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.

Clearly she can't consent, but she could refuse I suppose.

Quite a bit of mating behaviour involves the female saying 'no' - as anyone who has a male dog will know, bitches can make their yea or nay very clear!

Evolution is a good guide to how we come to react in the way we do rather than whether that reaction is right or wrong. It provides a good explanation for the fight or flight reflex, for instance. But most of the time we have nothing to fight or flee from. We have a panic reaction when we don’t need it.

That’s why people are going apeshit over Tweets from some wrongthinker on the other side of the planet.

I’m not even sure what ‘consent’ means in the context of animals. Children can’t consent and they are more capable of reason than animals. A chimp doesn’t know that sex leads to pregnancy.

I thought that humanity considers itself a culture where we use our brains to help us overcome base animal instincts to so give greater benefit to humanity? Isn’t that part of what separate society human from animal?

And when we lose that, for example when we degenerate into war, we lose so much.

So feminism is trying to hurry along a path to a more civilised cultured society where we don’t just use physical strength to dom8nate others . Because relying on fighting destroys. HOMEs, cultures, civilisations

'Inferior' by Angela Saini is a great read on this subject.

I’m not even sure what ‘consent’ means in the context of animals. Children can’t consent and they are more capable of reason than animals. A chimp doesn’t know that sex leads to pregnancy.

Animals are sentient - perhaps it's as simple as knowing knowing (and communicating) whether or not they feel like it? I don't think 'reason' is necessary for denying consent; as we are Homo sapiens we can apply the additional criterion of informed consent.

Be very wary of evolutionary psychology misused like this. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single argument starting off like that which isn’t an attempt to justify awful behaviour.

Humans are sentient - so are many animals but only humans are sentient in the way we are - regardless of our animalistic nature’s we can reflect, think and project forward in the time the consequences of our actions. Other animals of course have these skills to some degree, but none are capable of abstraction the way we are.

So regardless of what animals do, or don’t do, humans have the ability to consider our actions. So be wary of eco psych, because it’s very rarely used as those working in the field use it

only humans are sentient in the way we are - regardless of our animalistic nature’s we can reflect, think and project forward in the time the consequences of our actions

Technically, 'sentience' doesn't include the reflecting/thinking/perception part .

It's arguable that animals are more purely sentient than humans.

As far as we know, humans and pearwood are the only organisms capable of sapience - so we jolly well ought to use that capability.

Technically, 'sentience' doesn't include the reflecting/thinking/perception part

Yes you’re right! What’s the word I’m reaching for then? Self reflecting? Sapience?

(Luggage notwithstanding)

Bowlofbabelfish
You're right - it's sapience.

Clearly, humans have a sense of morals that not all animals have

Hate to be awkward/cynical, but this is not at all clear to me. Definitely up for debate.

Why does it matter if something is natural or not? Natural and desirable are (imo) not necessarily the same things.

I doubt if madam zebra minds being humped by master zebra on Monday, alpha zebra on Tuesday and a random on Wednesday. It won't bother her at all.

She won't mind if all her offspring are from different males.

But woe betide a male that comes between her and her young.

That's when you see visceral female rage.

A male in charge of many females is also called a farmer.

Morals and laws supposedly help protect other members of the human race and therefore are good for the species. But often the people who gain most benefit from them are at the top of the tree anyway. And male. I guess if we were comparing ourselves roughly to chimpanzees, our nearest relatives, we could surmise that in the past the dominant males in our society took all the spoils. Without morals and laws anyone could come along and prove their dominance and take them. But now Skint Sid from Soddingnojobsland isn't going to take on Sir Moneybags Mansiondweller because morals and or the law won't deem that acceptable.
And of course that doesn't deny that there are many genuinely altruistic and moral people, and we think of them as good (and I definitely prefer these people), but it you are Mrs Muddlingalongquietly who wants to stay safe from the rampent clutches of Moneybags and any contenders for his position, then banding together with other like-minded moral people is probably your best bet.

And please forgive the stereotypes, I'm not for a minute suggesting that belonging to any particular sex or class dictates anyone's personal morals.
And a lot of animals do fight for the right to mate with the pick of, or all of, the females. As if they have an automatic right to the choice. This I believe does include chimps.

We are a lot more civilised, we seem to think that money, either paid directly for sex and breeding rights or accumulated to attract females is much more moral... (well a fair few members of our species do)