Anna at DakotaWomen begins her challenge to me rather oddly.
While I have less than zero interest in engaging the guys over at South Dakota Politics for any reason, I would be remiss not to mention Ken Blanchard's recent post about, uh, the evils of women's studies and how left wingers worship Darwin? I guess?
I see no reason why we should not want to engage one another. That's what the blogosphere is for. I for one am interested in what Anna has to say. But you can't say you have "less than zero interest" in something, and that you think you would be remiss in mentioning it, without reducing yourself to incoherence.
Anna objects to this passage from one of my earlier posts.
Human beings are indeed special animals. Our souls are vast and deep beyond anything we find in the animal world. But we are at least animals. Human violence mirrors that of chimpanzees, and human sexual behavior shows many of the same patterns found in virtually all mammals, birds, and fish. The left doesn't want to hear this because it doesn't want to believe that nature might put limitations on social progress. But leftist creationism is just as unscientific as religious creationism. The churches and Women's Studies Departments should buck up, and take an honest look at what science is telling them. I'm guessing that the former will like it more than the latter.
This passage apparently confused Anna, and she thought that must be because I was being deliberately unclear. She especially wants to know
precisely what "limitations on social progress" Prof. Blanchard believes nature demands of us and specifically what impact those natural limitations would have on women.
It is not unreasonable to ask for clarification, though she might done so without suggesting that disagreement with her conceals a character flaw. Anyway, here are the limitations I had in mind. The left in the U.S. and Europe has long believed that all or almost all social dysfunction arises from unjust social arrangements. If we are bad, it is because society formed us to be so. If we reform society, all inequality and greed, all violence and aggression will disappear. The greatest example of this was the belief of Russian communists that they were creating a "new soviet man" who would live in perfect harmony with her comrades.
But if human beings are not blank slates, if they are instead modified chimpanzees, then there may be permanent limitations on how much social harmony can be achieved. Human violence can be controlled; it cannot be eliminated. Greed, selfishness, a preference for family and friends over strangers, and pronounced tendency toward violence between males, will continue to be a feature of all human societies.
As for the impact of natural limitations on women, I would point out that something like 90% of the prison population in all nations is male. Almost all the murders, assaults, and rapes, are committed by males. I think it is hardly insulting to women to agree with some schools of feminism that hold that woman, as opposed to men, are by nature more inclined to consensus than aggression.
Human behavior is clearly modified by social influence. It is not "socially constructed." I find the biological interpretation of social and political behavior fascinating, and I think it is the wave of the future social sciences. I hope I am not being obtuse to say so.
Recent Comments