quote:Originally posted by Errata: [On political correctness trumping reality, in one of my behavioral biology classes, a woman heatedly argued that rape couldn't be considered as a reproductive strategy in animals because "rape is about power, not sex". I'm sure the gene pool keeps track of the difference. Fortunately the rest of the class didn't let her get away with it.
Not to hijack the thread, but unless you are Randy Thornhill, this is very tricky territory. The objection to "rape as reproductive strategy" in animals multifaceted: 1. Sexual penetration can be seen as a power strategy in non humans as well (male dogs mounting one another). 2. Equating rape with certain strategies in species such as frogs is anthropomorphising them, a big no-no in every other case. 3. That is is frequently used as justification for human women to just suck it up and deal with it as a "valid reproductive strategy' rather than a violent crime, coincidently letting human rapists off the hook for violent behavior.
Just because you shouted her down, does not mean that she was being "politically correct" or that you were right.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because that quote was uttered in response to USA considering to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide, and that was his way of opposing it. He brought the Holocaust into it, everybody else was talking about a genocide.
quote:My only nitpick is calling other genocides "Holocausts," when that term was coined to refer to the genocide of WWII
Actually, the term has since been applied to other genocides, including the Armenian:
"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre"
quote:The Armenian massacres were more comparable to the pogroms of the 1880s than to the industrialized extermination of the 1940's.
The Nazi "final solution" was unlike anything ever seen on earth. It stands by itself, not for the sheer numbers, but for the application of science, technology, industry, and organization to the most evil of goals.
While I agree that the industrialism wasn't there in Armenia, it was still just as determined and ruthless. Check out my link above, it's like a haunting premonition of the Jewish Holocaust.
Siamanto has written a haunting poem on this genocide called The Dance, which was later put to music by Diamanda Galas. It's really nightmare material:
"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre"
But that's the sort of thing I'm nitpicking against. It's not an Armenian Holocaust, because the Holocaust refers to a specific event - therefore, this is an inappropriate use of the term.
-------------------- If you say you love ice cream, you better be dreaming of an orgy with Ben, Jerry, and one fine-ass chunky monkey.
-- My sister and poet extraordinaire, Joanna Hoffman Posts: 1475 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Errata: On political correctness trumping reality, in one of my behavioral biology classes, a woman heatedly argued that rape couldn't be considered as a reproductive strategy in animals because "rape is about power, not sex". I'm sure the gene pool keeps track of the difference. Fortunately the rest of the class didn't let her get away with it.
Not to hijack the thread, but unless you are Randy Thornhill, this is very tricky territory. The objection to "rape as reproductive strategy" in animals multifaceted: 1. Sexual penetration can be seen as a power strategy in non humans as well (male dogs mounting one another). 2. Equating rape with certain strategies in species such as frogs is anthropomorphising them, a big no-no in every other case. 3. That is is frequently used as justification for human women to just suck it up and deal with it as a "valid reproductive strategy' rather than a violent crime, coincidently letting human rapists off the hook for violent behavior.
Just because you shouted her down, does not mean that she was being "politically correct" or that you were right.
Please give me a link to one of the numerous "she should shut up and take it because its a reproductive strategy" websites. Since this is not only used but frequently used to justify rape, you must have various cites.
You are very nearly 100% wrong in this entire post. "1" is true but irrelevant. If it can result in pregnancy, then it propagates the genes of the individual using it as a power display just the same as if they were doing it for lust. The point isn't that it isn't a display of dominance, but that that doesn't disqualify it from being a reproductive strategy. Genes don't care about the motivation or social implications. They spread when they successfully lead to their own reproduction.
"2" is nonsense. Calling violently non-consentual reproduction that distresses the victim and which the victim attempts to avoid "rape" is not anthropomorphic but descriptive, and its something that can be observed among some higher mammals with rather more complex behavioral patterns than frogs. Its not frequent behavior since most reproduction occurs when the female is receptive or at least ambivalent, but it happens, particularly in smarter mammals.
"3" is complete bull, and it reflects a dangerous mindset on your part. Evolutionary strategies don't inform politics. Do you see society embracing infanticide because animals do it? Is genocide excusible if it can be explained away with biology? Society isn't behind every possible act of procreation just because it spreads some particular sociopaths genes. In fact a major part of our culture is about setting up barriers to unapproved reproduction and convincing people not to act on destructive impulses. That some action may help spread your genes is not a morally defensible argument for that action, nor is there a tradition of treating it as such. Selective pressure is about what is good for an individual's genetic material, but society is ideally about what is good for the group, which is very often at odds with selfish motivations.
You are displaying the same problem yourself as this woman did. Trying to project your personal opinions onto objective reality. A recurring behavior pattern is a reproductive strategy if it may result in reproduction, regardless of morality. And if it proves to be a successful strategy, evolution will select for it, even if the strategy sucks for the population as a whole. But humans aren't beholden to the dictates of natural selection and their politics can swing things back in the direction of morality and away from base instincts.
The reason the class (half female) disagreed with this student is that she was wrong, and there was no shouting down. There was rational discourse, which she wasn't well equipped to return since her opinion was muddled and rooted in emotion (and she consistently had trouble understanding selection and game theory, this wasn't an isolated incident). You are wrong too, and you should recognize whatever baggage you have on the topic as political rather than biological.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I've ever seen T-Girl's #3 spelled out that precisly, but it has been hinted at or danced around. Basically, it comes into play whenever there is a study that shows that infidelity or aggressive sexual behaviour is bred into males because that strategy would lead to that set of genes being passed on. And some people might use that genetic selection to justify their behaviour.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre"
But that's the sort of thing I'm nitpicking against. It's not an Armenian Holocaust, because the Holocaust refers to a specific event - therefore, this is an inappropriate use of the term.
I'm not taking sides, but I did want to point out that the word "holocaust" had a meaning independent of,and prior to, the Shoah.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Errata: On political correctness trumping reality, in one of my behavioral biology classes, a woman heatedly argued that rape couldn't be considered as a reproductive strategy in animals because "rape is about power, not sex". I'm sure the gene pool keeps track of the difference. Fortunately the rest of the class didn't let her get away with it.
Not to hijack the thread, but unless you are Randy Thornhill, this is very tricky territory. The objection to "rape as reproductive strategy" in animals multifaceted: 1. Sexual penetration can be seen as a power strategy in non humans as well (male dogs mounting one another). 2. Equating rape with certain strategies in species such as frogs is anthropomorphising them, a big no-no in every other case. 3. That is is frequently used as justification for human women to just suck it up and deal with it as a "valid reproductive strategy' rather than a violent crime, coincidently letting human rapists off the hook for violent behavior.
Just because you shouted her down, does not mean that she was being "politically correct" or that you were right.
Please give me a link to one of the numerous "she should shut up and take it because its a reproductive strategy" websites. Since this is not only used but frequently used to justify rape, you must have various cites.
You are very nearly 100% wrong in this entire post. "1" is true but irrelevant. If it can result in pregnancy, then it propagates the genes of the individual using it as a power display just the same as if they were doing it for lust. The point isn't that it isn't a display of dominance, but that that doesn't disqualify it from being a reproductive strategy.Genes don't care about the motivation or social implications. They spread when they successfully lead to their own reproduction.
This is making a huge assumption here, one which is not frequently addressed. It assumes that a human female, possessing both a brain and a will, once inpregnated by someone unwillingly will 1) Carry the pregnancy to term and/or 2.) Take care of the resultant offspring.
ETA: Or that members of her family, tribe or other social network will allow her or her offspring to live. As a reproductive strategy, it is pretty sucky anyhow. Unlike in other organisms, human females do not signal when we are ovulating.
quote:"2" is nonsense. Calling violently non-consentual reproduction that distresses the victim and which the victim attempts to avoid "rape" is not anthropomorphic but descriptive, and its something that can be observed among some higher mammals with rather more complex behavioral patterns than frogs. Its not frequent behavior since most reproduction occurs when the female is receptive or at least ambivalent, but it happens, particularly in smarter mammals.
The parallels are made, particularly by Thornhill and cohorts, between fish, frogs and humans. It is unlikely that lower organisms face the long term mental reprecussions of what is described as "rape".
quote:"3" is complete bull, and it reflects a dangerous mindset on your part. Evolutionary strategies don't inform politics.
No. But they are used as cop outs. This is my main issue with sociobiology. The frequency with which step parents (fathers in particular) abuse step children above that of biological fathers has been justified, or explained by sociobiology.
The argument that men cannot control their hormones has been used as justification for rape for centuries. And is informing social and poltical policy in those societies in which the solution for rape is for women not to be enticing.
quote:The reason the class (half female) disagreed with this student is that she was wrong, and there was no shouting down. There was rational discourse, which she wasn't well equipped to return since her opinion was muddled and rooted in emotion (and she consistently had trouble understanding selection and game theory, this wasn't an isolated incident). You are wrong too, and you should recognize whatever baggage you have on the topic as political rather than biological.
I am saying there is more nuance in comparing rape as a "valid reproductive strategy" than you originally proposed. Perhaps your baggage is getting in the way of seeing my arguments.
I will repeat them 1.) Rape is, even in the animal world, used as a way of social dominance. It's purpose is, therefore, not specifically a means by which males who cannot get any can pass on their genes.
2.) We do not, for example, compare enslavement of aphids by ants, to human slavery. Comparing human rape to unwanted penetration by in other animals is equally as ludicrous, if for no other reason that women do not signal when they are ready for ovulation. Our butts do not turn brigh orange. Nor do most rapists seem to consider at what point in the reproductive cycle a woman is before attacking. If it were purely about reproduction, children would not be raped,as they are unable to reproduce.
3.) There is a danger that posing it as a "reproductive strategy" for biologically geeky males, can serve as a means of justification or at least mitigation for violent acts. To me it is a variation on the old "She was wearing a short skirt, my hormones overtook me, I couldn't help it" scenario. "I couldn't reproduce any other way".
ETA: Some cites I would call this fair and balanced. Not only does it address my so-called over reaction, but also addresses why it may be valid (a similar point to Silas' in regard to the "natural may be seen as good" train of thought). The "reproductive success" of human rapists The person conducting the reseach states "Considering it as a strategy is essentially nonsense"
quote: Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New Mexico biology professor.
Straight from the horse's ass mouth:
quote:Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a form of male reproductive behavior."
quote:Palmer and Thornhill say some sociologists advance a view that, they think, incorrectly assumes that rape is "unnatural behavior that has nothing to do with sex and one that has no corollary in the animal world."
They counter that rape is part of the male mental sexual psyche; was at least part of a successful male reproductive strategy in human evolutionary history; and is strong enough to survive today despite strong social sanctions and legal penalties.
If the authors of the book are saying this, how can you contend that my statements were overwrought?
ETA2: There is also a scientific response to Palmer and Thornhill by other evolutionary psychologists: Description here
quote:Although the authors' theoretical perspectives are, in many cases, vastly different from one another, they are united in the belief that Thornhill and Palmer are the ones who are guilty of bad science motivated by political ideology.
Sounds like I am not the only one you can accuse of baggage.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Errata: "3" is complete bull, and it reflects a dangerous mindset on your part. Evolutionary strategies don't inform politics. Do you see society embracing infanticide because animals do it?
I've seen both liberals and conservatives argue in this fashion.
We liberals often point to homosexuality in animals to rebut the notion that it is "contrary to nature."
Conservatives often argue against the teaching of evolution, because "If kids are told they are animals, they will behave like animals."
Anthropomorphization -- and theromorphization, its counterpart -- are forms of analogy which are sometimes completely valid -- all mammals share certain behavioral characteristics -- and sometimes completely invalid -- as in your example of infanticide.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: Nor do most rapists seem to consider at what point in the reproductive cycle a woman is before attacking. If it were purely about reproduction, children would not be raped,as they are unable to reproduce.
And neither would obviously post-menopausal (e.g., elderly) women. Which also happens.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Every mass murder horror is different. Who reacts to bringing up Rwanda, or the Congo, or North Korea, or the Balkans, by saying that the Jews had it at least as bad?
Should mention of the Middle Passage -- a unique horror by any measure -- result in a suggestion that there were others who suffered as well?
As for the topic title ("So every form of critical statements is anti-semitic?"), Gavida did admit to getting "carried away" in some respects. Hopefully that is included, since it is a straw man.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Errata: On political correctness trumping reality, in one of my behavioral biology classes, a woman heatedly argued that rape couldn't be considered as a reproductive strategy in animals because "rape is about power, not sex". I'm sure the gene pool keeps track of the difference. Fortunately the rest of the class didn't let her get away with it.
Not to hijack the thread, but unless you are Randy Thornhill, this is very tricky territory. The objection to "rape as reproductive strategy" in animals multifaceted: 1. Sexual penetration can be seen as a power strategy in non humans as well (male dogs mounting one another). 2. Equating rape with certain strategies in species such as frogs is anthropomorphising them, a big no-no in every other case. 3. That is is frequently used as justification for human women to just suck it up and deal with it as a "valid reproductive strategy' rather than a violent crime, coincidently letting human rapists off the hook for violent behavior.
Just because you shouted her down, does not mean that she was being "politically correct" or that you were right.
Please give me a link to one of the numerous "she should shut up and take it because its a reproductive strategy" websites. Since this is not only used but frequently used to justify rape, you must have various cites.
You are very nearly 100% wrong in this entire post. "1" is true but irrelevant. If it can result in pregnancy, then it propagates the genes of the individual using it as a power display just the same as if they were doing it for lust. The point isn't that it isn't a display of dominance, but that that doesn't disqualify it from being a reproductive strategy.Genes don't care about the motivation or social implications. They spread when they successfully lead to their own reproduction.
This is making a huge assumption here, one which is not frequently addressed. It assumes that a human female, possessing both a brain and a will, once inpregnated by someone unwillingly will 1) Carry the pregnancy to term and/or 2.) Take care of the resultant offspring.
ETA: Or that members of her family, tribe or other social network will allow her or her offspring to live. As a reproductive strategy, it is pretty sucky anyhow. Unlike in other organisms, human females do not signal when we are ovulating.
I specified that the original discussion was about animal behavior. Humans are complicated.
quote:
quote:"2" is nonsense. Calling violently non-consentual reproduction that distresses the victim and which the victim attempts to avoid "rape" is not anthropomorphic but descriptive, and its something that can be observed among some higher mammals with rather more complex behavioral patterns than frogs. Its not frequent behavior since most reproduction occurs when the female is receptive or at least ambivalent, but it happens, particularly in smarter mammals.
The parallels are made, particularly by Thornhill and cohorts, between fish, frogs and humans. It is unlikely that lower organisms face the long term mental reprecussions of what is described as "rape".
Redefining the term to include "long term mental repercussions" is unnecessary to distinguish the term from other terms. It would still be rape in all meaningful senses even if the victim got over it unusually quickly.
I would not apply the term to fish and frogs, nor were these animals part of the discussion to which I originally referred. If you want to dispute some specific body of work that does, then feel free. But higher mammals are capable of complex behavior, even if they aren't quite as capable as humans of prolonged psychological harm.
quote:
quote:"3" is complete bull, and it reflects a dangerous mindset on your part. Evolutionary strategies don't inform politics.
No. But they are used as cop outs. This is my main issue with sociobiology. The frequency with which step parents (fathers in particular) abuse step children above that of biological fathers has been justified, or explained by sociobiology.
The argument that men cannot control their hormones has been used as justification for rape for centuries. And is informing social and poltical policy in those societies in which the solution for rape is for women not to be enticing.
Thats something you take up with people attempting to use biology for political purposes. You don't attempt to revise the science itself to avoid potential misuse.
quote:
quote:The reason the class (half female) disagreed with this student is that she was wrong, and there was no shouting down. There was rational discourse, which she wasn't well equipped to return since her opinion was muddled and rooted in emotion (and she consistently had trouble understanding selection and game theory, this wasn't an isolated incident). You are wrong too, and you should recognize whatever baggage you have on the topic as political rather than biological.
I am saying there is more nuance in comparing rape as a "valid reproductive strategy" than you originally proposed. Perhaps your baggage is getting in the way of seeing my arguments.
You inserted the word valid yourself. In quotes no less. I wonder why an impartial person would do that. You're attempting to impose morality on animals again. Its a reproductive strategy. Your validation has nothing to do with its effects on the gene pool.
quote:I will repeat them
No need. They're just as wrong the second time as the first.
#1 irrelevant to the gene pool. #2 humans have nothing to do with it. Its the accurate word even if the situation is more complex among humans like everything else humans do. Everything humans do has more intricate connotations than when animals do it, but we don't need a whole parallel vocabulary for it in most cases. Substituting a very long string of words with the same meaning for a simple but emotionally charged word is the height of political correctness. #3, political bias, doesn't affect reality. Deal with the problem, don't resort to propaganda in science.
Your research cites largely involve human behavior which are beyond the scope of a behavioral biology course limited to animal behavior. Humans behavior is an order of magnitude more complex.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, regarding the "valid reproductive strategy" argument (which should get its own thread), it seems to me that what's causing the argument is the word "valid." One poster is saying that because rape can result in pregnancy, this validates it as a reproductive strategy. From a purely semantic viewpoint, this is true, however, we have another poster arguing that calling rape "valid" is dangerous language because it seems to sanction it. This is true as well, and I have heard the argument before that men are biologically programmed to rape, and therefore it shouldn't be treated as the serious crime it is.
The fact is that while rape can propagate the species, doing so probably isn't really foremost in the minds of most rapists. If it really were a significant factor, probably MORE men would rape. Another fact is that in the human species, other reproductive strategies, such as pair bonding, have proved much more successful in allowing a particular man to spread his genes than rape has.
Rape may be valid in the sense that it occasionally works as a reproductive strategy, but it doesn't work all that efficiently, and a man whose main goal is to spread his genes is probably better off making money to support a partner during a pregnancy and the infancy of the child, and being a nice guy, so she'll stick around for several preganacies.
I realize it's not really good English to have degrees of validity, but rape is "less valid," if you will, than other reproductive strategies.
Also, just because something is biologically inherent (and I'm not saying rape is; just being hypothetical for a moment), doesn't make it acceptable. Try squatting on the sidewalk the next moment you have to take a dump, and see how acceptable responding to THAT biological urge is.
Posts: 75 | From: Bloomington, IN | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
"We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide [...] Israel should not determine a historical or philosophical position on the Armenian issue. If we have to determine a position, it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities."
Actually, you don't hear people "like Shimon Peres" saying such "stuff" unless you are listening quite hard.
Checking into this quotation, widely found on the Internet, Shimon Peres was quoted in an interview with a Turkish newspaper on the eve of a state visit. When later asked if he was correctly quoted, he didn't choose to dispute it -- and indeed this may well be what he believes and said.
As you probably know, Israel isn't popular among Turks, but the Turkish military has a long history of cooperation with Israel. This actually goes back to before Zionism, when Palestine's Turkish rulers protected their Jewish subjects against local Arab violence. You may also know Turks are often quite sensitive about calling the killing of Armenians a genocide. Peres was minding his audience during a pre-visit interview and needed, for reasons of state, to avoid offending a Turkish audience.
Historically, there may be a legitimate case to be made for what Peres apparently said. According to Wikipedia:
quote:A number of Western academics in the field of Ottoman history, including Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Gilles Veinstein (College de France),[24] and Stanford Shaw (UCLA, Bilkent University) have expressed doubts as to the genocidal character of the events.
.
I wouldn't want to make that argument myself.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rivkah Chaya: Umm, regarding the "valid reproductive strategy" argument (which should get its own thread), it seems to me that what's causing the argument is the word "valid." One poster is saying that because rape can result in pregnancy, this validates it as a reproductive strategy. From a purely semantic viewpoint, this is true, however, we have another poster arguing that calling rape "valid" is dangerous language because it seems to sanction it. This is true as well, and I have heard the argument before that men are biologically programmed to rape, and therefore it shouldn't be treated as the serious crime it is.
The fact is that while rape can propagate the species, doing so probably isn't really foremost in the minds of most rapists. If it really were a significant factor, probably MORE men would rape. Another fact is that in the human species, other reproductive strategies, such as pair bonding, have proved much more successful in allowing a particular man to spread his genes than rape has.
Rape may be valid in the sense that it occasionally works as a reproductive strategy, but it doesn't work all that efficiently, and a man whose main goal is to spread his genes is probably better off making money to support a partner during a pregnancy and the infancy of the child, and being a nice guy, so she'll stick around for several preganacies.
I realize it's not really good English to have degrees of validity, but rape is "less valid," if you will, than other reproductive strategies.
Also, just because something is biologically inherent (and I'm not saying rape is; just being hypothetical for a moment), doesn't make it acceptable. Try squatting on the sidewalk the next moment you have to take a dump, and see how acceptable responding to THAT biological urge is.
As I noted in my previous post, it was Turquoise Girl who introduced the word "valid" into the discussion. Try looking for it in the post she responded to, or anything comparable. You're assuming a number of things that I simply did not say and then attacking those strawmen. You're also talking about humans and their motivations, things which have absolutely nothing to do with animal behavior. Thats another thing that Turquoise Girl introduced into the discussion.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg: There are several disturbing posts here.
Every mass murder horror is different. Who reacts to bringing up Rwanda, or the Congo, or North Korea, or the Balkans, by saying that the Jews had it at least as bad?
Should mention of the Middle Passage -- a unique horror by any measure -- result in a suggestion that there were others who suffered as well?
As for the topic title ("So every form of critical statements is anti-semitic?"), Gavida did admit to getting "carried away" in some respects. Hopefully that is included, since it is a straw man.
Uhm, not sure about the straw man comment, if it means my OP or not: Just to make sure, I didn't bring the topic up because I wanted to start an argument. I got carried away because the news sources I checked said that the accusation was "anti-semite", Don Enrico pointed out that the original comment was "anti-israeli". That cooled me down a bit.
Although I still think that the "anti-semite" card is played way too often by the Central Council or the israeli government when it comes to critics against the policy. To me it seems that the "anti-semite" comment is used against Germany a lot, as soon as german politicians voice their opinion.
I still would prefer that critical comments against the policy of Isreal would be seen as just that, nothing involving ethnicity (sp?) or religion.
In this case it was bad journalism that got me heated up.
Gavida
-------------------- "He looked bigger when I couldn't see him" - Jayne Cobb Posts: 359 | From: Essen, NRW, Germany | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every mass murder horror is different. Who reacts to bringing up Rwanda, or the Congo, or North Korea, or the Balkans, by saying that the Jews had it at least as bad?
Of course, and I believe that each of them should be used as a beacon to help us avoid such events in the future. Sometimes, though, the Jewish Holocaust tends to take total precedence over all others, and that is doing everyone a huge disservice, including the Jews (as it also overshadows possible future genocides).
quote:Historically, there may be a legitimate case to be made for what Peres apparently said. According to Wikipedia:
Sure, but that's one small part of a large article to the contrary. The article would not have been objective if it didn't mention this view, but it still goes against pretty much everything else said by every other expert.
quote:Peres was minding his audience during a pre-visit interview and needed, for reasons of state, to avoid offending a Turkish audience.
Yet that statement was widely quoted in international press.
When one holds a position such as Peres', one must make sure one only states things one actually believe and stand for, or it will come back and bite you later.
On the other hand, he sure don't speak for all Jews or even for all israelis. Israel Charny, a professor at Jerusalem University and perhaps the world's foremost scholar of the psychology of genocide. When Peres said this, Charny wrote a letter to him saying:
"...you have gone beyond a moral boundary that no Jew should allow himself to trespass...as a Jew and an Israeli I am ashamed of the extent to which you have now entered into the range of actual denial of the Armenian Genocide, comparable to denials of the Holocaust."
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orginally posted by TGirl The argument that men cannot control their hormones has been used as justification for rape for centuries. And is informing social and poltical policy in those societies in which the solution for rape is for women not to be enticing.
Thats something you take up with people attempting to use biology for political purposes. You don't attempt to revise the science itself to avoid potential misuse.
But part of the issue, Errata, is that Randy Thornhill, who did the major work and is making the claim that "rape is a reproductive strategy"-- and who repudiates the idea that rape can also be used as a form of dominance, had a clear ideological bias in doing the research. Although we all like to think that the motivations of scientists going in are completely pure, honest, and unaffected by their political or personal agenda, it is often not the case. We tend to pick an choose our research subjects according to our own predilections. We do not stop being human (and flawed) once we enter the lab.
This is particularly a big problem with animal behavior, especially as applied to human problems. As you note, humans are complex animals. But therein lies the danger in applying animal models to human behavior or to use humanly loaded words to describe animal behavior.
There are numerous examples, particularly from primate studies, in which the prevailing societal paradigm not only guides the questions that are asked, but the interpretations put on behavior. Since you don't bother to read the cites I posted before, I suggest you examine the work of Sandra Hrdy for an explanation of the inticracies of how this works.
The problem with the "rape as a reproductive strategy" (leaving out the troublesome "valid") is that people, like Randy Thornhill, can and do provide proscriptive suggestions from the results. In Thornhill's case, it was back to the same old: Women need to be more careful because men cannot help themsleves. All men are potential rapists- and it is up to women to prevent ourselves from becoming victims because the poor dears are driven to it.
Also, your determination to state that rape is used within the animal kingdom as a means of social dominance as irrelevant to the discussion is disingenuous. It is relevant because it underscores that, at least in mammals (dogs, dolphins, chimps) this may be an evolutionary adaptation that has nothing to do with reproduction.
It is not my problem if you fail to see the larger picture.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: . . . the same old: Women need to be more careful because men cannot help themsleves. All men are potential rapists- and it is up to women to prevent ourselves from becoming victims because the poor dears are driven to it.
There is, however, a sad validity to this. Generalize it a bit: all people are potentially violent, and it is up to us all to prevent ourselves from becoming victims. Some people -- including good people -- will succumb to the instinct, inherent in our hindbrains, to violence.
Do you remember the tragic case of the kid in California who killed a friend for mocking him over losing a baseball game? Even the victim's parents have argued for leniency, because of the way the rage flashed over the kid, turning a good person into a killer. The hell of it is that we *all* have that rage programmed into our brains.
With rape, the only thing I'd add is that it is up to us *all* -- not just women -- to be on guard against the sudden eruption of bestial instincts. For every instance of males cooperating and abetting in a rape, there are other instances of males holding back one of their number, restraining him from committing that crime.
Civilization is fragile...but it does appear to be attainable.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a fine line to walk. There are certainly things that can be done to reduce or minimize the possibility of rape or any other violent crime. The problem is how to point out those items without making it seem like someone who didn't do those things was "asking for it". It is especially a problem with rape because that exact thing has been done before. It is even more of a problem because using specific examples to show where something could have been avoided seems to place the onus on the victim.
Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't control someone else's behaviour. So the only thing you can do is to control you behaviour to limit their chances to do something bad.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre"
But that's the sort of thing I'm nitpicking against. It's not an Armenian Holocaust, because the Holocaust refers to a specific event - therefore, this is an inappropriate use of the term.
I'm not taking sides, but I did want to point out that the word "holocaust" had a meaning independent of,and prior to, the Shoah.
There's a difference between the word holocaust and it's definition, and the Holocaust, the event.
-------------------- If you say you love ice cream, you better be dreaming of an orgy with Ben, Jerry, and one fine-ass chunky monkey.
-- My sister and poet extraordinaire, Joanna Hoffman Posts: 1475 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't control someone else's behaviour. So the only thing you can do is to control you behaviour to limit their chances to do something bad.
Yep. For my part, I'm a member of a local "Take Back the Night" group, which petitions City Hall for more streetlights in dangerous areas, more police patrols, etc.
It's a small thing...but many a mickle maks a muckle.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: There is, however, a sad validity to this. Generalize it a bit: all people are potentially violent, and it is up to us all to prevent ourselves from becoming victims. Some people -- including good people -- will succumb to the instinct, inherent in our hindbrains, to violence.
No offense Silas but isn't that a rather defeatist attitude?
I mean come on now let's be honest, we're a bunch of fairly bright people on this board. Do you honestly think me or you or others on this board couldn't commit and crime and be able to get away with it?
I agree that there is a violence in inherent in all of us, and in a slight hijack unlighk most I don't see that violence to be an across the board bad thing. Violence, when channeled properly, can be incrediably usefull.
But I think we're missing an X-factor here somewhere.
The old "Well everybody has a violent side..." matra, while true, really says nothing.
We're all violent, but we're not all killers and rapist.
There has to be something that allows some of us to through some miracle make it a day through the same world as the killers and sadist without managing to kill or rape anyone.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TurquoiseGirl, nothing at all that Randy Thornhill or anyone else has to say on it will change reality. He can say that the sky is blue thus proving the superiority of the Aryan race. But that nonsense wouldn't mean that it was suddenly politically incorrect to observe that the sky was blue and we should avoid mentioning it, or that we should start calling it "cyan" or "cornflower" to avoid the negative connotations of "blue". The misapplication is the problem, not the original observation.
Applying animal behavior as a justification for unacceptable human behavior is the problem. Animal behavior is not the problem. Vocabulary is also not the problem. When animals do things that parallel human actions we frequently use the same verb to describe it, even though animals generally have far less sophisticated nuances to those actions. You're part of the problem when you try to edit language and deny common sense as a means to argue with people who might potentially try to take the underlying concepts they express a step too far.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a fine line to walk. There are certainly things that can be done to reduce or minimize the possibility of rape or any other violent crime. The problem is how to point out those items without making it seem like someone who didn't do those things was "asking for it". It is especially a problem with rape because that exact thing has been done before. It is even more of a problem because using specific examples to show where something could have been avoided seems to place the onus on the victim.
Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't control someone else's behaviour. So the only thing you can do is to control you behaviour to limit their chances to do something bad.
Good points. Sometimes things happen, even though they shouldn't. That does not make it right, but by understanding why they happen, we can to some extent avoid some risks. This does not mean that those who didn't avoid those risks deserved it, just that it may sometimes be a sensible thing to do.
Let's for a while leave rape, as that subject is way too sensitive and loaded with a whole bunch of other issues.
Let's say someone waves a knife at you. Of course he should not stab you, there's a law against that. Does that mean that you should just tell him to go eff himself with his tiny dick? Of course, you are well within your right to do so, but most would consider that inadvisable.
This is of course an extreme example, but the logic still applies. Of course women should not have to be afraid of rapists, but as things are and until the problem is under control, it might be sensible to avoid certain high risk situations (going home alone and drunk late at night instead of taking a taxi, riding alone in a car with several male strangers and so on). If she choose to not take such precautions, it's no mitigating circumstance for the perpetrators and it's not her fault, but she still have to live with an experience that perhaps could have been avoided.
This is not limited to women and rape, men also has to consider such risks. I've been attacked enough times going home at night to know that there is a very real danger to men as well.
Society is not perfect, and sometimes you have to be prepared to handle that, even though you, in an ideal world, shouldn't have to.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I have to agree with Troberg on this one.
It does seem like asking women to accept the fact that rape is a possibility is seen as akin to "blaming the victim" in many situation.
"Doing this increases your chances of getting raped, therefore you should not do this" is not the same saying "If you do this, you deserve to get raped."
Causality and blame are not synonmous.
Let's look at the classic, cliched example. A woman goes out in revealing clothing. Is she "asking" to be raped? Of course not that's ludicrious. But is she increasing her chances of being raped? Perhaps.
We have got to be able to give women the information they need to avoid being raped without being accused of telling the women who don't follow the advice that they "deserved it."
We can't stop all rapists any more then we can stop all criminals of any other type. So telling women "they are rapist out there, and here's ways you can avoid them" is no more "insulting" to the victims of rape then telling people how to avoid being mugged or scammed or swindled or anything else.
Should a woman be able to wear anything she wants and not be raped? Of course.
Should be able to go out, get plastered, and not be raped? Of course.
Hell a woman should be able to walk buck naked down the street in the worst part of town drunk off her ass and have zero chance of being raped. But that ain't going to happen. Not on this planet, not in this lifetime.
So telling women not to walk walk alone, wear revealing clothing in certain situations, go back to hotel rooms with men they don't know, be extra catious when accepting drinks from strangers, etc, etc should be immediatley bring about some kind of "I am womyn hear me roar!" ranting accusations about how you're saying that women who do those things "deserved" to be raped.
Asking a person to take reasonable precautions against crimes is not telling then that the crimes are their fault if they happen.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: There is, however, a sad validity to this. Generalize it a bit: all people are potentially violent, and it is up to us all to prevent ourselves from becoming victims. Some people -- including good people -- will succumb to the instinct, inherent in our hindbrains, to violence.
No offense Silas but isn't that a rather defeatist attitude?
Well, let's face it: crime is going to happen. No civilization in human history has been free of it.
quote: I mean come on now let's be honest, we're a bunch of fairly bright people on this board. Do you honestly think me or you or others on this board couldn't commit and crime and be able to get away with it?
Grin! We're bright enough to know we *can't* get away with it, and so won't try!
quote: I agree that there is a violence in inherent in all of us, and in a slight hijack unlighk most I don't see that violence to be an across the board bad thing. Violence, when channeled properly, can be incrediably usefull.
I'll reserve judgement on violence per se, but it's psychological ally, aggression, is definitely useful. When sublimated into mere assertion, it can be almost civilized.
It's like the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Without the ability to kill, our distant ancestors would not have survived.
However, there is too much of a good thing...
quote: But I think we're missing an X-factor here somewhere.
The old "Well everybody has a violent side..." matra, while true, really says nothing.
We're all violent, but we're not all killers and rapist.
True. But, again, in any group of 100,000 people, at least one will be a killer or a rapist. Just ugly truth.
quote: There has to be something that allows some of us to through some miracle make it a day through the same world as the killers and sadist without managing to kill or rape anyone.
Sure. Self-restraint. A good set of psychological "brakes." Most of us, even in the full flower of sexual arousal, could stop, cold, if asked to. But there are those who can't.
Humanity stinks...but it's the only game in town right now.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Errata: TurquoiseGirl, nothing at all that Randy Thornhill or anyone else has to say on it will change reality. He can say that the sky is blue thus proving the superiority of the Aryan race. But that nonsense wouldn't mean that it was suddenly politically incorrect to observe that the sky was blue and we should avoid mentioning it, or that we should start calling it "cyan" or "cornflower" to avoid the negative connotations of "blue". The misapplication is the problem, not the original observation.
Applying animal behavior as a justification for unacceptable human behavior is the problem. Animal behavior is not the problem. Vocabulary is also not the problem. When animals do things that parallel human actions we frequently use the same verb to describe it, even though animals generally have far less sophisticated nuances to those actions. You're part of the problem when you try to edit language and deny common sense as a means to argue with people who might potentially try to take the underlying concepts they express a step too far.
Do you mean general "you" "you" or me specifically here.
I believe, that of the two of us, I have a far more nuanced view of the subject. It was you originally who described the original objector to a discussion of "rape" as a reproductive strategy as some sort of odd "political correctness". And felt the need to bring it up in a totally unrelated thread.
As far as trying to "edit language", I am not sure to what you are refering. If it is my suggestion that perhaps "rape" is not the best descriptor, being, for whatever reason, an emotionally loaded word with large societal context, for what goes on in animals, I stand by it. Part of science is being precise in your description. "Forced copulation" would more accurately describe the animal behavior. There is no need to apply an emotionally loaded word.
This is not just a topic in animal behavior, by the way. Within living memory, specifically my undergrad developmental biology book, menstruation was described as "the mourning of a disappointed uterus". Quite emotionally loaded, and not accurate. A uterus cannot mourn nor be disappointed.
This is part of the social aspect of doing science. It is disingenuous and part of the problem to suggest that science, in and of itself, is free of cultural bias or loaded language, or that it need not concern itself with such. Like it or not, words help determine how we frame questions, and, sometimes, relay our assumptions about them.
Furthermore, although I have attempted to keep this discussion about ideas, it is you who have taken it upon yourself to lecture me about how I should be thinking. I kindly suggest that you take your patronizing attitude and blow it out your anal sphincter.
ETA: Silas and Genyus: Yes, I agree that crime prevention is important. But GenYus hit it on the head when he said that the problem, in this case, that putting a lot of the onus of prevention on women is that it does feed into the "if it happened to you, you must have done something wrong." This is added to the fact that we are trained from at least puberty, how to keep ourselves safe. We get the training. We take self-defense. We walk confidently to our cars at night and get escorts if it's scarey.
From my perspective, until recently, there has been a dearth of emphasis on men's behavior. I know that is changing, and I truly appreciate those of you who are actively working to stop this problem and educate other men. Because I really believe that those men who don't respect women are not going to take into account anything we say. They may, however, listen to other men.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your suggested 6 syllables carry the same meaning as 1, except for the extreme political correctness. Such careful neutrality might fit in a published article, but its out of place in a discussion. No amount of human "societal context" will affect whether such a strategy will be a successful adaptation in a given animal population. Your "nuanced" views regarding this subject are not scientific.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: Within living memory, specifically my undergrad developmental biology book, menstruation was described as "the mourning of a disappointed uterus". Quite emotionally loaded, and not accurate. A uterus cannot mourn nor be disappointed.
That's kinda poetic, though. I can see Stephen Jay Gould using such a phrase, not in any technical sense, but just as a flourish of language.
(snopester Echinodermata Q. Taft taught me to think of "pus" as "heroic white blood cells which have given their lives defending me against infection.")
quote: ETA: Silas and Genyus: Yes, I agree that crime prevention is important. But GenYus hit it on the head when he said that the problem, in this case, that putting a lot of the onus of prevention on women is that it does feed into the "if it happened to you, you must have done something wrong." This is added to the fact that we are trained from at least puberty, how to keep ourselves safe. We get the training. We take self-defense. We walk confidently to our cars at night and get escorts if it's scarey.
Well, while only women are commonly raped (male rape exists but is quite rare) violent crime can happen to anyone. Doesn't help much if you're a 6-8 300 pound NFL linebacker when there are four baddies with knives...
I prefer to think of it as "taking personal responsibility for my own increased safety." i.e., no one should be blamed for being a victim, but should simply be careful and observant in risky environments.
Anyone who flips the logic around to its converse -- "If you were attacked, you must not have been careful enough" -- is a cluck, and ought to be slathered in motor oil and shoved down Lombard Street. The logic I recommend is, "If you are careful, your likelihood of being attacked is lessened somewhat."
quote: From my perspective, until recently, there has been a dearth of emphasis on men's behavior. I know that is changing, and I truly appreciate those of you who are actively working to stop this problem and educate other men. Because I really believe that those men who don't respect women are not going to take into account anything we say. They may, however, listen to other men.
I very much want to be a good bloke. One problem I have is that I'm big, hairy, ugly, and kinda scary looking. I have given fright to women at night, and I hate that. In fact, it's one reason I wear glasses instead of contacts or seeking corrective surgery: a pair of specs make a chap look a little less menacing.
Dumb, but there you have it. (Dumb? There you have me!)
Freedom from Fear is far from the least of the great Four Freedoms.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: [QUOTE]Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: [qb]Within living memory, specifically my undergrad developmental biology book, menstruation was described as "the mourning of a disappointed uterus". Quite emotionally loaded, and not accurate. A uterus cannot mourn nor be disappointed.
quote:That's kinda poetic, though. I can see Stephen Jay Gould using such a phrase, not in any technical sense, but just as a flourish of language.
Time and a place, though. Developmental biology is neither.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: ... Within living memory, specifically my undergrad developmental biology book, menstruation was described as "the mourning of a disappointed uterus". Quite emotionally loaded, and not accurate. A uterus cannot mourn nor be disappointed. ...
That's ... ummm, hysterical!
Nick
-------------------- Don't forget to register for the New ULMB.
quote:Asking a person to take reasonable precautions against crimes is not telling then that the crimes are their fault if they happen.
Exactly. Taking these precautions are not the solution, it's a way to get by until the problem is solved by other means.
This applies to all crimes by the way. Sweden is currently just a few weeks away from an election, and it was recently revealed that one part has hacked the network of another party and has been accessing their files. Kind of like Watergate, except it has caused amazingly little reactions. The point here is that the offending party made some lame attempt at defending themselves with "but their security was so bad". It doesn't matter how bad the security is, you had no business there and it does not make your guilt any smaller. It may make the offended party look bad as well, but the crime is the same. This election has been a bloody circus, with people from one party posing as election workers for another party doing their best to smear them, certain parties web sites blocked from public computers and from the computers of public employees and so on. If it was up to me, I would place the nation under a temporary government and postpone the election 6 or 12 months until things has calmed down and order is restored.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: This is not just a topic in animal behavior, by the way. Within living memory, specifically my undergrad developmental biology book, menstruation was described as "the mourning of a disappointed uterus". Quite emotionally loaded, and not accurate. A uterus cannot mourn nor be disappointed.
Forgive me if I believe that not even then every biology book were written by such wannabe novelists as that one.
Seriously, I fail to see your objections to Errata's position. I think you're overreacting - words are words. The supposed "emotional baggage" they may carry for somebody - I don't believe for a moment that any word in the world has an universal emotional baggage - should not prevent the use of it when used to describe the very thing it represents.
Saying that "forced copulation" is more accurate than "rape" is not true, because that's what rape is. You might as well say that "nutritive secretions from mammary glands" is more accurate than "milk", but it's not more accurate. It's, at best, more descriptive.
Jaime
-------------------- "Everyone has problems. They only vary in design" - Mama Duck Posts: 4988 | From: Spain | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: I mean come on now let's be honest, we're a bunch of fairly bright people on this board. Do you honestly think me or you or others on this board couldn't commit and crime and be able to get away with it?
Grin! We're bright enough to know we *can't* get away with it, and so won't try!
Some people may recall that about this time last year I was placed under arrest for "Suspicion of theft from employer". Over night, when I had the keys to the shop I managed, somebody came in during the night and took £636 from the safe. This was not the entirety of the money there and was taken in wierd denominations (all the bags of £1 coins for example, WTF?). The crime was committed by my then assistant manager who was the only other person to commit said crime, however due to my actions, there wasn't enough evidence to prove this either way. He got the money and promptly left the company never to be seen again. Jerk.
Anyway, whilst in a cell, I was thinking "Hell, I should've just taken the money for this damn hassle I'm getting". The company dropped the charges. Small crimes like that should be relatively easy to commit and get away with. You need to think like a detective, make sure that you're an unlikely suspect, have no morals, and be a good actor. I'd fail at point four.
Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
