Demonic Males

[ruby sparks]

Demonic Males

The title of a 1997 book by Richard Wrangham (British Primatologist) and Dale Peterson (American science author).

Which I have just read.

Amazon blurb as follows:

"This study is an analysis of the roots of human savagery, dealing with the fundamental questions of why the majority of violence is perpetrated by men, whether this is a matter of nature or nurture and whether anything can be done about it.;The book provides some surprising answers, based on comparison of male violence among human and among man's closest relatives, the great apes. In three or four species, male violence is common, but the form of violence differs: male orangutangs tend to rape, male chimps wage war and male gorillas kill the offspring of other males. Only in the fourth species, the little-known bonobo, are males (as well as females) non-violent - females are co-dominant, there is no observable aggression between groups, and there is a high level and diversity of sexual activity.;The findings are based on 30 years of field research on the behaviour and ecology of chimpanzees and other mammals in Africa".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Demonic-Males-Origins-Human-Violence/dp/0747533016

One of the more interesting conclusions is that females banding together is one apparently effective way to counter patriarchy and by extension male violence. He himself doesn't say it, but to me, feminism might be described as a version this 'females banding together' in our species in recent times.

The other type of 'banding together' he speaks of (in relation to humans) is democracy, suggesting that this has a moderating effect by virtue of decentralising and diluting power, to an extent (via votes for all citizens, existence of checks and balances, etc, including the facility to not re-elect representatives) away from individual leaders, which in our species have tended to be male.

At one point, he also considers the merits of selective breeding to obtain humans with less aggressive temperaments, though he ends up rejecting the idea because it would be difficult to realise it in practice.

Interesting stuff, and, I thought, food for discussion, on a number of fronts, political, social and scientific.

For those who have not read the book, don't worry, just pitch in with your tuppenceworth.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The other type of 'banding together' he speaks of (in relation to humans) is democracy, suggesting that this has a moderating effect by virtue of decentralising and diluting power, to an extent (via votes for all citizens, existence of checks and balances, etc, including the facility to not re-elect representatives) away from individual leaders, which in our species have tended to be male.

That was before the chest-thumping Trump gorilla somehow got into the White House zoo.

I'm not sure how many megatons of nuclear heads would fit into that particular scheme.

Still, I think it's a plausible angle.

Let's make a mental note about that theory and meet in just one thousand years to see if it passed muster and cut the mustard.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The other type of 'banding together' he speaks of (in relation to humans) is democracy, suggesting that this has a moderating effect by virtue of decentralising and diluting power, to an extent (via votes for all citizens, existence of checks and balances, etc, including the facility to not re-elect representatives) away from individual leaders, which in our species have tended to be male.

That was before the chest-thumping Trump gorilla somehow got into the White House zoo.

I'm not sure how many megatons of nuclear heads would fit into that particular scheme.

Still, I think it's a plausible angle.

Let's make a mental note about that theory and meet in just one thousand years to see if it passed muster and cut the mustard.
EB

Well, the authors would not say that democracy is a silver bullet when it comes to, er, silverbacks (an arguably inappropriate analogy given that male gorillas are far from being the most aggressive of apes) only that by and large it has a moderating effect. Same for females banding together, or so the theory goes.

I might guess that another is comfort, as in comfortable standards of living, which might reduce the need to compete or fight for scarce resources.

If I recall correctly, in the book, the authors would cite the innate urge for achieving high status as one of the primary causes for male aggression and competition. And as you might guess, a lot of the goings on boil down to aspects of reproductive success (and of course for apes high male status is closely linked to access to females).

As to why human societies have historically been patriarchal, one of the key factors, apparently, is that males are generally heavier, larger and stronger than females.

 

[bigfield]

One of the more interesting conclusions is that females banding together is one apparently effective way to counter patriarchy and by extension male violence. He himself doesn't say it, but to me, feminism might be described as a version this 'females banding together' in our species in recent times.

In a more tangible sense, women's institutions--for professional career pathways, shelter from sexual harassment etc.--could be described as "females banding together". As in other ape species, this social behaviour has emerged as a response to male aggression.

 

[Lion IRC]

My belief is that females and their monogamous male spouse banding together is an effective way to counter male patriarchy.

Gender equality? Yep. You better beleive it! If I'm fighting to get the promotion or the (gender pay gap) pay rise ahead of a woman, it's because I will fight for my wife, my daughter, my nuclear family, my mortgage with every ounce of testosterone in my body - irrespective of whether my fellow employee competitor is male or female.

 

[ruby sparks]

In a more tangible sense, women's institutions--for professional career pathways, shelter from sexual harassment etc.--could be described as "females banding together". As in other ape species, this social behaviour has emerged as a response to male aggression.

That would seem to be an intuitive way of seeing it, and imo it probably contains a lot of truth. Or we could say instead that patterns emerge, via evolution, in which case it might be a chicken and egg scenario, with one sex constantly responding to the other, in which stuff like females banding together is just one facet of a complicated process of interactions. I think the authors would say that traditionally, female humans have not banded together as much as some other ape species (eg bonobos) or some other mammals (spotted hyenas for example), for a variety of reasons.

The other related factor mentioned was the idea that female humans are often/generally/historically attracted to the sorts of males who have high status and good abilities to protect a female. It's not (it is suggested) that females prefer aggressive males per se, it's just that aggression can go along with high status and physical strength. So (the authors say) there are twin forces (on the female side of the equation) operating against each other, with the 'banding together' patterns being undermined by females who are happier to play the patriarchal system. I suppose if one were to try to compare this idea to patterns in modern human society, we might wonder if this is something which limits feminism to being a minority institution, even among females.

 

[ruby sparks]

My belief is that females and their monogamous male spouse banding together is an effective way to counter male patriarchy.

Hm. Many people would see marriage, historically and traditionally, as the opposite, a vehicle for reinforcing and perpetuating patriarchy.

 

[bilby]

My belief is that females and their monogamous male spouse banding together is an effective way to counter male patriarchy.

Hm. Many people would see marriage, historically and traditionally, as the opposite, a vehicle for reinforcing and perpetuating patriarchy.

Indeed. But religion gets everything backwards, so this idiocy should come as no surprise.

 

[ruby sparks]

In the book, there were interesting comparisons between the types of male violence in different apes. For example, so the authors say, rape features more prominently among oranutangs. The given explanations are complicated and have to do with a variety of factors, including the ways that oranutangs socialise (or don't). But the interesting thing was that it is/was smaller oranutangs which rape. This suggested to the authors that smaller, lower status individuals resort to forced sex more often in order to compensate for the fact that they can't easily get sex otherwise (not being as attractive to the females for instance). One wonders what the parallels might be in humans, I suppose.

We are dealing with generalisations and general patterns, of course. There are, I think, bound to be a variety of situations in which rape takes place, so saying that it is done by opportunistic and unattractive-to-females males would only be at best one type of situation.

Worth noting, so I read, that rape fantasies are apparently very common in female humans. One might, controversially, opine that many women are attracted to the idea of being 'taken' with at least some degree of force or coercion, but only if the identified (or fantasised) male fits the bill, ie is chosen or selected as suitable.

Other types of violence considered were intergroup violence (common among chimpanzees), infanticide (gorillas), and some others I can't recall off the top of my head just now.

 

[ruby sparks]

As in other ape species, this social behaviour has emerged as a response to male aggression.

Getting back to this, when an intruding male gorilla kills a gorilla baby (that is not his and the mother is not of his group) the mother will, it seems, quickly bond (and reproduce) with the killer, of her own accord (ie without being bullied or kidnapped by the male). Female gorillas are, apparently, intensely affectionate with and bonded to their infants, so on one level it seems odd that she should join its killer so readily, often by leaving her group to join his. So she has the option to favour a different male (in her own group) if she is to have more infants, but it is as if, the authors say, the very act of infanticide makes the killer attractive in some way.

So in one way females might be instinctively responding to male aggressive tendencies and on the other hand males may be instinctively responding to female submissive tendencies (kill a baby and its mum will shag you) in a sort of grim Darwinian dance.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm glad you read the book. I think I told you that I read it about 10 or 15 years ago and it really impressed me. I'm enjoying reading your comments as I have forgotten just about all of the details in the book.

I have known for many years that females need to do a better job of banding together. Nurses usually don't do a very good job of that, which often leaves them close to powerless when it comes to the attitudes and attacks made by male doctors. Hopefully, younger nurses are finally learning that they need to support each other instead of "eating their young." Yes, that's actually a common expression when it comes to how nurses often act when a new nurse joins their team.

Years ago, some nurses in California came out with the original "Code Pink". A code pink was called whenever a male doctor was harassing a female nurse. The other nurses would run to defend the nurse who was being attacked. ( verbally, not physically ) I doubt this idea moved outside of the hospital where it was first initiated.

Perhaps the #metoo movement will change things.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As to why human societies have historically been patriarchal, one of the key factors, apparently, is that males are generally heavier, larger and stronger than females.

I would assume that's something the human species inherited from whatever species it evolved from.

Possibly that's something common to many mammals?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Certainly now and at least also throughout historical times, it seems to me that males at the top, even taken as a group, couldn't compete with males at the bottom in how many offspring they'd produce overall. So, there must have been a switch from the system where the dominant male would father most offspring, if that system even ever existed.
EB

 

[rousseau]

As to why human societies have historically been patriarchal, one of the key factors, apparently, is that males are generally heavier, larger and stronger than females.

I would assume that's something the human species inherited from whatever species it evolved from.

Possibly that's something common to many mammals?
EB

Females give birth and so are historically the primary care-givers. Males don't so they are historically the primary providers. This creates a divide where females are most adept at child-care/tending nest, and males are most adept at activities 'out in the world'. This is why you'd see the size difference arise.

Once modern society became a thing this manifested itself in men dominating politics, and consequently laws. Dominating laws meant that the structure of the modern world was mostly created by men, for men.

 

[rousseau]

View attachment 15290

Demonic Males

The title of a 1997 book by Richard Wrangham (British Primatologist) and Dale Peterson (American science author).

Which I have just read.

Amazon blurb as follows:

"This study is an analysis of the roots of human savagery, dealing with the fundamental questions of why the majority of violence is perpetrated by men, whether this is a matter of nature or nurture and whether anything can be done about it.;The book provides some surprising answers, based on comparison of male violence among human and among man's closest relatives, the great apes. In three or four species, male violence is common, but the form of violence differs: male orangutangs tend to rape, male chimps wage war and male gorillas kill the offspring of other males. Only in the fourth species, the little-known bonobo, are males (as well as females) non-violent - females are co-dominant, there is no observable aggression between groups, and there is a high level and diversity of sexual activity.;The findings are based on 30 years of field research on the behaviour and ecology of chimpanzees and other mammals in Africa".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Demonic-Males-Origins-Human-Violence/dp/0747533016

One of the more interesting conclusions is that females banding together is one apparently effective way to counter patriarchy and by extension male violence. He himself doesn't say it, but to me, feminism might be described as a version this 'females banding together' in our species in recent times.

The other type of 'banding together' he speaks of (in relation to humans) is democracy, suggesting that this has a moderating effect by virtue of decentralising and diluting power, to an extent (via votes for all citizens, existence of checks and balances, etc, including the facility to not re-elect representatives) away from individual leaders, which in our species have tended to be male.

At one point, he also considers the merits of selective breeding to obtain humans with less aggressive temperaments, though he ends up rejecting the idea because it would be difficult to realise it in practice.

Interesting stuff, and, I thought, food for discussion, on a number of fronts, political, social and scientific.

For those who have not read the book, don't worry, just pitch in with your tuppenceworth.

One interesting point that came out of The Moral Animal when I read it, was that in a lot of cases female resistance actually reinforces domineering, and aggressive men. If a woman is resistant to a mans advances, then only the man who is the most aggressive and pro-creates anyway is going to pass on his genes. So when you're talking about something like Orangutangs, males are often rapists for a reason. As morbid as it sounds, only the most effective rapists actually pass on their genes, meaning more rapists are bred.

With humans it's a bit different, though. Surely there are male strategies where the most aggressive man wins, but I'd think in the brunt of cases it's usually the most diplomatic man. Women, averaged out, usually let their guard down when a man is legit. So as long as women are granted a level of autonomy, we should see aggressiveness bred out of men.

 

[bigfield]

With humans it's a bit different, though. Surely there are male strategies where the most aggressive man wins, but I'd think in the brunt of cases it's usually the most diplomatic man. Women, averaged out, usually let their guard down when a man is legit. So as long as women are granted a level of autonomy, we should see aggressiveness bred out of men.

Since the emergence of language, a human male's social status has depended more on his social skills than on aggression. Women have probably been selecting for social skills rather than aggression for a long time, and modern men are probably gentler than prehistoric men.

However, modern men still compete for status in social systems constructed by men, for men, which reward competitiveness above cooperation. Such structures select for a degree of aggression and keep it in the gene pool.

 

[rousseau]

With humans it's a bit different, though. Surely there are male strategies where the most aggressive man wins, but I'd think in the brunt of cases it's usually the most diplomatic man. Women, averaged out, usually let their guard down when a man is legit. So as long as women are granted a level of autonomy, we should see aggressiveness bred out of men.

Since the emergence of language, a human male's social status has depended more on his social skills than on aggression. Women have probably been selecting for social skills rather than aggression for a long time, and modern men are probably gentler than prehistoric men.

However, modern men still compete for status in social systems constructed by men, for men, which reward competitiveness above cooperation. Such structures select for a degree of aggression and keep it in the gene pool.

Agreed. It would be too simplistic to say there is only one strategy, though. Maybe a main strategy which is women selecting for social skill / social status. But there should be other factors too, like men who hit and run (that is quickly impregnate a woman and then move on), or men who find a relationship by sheer persistence and force.

So social skills are usually important, but there are other factors involved too if you want to understand the make up of men.

 

[ruby sparks]

One interesting point that came out of The Moral Animal when I read it, was that in a lot of cases female resistance actually reinforces domineering, and aggressive men. If a woman is resistant to a mans advances, then only the man who is the most aggressive and pro-creates anyway is going to pass on his genes. So when you're talking about something like Orangutangs, males are often rapists for a reason. As morbid as it sounds, only the most effective rapists actually pass on their genes, meaning more rapists are bred.

With humans it's a bit different, though. Surely there are male strategies where the most aggressive man wins, but I'd think in the brunt of cases it's usually the most diplomatic man. Women, averaged out, usually let their guard down when a man is legit. So as long as women are granted a level of autonomy, we should see aggressiveness bred out of men.

And I have just today ordered 'The Moral Animal' and am in the mood to continue reading on a related topic.

I also considered Desmond Morris's 'The Naked Ape' but that seemed a tad out of date now (1967).

A while back I read 'The Woman That Never Evolved' by anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy, which is along similar lines. Then there's 'Promiscuity' by Tim Birkhead which I loved, although it's more about the battles which go on between the sexes (in the animal kingdom) at the level of sperm competition. Fascinating stuff, such as eggs choosing sperm (in a type of squid as I recall), and species of sea anemone for which the males are nothing more than tiny sperm packets that the much larger female keeps in little pouches on her flanks until it's time to fertilise her eggs.

 

[ruby sparks]

Since the emergence of language, a human male's social status has depended more on his social skills than on aggression. Women have probably been selecting for social skills rather than aggression for a long time, and modern men are probably gentler than prehistoric men.

However, modern men still compete for status in social systems constructed by men, for men, which reward competitiveness above cooperation. Such structures select for a degree of aggression and keep it in the gene pool.

Agreed. It would be too simplistic to say there is only one strategy, though. Maybe a main strategy which is women selecting for social skill / social status. But there should be other factors too, like men who hit and run (that is quickly impregnate a woman and then move on), or men who find a relationship by sheer persistence and force.

So social skills are usually important, but there are other factors involved too if you want to understand the make up of men.

Yes it's surely a very complicated picture.

I suppose I might have a tendency to think that it's largely the same old (status/reproductive success/survival) games in different wrappers though, partly because the social-change timeframes are so short compared to the evolutionary ones.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm glad you read the book. I think I told you that I read it about 10 or 15 years ago and it really impressed me. I'm enjoying reading your comments as I have forgotten just about all of the details in the book.

I have known for many years that females need to do a better job of banding together. Nurses usually don't do a very good job of that, which often leaves them close to powerless when it comes to the attitudes and attacks made by male doctors. Hopefully, younger nurses are finally learning that they need to support each other instead of "eating their young." Yes, that's actually a common expression when it comes to how nurses often act when a new nurse joins their team.

Years ago, some nurses in California came out with the original "Code Pink". A code pink was called whenever a male doctor was harassing a female nurse. The other nurses would run to defend the nurse who was being attacked. ( verbally, not physically ) I doubt this idea moved outside of the hospital where it was first initiated.

Perhaps the #metoo movement will change things.

#metoo is probably a manifestation of what might arguably be called 'much-needed moderation'. Ditto for 'Code Pink'.

Speaking as a man, I can't say I'm wholly enamoured with the idea of females banding together to moderate my behaviour, but at least I'm used to it, living as I have been for over 20 years in an all-female (except for me) nuclear family (wife and two daughters), with three female pets (dogs) and a female horse to contend with too, and having had sisters but no brothers growing up.