Junecleaversdoppleganger (good name, that one) at DakotaWomen responds to my post of yesterday on Sociobiology and Politics. DW is a feminist-oriented blog, and I find it an interesting read. I just wish Ms. JCD were less jaundiced in her approach. Case in point, her title:
Blanchard tries to explain his misogyny.
Misogyny is a serious charge. It needs more evidence than the mere fact that she and I disagree, or appear to disagree, about the role of nature vs. nurture in sexual behavior.
Anna took issue with Blanchard's rather interesting take on nature, gender and aggression. I took Anna's comments as directed toward our readers for discussion, not an effort to engage Blanchard. But Blanchard took this as someone peeing on the tree he previously marked.
Let's recap the conversation. I posted a critique of one feminist school, the social construction theorists. Anna of DW responded. Professor Schaff responded on my behalf. Anna responded to him. I responded to Anna's original post, and now June responds to me. Whatever the folks at DW think they are trying to do, they are in fact engaging us. Why not admit that we are engaged in conversation? Isn't that a good thing? And if my posts are criticized at DW, is not reasonable of me to defend myself?
It is not so clear that June and I disagree on what has become the issue.
Women are fully capable of aggression. A couple of things come into play on the issue of aggression. One is that women develop intellectually earlier. As girls they learn other ways to deal with aggression that are not direct violence. So maybe some of this is that women have found more efficient methods of aggression.
I think everything in the passage is plausible. But it reinforces my point: if woman do indeed develop intellectually earlier than men, and that fact has consequences for later behavior, then nature is indeed an important factor in social analysis. Aggression and violence are clearly harder to correct in men than in women, which helps explain the fact that most of the prison population in every country is male.
June is clearly correct to insist that culture plays a profound role in how men treat women.
There are plenty of social constructs that teach some males that their are owners of the world, entitled and owners of women. This not only sets up violence but excuses violence against women since they have been marginalized as objects in some circles.
Of course. In some cultures women are subjected to such hideous procedures as female circumcision, all in order to present them as marketable virgins. These cultures are very bad, in this respect. So far there is nothing here that June and I disagree on.
I would point out that there is no culture in which men have to be routinely protected against rape by women. In every culture women need such protection against some men. If we come down with a hammer on rapists, and we must do so, rape will be less likely. It will be very difficult to eradicate it, because it is one of the most unfortunate products of human nature. This fact in no way excuses rape. It just explains it, and tells us what to expect.
June says this:
If it was only nature all males would be prone to violence equally, not certain classes of people.
This is an elementary confusion. To say, as June does, that "women develop intellectually earlier" than men, is not to say that every women matures intellectually at an earlier age than every man. That would be like saying that because sickle cell anemia is more prevalent among Blacks than among Whites (something that is "only nature"), therefore all Blacks have sickle cell anemia. But as I have shown, I do not argue that the wide sexual divergence in aggression and violence is "only nature." I just think it's a lot natural. At most, June and I differ by degrees.
More importantly, I think that our political differences, and there surely are some, are less fundamental than our agreements. Many cultures do teach men to regard women as property. I think this is abhorrent, and I'm sure, June, that you would agree. I think that all human beings are created equal, in the sense meant in the Declaration: equal in inalienable rights. Am I really so bad a person, June, that you cannot afford to be seen conversing with me?
I humbly suggest that we do engage one another. If I am right, we have more reason to be friends than enemies. And there will be plenty of things to argue about.
Recent Comments