|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Shez (shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:35:29 +0100
In article <50nfm6$aua@argo.unm.edu>, Bryant <mycol1@unm.edu> writes
>In article <qp+5T$AH5uLyEwum@oldcity.demon.co.uk>,
>Shez <shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <50i423$3fmk@argo.unm.edu>, Bryant <mycol1@unm.edu> writes
>
>>Perhaps my memory is slipping ,but I do seem to recall, statistics
>>showing that many rapists, do not eject, and do not leave semen in the
>>vagina, Surely that is not a evoulutionary adaption, its just a need to
>>control, to be powerfull,
>
>1. I wasn't defending the specific hypothesis of rape being an evolved
> mating strategy for males--only the right of scientists to test that
> hypothesis.
>
>2. Current adaptiveness can be a tricky way to assess ancestral fitness.
> If I were inclined to defend the hypothesis, I'd probably argue that
> *if* rape led to pregnancy only one time in fifty, and men raped when
> they had little chance of mating non-coercively, then rape behavior
> would be favored by natural selection, *unless* there were sure and
> severe costs to the rapist's fitness.
>
>>how can you fit your general theory that rape
>>is ok, because it is a natural adaption into those statistics.
>>to me those who rape a woman or a man, are the lowest form of life.
>
>Um, what are you trying to say? Nobody presented a general theory that
>rape is "ok" or morally acceptable. That was a view explicitely denounced
>by all sides of this discussion.
>
>Nature cannot inform our morality. If it did, we would think that killing
>babies and eating our mates were acceptable, because these things occur in
>nature.
>
>>it may not be a scientific theory , but it is mine.
>>I am sure you will adapt and come up with an answer.
>
>Actually, your moral statement is not a "theory" at all (neither is the
>evolutionary hypothesis of rape being discussed).
>
>A theory is a hypothesis that has been so well tested that folks have begun
>to feel that it's safe to treat it as if it might actually be an accurate
>approximation of the way a given something is.
>
>The idea being discussed is a "working hypothesis," tested only once (by
>Thornhill but none of his critics). Hence it's still a hypothesis.
>
>Your statement was moral assertion, and is of course utterly untestable,
>scientifically. 'That make sense?
>
>Cheers,
>
> Bryant
>
>>Shez shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
>
>
Bryant. just found your reply these threads are impossible sometimes.
Yes you are right mine was a moral assertion, but to some extent
everyone is biased by there own morals and upbringing.
You caught me on a very sore spot, I have seen what rape can do,
and my reaction was therefore based on emotion .
You state * "I think a lot remains to be studied in terms of rape
being a specific mating adaptation in humans instead of a behavioral
side-effect of coercive and sex-seeking modules, but the way to get at
whether this null hypotheses is viable is to first rigorously test the
adaptation hypothesis. Not one of Thornhill's critics has bothered."*
If you personaly (and I do not think you will, this is hypothetical)
were going to test this weak hypotheses,
no doubt your findings will be published, If they are published, then
others will also test your Hypotheses, untill a theory is arrived at.
Should that theory state that it is possibly a specific mating
adaptation in humans then the general public will no doubt be informed
by a hungry for news media.
It will be brought to the attention of the lawyers, and the next rapist
would have his council arguing that the poor man could not help it, it
being a specific mating adaptation.
Sounds far fetched ? in this day and age no, I do not think so. I have
seen good defence strategy based on almost incoherent scientific theory.
Testing Scientific theory or Hypothesis, is neccicary, but people
generally will react in ways that that the Scientist did not expect.
what has been said in theory becomes public fact, and is often taken
completly out of context. consider this thread.
Having re read the post, I was not objective enough. and for that I
appologise, but I am human, and you touched a sore spot. and as you
yourself said *"Personal pain and ideology or religion exasperate the
situation."* of course they do. To reason the probable results of such a
theory must also be part of the equation, there must be some insight
into the probable reaction,
--
Shez shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
|