Feminism at its best by gorillas!

Post Reply New Topic

the Cinderella effect is the alleged higher incident of different forms of child-abuse and mistreatment by stepparents than by biological parents. It takes its name from the fairy tale character Cinderella. Evolutionary psychologists describe the effect as a remnant of an adaptive reproductive strategy among primates where males frequently kill the offspring of other males in order to bring their mothers into estrus, and give the male a chance to fertilize her himself.

Unlike the lion, however, humans in a stepparenting situation face a more complicated tradeoff since they cannot completely disown their partner’s offspring from a previous relationship, as they would risk losing sexual access to the mother and any chance of fathering potential offspring.

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births, while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%. Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution. Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era. Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism.

...A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife, dating from 1 BCE, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed: "I am still in Alexandria. ... I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.

...Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BCE, who developed a school of law, wrote: "As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death."

...Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in South Asia for illegitimate female children during the Middle Ages. According to Firishta, as soon as the illegitimate female child was born she was held "in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death"....It was not uncommon that parents threw a child to the sharks in the Ganges River as a sacrificial offering.

...Instances of infanticide in Britain in 18th and 19th century is often attributed to the economic position of the women, with juries committing pious perjury in many subsequent court cases. The knowledge of the difficulties faced in the 18th century by those women who attempted to keep their children can be seen as reason for juries to show compassion. If the woman chose to keep the child, society was not set up to ease the pressure placed upon the woman, legally, socially or economically. In mid-18th century Britain there was assistance available for women who were not able to raise their children. The Foundling Hospital opened in 1756 and was able to take in some of the illegitimate children. However, the conditions within the hospital caused Parliament to withdraw funding and the governors to live off of their own incomes.

...Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time. He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control. Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.

I found this video rather interesting, the male gorilla was planning to kill the baby so he can get some from the mother but she didnt want that to happen and the rest of the troop put him in his place including the mother! You go Girl gorilla!

I still say bonobos and muriqui monkeys do "feminism" better than gorillas.

The bonobo is popularly known for its high levels of sexual behavior. Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. This is a factor in the lower levels of aggression seen in the bonobo when compared to the common chimpanzee and other apes. Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal; females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances and use sexuality to control males.

Sure looks like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo



Are feminists supposed to use sexuality to control males?

Them lady bonobos are using what they've got.

I'm sure they'd protest, carry signs, and write to their local politicians if they had such things.

smart girls, those bobobos.

Aren't they also the only kind of great ape that is monogamous?

I still say bonobos and muriqui monkeys do "feminism" better than gorillas.

Did you know there's never been infanticide witnessed among bonobos, either in the wild or in zoos?

Short response:
1)occasional abuse by boyfriends or step-parents does not mean that step parents are more abusive and murderous than not. On balance, step parents are good for the kids.

2)Rape and murder during warfare is not the same as rape and murder within a tribe or family.

3)killing your own infants as birth control is not the same thing as killing other people's infants because they're not yours.

4)we are more closely related to bonobos and chimps than to gorillas or lions.

Again, you're claiming that men are unable to control themselves.

It's a cop-out. It's an excuse. 'I don't have to behave well, because My body wants me to behave badly.' It's like that Imam in Australia who compared women to "uncovered meat" and men to cats.

You may not be able to control your *desires,* and neither can women

- but you can, and must, control your behavior.

Wrt. incest by step fathers, I find it repulsive but obviously a far cry from murdering one's step children.

The fact that Soon Yi married her former father implies that, in her case at least, it was a consensual relationship; as much as it repulses me, I have no say in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

Hunter-gatherer tribes are generally accepted as fill-ins for prehistoric humanity, and I challenge you to find hunter-gatherer tribes that casually accept rape or incest within the tribe. It's not a matter of culture; it's a pretty basic human rule.

The principle threat to hunter-gatherer societies was inbreeding. It is clear that Aborigines appreciated this problem because incest was a taboo in every known Aboriginal society.

The trade of women was one way that the tribes could gain fresh genetics. By today's definition, the trade of women was a form of rape. The woman could not refuse the will of her tribe, nor that of her chosen partner, nor his kin. Although this trade was in the interests of both tribes, perhaps it was not a nice experience for the woman being traded. Consequently, a number of rituals developed to make the transition easier.

...a girl may have been unaware that her marriage was impending. While she was out collecting food with the older women, she may have been seized by her intended husband and his "brothers". Once seized, her husband's brothers had sexual rights to her until she had settled down. By today's definition, this was a form of pack rape sanctioned by her tribe. However the girl's social upbringing would have motivated her to perceive the symbolic meaning of the pack rape in a different way to how it is perceived today. Furthermore, if a group of men shared the woman, then they would have no way of knowing who was the true father of the child. This would have encouraged all men in the tribe to see all children as potentially their own.

...All over the world, rape seems to be associated with war. Aboriginal tribes were always at war. Even though they had good relations with their neighbours, they were also perpetually fighting with them. It was quite an odd relationship that involved attacking each other and raping women, yet still retaining a working relationship in regards to customs. It seemed a bit like two football teams belting each other on the field, then sharing a beer after the game.

Few Anthropologists have even written about the violent rape of other tribes, however the fact that it was widespread can be seen in the casual manner that Aborigines talked about it. In 1795, Watkin Tench, an English military officer, asked an Aborigine named Bennelong how attained a scar on his hand: "He laughed, and owned that it was received in carrying off a lady of another tribe by force. "I was dragging her away. She cried aloud, and stuck her teeth in me." "And what did you do then?" "I knocked her down, and beat her till she was insensible, and covered with blood. Then..."

Rape, orgies and arranged marriage seemed to have an effect on how Aborigines thought about fathers. Children conceived in such sexual unions are difficult to reconcile with a celebration of love between man and women. Perhaps this explains why Australian tribes did not credit semen as having a role in procreation. Instead, spiritual forces were believed to be responsible. The spirit of a plant or animal, known as the conception totem, was assumed to have entered the human mother.

In modern times, human reproduction generally occurs within the nuclear family. Accordingly, morality has been developed to protect this institution. Although morality has developed in adaptation to this lifestyle choice, perhaps human sexual instincts have not adapted so quickly. For millions of years, humans were evolving in tribal groups. The method of reproduction within these tribes was very different to what it is today, as was the morality towards it.

Many champions of today's nuclear family consider promiscuity, rape, cheating and a variety of sexual fantasies to be threats that must be eliminated....

Wrt. birth control vs. population control: point taken.

The only part of that worth responding to:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/inter ... gender.htm

Chapais’s narrative, as related by Wade, distorts our early ancestors’ history in order to reinforce the ideology of contemporary patriarchy. Patriarchy is an androcentric and male-privileging social structure that developed slowly over about 3000 years, sometime after the advent of agriculture (roughly 10,000 years B.C.E.).

Yes they can.

Why?