See Ken Blanchard's post here for his latest bout of blogging jujitsu with Anna from Dakota Women, and Anna's latest retort here. The basis for the pugilistics is this Psychology Today piece listing ten "politically incorrect" findings from social biology. In her latest post Anna takes issue with the notion that sexual harassment by men has a biological component. Here's Anna, fuming over what happens when we drive around with our windows down:
Open windows in everyone's cars = street harassment doesn't just occur while walking down the street anymore.
I know now from my pal Ken Blanchard that men do this because they have an overwhelming biological urge to procreate with me, due to my blonde hair and fabulous rack.
Further, I have learned men don't hoot at me in my car because they are sexist assholes who have been raised to believe that they are entitled to comment in public on a woman's body. In fact, there is no sexist undertone behind such things! They just treat women like they treat men, utilizing threats and intimidation to get what they want.
Gotta love human nature! No idiot should ever have to take responsibility for the shit he does.
First, the really bad effect of people driving with their windows down is that you have to listen to everyone's bad taste in music (why is it that the people with the worst taste play it the loudest?!). But to the point.
1. Is it possible that something can be biological, yet also controlled? It is biology that I want to urinate, but I don't do it whenever I feel like it. Saying something has a biological basis does not then relieve people of responsibility.
2. Perhaps, to the extent our behavior is motivated by biology, we might want to grapple with the unpleasant notion that biology is sexist. Nature, perhaps, discriminates, by which I mean "makes distinctions," between men and women. Perhaps sexual aggressiveness and boorish behavior are part of the male biological make up. Thus there is a tendency toward this behavior. Note what I am not saying. A tendency is not a compulsion, and this tendency may vary in strength from individual to individual. But nonetheless, we may be able to make some generalizations about male behavior based on biology.
3. When we add #1 and #2, we get a need for education. Indeed Anna's post refers to how men are raised, which indicates an understanding that what we teach young males is important. I noted above that male behavior can be boorish (Anna, you should see what men are like when there are no women around). Boorishness is a sign of bad manners. Men might be crude beasts by nature, but they are not just crude beasts. One can appeal to their sense of nobility or pride and teach them manners. Of course the same is true for women. The virtue we are seeking here is modesty, perhaps with a dose of chivalry thrown in for the men. For a man this is known as being a gentleman. While some may dismiss the notion of the gentleman (and its reciprocal, the lady) as a quaint artifact of a patriarchal era, one wonders whether the vulgarity of current society, typified by Anna's driving experience, is a satisfying replacement. The "code of the gentleman" tells us that to be a man requires discipline and self-control, especially in regards to women. One only need turn to the old Comedy Central show "The Man Show" to see how far we've come from the notion of manliness as self-control and discipline. Indeed, if "The Man Show" is any indication, much of what now passes for manly behavior (love of violence, crude sexuality, bathroom humor) is really just adolescent boyishness. What I see among young males is a lot of boys in mens' bodies.
Biology is biology; it is not destiny. Our biology is an important part of who we are and how we behave, but it is not all of who we are.
Recent Comments