Sociobiological Feminism
In response to: http://meropespeaks.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/slutwalk-rebuttal-paper/
Some thoughts from a man.
“By re-framing sex as a natural communication between consenting adults rather than a shameful and secret act, we begin to discourage the usage of sex as a method of acquiring power.” This is, I think, the most excellent idea from your article.
As mammals, as primates, and as embodied human beings deeply sensitive from birth to the bodies of our families, friends, and strangers, it is important to frame feminist liberation within a framework that recognizes the vast field of the interplay and communication that happens below the level of explicit linguistic symbolism. Why?
Research in evolutionary biology, sociology, and comparative primatology makes clear that certain consistencies exist universally across thousands of human cultures. These consistencies - let me state very clearly - are not universals; they do not mimic explicit linguistic cultural memes. But they can be gestured toward in a general way to include such things as the intrinsic meaning of body shapes (including height, width of hips, and facial ratios) as well as gestures (including standing tall, opening of legs, displaying genitals from the rear or from the front). In these areas, human beings share a great deal, broadly speaking, with the pre-cultural behavior of our primate cousins.
Feminist evolutionary biologists, intelligent sociobiologists, and phenomenologists - among others - have made clear that such cultural consistences do not translate (and musn’t be translated) into essentialistic commentaries on the biological basis of behavior. With every People’s Movement the boundaries between what is and what is not possible are changed. Foucault and his followers were right up to a point: there are an infinite array of cultural renderings if our underlying biological nature.
Men are aroused by female movements and female bodies. This is not only an utterly natural and healthy phenomenon, but also a phenomenon that follows certain stereotyped instinctual patterns. HOWEVER. It is neither ethical nor empirical to make the categorical jump from presenting behavior in gorillas (e.g., display the hindquarters to another member of the troop is directly experienced as an invitation for coitus or else as a expression of submissiveness) straight to an idiotic claim such as “if a women wears a short skirt and swishes her hips as she departs, it means I should follow her to her apartment and rape her.”
The improving equality between men and women, which has been on the move now for hundreds of thousands of years (as evidenced by increasing parity in body size), has a lot to do with culture and language. Mary Wollstonecraft was right when she argued that women, too, were “Rational Men”, in the language of 19th century Europe. Although sexual interaction is at its root a biological and physical experience, is it just as deeply awash in the complex emotional, poetic, and cultural details of our modern human lives.
Consent is obviously a nuanced and mature concept that cannot be acquainted with piss-poor biological justifications sadly still present in some court rooms. Nevertheless, male desire is and will continue for millennia to be instinctually rooted in (but not finally determined by) preferences for certain smells, movement patterns, and geometries.
A compelling confusion arises in this field, however, because male desire is rooted in and bounded by instinct in such a way that the most depraved of men’s behaviors as well as the highest beauty of his erotic nature are both marked by the stereotypes of his primate mammalian heritage. I disagree that,
“As long as it is represented within our culture as at least somewhat acceptable for men to feel entitled to sexual gratification, tactics like coercion, manipulation, and violent force will be employed.”
Instead of this extreme viewpoint, which seems to leave no space for male desire in society and its relationships, I suggest a different way to phrase the issue. An example can clarify. Imagine a man and a women in their consensual love-making and foreplay embracing the man’s love of the woman’s round “ass,” giving room for his near-obsession with its shape and textures so that his desires develop in sublime reciprocity with her own pleasures, stimulating hers and free hers even as his own flies free. How different this is to the leering rapist consuming his victims and projecting on their psyches a willingness to comply with his solipsistic desire. Both men are conditioned by instinct to respond to similar shapes, movements, and smells. But a vast ethical different separates them.
This is the conundrum we must face. When we research men’s violence, we discover (some of) what is it to be male. But from this does not follow that when we speak of Male Nature, we must necessary justify rape! God forbid.
Jackson writes, “The acceptance of social trust shouldn’t be punished; it isn’t naïve thinking.” She is exactly right. Social trust is based on cultural norms for ethical behavior and on personal commitments based on mutual understanding and reciprocal communication. It should be worked for, believed in, and fought for, and it is not naive. It would be naive to mistake the transformative debate and sincere dialogue underway on the path of this ideal with daily interaction with unknown men who may or may not be avowed participants in this cultural exploration of justice and gender harmony. This is why women’s self-defense and situational awareness classes prevent rape and empower women. But these women’s gatherings only complement the “Slutwalk” marches and literature reclaiming “Slut” from its derogatory connotations. The first method empowers women to fight with battle tactics men who are not yet persuaded by the lure of higher ideals. The second is part of a larger conversation between compassionate, self-confident men and compassionate, self-confident women who wish to consummate love, partnership, community, and friendship in a spirit of dignity, joy, and mutual understanding.
And get laid, too.
Some thoughts from a man.
“By re-framing sex as a natural communication between consenting adults rather than a shameful and secret act, we begin to discourage the usage of sex as a method of acquiring power.” This is, I think, the most excellent idea from your article.
As mammals, as primates, and as embodied human beings deeply sensitive from birth to the bodies of our families, friends, and strangers, it is important to frame feminist liberation within a framework that recognizes the vast field of the interplay and communication that happens below the level of explicit linguistic symbolism. Why?
Research in evolutionary biology, sociology, and comparative primatology makes clear that certain consistencies exist universally across thousands of human cultures. These consistencies - let me state very clearly - are not universals; they do not mimic explicit linguistic cultural memes. But they can be gestured toward in a general way to include such things as the intrinsic meaning of body shapes (including height, width of hips, and facial ratios) as well as gestures (including standing tall, opening of legs, displaying genitals from the rear or from the front). In these areas, human beings share a great deal, broadly speaking, with the pre-cultural behavior of our primate cousins.
Feminist evolutionary biologists, intelligent sociobiologists, and phenomenologists - among others - have made clear that such cultural consistences do not translate (and musn’t be translated) into essentialistic commentaries on the biological basis of behavior. With every People’s Movement the boundaries between what is and what is not possible are changed. Foucault and his followers were right up to a point: there are an infinite array of cultural renderings if our underlying biological nature.
Men are aroused by female movements and female bodies. This is not only an utterly natural and healthy phenomenon, but also a phenomenon that follows certain stereotyped instinctual patterns. HOWEVER. It is neither ethical nor empirical to make the categorical jump from presenting behavior in gorillas (e.g., display the hindquarters to another member of the troop is directly experienced as an invitation for coitus or else as a expression of submissiveness) straight to an idiotic claim such as “if a women wears a short skirt and swishes her hips as she departs, it means I should follow her to her apartment and rape her.”
The improving equality between men and women, which has been on the move now for hundreds of thousands of years (as evidenced by increasing parity in body size), has a lot to do with culture and language. Mary Wollstonecraft was right when she argued that women, too, were “Rational Men”, in the language of 19th century Europe. Although sexual interaction is at its root a biological and physical experience, is it just as deeply awash in the complex emotional, poetic, and cultural details of our modern human lives.
Consent is obviously a nuanced and mature concept that cannot be acquainted with piss-poor biological justifications sadly still present in some court rooms. Nevertheless, male desire is and will continue for millennia to be instinctually rooted in (but not finally determined by) preferences for certain smells, movement patterns, and geometries.
A compelling confusion arises in this field, however, because male desire is rooted in and bounded by instinct in such a way that the most depraved of men’s behaviors as well as the highest beauty of his erotic nature are both marked by the stereotypes of his primate mammalian heritage. I disagree that,
“As long as it is represented within our culture as at least somewhat acceptable for men to feel entitled to sexual gratification, tactics like coercion, manipulation, and violent force will be employed.”
Instead of this extreme viewpoint, which seems to leave no space for male desire in society and its relationships, I suggest a different way to phrase the issue. An example can clarify. Imagine a man and a women in their consensual love-making and foreplay embracing the man’s love of the woman’s round “ass,” giving room for his near-obsession with its shape and textures so that his desires develop in sublime reciprocity with her own pleasures, stimulating hers and free hers even as his own flies free. How different this is to the leering rapist consuming his victims and projecting on their psyches a willingness to comply with his solipsistic desire. Both men are conditioned by instinct to respond to similar shapes, movements, and smells. But a vast ethical different separates them.
This is the conundrum we must face. When we research men’s violence, we discover (some of) what is it to be male. But from this does not follow that when we speak of Male Nature, we must necessary justify rape! God forbid.
Jackson writes, “The acceptance of social trust shouldn’t be punished; it isn’t naïve thinking.” She is exactly right. Social trust is based on cultural norms for ethical behavior and on personal commitments based on mutual understanding and reciprocal communication. It should be worked for, believed in, and fought for, and it is not naive. It would be naive to mistake the transformative debate and sincere dialogue underway on the path of this ideal with daily interaction with unknown men who may or may not be avowed participants in this cultural exploration of justice and gender harmony. This is why women’s self-defense and situational awareness classes prevent rape and empower women. But these women’s gatherings only complement the “Slutwalk” marches and literature reclaiming “Slut” from its derogatory connotations. The first method empowers women to fight with battle tactics men who are not yet persuaded by the lure of higher ideals. The second is part of a larger conversation between compassionate, self-confident men and compassionate, self-confident women who wish to consummate love, partnership, community, and friendship in a spirit of dignity, joy, and mutual understanding.
And get laid, too.