Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Chimps vs Bonobos - can we learn something from these animals about how to reduce violence against women??

21 replies

agabimou · 02/09/2018 21:58

I am new to feminism board but did my PhD touched on evolution and thought this was an interesting article about the difference between chimps and bonobos. I've always been in the 'gender is a social construct' camp but this is interesting as it seems to highlight WHY it was socially constructed in the first place and it seems to have a lot to do with evolution.

The biggest differences between the two are in how they govern their societies: Chimps are led by an alpha male and tend to maintain order through aggression, while bonobos are dominated by females and keep the peace through sex.

So the interesting thing about the selective pressure on chimps and bonobos is that chimps live in a place with scare resources, and it seems this has made them highly aggressive and competitive, they use tools more and treat their females appallingly. Bonobos live in a place with vast resources and this has made them like the hippies of a the monkey world. Male bonobos are respectful to their females.

The interesting thing to me is that our society is constructed in a way to make us more like chimps, capitalism encourages people fighting over resources (even in countries when there are plenty available) and this seems to increase violence against woman and girls. I wonder if we can learn something from these animals about how to decrease violence against women?!

knowledgenuts.com/2013/08/18/the-difference-between-chimps-and-bonobos/

OP posts:
sawdustformypony · 02/09/2018 22:13

I read that article - funny I thought with chimpanzees, it was the norm for many males to mate with females when they were ‘on heat’.

AllDayBreakfast · 02/09/2018 23:26

I'm not sure how many of my female friends would be up for 'keeping the peace through sex' (sounds like a rather unreasonable burden!) but there are definitely a lot of angry MRA type neckbeards who would probably pipe down if they somehow got laid!

boatyardblues · 03/09/2018 07:24

Bonobos live in a place with vast resources and this has made them like the hippies of a the monkey world.

Chimps and bonobos are apes, not monkeys. Do you really have a PhD in evolution, because it seems to me the ability to correctly classify species would be important for that topic? Apologies in advance for what seems like snark if you were simplifying for a lay audience, but this seems an odd opening post for a thread on FWR - ie if females put out more, there’d be less violence towards us. 🙄

HopeGarden · 03/09/2018 07:29

Can’t say I’m thrilled about the “keep the peace through sex” example TBH. It’s not indicative of the respectful attitude I’d like to see men show towards women.

BobbyBanana · 03/09/2018 07:31

Could 'keeping the peace through sex' be rewritten as 'a peaceful and affectionate society' ?

WhatTheWatersShowedMe · 03/09/2018 07:45

Is this a good time to offer up my recipe for carrot and red lentil soup?

FanWithoutAGuard · 03/09/2018 07:47

but there are definitely a lot of angry MRA type neckbeards who would probably pipe down if they somehow got laid!

Both males and females are highly promiscuous and actively bisexual.

Well, they can trial it by sleeping with themselves first, bonobos have both male and female partners. Perhaps if they calm down after having sex with each other, women won't mind having them around either.

FanWithoutAGuard · 03/09/2018 07:51

But in the Kyoto University study, researchers noticed female bonobo grouping together to prevent this kind of male aggression. They called these groups "female coalitions," but you or I might describe them as "deep female friendships."

According to Tokuyama, 69% of these female coalitions were observed forming after or during an incident of aggressive male behavior.

What's more, female coalitions rarely (if ever) lose to a male aggressor, and because the male bonobos know they can't win, they're less prone to acting out with aggression or violence in the first place.

these female coalitions have been so effective that they've virtually eliminated violent outbreaks in the bonobo population.

There - that's what we can learn - females group together and physically defend each other from males. Yet another argument for women only spaces being important!

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 03/09/2018 07:54

'but there are definitely a lot of angry MRA type neckbeards who would probably pipe down if they somehow got laid!'

Would they, or would they take out their anger and hatred on the women who slept with them rather than the ones who won't?

Ekphrasis · 03/09/2018 08:48

I believe that human 99% of human history was originally matriarchal or rather matricentric; it was the advent of farming that brought about a change to a more patriarchal society.

I don't know a huge amount though. It's in the start of this article (which is hugely triggering, I have no experience of sexual violence towards me and I found it a very difficult read.)

"According to Lerner, the transition from subsistence living to agriculture meant that children became an economic asset, a labour supply – and women became the first form private property."

reneejg.net/2017/02/07/a-call-to-feminists-to-remember-the-history-and-sex-based-nature-of-womens-oppression/

Ekphrasis · 03/09/2018 08:52

Presumably now that in some cultures today women and children aren't property so in theory we can move back to this. However this clearly isn't so easy...

It makes you realise why feminism is so biologically sex based when you think of it like this.

deydododatdodontdeydo · 03/09/2018 08:58

Was 99% of human history really matriarchal?
I'd like to read about that.
Presumably it's prehistoric, so if not written down, how do we know this is the case?
Of all the early civilisations, from the historical or archaeological books I've read, I haven't found evidence for this.
Even in remote, recently discovered tribes with no farming and no contact with the west, they haven't been matriarchal.

Ekphrasis · 03/09/2018 09:07

I don't know anything about it beyond what's written here - I want to start finish reading sapiens to see if there's any more.

I guess it's difficult to tell fully as yes it's pre history. Plus I wonder how many historians in the past have cared?

Matricentic rather than matriarchal I think is the correct term which is different however. And so I suppose the men are still violent to the men....

Ekphrasis · 03/09/2018 09:10

I suppose even in other species eg wild horses, you'll have a male who aggressively defends his females.

I guess the distinction is that there's no aggression to the females by the males.

Patriarchy needs women to stay in their place, not learn etc.

deydododatdodontdeydo · 03/09/2018 09:25

There is some interesting stuff in the history.
E.g. The Romans were surprised, and commented on the fact that women had higher status in British Celtic and Germanic society.
Women could divorce men, inherit and hold property, which they could not do in Roman society. And lead tribes, or certainly have a lot of power e.g Cartimandua.
And British women entered battle with the men according to the Romans.
But truly matriarchal or matricentric?
There was probably a lot of aggression in general in those days.

Ekphrasis · 03/09/2018 09:31

I think it's way before that, pre any form of written record. But I doubt truly always matriarchal unless there were tribes who were distinctly so like bonobos.

I suppose it's looking at the driving reason behind it - usually territory, which needs to be defended.

IAmLurkacus · 03/09/2018 09:38

I read this post last night, but didn’t comment as having never actually read any feminist theory or attended FE I’m never entirely sure whether I should be on this board.

As a lay person the OP read to me like someone came onto a feminist board and suggested that women should reduce Male violence by fucking them more!?! I frankly thought this was bollocks.

Totheend · 03/09/2018 10:04

Overall its a myth sprinkled with a few facts. Bonobo's from what has been observed seem to have lower rates of inter group violence and so far have never been known to engage in lethal intragroup violence and infanticide is very rare, but evidence of Violence is actually still pervasive among them though how it is perpetrated is somewhat different from how it occurs among Chimps.

Bonobo's are also hierarchical it is in a way that favors females though this leads into one notable aspect of Bonobo's that differs from Chimps is that Mothers have a great deal of involvement in violence both in perpetration and directing others particularly their sons to perpetrate it as son's almost always remain with their mothers their entire lives among Bonobo's and mothers usually spend a great deal of time assisting their sons in attacking other males to increase their own sons social dominance. This also frames the formation of female coalitions in a different light as it often related to social dominance game of attacking other females son purely to gain social dominance.

It also should be noted that female coalition attacks against males are known to occur without any provocation on the part of the males or there being any known power struggle occurring in which the attacks would serve some useful purpose. www.amazon.com/Naked-Bonobo-Lynn-Saxon/dp/1523945516?tag=mumsnetforum-21
www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2017/10/09/bonobo-myth-demolished/
www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/12/29/questioning-sexy-bonobo-hype-part-2-primatologist-responds-christopher-ryan/
Kano (1992) found a majority of one group’s individuals had “abnormalities” of the limbs, digits, ears, eyeballs, genitalia, and other parts. 28 counts of total loss of a finger or toe, 96 counts of partial loss. Only one of the 22 adult males had intact fingers and toes. 32 counts of ear lacerations which almost always result from fighting. (p. 117-8)
At Apenheul Zoo in the Netherlands, five female bonobos attacked a male and were seen gnawing on his toes; the flesh could be seen between their teeth as they chewed away. (p. 119)
At least two zookeepers have lost parts of digits (p. 119)
While releasing bonobos back into the wild after rehabilitation at a sanctuary, three trackers were attacked and mutilated. They lost noses, bits of fingers and one lost an ear. One of the men spent a month in the hospital and two required a year of reconstructive facial surgery. (p. 122)
Overall, male-male aggression rates are similar in chimpanzees and bonobos (p. 126)

Video: a gang of females attack an adolescent male as its mother tries to peel them off. The researchers observing said that the male appeared to have been “at the wrong place at the wrong time.” The alpha female at Twycross Zoo took the infant of the lowest ranking female, even though she was still nursing her own infant. After weeks of rough treatment at the alpha’s hands, she lost interest and the infant had to be removed for human rearing as it showed signs of “weakness and dehydration”. (p. 120-121) There are at least 8 cases of infant abduction or victim of aggressive behavior at the Plankendael and Stuttgart zoos; the mothers of the stolen infants behaved nervously and showed signs of distress. While trying to get their infants back, some of the females would present for genito-genital rubbing. (p. 121) In one Lomako group, aggression between females was about 7 times higher when two or more oestrous females were in the party than when there was only one. (p. 124)

Ranking female “wingmoms” aid their sons (but not daughters) in bullying and picking fights to advance their status. (p. 115)
Rather than moderate, females often reward males for their aggression and dominance (as long as they are its beneficiary rather than its victim).

A female-biased sex ratio is taken to be evidence of male intrasexual competition. Competition is a physiologically taxing and risky enterprise that leads to early death for many males. The problem here is that, overall, the sex ratio of chimpanzees and bonobos is very similar.
Both females and males had higher mating rates when they were aggressors compared to when they were targets of aggression. (p. 124)
Bonobo society, including its females, rewards rank and aggression:
Females strongly prefer high ranking males. When in oestrus, this preference intensifies.
High ranking males are more aggressive, and actively block other males from access to fertile females.
Feeding is highly segmented by rank. Low ranking individuals may be charged or attacked if attempting to line-jump.

bd67th · 07/09/2018 20:36

there are definitely a lot of angry MRA type neckbeards who would probably pipe down if they somehow got laid!

Nah, they'd just want more, and they'd be a danger to the woman who took them to bed.

seafret · 07/09/2018 23:20

Ramblings... I don't know enough about chimps or bonobos, but I can only imagine that a genuine sustainable abundance (ie not just a huge supermarket with loads of choices) must be hugely relaxing.

But people still need to find their place and purpose in the world to be peaceful I think. So abundance is good, but idleness is not etc.

Neither structure sounds apealing at all. I really don't like the idea of sex as a resource and of women having to keep the peace by being forced to provide an abundance of sex to men. The cost is way too high.

But I have known some women who sound surprsingly like those Bonobo 'wingmoms' when trying to futher their son's interests.

However, animals are animals and we don't fully understand why they do what they do and animals in captivity will be affected to varying degrees. The 'unprovoked' attacks by Bonobo females might have been for something undetectable or misunderstood by humans.

I think I am right in saying that many ancient female skeletons show signs of damage eg broken bones/ defensive wounds/ violence, even in cultures such as the Native American tribes who as a whole are often popularly thought of as of as peaceful (where actully the cultures can vary significantly). It is said that the skeletal damage may indicate domestic violence, but it is also possible that women were simply more physically active than we expect (many humans being deskbound these days) eg frequently got knocked over by aurochs or deer, or fell from trees, or defended their homesteads alongside men and so sustained defensive wounds. In a lot of cases we aren't able to tell. But there is so little evdence of matrirchal societies that DV seems v likely.

But ultimately, I do think that the sexual dimorphism in humans that gives males greater size and strength has the greatest effect on women. Being 'civilised' and democratic requires effort and thinking and accepting that you may not get your way. How much easier to swing a fist and be the winner.

And that with increasing competition for resources for whatever reason, there must have been some inevitable selecting for males that were the strongest and best fighter-survivors. That brings nurture and nature traits I would imagine. And then in peaceful times, those traits are not so desirable but still persist in attitudes, and in testoterone and size maybe.

DieAntword · 07/09/2018 23:45

Humans aren’t chimps or bonobos and I don’t think our social structures are really comparible.

As for matriarchy/patriarchy, I think “locality” is more interesting. Patrilocality has the effect of making it in a woman’s best interest to see to her sons interests over her daughters. Her daughters will go away and serve some other family, her sons will stay and provide for her, her sons wife/wives are competition for her sons resources. I think patriarchy far from being a conspiracy of men is a conspiracy of the paternal parents against the young wife who is competing with them for the influence and resources of the adult son. Driven mainly by patrilocality.

The only issue is that matrilocality seems to result in societies in which women do everything, all the work and sole responsibility for raising kids, men mostly just come for the sex and pillow talk and then fuck off to play games or reenact wars, they don’t seem invested in society or even their families really.

I actually thing the boring conventional (in the uk) neolocal nuclear family is one of the best setups for women (and adult sons...). To be really successful both partners have to be capable of working together respectfully (not that there aren’t plenty of unsuccessful examples around) and the lack of a broader extended family in close proximity means everyone has to pull their weight to some degree (even if still unequally). Everyone is invested in society and has a place in it (even if that place isn’t always ideal). I don’t think it’s an accident that it was in Northern European countries where couples set up new households separate to their extended family by convention that the whole notion of women’s rights really started to take hold.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page