Women, Evolution, and Rape: Rejoinder Part 2
25/01/11 21:43 Filed in: Human Nature
This is a continuation of an earlier post.
4. Claim 2: “"When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points.”” Here, aside from the question about the definition of rape raised in point 1 above, we must also ask, Is this fact a result of evolving to avoid rape or is it, rather, a result of cultural interpretations of rape in our own society? Women might be told that men are likely to rape them because they are sexually attractive or because they are more fertile, but that does not mean that rapists are more likely to attack during those times. In other words, despite the historico-evolutionary aspects of rape, we must also consider how culture influences a person’s interpretation of the pictures of men shown. Here we have a question of data and interpretation.
5. Claim 3: “At least two studies have demonstrated that women at the peak of their fertility are less likely than their peers to have engaged in high-risk activities such as walking alone in a park or forest, letting a stranger into the house, or stopping their cars in a remote place over the preceding 24 hours. Importantly, as German investigators Arndt Bröder and Natalia Hohmann established, ovulating women are not less active in general—they're still busy shopping, going to church, visiting friends, and so on—but they avoid doing those things that make them sexually vulnerable.””
First, a question on the data. Do we also include in this “high-risk activities” being alone with a spouse? Presumably, if women are raped when they are fertile for penetration, then husbands would be the ones more likely to rape them. So being around a husband would also count as a risky behavior.
Second, here we have a question of how we define “high risk activities.” How are these high risk activities coordinated with being alone? Perhaps ovulating women are more social than non-ovulating women, and so the issue isn’t high risk activities, but solitude versus social engagement.
Third, the reader of my blog was right to suggest that “it doesn't seem too tough to imagine straying far from the center of a small social group (say a hunter-gatherer camp) would manifest as not walking through a park at night in a modern context.” Issues of interpretation of the date remain.
6. “Ovulating women are more racists.” In this case, the experimenters note that what has been selected against is engagement with out-group males, and race may be interpreted as a sign of an out-group male. Here, the theory asserts that women avoid those who may not have the same social values and controls as those of their in-group.
Given the question over the biological basis of rape, this conclusion becomes all the more difficult to defend. Biologists and social theorists have shown that skin color varies more within a “race” than between “races.” This means that skin coloration would be used to identify in-group members rather than out-group members.
The authors of this particular study, however, note that cultural associations may be as informative of behavior as evolutionary elements. If we accept this point, however, then we must also bring into play the element of cultural understandings of rape. Once we do that, though, it becomes unclear how rape and ovulation are tied together at the biologico-evolutionary level rather than at the cultural-sociological level. In other words, the interpretation of the data is too in question to make the claim that women have evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault.
4. Claim 2: “"When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points.”” Here, aside from the question about the definition of rape raised in point 1 above, we must also ask, Is this fact a result of evolving to avoid rape or is it, rather, a result of cultural interpretations of rape in our own society? Women might be told that men are likely to rape them because they are sexually attractive or because they are more fertile, but that does not mean that rapists are more likely to attack during those times. In other words, despite the historico-evolutionary aspects of rape, we must also consider how culture influences a person’s interpretation of the pictures of men shown. Here we have a question of data and interpretation.
5. Claim 3: “At least two studies have demonstrated that women at the peak of their fertility are less likely than their peers to have engaged in high-risk activities such as walking alone in a park or forest, letting a stranger into the house, or stopping their cars in a remote place over the preceding 24 hours. Importantly, as German investigators Arndt Bröder and Natalia Hohmann established, ovulating women are not less active in general—they're still busy shopping, going to church, visiting friends, and so on—but they avoid doing those things that make them sexually vulnerable.””
First, a question on the data. Do we also include in this “high-risk activities” being alone with a spouse? Presumably, if women are raped when they are fertile for penetration, then husbands would be the ones more likely to rape them. So being around a husband would also count as a risky behavior.
Second, here we have a question of how we define “high risk activities.” How are these high risk activities coordinated with being alone? Perhaps ovulating women are more social than non-ovulating women, and so the issue isn’t high risk activities, but solitude versus social engagement.
Third, the reader of my blog was right to suggest that “it doesn't seem too tough to imagine straying far from the center of a small social group (say a hunter-gatherer camp) would manifest as not walking through a park at night in a modern context.” Issues of interpretation of the date remain.
6. “Ovulating women are more racists.” In this case, the experimenters note that what has been selected against is engagement with out-group males, and race may be interpreted as a sign of an out-group male. Here, the theory asserts that women avoid those who may not have the same social values and controls as those of their in-group.
Given the question over the biological basis of rape, this conclusion becomes all the more difficult to defend. Biologists and social theorists have shown that skin color varies more within a “race” than between “races.” This means that skin coloration would be used to identify in-group members rather than out-group members.
The authors of this particular study, however, note that cultural associations may be as informative of behavior as evolutionary elements. If we accept this point, however, then we must also bring into play the element of cultural understandings of rape. Once we do that, though, it becomes unclear how rape and ovulation are tied together at the biologico-evolutionary level rather than at the cultural-sociological level. In other words, the interpretation of the data is too in question to make the claim that women have evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault.
Comments
Women, Evolution, and Rape: Rejoinder Part 1
24/01/11 20:58 Filed in: Human Nature
A reader asked concerning an earlier post on rape what exactly I was objecting to in this article. I appreciate his (and your) reading my post and asking a question. He was right to challenge me to provide a more thorough analysis of the claims made in the original article. In my earlier post, I challenged mainly the definition of rape in the article: “rape will be defined throughout this article as the use of force, or threat of force, to achieve penile-vaginal penetration of a woman without her consent.” Clearly, if one does not accept this definition, and I see no good reason to do so, then one will question the more general facts collected and the interpretation of those facts. I will use this post to respond to the particular claims raised. To wit...
1. Consider, first off, the data collected. All of the date centers around the ovulation of the woman. Thus, claim one is that women are stronger during ovulation, because they are more likely to be raped at that time. But, if we do not accept the definition of rape, then why should we link female strength of ovulation with a evolved response to rape. The same question can be asked about estimating a man’s possibility as a rapist, avoiding safe place during ovulation, and “racism” during ovulation. So, to begin, I question the link of these facts -- assuming, of course, that these are indeed facts -- to an evolved response to rape.
2. Part of the explanation behind evolution and rape is that men who raped were more likely to impregnate women than men who did not rape. Therefore, we have more rapists in our male population now than in the past, because rapists have outproduced men. If this were true, then we would see a corollary in the female population. It would be women who were susceptible to rape who tended to reproduce -- thus producing more women who were similar susceptible to rape. So, it should be the case, following the logic about rapists in the male population, that women-susceptible to rape -- that is, women who are weaker not stronger, women who are not careful about classifying men as rapists, women who are more prone to visit “unsafe” places, and women who are less racists -- would be more prevalent in the general female population today. The way the article is written, however, is that either most or all women are just the opposite. The facts as presented in the article, then, contradict the idea that women have evolved to defend themselves against rape when rape is defined in any way.
3. Claim 1: Ovulating women show greater strength then non-ovulating women. The author writes: “Only the ovulating women who read the sexual assault scenario exhibited an increase in handgrip strength. Ovulating women who read the control passage and nonovulatory women who read the sexual assault material grasped with the same intensity as before.” Increased strength coordinated, then, when two events presented themselves: ovulation and exposure to a sexual assault scenario. I have no reason to question the data itself, but I would question the interpretation. Why should researchers link increased strength with fear of or defense against rape? Consider, for instance, that some studies show that men become more aroused when exposed to sexual assault material. Could not women who are ovulating show increased strength, not because they are afraid, but because they too would like to be in control? (NB: I am not claiming here, and never would claim, that women are turned on by the idea of being rape. Rather, I am suggesting that women might be turned on by the idea of being in control of the sexual encounter.) Would it not make more evolutionary sense to suggest that women have increased strength when they are ovulating so that they can beat other women at mating with the “prime” male of the species?
Further, it is not enough to show that ovulating women exposed to sexual assault scenarios are stronger than ovulating women shown neutral scenarios. Shouldn’t we also compare their strength to ovulating women who are exposed to violent scenarios without rape or sexual assault involved? And, what was the nature of the sexual assault material: male on female, male on male, female on male, or female on female? These questions must be answered and investigated before making the claim that women have evolved greater strength as a response to the threat of rape, especially given the questions raised in point 1 & 2 above.
I will continue this discussion in a separate post tomorrow looking at the other three claims the study makes....
1. Consider, first off, the data collected. All of the date centers around the ovulation of the woman. Thus, claim one is that women are stronger during ovulation, because they are more likely to be raped at that time. But, if we do not accept the definition of rape, then why should we link female strength of ovulation with a evolved response to rape. The same question can be asked about estimating a man’s possibility as a rapist, avoiding safe place during ovulation, and “racism” during ovulation. So, to begin, I question the link of these facts -- assuming, of course, that these are indeed facts -- to an evolved response to rape.
2. Part of the explanation behind evolution and rape is that men who raped were more likely to impregnate women than men who did not rape. Therefore, we have more rapists in our male population now than in the past, because rapists have outproduced men. If this were true, then we would see a corollary in the female population. It would be women who were susceptible to rape who tended to reproduce -- thus producing more women who were similar susceptible to rape. So, it should be the case, following the logic about rapists in the male population, that women-susceptible to rape -- that is, women who are weaker not stronger, women who are not careful about classifying men as rapists, women who are more prone to visit “unsafe” places, and women who are less racists -- would be more prevalent in the general female population today. The way the article is written, however, is that either most or all women are just the opposite. The facts as presented in the article, then, contradict the idea that women have evolved to defend themselves against rape when rape is defined in any way.
3. Claim 1: Ovulating women show greater strength then non-ovulating women. The author writes: “Only the ovulating women who read the sexual assault scenario exhibited an increase in handgrip strength. Ovulating women who read the control passage and nonovulatory women who read the sexual assault material grasped with the same intensity as before.” Increased strength coordinated, then, when two events presented themselves: ovulation and exposure to a sexual assault scenario. I have no reason to question the data itself, but I would question the interpretation. Why should researchers link increased strength with fear of or defense against rape? Consider, for instance, that some studies show that men become more aroused when exposed to sexual assault material. Could not women who are ovulating show increased strength, not because they are afraid, but because they too would like to be in control? (NB: I am not claiming here, and never would claim, that women are turned on by the idea of being rape. Rather, I am suggesting that women might be turned on by the idea of being in control of the sexual encounter.) Would it not make more evolutionary sense to suggest that women have increased strength when they are ovulating so that they can beat other women at mating with the “prime” male of the species?
Further, it is not enough to show that ovulating women exposed to sexual assault scenarios are stronger than ovulating women shown neutral scenarios. Shouldn’t we also compare their strength to ovulating women who are exposed to violent scenarios without rape or sexual assault involved? And, what was the nature of the sexual assault material: male on female, male on male, female on male, or female on female? These questions must be answered and investigated before making the claim that women have evolved greater strength as a response to the threat of rape, especially given the questions raised in point 1 & 2 above.
I will continue this discussion in a separate post tomorrow looking at the other three claims the study makes....
Evolution and Rape: Women's Defense
14/01/11 18:27 Filed in: Human Nature
I’m not sure what to think about this article by Jesse Bering. Bering is an evolutionary psychologist at Queen’s University Belfast.
I suppose the first thing that struck me is the use of the word rape. The article deals with “scientifically verified” evidence that women have evolved to protect themselves against rape. Bering quickly dismisses the idea that science leads to moral justification of rape, because that conclusion relies on the naturalistic fallacy. Women, it seems, are stronger during ovulation, are more cautious in where they go, are more distrusting of men, oh, and on top of it all, are more racist.
Underlying this notion, however, is the idea that rape involves reproduction. This belief has been discounted over and over again: rape is about power, not reproduction. Men rape women to show they have power over them. This is why men rape older women who can no longer reproduce, or rape women who they then kill.
Further, the idea that women evolved to be more cautious about going out or letting men back into their apartments does not seem to me to be able to hold water. Evolution does not work over short periods, and women have only been able to do many of the “unsafe” things in the last few hundred years.
Moreover, the idea that women classify some things as safe or unsafe must have cultural context. Who defines what is safe or unsafe for women? This “scientific” research seems loaded with cultural and personal values that are purely sexist.
I’m sure we will hear much more about this in the future. What we should pay attention to is the underlying politically and culturally conservative agenda that much evolutionary biology supports. While Bering quickly dismisses the idea that showing men have evolved to rape and women have evolved to defend themselves against rape, his dismissal seem hollow. If claims like this were made in a court as “scientific” we know exactly what the result would be: the rapist would get off because he obeyed an evolutionary instinct and the woman failed to obey hers.
Bering also insists on his innocence because the evidence comes from a gay man who “wouldn't know what to do with an ovulating woman if she came with instructions.” This form of argument is the reverse of the ad hominem. Just because one is gay does not mean that one cannot be misogynist. Or simply mistaken about biology, politics, and ethics.
Or, as most evolutionary biologists are, wrong about human nature.
I suppose the first thing that struck me is the use of the word rape. The article deals with “scientifically verified” evidence that women have evolved to protect themselves against rape. Bering quickly dismisses the idea that science leads to moral justification of rape, because that conclusion relies on the naturalistic fallacy. Women, it seems, are stronger during ovulation, are more cautious in where they go, are more distrusting of men, oh, and on top of it all, are more racist.
Underlying this notion, however, is the idea that rape involves reproduction. This belief has been discounted over and over again: rape is about power, not reproduction. Men rape women to show they have power over them. This is why men rape older women who can no longer reproduce, or rape women who they then kill.
Further, the idea that women evolved to be more cautious about going out or letting men back into their apartments does not seem to me to be able to hold water. Evolution does not work over short periods, and women have only been able to do many of the “unsafe” things in the last few hundred years.
Moreover, the idea that women classify some things as safe or unsafe must have cultural context. Who defines what is safe or unsafe for women? This “scientific” research seems loaded with cultural and personal values that are purely sexist.
I’m sure we will hear much more about this in the future. What we should pay attention to is the underlying politically and culturally conservative agenda that much evolutionary biology supports. While Bering quickly dismisses the idea that showing men have evolved to rape and women have evolved to defend themselves against rape, his dismissal seem hollow. If claims like this were made in a court as “scientific” we know exactly what the result would be: the rapist would get off because he obeyed an evolutionary instinct and the woman failed to obey hers.
Bering also insists on his innocence because the evidence comes from a gay man who “wouldn't know what to do with an ovulating woman if she came with instructions.” This form of argument is the reverse of the ad hominem. Just because one is gay does not mean that one cannot be misogynist. Or simply mistaken about biology, politics, and ethics.
Or, as most evolutionary biologists are, wrong about human nature.