Anyone round here an expert on feminism, sexism and evolution?

[JaesseJexaMaipru]

Clearly humans have a sense of morals that not all animals have, though I understand animals are known to have taboos.

Nature documentaries also regularly depict mating behaviours that we would call rape if they happened with humans.

Many social animal packs are rules by an alpha male with a clear hierarchy.

How does this fit with feminism? Can we prove that humanity ought morally to be liberated and egalitarian? Or is it a coherent intellectual position to believe that patriarchy is as natural for humans as it is for gorillas?

I am firmly feminist but I wonder if a society of egalitarian humans would be as natural as a vegetarian pride of lions.

It would only be a coherent intellectual position if you also believe that murder and theft are natural.

...what about all the animals with matriarchal systems? Lions, elephants, bonobo apes..

Many social animal packs are rules by an alpha male with a clear hierarchy.

No they aren't. Many social animals have a hierarchy with a dominant female who decides when and wear to eat, or drink.
Dominant males protect the group against predators, and defend their group of females against other males.

Also, don't take those nature documentaries as depicting unassailable facts. Like any film or TV programme, they are produced, directed, edited and scripted by people. They will have made decisions about what to include, what to leave out and how it is put together. Those decisions are infomed by the same kinds of stereotypes and bias as any other media.

If certain behaviours look like rape (or any other human behaviour) that may be because of the way the film is shot, edited or the way the narration prompts you to interpret them. IMO we all need to look at all this stuff with a critical eye.

it’s not really useful to draw comparisons between humans and animals because there are so many animal species that you can find examples of every type of social structure to prove whatever point you want to make.

As an aside, the man who invented the concept of the “alpha male” while describing the structure of wolf colonies many years ago actually recanted the whole idea. There’s a vid on YouTube where he talks about how there really isn’t such a thing as an “alpha male” in wolf colonies, and it was his personal biases that led to those erroneous conclusions

Recently watched the doc on snow wolves. Packs are led by female. Also many so called alpha male led groups are by consent with leader overthrown if behave 'tyrannically'. Recent incident in zoo where 3 lioness' turned on male monopolizing food.

Animal' behaviour is far more complex than initially thought.

Human society isn't 'natural'.

Except that it is in our nature to think, to reason, to have a sense of justice and empathy. It is in our nature to be able to overcome 'animal instinct'.

This thread is a good example of bias actually. The assumption that animals exist in a Patriarchy, when for many its the opposite. But people will focus on an individual patriarchal behaviour they have seen (on TV, probably directed by a man) and apply that to all.

Really not and eSy read, I had to read it in chunks as it's quite disturbing but the first part has nods to what earlier human societies were like and what changed.

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

About 6 paragraphs in

Since when is morality based on evolution?

But if it is... if you look at the hunter-gatherer societies with the least outsider contact, they aren't violently patriarchal like fixed human societies are. So human are 'naturally' fairly egalitarian.

No one knows what earlier humans were like. It's all speculation based on a patriarchal society.

Evolution: Darwin. Who married his first cousin. Who thought that black people had smaller brains.

Sexism. Is not confined to either sex.

Feminism. I'd start with: Andrea Dworkin and Cordelia Fine.

That argument is a good example of what philosophers call the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that because something occurs in nature, it must be good. This is a good discussion of it:

www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Naturalistic%20Fallacy.html

Also, we haven't got to the level of civilisation we're at today by constantly giving in to "natural" urges. Humans are social creatures, and that means that we learn to control our behaviour through socialisation as we grow up. We follow rules and patterns of behaviour that contribute to the well-being of other individuals and of society as a whole, not just to ourselves, because that is how we flourish both individually and collectively. Individuals who consistently don't do this have the personality disorder of psychopathy.

The work of female primatologists has blown open the myth of the objective observer. Male researchers saw a big male beating his chest and inferred that the females were all passive and subordinate. The likes of Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey and others had a different perpesctive and saw the complex mainly matrilineal social relations of the group.

But if it is... if you look at the hunter-gatherer societies with the least outsider contact, they aren't violently patriarchal like fixed human societies are. So human are 'naturally' fairly egalitarian.

Yes... the rise of agriculture may have been the cause of the power structures (including the control of women and their fertility) found in 'civilised' societies. And then there's that most unnatural product of the human mind, organised religion - the most powerful of which entrenched the oppression of women.

No one knows what earlier humans were like.
Anthropology today encompasses linguistics, biology, evolution, archeology, agriculture, history and present-day aboriginal societies. As a result, anthropologists can formulate a pretty good idea of how past human societies worked. And they are now very well aware of their own cultural biases.
Evolution: Darwin. Who married his first cousin. Who thought that black people had smaller brains.

1. First-cousin marriages were common everywhere before the development of easy forms of travel. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with first-cousin marriage; it's discouraged because we now know that it carries a risk of amplifying genetic defects over the generations.
2. Darwin never said any such thing. It's one of the many myths propagated by anti-evolution US creationists.

The decent of woman by Elaine Morgan is worth a read, I think she was one of the first few to argue that males and females have an equal role in evolution.

That argument is a good example of what philosophers call the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that because something occurs in nature, it must be good.

This.

Humans evolved just like every other animal but evolution isn’t ‘moral’ - any more than it is ‘intelligent’ or ‘directed’ - and we shouldn’t seek moral guidance from it.

Random mutations happen, predators and the environment weed out those less capable of producing offspring before they die.

Until we started controlling our own environment a few thousand years ago ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ didn’t come into it.

I agree with pp that animal behaviours are complex and so much of what we think we know is coloured by speculation and bias. Look at all the ahistorical Freudian pop science spouted by the likes of Desmond Morris et al, eg lipstick makes your face look like a monkey's arse.

I mean we hear that the necktie is a phallic symbol, but what about neck ruffs, cuff frills, high heels, wigs (all worn by men at various times in history), or women's scarves etc etc, why are they not worthy of analysis?

Also, we are not lions/wolves/bees/seagulls so who's to say how relevant the examples of animal behaviour are? I'm sure there's a legitimate application but as soon as anyone says something like 'Well, if you observe the lion...' my bullshit detector starts twitching.

What I believe as a feminist is that I'm a human being worthy of respectful treatment. I don't really care if male ducks gang-rape females so that proves it's natural behaviour. Both male and female animals sometimes kill their young too. We don't promote animal behaviour as a model for human behaviour unless it conveniently supports our own beliefs.

Also, whatever ad homs people might throw at Darwin, they’re irrelevant.

Evolution is one of the most successful theories we have.

Wouldn’t matter if Darwin was history’s greatest monster.

New evidence tends to vindicate Morgan against Dart. The origins of Homo Sapiens are complex and diverse.

Nature documentaries also regularly depict mating behaviours that we would call rape if they happened with humans.

I always wonder about this.
A male chimp will wander over to a female chimp, she'll present her rear and they'll mate.
Clearly she can't consent, but she could refuse I suppose.
I heard something recently where apes were given money and trained to swap the money for food.
After a while, one of the females started offering her sexual services for the money.
Is that "natural"?

(I should add that my comment was more about popular factoids as opposed to actual science.)