Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Nature

Sorry for the rambling that is ahead of you, I am still trying to mull out some ideas and would appreciate any input.

Nature and natural human urges are what people use to explain a lot of things. For example MRAs have used it to explain the double standard where women are valued for their mongamy and men are valued for their polygamy. Known today as not sleeping around vs sleeping around. This is absolute bullshit. Their logic seems sound until you think about it a little more. How primitive cultures functioned was not based in the family system we have today. Today it is an imperative of the male to know if the offspring is his because he goes to work and brings home the resources needed to keep the child alive. He consequently wants to know he is working to further his own seed.

However this is just not how previous human cultures worked. When the menfolk went out to bring down an elephant they would be providing meat for their entire tribe not just their nuclear family, because this family structure simply didn't exist in the way it does today. So they didn't have much concern for what children were theirs and what children weren't because it didn't involve them having to put in any further labour like it does today. This is not nature, this is how our society functions

This brings me to my second point. If you can look at the past and present of human societies and see various "natural" imperatives driving the function of these differing groups then I think the only thing you can say that is natural about human behaviour is that it adapts. For instance in this context you can say it is natural for men to want to know its their offspring in this society, because that is what is beneficial for them, however this too has its flaws.

Which brings me to my third point. One must recognise that humans are and have always been social creatures. We are driven by a desire to improve our society, whatever that society may be, not necessarily our individual lives. When speaking of "nature" you are reducing humans to mere animals (non human animals) and ignoring our cultural imperatives and our higher level of consciousness. What is natural and helpful for an animal isn't necessarily natural and helpful for us. In the example of the promiscuity double standard it can in fact be seen as unnatural for a man to care if his off spring is biologically his because that isn't beneficial to society and may in fact be harmful.

I suppose what I am trying to say is anyone can make up any bullshit and say "nature did it". This is no better then religious nuts saying "god did it".

Human nature-we change

Thats about it.

21 comments:

  1. Male promiscuity does give a direct, significant advantage in terms of reproductive success, as number of young sired. Female promiscuity does not. Vigilance against the promiscuity of a mate is only really advantageous for males, again in terms of number of young sired. This is true even in groups that do not have any family structure (and I believe most human societies have had family structure at least to some degree – which have not?). This is not to say behaviours like male promiscuity etc. are socially valuable, but they do have a natural origin.

    “...it can in fact be seen as unnatural for a man to care if his off spring is biologically his because that isn't beneficial to society and may in fact be harmful.”
    Evolution (nature) doesn’t work that way, it works at the level of individuals (or genes). Infanticide in animals such as lions is a good example of this – a male who has recently become dominant in a group will often kill the infants sired by his competition. This is detrimental to ‘society’ and risky for him but ultimately improves the reproductive success of the male.

    “We are driven by a desire to improve our society, whatever that society may be, not necessarily our individual lives.”
    I’d say we’re primarily driven to improve our own lives. Living in a good society is beneficial to the individual so improving your own life can be achieved by improving society but it doesn’t need to be, which is why we have crime.

    Humans adapt their behaviour to suit their environment and culture but they’re still ‘mere’ animals, subject to the same biological pressures as any other species. Changes in natural behaviour can’t be counter to the needs of the human animal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You didn't respond to anything I said. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The hell I didn’t. I responded to your claims that family structure is somehow required for male promiscuity to be advantageous and that what is natural will have anything to do with what is beneficial for society. Besides, you didn’t ask for a response to any particular point. You asked for ‘any input’.

    If you’re serious about wanting input, discussion or criticism you’ll need to communicate properly. If you don’t understand the relevance of what I wrote, ask for an explanation. If you think it’s wrong, say how. If there’s something particular you want addressed, identify it. If I’ve missed your point entirely, set me straight. If you don’t do any of those I have no reason to offer anything more than what I have already.

    And if you aren’t actually interested in input or aren’t prepared to sensibly consider the input you get don’t pretend that you are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The statements you made were actually the exact same sentiments I was refuting.

    you basically went "you wrote this stuff, so I am just going to repeat the same crap at you"

    I find it hard to take it seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your first point rests solely on the alleged non-existence of nuclear family structure. All you’ve done is claim that when there’s no nuclear family the children in a group all get equivalent care, which is OK on its own. The problem is you’ve ignored the fact that individuals in such a group will still benefit from different, sex-specific reproductive strategies. Your argument assumes that in such a group the number of children you have is independent of sexual behaviour, which is wrong.

    This all applies whether a group has family structure or not:
    - assuming all children get the same care, the more children an individual has (and whether a man knows which are his or not) the better that individual’s genes will be passed on.
    - a man’s reproductive success is directly related to the number of women he has sex with (he is potentially responsible for multiple pregnancies).
    - a man’s reproductive success is improved by him guarding his mates from other men and preferentially selecting non-promiscuous mates (he ensures mates are pregnant with his offspring, not another man’s).
    - a woman’s reproductive success is not improved by her having sex with more than one man (maximum one pregnancy, her own).
    - a woman’s reproductive success is not improved by her preventing her mate from having sex with other women (she has her own single pregnancy no matter what).

    So men gain reproductive advantages from promiscuity and jealousy. Women do not.

    Can you explain why you think a group not having family structure prevents members from benefiting from different reproductive strategies?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are ignoring that fact that humans are not mere animals. We don't just go off instincts.

    Also many species of animals the females are promiscuous as well, as this increases the chances of becoming pregnant.

    Your argument is one sided and poorly thought out. Boring.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mmmm, I call wrong on NamedAnon.

    When women engage in multiple partner coupling, the opportunity for the strongest "seed" or set of genes is increased. It is advantageous to the species to promote female promiscuity over male to ensure stronger offspring.
    It isn't just increasing the chance of pregnancy, but more importantly, the viability of the next generation.
    This is why, biologically, women are prone to "cheat" after being impregnated by their primary mate.
    I realize I'm using these terms loosely, but when I say things like promiscuous and cheat, I don't mean them with any moral judgment. Just referring to the evolutionary advantage of biological drives. A lot of these behaviors were normal in tribal groups, as SOTC wrote. It's our so-called moralism, which is really historical patriarchal/kyriarchal politics, that's changed this and resulted in modern views that men and women who do this are "bad."

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's my way of saying "hi" when I haven't checked in in a while.
    Hi, SOTC!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Welcome back and thanks for your input.

    People seem to just make up shit to suit their bigotry...can be difficult to combat ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Social Worker:
    Appreciate you clearly making your points.
    Quality of offspring is a different matter to quantity. For women yes it’s quality that makes their offspring competitive, but there are two problems with what you’ve written.

    First, female promiscuity DECREASES the chance that offspring will get good genes (relative to selective monogamy). In terms of offspring quality the optimal strategy for a woman is to exclusively mate with the best available man, ensuring ALL her offspring get the best genes. Promiscuous women might end up having some good quality offspring but risk impregnation by every partner that is not their best option so overall end up with less competitive offspring than they would if monogamous with their best male option.
    The only advantage of promiscuity specifically for women is paternity confusion, which might protect her children from infanticidal rival males or trick a man into caring for another’s offspring. Promiscuity can compensate for an infertile mate for either sex and increase genetic diversity in offspring though women can achieve the latter just as well through serial monogamy. Promiscuity isn’t useless for women but even when it’s not disadvantageous it still doesn’t give them anything like the same advantage over monogamy it gives men.

    Second, the ‘advantageous to the species’ idea is the same misconception SOTC has (see lion example). It’s individuals that pass on genes, not groups or species. Evolutionary selection is based on how well an individual’s genes propagate, so individual men will be selected for promiscuity (number of offspring/propagation of genes) even if it’d be advantageous for the species that they be less promiscuous.

    Can someone explain the ‘increased chance of pregnancy’ claim? Is this actually caused by promiscuity or just by more frequent sex?

    @SOTC:
    I’m not ignoring that humans have culture or abstract thought (see end of 1st comment). Point is that whether we have nuclear families, language, famine, religion, etc. or not, the reproductive biology and optimal strategies are unchanged – it’s always going to be the more promiscuous males who have the most offspring.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The only advantage of promiscuity specifically for women is paternity confusion"

    There are many species of animals which have promiscuious females and the aim is not paternity confusion.

    "It’s individuals that pass on genes, not groups or species."

    Yes and when one depends on a group to survive, survival of the group means survival of the individual. Drawing a division between these two especially in the case of humans is dishonest.

    "it’s always going to be the more promiscuous males who have the most offspring. "

    You are making the assumption that more offspring is the desired outcome. More primitive human cultures tried to limit reproduction for various reasons.

    For example if the tribe doesn't have enough hunters/gatherers to provide for the offpsring the offspring will die anyway, wasting time and effort.

    Which brings me back to what I was actually saying, you can use nature and evolution to support whatever rubbish claim you want to make, but it gets us nowhere.

    "Point is that whether we have nuclear families, language, famine, religion, etc. or not, the reproductive biology and optimal strategies are unchanged "

    So a man who has sex with 100 women a year but uses a condom every time, that is an unchanged reproductive strategy? You talk rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your last comment isn’t much more than wordplay.
    “...the aim is not paternity confusion.” – to rephrase what I wrote: of all the reproductive advantages promiscuity gives, the only one enjoyed exclusively by women (and not by men) is confusion of parental identity. If you think there are others could you list them?
    “...survival of the group means survival of the individual.” – First, group survival doesn’t mean a particular individual survives. Second, in a discussion about evolution it is incorrect to not make a distinction between survival and reproduction.
    “...more offspring is the desired outcome.” – no matter how many offspring there are, a greater proportion of them will be fathered by the more promiscuous men.
    “...condom...” – the OPTIMAL strategy remains unchanged. The condom using man is not passing on his genes. Do I really need to say that promiscuity only gives men a reproductive advantage if they don’t do anything to impair the function of their reproductive systems?

    “you can use nature and evolution to support whatever rubbish claim you want to make, but it gets us nowhere”
    Is it different when feminists make up bullshit and say “patriarchy did it”?

    To switch to more general criticism and to urge a moment of self-reflection:
    You’re trying to refute a claim about human nature but your arguments are obviously flawed and it’s clear you don’t properly understand evolution. SW’s comment uses different (incorrect) specifics and reaches different conclusions but argues with the same mechanic I do – “just referring to the evolutionary advantage of biological drives” – and you’re uncritical of it. You don’t respond to questions or requests for elaboration, but you do throw in all the ‘boring, ignorant, bigoted, one-sided rubbish...’ rubbish. (perhaps you should read your ‘Critique of the MRM/Feminists’ post)
    Seems you’re only really interested in avoiding the feminist-dogma-unfriendly conclusion you don’t like. Do you think your behaviour is very different to that of the ‘religious nuts’ and MRAs you denigrate? Looks pretty similar to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe even darwin said it was flawed to apply evolutionary reasoning to humanity in modern times.

    "Seems you’re only really interested in avoiding the feminist-dogma-unfriendly conclusion you don’t like"

    I don't really care about feminist dogma. Your assertion is an assumption. An incorrect one at that. I care about is what is true.

    It is not true "nature" plays a huge role in contemporary humanity. Or if it does it is not clear.

    I am not going to criticise social worker for arguing from your perspective. That is absurd.


    denigrate MRAs? Sorry I don't think denigrating is the correct term. MRAs are disrespectful bigots, it is simply pointing out the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. side note: I don't believe in patriarchy theory. In case you were trying to call me a hypocrite :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. You make a several points in this blog miss feminist open to criticism. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. you can not be a feminist and not believe in patriarchy the whole idea is central to feminist thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "you can not be a feminist and not believe in patriarchy the whole idea is central to feminist thinking. "

    Depends how you define it. I define it as an advocate for gender equality. So yeah you sure can identify as a feminist and not believe the patriarchy thing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "So yeah you sure can identify as a feminist and not believe the patriarchy thing. "

    Well, I suppose you could CALL yourself a feminist, and claim not to believe in "the patriarchy thing". But patriarchy theory is the main central prop that ensures the viability of feminism as we know it. So if you renounce patriarchy theory, you replace feminism's foundation with crumbling sand.

    And that's not much of a foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No I replace patriarchy theory with a theory that actually makes sense.

    You are stuck on patriarchy theory. There are many different forms of feminism. Not all of them are reliant of patriarchial concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey, SOTC, what happened? Where'd you go? I stop back once in a while to see if you have any new posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heya, sorry life get hectic, my interests became more varied in the political arena, and I think i was naive when beginning this blog. MRAs are sexist and can't be talked out of it, I prefer to minimise my association with them these days.

      I am still very interested in exposing misogyny in society though, so perhaps I will return to this blog more in the future.

      I can also give you my facebook page if you want, I put alot of my political ranting on there these days lol.

      Delete