Still enjoying my human evolution book. Last night I read about how boys entering puberty are flooded with a level of testosterone forty times higher than childhood levels. Whereas girls’ estrogen levels only triple. Also I was surprised to learn than in the first four years or so of menses, girls don’t even ovulate (if they are in an environment uncorrupted by iron supplements in food, a high fat diet, and estrogen-laden cow’s milk — all of which spur ovulation). Why menstruate but not produce eggs? Basically because girls’ pelvises are still dangerously small to pass the fetal skull, BUT nature wants girls to be curious about and learn about boys, get some skills before being ready to get pregnant. Learn how to be discerning and find the right mate. Of course plenty of women fail spectacularly in this endeavor.
Meanwhile she is surrounded by boys literally drugged on testosterone, who think of little else other than sex. Their libido will slowly decrease throughout their lives, while the sex drive of girls increases and peaks in her thirties.
The book explained why boys do “stupid things,” take huge risks, in part to impress girls. In the ancient world, boys did this in practice for the incredible risks they would later take in the hunt, risks that would bring his woman the iron she needed, and in turn the sex he craved. Another reason that boys take such risks has to do with the impulse control center in the brain, slower to take hold than it is in women.
I think the next couple chapters will cover the rise of misogyny, unseen in any other species. Some men in modern (and older) society believe that women have their “place” in the home, that the man is king, that women are weak. These men are terribly insecure. They deserve nothing more than our pity. They fear that modern women have become the “hunters,” and now really have no need for the iron a man can provide to her. This may be true, but isn’t it true that a man has a lot more to offer a woman than food in exchange for sex? Aren’t our brains more sophisticated than that? I believe so.
But men who hate women see her as nothing more than his receptacle–and in our species, it has never been so, and was never designed that way. In the beginning, women contributed as much to the society as the men — they simply didn’t take part in the hunt because our upright, bipedal bodies have been designed to make hunting hazardous while pregnant, nursing, or menstruating.
In fact, it was a woman who came up with the concept of time, how else would she regulate her period, know when she could have a baby, know when the baby would come? It was a lucky accident that our periods coincide with the moon’s phases. No other animal can measure the past or the future.
It wounds very interesting, and I might want to read it myself. But a couple of things:
>But men who hate women see her as nothing more than his receptacle–and in our species, it has never been so, and was never designed that way.
If that is the case (and I’m not saying that it isn’t), why would this attitude have survived and thrived to the extent that we see today? Why would an attitude so patantly out of touch with nature have survived Darwinian selection?
>In fact, it was a woman who came up with the concept of time, how else would she regulate her period, know when she could have a baby, know when the baby would come?
Well, time is a part of nature. I think you mean to say that a woman invented timekeeping. Even at that, keeping a calendar is such a part of human (and pre-human) existence, I can’t think that anyone can credibly claim to have proof that women invented time-keeping. There are many other regular time-cycles that would have been discovered by early (pre-)humans that might just as easily have spurred calendar keeping.
Which isn’t to say that I believe the author is wrong, but I think there may be other issues to look at.
I will let you know what the author uses to support his theories on timekeeping being designed by women when I get to that section.
If that is the case (and I’m not saying that it isn’t), why would this attitude have survived and thrived to the extent that we see today?
Homo Erectus (hee!) has been around a couple million years, and the subjugation of women has only existed for a few thousand, as far as we know. Also I think he is basing it on the fact that no other animal species has the level of misogny as ours, not to mention racism, genocide, etc etc.
I pretty much blame the grip of organized, Western religion for halting the wonderful potential of our species. To start with, nature was to be completely “subdued,” and then nature was to be divorced from interconnection with human life. Etc.
And religion itself is to be blamed on the curiosity and awareness brought by our extreme intelligence. No other animal even knows it will someday die.
> No other animal even knows it will someday die.
We don’t really know this, though.
Perhaps, but don’t you think that if an animal understood the concept of its own mortality, it would follow that its brain function would grasp other abstract concepts, like timekeeping or language? That it might then seek other knowledge?
I’m not really arguing that animals have a sense of death, just that it’s a really unprovable statement.
Also, some animals have extraordinary senses of timekeeping. If you condition an animal that something happens on a time schedule (every morning, you will get up and feed that animal at 6:00 a.m.) then that animal can tell you when it is 6:00 a.m. whether or not the sun is shining that day or your alarm clock went off. Also, if a dog is conditioned that a reward or treat comes every 10 minutes, it’s behavior will give you clear indications that a dog can comprehend and track the span of 10 passing minutes.
If an animal didn’t have a sense of timekeeping, how could the birds and the elk and the salmon know when to migrate every year? And humans are not the only creatures on a monthly cycle–mares will cycle about every 30 days except when pregnant; and don’t the grunion run on a monthly basis?
As far as language, there is evidence that animals have some sense of language–syntax is the problem there, though we are learning that some animals can understand syntax (“Put the ball on the frisbee” versus “Put the frisbee on the ball.”)
But studies have shown that some prey animals (meerkats?) have specific cries that identify specific predators–that is, they differentiate eagle from snake from cat. And, not only do they look UP when they hear the alarm for eagle and look DOWN when they hear the alarm for snake, they also recognize the alarm calls of other prey animals.
So, asserting that “humans are the only” for anything is very tenuous ground. It’s getting harder and harder to come up with the razor blade that will cleanly divide humans from the animal world. Not only do animals rape (notably cetaceans) and kill uselessly (cats, orcas), they have sex for fun and social ties (bonobos).
Anyhoodle.
Sure every animal has a circadian clock in their brains. But they don’t have a concept of many years from now, or when they were born, or if you could ask them “When did you come to live with us?” they would have no idea. If someone beat a dog with a stick, it would certainly remember the event, but it couldn’t tell you how long ago it happened.
That’s what I mean by timekeeping. Animals know when to migrate because of instinct.
When I say “language” I don’t mean the vocalization that animals use to communicate. Language is much more complex and sophisticated than that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not dissing the intelligence of animals. I know my cat has unique cat emotions and feelings, and is pretty smart–for an animal with a brain the size of a walnut.
Quote: “No other animal even knows it will someday die.”
This is incorect. Studies have shown that African elephants somehow know when they are going to die (of old age, not from an attack or disease), and will travel to what are known as elephant gravesites, and wait for their death there. Frequently, they are accompanied by relatives who stand around the elephant and “mourn” by trumpeting.
Of course animals can tell when they are near death. Yes, elephants are unique in their funereal process.
I am talking about young healthy animals, such as ourselves, being cognizant that our lifespans are limited. Young children learn early on that they too will die someday, and that is where our mythology around afterlife, heaven/hell, reincarnation comes from.
Well, comparing misogyny to racism is a bit of a red herring, I think, as racism as we know (and knew) it has really only been around for a few hundred years and has multiple sources (not only religion, but also technology differences and, of course, skin color–although this only develops later, believe it or not). And I think man’s attempts to dominate nature also pre-date the organization of the mass Western religions we know and hate today.
But I think that you (and the author) have a good point–religion codified and gave holy sanction to whatever traditions the fathers (and they were inevitably fathers) felt were worth protecting (just as they felt women needed protecting). So I think the social manifestations of misogyny can be traced back to religion.
Anyways, it’s all fascinating, and it sounds an awful lot like the same kinds of issues we talk about when discussing institutional forms of racism. If you’re interested in that, there’s a couple of books I could loan you.
One theory I read somewhere, let me see if I can articulate it…early humans tended to believe in God or Gods who had power of life and death etc. over all living things. Meanwhile, women had to endure childbirth, which was painful and often fatal. Obviously, God or Gods had it in for women, so women must be cursed or asking for it or just plain bad. I mean look at them. They’re all curvy and alluring and they seem to WANT sex and then as a result they die!
Re: rape
I am pretty sure that rape occurs in other species. Dolphins are gang-rapists, as are ducks. Or so I am told, seriously. Dogs mount each other to signal dominance — so it seems like other species also use sexual metaphors to express power and violence.
But what about the early humans who respected and worshiped the female spirit and her power over creating life?
As far as rape is concerned, the author’s point was that rape could not be a viable evolutionary solution to the intelligent female human refusing sex, and it has always been an abberance as opposed to normal mating rituals. He did mention it being observed in other animals, but nowhere near the way it is used as violence (not primarily a means to breed) in humans.
I dunno, I still feel dumb about this stuff, and I guess I am bad at explaining. The subject excites me and makes me want to write about it, but I feel like I am articulating poorly.
Which is funny since my species has the largest brain of any land mammal apart from the elephant! Hard to believe when I read the LJ “latest posts” page…
ANYHOO there are lots of different ideas and the book is like 400 pages long, so I am bad at articulating everything.
Thanks for commenting, Nikc!
Haw. You’re doing a fine job! Like I said, it sounds really interesting. YOU’RE WELCOME!