The commonly taught idea is that sexual reproduction developed because it gave a greater amount of diversity to a gene pool, which in turn helps keep the species healthy by preventing unfit genes from replicating. This is probably at least part of the story... — darthbarracuda
males developed as a biological parasite of sorts. — darthbarracuda
If you check out evolutionary biologists like Nick Lane, there are much more sensible stories than this "unwanted over-powering" scenario of yours. — apokrisis
But if you are talking about Homo sap specifically, what might appeal to your anti-natalism is the incredible violence foisted on the human female body by having to give birth to a monstrously brained infant through an inadequately designed bipedal birth canal. — apokrisis
This is hilariously awful, DB. I recall an article a couple of years back about the dangers of zoos reinforcing gender stereotypes in visiting children. — Wayfarer
So, I came across this series of essays (I guess you could call them that) — darthbarracuda
written by a belligerent feminist (or something) — darthbarracuda
that basically claims that the chemicals in males' semen influences the behavior of females and that this is at least partially responsible for the patriarchy. — darthbarracuda
This is hilariously awful, DB. I recall an article a couple of years back about the dangers of zoos reinforcing gender stereotypes in visiting children. — Wayfarer
First, adults attribute gender to zoo animals by projecting onto them human characteristics associated with feminine and masculine stereotypes.”
These are the behavior differences in gender that are pretty apparent in animals – those same gender differences that feminist theorists insist are merely the result of human socialization.
“Second, adults mobilize zoo exhibits as props for modeling their own normative gender displays in the presence of children.”
This is where we see the male chimpanzee flinging his feces at people and the father justifies it by flinging his own feces at people… or something.
“Third, adults discipline boys and girls differently in the context of the zoo’s built environment, and in doing so, they communicate socialization messages to children regarding how to behave in conventionally gendered ways.”
Sociology can be an important science, and sometimes it gives us valuable insights. But all too often sociologists and other social scientists are blind to anything other than social causes of social outcomes. Professionals in these fields continue to act as if we were blank slates waiting for social forces to mold us into the people we become. More to the point, many social scientists ignore the fact that genetic predispositions can explain social trends, and that individual differences in heritable personality traits can explain important social outcomes.
How many students were taught that human beings evolved about around 150,000 years ago in Africa? How many know what a gene is? How many can describe Mendel’s laws, or sexual selection? The answer is very few. And, what is worse, many sociologists do not think this ignorance matters.
In the minds of many sociologists, it is a great sin to “biologize” human affairs.
The opposite is true for seahorses. The males are the ones that bear the children and raise them and it is the females that compete for the males. — Harry Hindu
The argument doesn't work. An organism that can asexually reproduce doesn't have gender. So, women can't claim to be the ones who were reproducing asexually. Both men AND women can claim that territory. — TheMadFool
Males might not be "intrinsically rapists" as the essays annoyingly imply, but I don't think it's implausible to say males' physiology evolved as to maximize the chances of spreading genes, which oftentimes means rape. — darthbarracuda
In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment of r-strategists, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment of K-strategists, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
This all seems like a highly skewed "just so" story that bolsters a victimization stance that the author clearly wants to be the case. The Hurst-Hamilton Hypothesis, is a very plausible hypothesis that proposes that the female gamete (the bigger one) does not have a suppressor gene and the male gamete (the small one) did develop a suppressor gene to prevent it from passing on its organelle DNA and cytoplasm. — schopenhauer1
As Schop says, a general reply is that nature is a balance of competition and co-operation. So rather than reducing the issue to a debate where cooperation = good vs competition = bad, the informed question is what is the appropriate balance, and is that being met? — apokrisis
A naturalistic view doesn't presume that there is some moral absolute position here. — apokrisis
Humans of course, more than any other species, rely on heavy parental investment. Or rather, communal investment - it takes a village, etc. And social structures have developed to support that. The prediction would be that "rape" would be rare in a stable, well-balanced, social situation. Or rather, that rape would be construed differently. So socially accepted if a child resulted and the man was forced to marry and support the girl, for instance in Olde Englande. — apokrisis
If you want to fix it, turning it into a cod evolutionary debate is hardly sensible. — apokrisis
Turn it around. Imagine women had a dick, men had a hole. But men - or a subset with social issues - still had a rage to humiliate. Would the shape of the biological equipment make a difference? — apokrisis
The question, then, is why a neutral "naturalistic" description is desirable, or why a neutral description is seen as superior to a description with normative undertones. Is it purely on the basis of scientific "objectivity", or is it also perhaps a psychological defense mechanism of sorts? Is it not easier to "deal" with an apparently savage reality by construing it as blind, purposeless, unintentional and amoral? — darthbarracuda
The position presented in the essays is that we can't absolve patriarchal problems within the patriarchy itself. It's radical feminism. Fixing these issues can only happen if the patriarchy itself is dismantled. And in this case the patriarchy is traced back in time through millennia of biological evolution. Rape, battery, violence, etc can not be solved though conventional means but only through the eradication of the patriarchy (which is oftentimes theorized to be connected to capitalism and religion). — darthbarracuda
It's hard for me to imagine a male with a vagina that is actually a male. Male-ness seems to be inherently tied to the capacity to penetrate, flood, neutralize and dominate. — darthbarracuda
Do you have a background in biology? You seem to know more about this than the average person like me. I most exposure I had to biology was my high school freshman class and a bit of independent research on my own time. — darthbarracuda
I'm not too familiar with the H-H Hypothesis. What does a suppressor gene do exactly? Why would it be a "good" thing to have a suppressor gene to prevent the passing on of genes? — darthbarracuda
So you suggest that science would merely neutralise our feelings here. Somehow your belief in "savage reality" can be presumed to be correct - because you feel that way - and any other view, no matter how differently founded on a system of reason and evidence, must be an ego defence mechanism.
Sure, it is possible to use selective facts to explain away something unpleasant. But the argument is that you (and your cite) are employing selective facts to make that unpleasant case in the first place. You are referencing observations like female diving beetles burying themselves in the mud. So it becomes rather contradictory to both cite science and decry science in bolstering a position. — apokrisis
you are adopting a catastrophising metaphysics were things are either right or wrong. If rape is wrong, then rapish looking behaviour is just as wrong. And in the end, anything in the remotest construable as rapey is wrong. There just is no smallest degree of rape that isn't wrong because you have no demarcation line where rapey behaviour becomes either instead a positive - as in a shift from globally cooperative reproductive strategies to locally competitive reproductive strategies. Or indeed, it just becomes background noise - so insignificant that it doesn't count as action of either kind. — apokrisis
Anyone can go out and observe the mating ritual of diving beetles. Anyone can see how the female beetle frantically tries to escape the male beetle. — darthbarracuda
The hesitation to call this an instance of "rape" is from a general belief that morality is a "human construct" that is not suited to be applied to descriptions of reali — darthbarracuda
All I'm saying really is that a common form of sexual reproduction is in fact rape, no quotation marks, and scientific terminology disguises this, softens the blow. — darthbarracuda
Why is this a problem?Sex is unequally distributed. — schopenhauer1
Nope, I wouldn't go that far. This would be to presuppose sex is some sort of "god" that we all must have to live a fulfilled life, and that's just not the case. I wouldn't complain about the unequal distribution of steak for example. Sure, steak is great, some people never eat it their entire lives though. Many are stopped by their religion. Or by their culture which doesn't permit eating beef. So what?It is one of the most vicious sources of desire-seeking dissatisfaction in the world. — schopenhauer1
It does make a difference though, because sex in general isn't a good. The Epicureans realised this, and one of the things advocated by Epicurus to achieve the good life, even though he was an atheistic hedonist, was sexual abstinence.Whether it is sex in general, or sex with the most ideal mating partner, the unequal distribution of either one makes it on the balance, rather negative in a general population sense. — schopenhauer1
>:O >:OShe wants the guy to keep going as long as he can, harder, longer, etc. etc. . This is not trying to be a soft porn here — schopenhauer1
Well, if that person really wants to give AND to receive sexual pleasure, he does have two hands you know... >:O Jokes aside, I don't see why they would salivate for the pleasure of those other people in the first place :s - it's not like I go around salivating on the street when I see a person eating an ice cream. Indeed, if I was to salivate when seeing another person eat an icecream you'd say there's something wrong with me, and would probably recommend a trip to the psychologist. Likewise, there is something very wrong with our culture given our attitudes towards sex.That person listening to this, is not getting sex, is not providing (or being provided) the pleasure. — schopenhauer1
Well hearing that happened to me a few times, but it's really no more annoying than hearing loud music and the like. What it means for the individual, is that he or she should go to the people in question and tell them to be quieter.Now, what does this mean for the individual? — schopenhauer1
It's not the unequal distribution that causes misery. See, when you say that, you presuppose that if sex of the usual kind that goes on in the world was equally distributed, people would be happier. But that's not true. Most of the sex that goes on in the world actually leads to more pain than actual abstinence. Those few instances of sex that are truly fulfilling involve special circumstances that are often hard to come by, such as being married to the right person. Most people don't marry the right person because they're forced into marrying someone (usually the wrong person) by social pressure or they're just not patient enough to wait for the right person. Or if they do marry the right person they screw it up because they don't have the right values/beliefs that can make it work.This causes more misery. Again, unequal distribution. — schopenhauer1
:s - and some people eat steak more frequently than me, do they lead better lives?Either way, there is this primal thing that some people have more frequently, more qualitatively, etc. etc. while others do not. — schopenhauer1
Why is this a problem? — Agustino
Nope, I wouldn't go that far. This would be to presuppose sex is some sort of "god" that we all must have to live a fulfilled life, and that's just not the case. I wouldn't complain about the unequal distribution of steak for example. Sure, steak is great, some people never eat it their entire lives though. Many are stopped by their religion. Or by their culture which doesn't permit eating beef. So what? — Agustino
It does make a difference though, because sex in general isn't a good. The Epicureans realised this, and one of the things advocated by Epicurus to achieve the good life, even though he was an atheistic hedonist, was sexual abstinence. — Agustino
Well, if that person really wants to give AND to receive sexual pleasure, he does have two hands you know... >:O Jokes aside, I don't see why they would salivate for the pleasure of those other people in the first place :s - it's not like I go around salivating on the street when I see a person eating an ice cream. Indeed, if I was to salivate when seeing another person eat an icecream you'd say there's something wrong with me, and would probably recommend a trip to the psychologist. Likewise, there is something very wrong with our culture given our attitudes towards sex. — Agustino
Most people don't marry the right person because they're forced into marrying someone (usually the wrong person) by social pressure or they're just not patient enough to wait for the right person. Or if they do marry the right person they screw it up because they don't have the right values/beliefs that can make it work. — Agustino
- and some people eat steak more frequently than me, do they lead better lives? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.