Re: Feminist kooks dominate anthropology of "male violence"

From: Bob (boby23456_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:22:36 -0600

MIB529 wrote:
> "offshore eddie" <eddie@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<tM1Nc.14576$mL5.12124@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>"Feminist" kooks have not only distorted the perception of the present, they
>>are busy distorting perceptions of the past. Here is some of the typical
>>"feminist" bull*** that passes for anthropology today:
>>
>> "Popular culture, religious dogma, and scientific discourse
>> perpetuate the idea of an insatiable male "sex drive."
>
>
> Well, popular culture does. I don't hear it much in scientific discourse
> anymore.

Well actually there is a lot of argument with the field of "evolutionary
psychology" these days.

Note though, that female sex drive is every bit as strong and every bit
as biological as male sex drive.

>> Frequently, this idea is used to justify sexual pursuit
>> regardless of a woman's will. Men are portrayed as
>> captive to their libido and therefore not fully responsible for
>> their actions. Sometimes men's raging hormones are
>> portrayed as the culprit, whereas at other times, male
>> behavior is couched in the language of evolutionary biology
>> in which male promiscuity is seen as a vestige of
>> evolutionary forces that confer "selective advantage" on
>> men who impregnate as many women as possible."
>>
>>Male aggression IS largely a vestige of evolutionary forces.
>
> Care to prove it with genetic data?

Evoloutionary psychology is a hot topic these days, and debated but not
proven on either side. There does seem to be a lot of inherrent
maleness that is being very harshly punished these days. Punishing men
for acting male is blatant sexist bigotry.

>>Politically
>>correct anthropologists have dumped that theory, though, because it doesn't
>>suit their anti-male agenda.
>
> Yeah, and politically correct geneticists dumped the XYY syndrome
> as responsible for violence in the 60s because it didn't suit their
> anti-Richard Speck agenda. LOL

Non-PC anthropologists argue the other side. See "The Natural History
of Rape" for example.

>>Otherwise, they would have to answer the
>>question, what evolutionary forces selected for aggressive males? Why,
>>females' choices, of course.

Females tend to breed with men who win, always have, always will. How
much biology influences behavior is still debated with the PC crowd.

> *heh* Not in the last 6 million years; that's how long it been
> since gorillas split from chimps and humans. For violence against
> females, it would be in the last 11 million years, when orangutans
> split off. Furthermore, I see no evidence to suggest that violence
> as a specifically male thing is a human universal. Also, there's
> more than one type of "aggression" in ethology; your hypothesis is
> too teleological.

Aggression and sexual aggression in particular is common to human
females too, since human females have to compete for men.

>>Aggressive males got the rewards in the herd,
>>and the females chose to mate with those males so they could share the
>>rewards. The reason there are "so many" violent males today is that
>>*females chose to mate with the most aggressive males*, just as they do
>>today. The feminist response to this is usually to claim the women had no choice;
>>they were raped. However, other anthropologists, some of them feminists
>>unwittingly working at odds with their cohorts, have shown that rape
>>accounted for only a small portion of births, and was not common enough to
>>be a selective force:
>>
>> "Dr. Sanday presented findings from her
>> now-classic comparative study of rape in 156 tribal societies.
>> According to her detailed analysis of the ethnographic record,
>> rape of women by men was totally absent or extremely rare
>> in 47 percent of the cultures she studied (Sanday, 1981)."
>>
>>Therefore, there are aggressive men today because women in the past chose to
>>mate with aggressive men.
>
> And it would have to be in the Upper Holocene, hardly enough time
> for evolution to do anything.

The competition for mates is strong among every known human society.
There is no evidence to suggest that it's been any different at any time
during the last several million years. The Neandertals did go away.
Our ancestors were aggresive and successful.

>>Simple. But, no, the "feminists" cannot tolerate
>>any theory in which women share the guilt.
>>
>> "In fact, Miedzian lays a large share of the blame for the
>> epidemic of male violence in her own U.S. culture on a
>> "masculine mystique" that encourages toughness,
>> dominance and extreme competitiveness at the expense
>> of honest emotion, empathy and communication."

There is NO "epidemic of male violence." That is total anti-men hate
speech. Shame on her.

>>
>>And what encourages the masculine mystique?
>
> The media. Duhhh . . .
>
>
>>There must be some rewards for
>>toughness, dominance and extreme competitiveness or men wouldn't pursue
>>those things. Why yes, I can think of one big reward. -->*Women*<-- are
>>attracted to tough, dominant, extremely competitive men.
>
> Not really. Women aren't attracted to pretentious metrosexuals,
> but they aren't attracted to boorish men either.

Women breed with strong men, even women married to less strong men.
Evolution only requires a small percent of increased success for a trait
to take over the population.

>
> I'm sure a rapist would say that the victims were 'giving it
> away'.
>
>
>> "When masculine ideals are associated with violence,
>> virility and power, one can easily see how male
>> sexual behavior might emerge as coercive and
>> aggressive."
>>
>>Especially when women seek out the most aggressive men.
>
> She's talking about rape. What other kind of coercive sexual
> behavior is there?
> http://31337.pl

Yep, by going to a strong man's room at midnight a woman seeks out
aggressvie men to breed with.

Bob 

-- 
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back 
on the side of women."  John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for 
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts.  All 
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]