Do we need a primatologist to understand Texas?
One volunteered to help, with a Guest Post.
There is something unintuitive and contradictory about two political happenings in Texas. Texas' governor bans abortion while simultaneously asserting individual body autonomy regarding the COVID vaccine. Doesn't he notice the contradiction? Texas is more understandable when we consider the unconscious impulses wired into the instincts of men. Texas leaders are thinking like the primates that they are.
Hogan Sherrow offered a Guest Post last week noting that most primate males attempt to monopolize their access to females, and much of their status-seeking and domination activity is done to try to control female reproduction. Today's Guest Post returns with an observation that social animals sometimes work as a group to put checks on domination behaviors.
Hogan Sherrow is a Fulbright Scholar and has a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Anthropology from Yale University. He has studied the behavior and ecology of humans and other animals on three different continents, specializing in the evolution of political behavior, tribalism, leadership, and aggression. Hogan now consults for individuals, organizations, and campaigns, here in the Rogue Valley as Owner of You Evolving, LLC, www.you-evolving.com.
Guest Post by Hogan Sherrow
Texans and the Taliban II: Reining in Bad Male Behavior
In my previous post I explained how, from an evolutionary perspective, the attempts by the Taliban and the Texas government to control women’s bodies and reproduction are not only not surprising, but predictable. Akhund’s Taliban and Texas Governor Abbott’s administration are doing what males have been doing to females for millions of years and what men have been doing to women for millennia.I normally don’t embrace the phrase “stone age” when referring to mind-sets of modern humans, but both the Taliban and Abbott’s administration are stuck in the stone age. They seem to have ignored thousands of years of culture and the understanding that women are every bit the equals of men. They treat women like females, instead of women. The distinction between male/female and men/women is an important one. The former refers to a biological distinction that applies to both humans and non-human animals, while the latter only refers to humans and is a cultural distinction that is gendered. The distinction is important when comparing human and non-human animal behavior.
Since we understand that these males in power are acting out primal, mammalian, male behaviors, we must call out the “bad actors” in public, condemn their behaviors, the laws they write, and the policies they institute. The key to achieving that is a system of checks and balances. Checks and balances are actually as natural and primal in social mammals as the drive to achieve status, and the propensity of males to try to control female behavior and reproduction. In the African apes, attempts to rein in bad actors take many forms. In chimpanzees and bonobos, coalitions work together to keep bellicose individuals in check. Among gorillas, males who are too aggressive or violent are abandoned by the females of their groups, as a physical “vote of no confidence.” In our closest relatives, and in our own species, checks and balances have evolved to keep powerful individuals from abusing their status. In the cases of the Taliban and Texas, they have never been more important.
In the case of the Taliban, changing their behavior might be nothing more than a pipe-dream. The men who run the Taliban have operated as a lawless gang for over a generation, using their religious beliefs to justify their primal behaviors, ruling with an iron fist, trampling the rights of women and brutalizing their opponents. However, if the Taliban is going to become the recognized government of Afghanistan and move out of the stone age, the international community has an obligation. We must require they institute a parliamentary system, where alternative voices can be represented. I acknowledge it won't be easy, but it is necessary. The international community needs to hold them accountable as a grown-up government.
In Texas checks and balances exist on paper but aren't working in practice. For decades Republicans in Texas have been gerrymandering voting districts, limiting voter access, and stacking the courts with partisan, activist judges. The result is that Governor Abbott and his allies are unchecked, and have instituted extreme, stone-age laws and policies that reflect instinctive impulses, unmediated by cultural restraints. Our country's founders set up a system of checks and balances because they understood that primal behaviors needed to be restrained so the powerful would not become tyrants. They established a structure that would cause ambition to check ambition, so powers would balance.
Checks and balances require those formal foundational structures, but they are strongest when they include diverse experiences and perspectives. By including more voices, from diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and genders in decision making, we help check the status-seeking behaviors inherited from our primate ancestors. Diverse perspectives also help keep extreme, stone-age views from taking root and dominating laws or policies. It is through the diversity of perspectives that we truly flourish as a representative democracy. Social relations get beyond a struggle of physical strength or inherited status. The powerless have socially sanctioned rights, guaranteed by the strength of the whole polity. We emerge from the stone age and join the modern world.
Texas is a perfect example of what happens when checks and balances fail, and the results have been unfortunate and predictable. The male-dominated government returned to stone-age behaviors, using religion as justification for passing new, draconian laws designed to dominate and control women.
Despite the clear threat to their individual freedoms and their health, there are some women who continue to support these stone-age laws and policies. That paradox will be the focus of my third Guest Post in this series.
[Note: to sign up for email delivery of this blog, go to my email service provider: https://petersage.substack.com The blog is free and always will be.]
12 comments:
2% difference between humans and chimpanzees makes this a relevant article. Of course some will deny the science of that as well. Knowledge is a good thing.
No, Margaret, abortion is not murder!
Again, one can look to the animals, as few are self aware (as per the mirror test). Human babies cannot identify the person in the mirror as themself until nearly age two. Puppy, salamander, and other animal fetuses have heart beats. They feel pain, also, and must be treated humanely. But we allow the taking of these lives when necessary. Hearing a heart beat in a 6 week old fetus means nothing about its humanity. The fetus at six weeks is an inch or so big and still has a tail!
The concept of murder pertains to human beings, as we don't say we murder animals. The anti-abortion people's most powerful argument is that killing the fetus is murder. It is not.
I believe that the definition of what is "human" has to do with our sentience and self awareness. Our intelligence makes us unique, and a heart beat does not. But even despite that, we authorize and allow killing of humans. Soldiers go to war, the flat-lined brain is enough to allow the plug to be pulled, we mostly still allow execution for murder.
Therefore there is every reason to allow a woman, whose life and future are at stake, to abort a fetus. It is not a "baby". Its "rights" do not in any way compare with hers. She is a full human being with the right to control her body and what is in it.
I wish to apologize to the many people I have offended over the years with my obscene comments on social media. I realize I have reflected poorly on Donald Trump--as well as myself. My comments about Peter Sage and his sex organs were attempts to be insulting. It was political teasing, not a sexual invitation.. I am not homosexual and I do not dwell on them out of sexual interest.
If I have offended people, and I know I have, I am deeply sorry.
Curt Ankerberg
I have just been informed that "Curt Ankerberg" submitted a comment. It may be from the actual Curt Ankerberg, but may not be. It is not written in his "voice" but it does address his social media activity which mix insulting comments and homosexual ideation.
Do not assume that comments supposedly from somebody are in fact from them.
Peter Sage
UpClose
Peter Sage likes to to take it "Greek-Style" up the ass.
That comment from "pete Buttigieg" is almost certainly by Curt Ankerberg. I leave it there so readers can see what he writes and can consider that for the next time he runs for office.
Curt and the Curtlets--
Your story has become tiresome. Come back when you can't stay as long.
Diane--
"Murder" by definition invokes law, and so the question of life for practical purposes is a legal one, hopefully as informed by science.
The best argument pro-lifers have in this connection is Justice Blackmun in Roe saying human rights may inhere in a viable fetus.
With viability the test, medical technology makes that feasible ever earlier in a pregnancy, though obviously later than a heartbest.
Hence it does not follow legally under Roe that the putative mother has plenary power over another stage of life until birth itself.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, that's two counts for two lives for the perp. Hmm, unless she was on the way the abortion clinic?
Evidence that the hypothesis advocated by this guest essay is wrong: all of the women who are opposed to abortion.
Women can be misogynists. Gender is only one factor that affects how a person's attitudes are formed.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201908/12-ways-spot-female-misogynist
"According to Parry, female misogyny is even more prevalent today than in her mother’s day. Male misogyny runs rampant in today’s society. But, as Parry points out, female misogyny can be even more toxic.”
Whether or not a women is opposed to abortion is irrelevant to the fundamental argument of an individual's autonomy over their body. If males gave birth we'd be in the same dilemma.
Justice Blackmun was careful to include "may" in his assertions about viability. It's far from settled law.
Curt Angerberg was found guilty of fraud by the IRS. His defense was that he has "water on the brain" (his words). His aberrant behavior may just be another symptom of it, like defrauding his clients.
Dihydrogen monoxide toxicity…
Post a Comment