off the ground, and we use toilets whenever possible. More importantly, when we kill babies and males of another group and conduct a gang rape of the females, nobody says ‘it’s biology’, we just call it what it is ‘barbaric, awful, terrible, inexcusable’—even though killing and raping is what every male lion would do upon joining a new pride? When groups of people kill other groups of people living near them we never say it’s the natural consequence of conflict over resources and that it’s something to be expected. Although chimps, for example, regularly go on neighbourly killing raids all the time, we would never dare to suggest out loud that, hey—stuff like that happens in the ‘natural world’ and quit with all the peace-keeping already.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m a huge believer in biology and have spent a considerable number of years studying it. It’s just that I have a big problem with using it as an instrument to explain just one sort of human violent behaviour, and conveniently the kind which is most likely to happen in your neighbourhood: male violence against women. We ignore any biological excuses for most of our other contemptible behaviours and retreat to evolution when it comes to individual acts of usually sexual violence against a single female. Rapists are commonly elevated to consideration by evolutionary biology and this perspective on the issue actually gets coverage in mainstream media, while everything from street gang warfare to ethnic violence to world wars is explained to the general public as human cruelty. I call this the ‘marmoset conundrum’.
Pygmy marmosets are little monkeys that have a pretty unusual social system—they’re polyandrous, meaning the females have multiple (in this case two) mates. When a cute little marmoset female is fertile, she will have a lot of sex with both her partners. That way when she gives birth neither of them knows who’s the father. And guess what? There is no violence, no raping and no squabbling even. All three of the adults share the burden of raising the twin marmoset babies that result from the pregnancy. Polyandry is as natural as any other mating system. Granted it’s rarer than most others, but how many species, other than humans, do you know that send love letters, use contraception and are aware of the fact that sex can result in offspring? Didn’t think so … .
Obviously, displaying uncommon mating behaviours is not an issue for the human animal. There are cases, however, like domestic violence where we decide we fit in with the most aggressive lot and give up human exceptionalism for aggressive behaviours against those less likely to strike back. For example, jealousy over uncertain parentage is considered, in many parts of the world, a “natural” excuse for domestic violence and even murder. Somehow, being violent against female partners is more natural than behaving like a cooperatively breeding marmoset male (or openly promiscuous bonobo chimps, for that matter). I think taking a step back and looking at the variety of natural behaviours, and how far removed humans actually are from the vast majority of our ‘animalistic’ ways behaviours should give us some pause before we proceed to explaining gender violence (and only gender violence) using good ol’ Charlie Darwin’s ideas.
—Photo credit: jwm_angrymonkey/Flickr
The realization that certain drives and instincts within us are natural is not the same as endorsing them as civilized or even justified. If a “natural’ behavior harms others, we condemn it. If not, we’re free to embrace it, ignore it, or make TV shows about it as we see fit.
The urge to rape harms others, so civilization condemns it. The urge to mate consensually with multiple partners does not harm others (or rather, it doesn’t NEED to harm others unless some other arrangement was promised), so pursuing it is 100% fine.
“Yes, there’s a lot of non-consensual sex among other mammals and it probably provides an evolutionary advantage in some cases. The thing is though that for good reasons we’ve rejected a whole host of behaviours that are considered natural for other mammals. For starters, we don’t usually have sex in public, we don’t eat off the ground, and we use toilets whenever possible.” Here’s where you run into trouble. You seem to have taken the statement “rape possibly evolved as a successful reproductive strategy” and assumed it to mean “this makes rape ok.” We’ve evolved to do all manner of… Read more »
I can agree with that, though I do think that a lot of pop evo psych people use “we evolved that way” as a means to explain all sorts of negative behaviour, including sexual assault. The other problem I have with the pop evy psych suggestion that rape evolved as a successful reproductive strategy in men, is that it implies that men are rapists more often than women…and we have had a whole host of articles an comments arguing the exact opposite of that. And I agree that there is nothing biological about men that make them more violent or… Read more »
“Rapists are commonly elevated to consideration by evolutionary biology,”
“Commonly?” Seriously?
Definition “common”:
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.
A few people’s wacko theories known only by them and very few others is far from meeting the definition of something that is “commonly” accepted.
As an evolutionary biologist myself, I think it is worth pointing out that there is a considerable (and often unappreciated) difference between explaining something and excusing it. Just because a certain theory provides an explanation for a behavior does not IN ANY WAY excuse that behavior. The majority of people who are involved in active research in this area are not looking for reasons to excuse rape; if anything the hope is that by understanding the evolutionary pressures behind these phenomena we can come up with better strategies for prevention. Behaviors like violence and theft can be and are explained… Read more »
I like the text a lot and it is so actual and so good to demonstrate that biology also support patterns which opt for non-discrimination!
I would respectfully ask that people remain aware of the difference between pop evo-psych and the kind that scientists actually study. The latter is more boring and less sexist, though it does sometimes reveal uncomfortable truths about men and women. Hopefully, usually, scientists focus on finding out how humans work, not on making justifications for failing to exercise rather easy restraint or refusing to persecute dangerous criminals.
I’ve always wondered why some of the same guys who love to spout explanations from evolutionary psychology to explain their predilections for pursuing multiple partners, preferring young fertile females, becoming pickup artists, or whatever, are the first to take umbrage and cry “misandry” when anyone suggests that males might have an innate tendency to commit rape. You cannot have it both ways. Rape exists in most human societies, though culture determines whether it is rare or common, acceptable or taboo. If one is a believer in evolutionary biology, then logically one must conclude that rape serves an evolutionary purpose. In… Read more »
It’s a pretty big leap from “rape has survived, despite being anti-social behavior, because it can be an effective reproductive strategy” to “men inherently have a tendency to commit rape.” The former seems to have a fair amount of actual evidence going for it. The latter is obviously misandry — or, at the very least, it portrays all men as battling some inner drive to commit rape. For which there is no evidence. Instead, you might argue that men inherently have a tendency to reproduce and that some men have chosen rape as a way to do so. In which… Read more »
How on Earth do you make the leap from men suggesting they mate with younger females, and multiple females WHO ARE WILLING PARTICIPANTS to men being natural born rapists? The fact that women also rape, does that mean women are natural born rapists too? Connnfusssing
First, I wasn’t arguing that men are natural born rapists, but I think that conclusion can logically follow if you want to apply evo psych theories to explain every aspect of human behavior. Because rape is an aspect of human behavior that is found around the world amd in many different cultures, and has probably existed as long as humans have been around, if you read the book “Sperm Wars” for example, which I’ve seen on a lot of pickup artist reading lists, there is a whole chapter om the evolutinary advantages of rape. Whenever I read articles about human… Read more »
Let’s see if I get what you’re saying…basically that if you buy into pop evo psych for all of the waist/hip ratios and what-not and for explanations of humans sexuality….then it’s a bit hypocritical (or at least illogical) to argue that the same pop evo psych rationale doesn’t apply to men as rapists. Something like that?
Personally, I think that evo psych is highly problematic and, as you mention, totally ignores cultural and social influences…not to mention human agency.
Yes, that’s what I mean. I’m not advocating the idea that men are driven to rape by their DNA. But the same people who love to spout pop evo psych theories to explain everything about men and women (MRA’s, pickup artists, etc.) often seem blind to or willfully ignore the negative implications of those theories.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that those theories imply that rape is normative.
The only theories that make claims like that come from less scientific and more politicized areas of academia.
Have hip-waist ratios been disproved? I can attest for myself that when the ratio changes my attraction drops, I prefer wider hips to waist and flat sided women I don’t find very appealing. By innate ability, do you mean the possibility to be rapist? I’d say nearly all humans have the tools needed to become rapists, murderers, etc. But we do control our feelings to some degree, however controlling our sexuality seems to be quite a lot harder to do. It’s not like homosexuals can turn hetereo and the reverse, which is why things like Hip-ratios might have some validity.… Read more »
Evo psych MIGHT (not saying does) suggest that the goal is to get sperm out into the world at any means possible. Thus, rape could have reproductive advantage. It also has terrible terrible disadvantages for group safety, bonding,and etc so my guess is as groups developed tribe members wouldn’t select to mate with the folks that were antisocial. The do look at what is happening now and decide there are reasons for that from the past. “All women are hypergamous.” Well if that’s the case I’m not a woman cause I married a man who earned less than men and… Read more »
I view EP basically as something that COULD explain PART of our behaviour, but there is randomness still. It might be that most men like a certain hip-waist ratio but there could be others that like something else. But hell, humans are complex beasts, I doubt we’ll truly know until we have a hell of a lot more understanding of the brain, instincts, etc.
Archy, read it again. She wasn’t saying that’s the case. She was saying that people who use Evo Psych to justify things need to go ahead and accept the good and the bad of it across the boards, instead of cherry picking.
If that’s what she’s saying, then fine, but the argument I keep seeing in relation to evolutionary psychology is that a theory which suggests gender roles evolved for a reason can’t possibly be true because gender roles are the root of all evil and therefore unnatural.
My problem with evo psych’s “gender is biological” argument isn’t that gender roles are the root of all evil…my issue is that gender roles are cultural. There is just too much variability between the gender roles in different societies for them to be evolutionary in nature. Now, strict, prescriptive gender roles are…well not the root of all evil…but highly problematic and can be oppressive. But that sort of goes back to my article about cultural relativism. A culture having defined gender roles isn’t, in itself, a problem…it’s when it enforces them and the methods it uses to do so that… Read more »
I don’t think she’s/they saying gender roles are the root of all evil. I see Evo Psych adherents and media taking EP to say, “See see! That’s why men don’t put the toilet seat down!” or “See, see! That’s why it’s ok to not like fat women!!” and that’s just silly. Like..the reason women like pretty colors is because they had to know how to forage. Oooooooook…Cause men don’t like colors at all. What? There may be applications of EP that have real amazing info for how our brains developed overall, which doesn’t take into account myriad individual variation and… Read more »
It makes perfect sense to describe that as misandry. Even if there is an innate tendancy for men to committ rape more than women (questionable) we are still a rational animal. Our actions are a function of our personality *and* our biology. The implication that men all are basicly rapists is hate speech.
But this isn’t a good reason to conveniently dismiss research which suggests that our biology influences (not “coerces” or imparts an “innate tendancy,” “influences”) us in ways which don’t match up with a particular ideology’s model of gender.