"If radical feminism is to regain its transformative edge, it must reject both biological determinism and the individualist detachment of existentialism."
I cannot agree with a sociobiological argument that patriarchy is founded in biology, which treats it as universal, transhistorical, and unavoidable: "Patriarchy did not arise arbitrarily; it emerged from fundamental biological asymmetries in reproductive investment. In other words, asymmetric reproductive investment is the starting condition that leads to women being disadvantaged at the systemic level. Species in which one sex invests significantly more in reproduction tend to develop social hierarchies where the lower-investment sex competes for access to mates, while the higher-investment sex becomes a resource to be controlled."
If that were true, then no matricultural societies would exist, and the many variations of social systems would be dismissed. It is not the biology, but the exploitative instrumentalization of physical differences, made structural and customary over a long history of patriarchalization.
Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with my article! I actually agree with what you've said. I suppose "tend" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. In hindsight I should have made this more clear directly after that part, but further down in the article (quoted below) I state more explicitly that biology does not guarantee any specific hierarchy because it's not the sole determinant, it just has a measurable influence on the probability of certain hierarchies emerging. Hence why I'm interested in common underlying features of non-male-dominant systems - I want to know what features we should emulate.
I bring up biology because I worry that social phenomena are seen more and more as abstract and disconnected from material systems (biology, ecology, land, living conditions in general). I want to emphasize that these systems interact with each other. As you say, there is "exploitative instrumentalization of physical differences". This is hardly thought about these days because there is more focus on superficial, symbolic victories rather than material issues that result in disproportionately negative consequences for women (such as "feminists" who promote women IOF soldiers and say that israel should take over Gaza to "save" the Palestinian women, meanwhile ignoring the effects of their actions on women).
I think it's the interaction between biological systems and other subsystems related to energy allocation (such as who is doing the care work) which leads to any given gender hierarchy (or lack thereof). Biology is immutable in the short term, but that's not the case for the other subsystems, so that's where our focus should be.
"In primates (and other mammals), females typically have higher energy investment in reproduction than males (due primarily to gestation, childbirth, and lactation). This fact does not guarantee (but often leads to) a hierarchical social system. A variety of social systems have been observed (even within the same species): male-dominant, female-dominant, co-dominant, and more egalitarian systems. While females’ bodily investment in reproduction is immutable, investment in child care is mutable. There is a correlation between social systems and the allocation of parental investment in primates. In more egalitarian or female-dominant systems, males and/or other group members tend to participate more in child care."
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I could not agree more how problematic it is "that social phenomena are seen more and more as abstract and disconnected from material systems." And with your critique of IOF female soldiers being cast as some "feminist" ideal as against Palestinian women in Gaza, especially given the history of the last 70+ years, all the more so under the current genocide.
As to reproductive investment, it's not that there's nothing to that (males have more option to walk out). It's the way it's been elevated to a dogma by evolutionary scientists of a certain stripe (you can guess which ones), without reference to historical or ethnographic or other evidence for diverse kinds of human social systems, including ones in which males participate in caregiving. Which as you say is mutable. These frameworks rely heavily on theory. I recently read an excellent falsification of them by archaeologist / anthropologist Anna Roosevelt, "Gender in Human Evolution" (2002). She tears into them with material evidence on food provision among foragers, parenting, pair bonding (or not), division of labor, tool use (massive amongst female foragers including other primates), and not least, showing a scientific shift away from the savanna big-game hunters hypothesis to one of forest origins for early humans. Very refreshing read.
I forgot to mention Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's mega-intervention, on females banding together to ward off male force majeure. Also her demonstration in Mothers and Others, showing that far from males' "selfish gene," the old females (in various primate groups) ensure the survival of young by feeding and protecting them. And that non-dominant males do some of this too.
This is some of the most decisive writing I’ve ever encountered on how to address the matter of sex from a radical feminist perspective. Absolutely in awe.
I cannot agree with a sociobiological argument that patriarchy is founded in biology, which treats it as universal, transhistorical, and unavoidable: "Patriarchy did not arise arbitrarily; it emerged from fundamental biological asymmetries in reproductive investment. In other words, asymmetric reproductive investment is the starting condition that leads to women being disadvantaged at the systemic level. Species in which one sex invests significantly more in reproduction tend to develop social hierarchies where the lower-investment sex competes for access to mates, while the higher-investment sex becomes a resource to be controlled."
If that were true, then no matricultural societies would exist, and the many variations of social systems would be dismissed. It is not the biology, but the exploitative instrumentalization of physical differences, made structural and customary over a long history of patriarchalization.
Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with my article! I actually agree with what you've said. I suppose "tend" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that paragraph. In hindsight I should have made this more clear directly after that part, but further down in the article (quoted below) I state more explicitly that biology does not guarantee any specific hierarchy because it's not the sole determinant, it just has a measurable influence on the probability of certain hierarchies emerging. Hence why I'm interested in common underlying features of non-male-dominant systems - I want to know what features we should emulate.
I bring up biology because I worry that social phenomena are seen more and more as abstract and disconnected from material systems (biology, ecology, land, living conditions in general). I want to emphasize that these systems interact with each other. As you say, there is "exploitative instrumentalization of physical differences". This is hardly thought about these days because there is more focus on superficial, symbolic victories rather than material issues that result in disproportionately negative consequences for women (such as "feminists" who promote women IOF soldiers and say that israel should take over Gaza to "save" the Palestinian women, meanwhile ignoring the effects of their actions on women).
I think it's the interaction between biological systems and other subsystems related to energy allocation (such as who is doing the care work) which leads to any given gender hierarchy (or lack thereof). Biology is immutable in the short term, but that's not the case for the other subsystems, so that's where our focus should be.
"In primates (and other mammals), females typically have higher energy investment in reproduction than males (due primarily to gestation, childbirth, and lactation). This fact does not guarantee (but often leads to) a hierarchical social system. A variety of social systems have been observed (even within the same species): male-dominant, female-dominant, co-dominant, and more egalitarian systems. While females’ bodily investment in reproduction is immutable, investment in child care is mutable. There is a correlation between social systems and the allocation of parental investment in primates. In more egalitarian or female-dominant systems, males and/or other group members tend to participate more in child care."
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I could not agree more how problematic it is "that social phenomena are seen more and more as abstract and disconnected from material systems." And with your critique of IOF female soldiers being cast as some "feminist" ideal as against Palestinian women in Gaza, especially given the history of the last 70+ years, all the more so under the current genocide.
As to reproductive investment, it's not that there's nothing to that (males have more option to walk out). It's the way it's been elevated to a dogma by evolutionary scientists of a certain stripe (you can guess which ones), without reference to historical or ethnographic or other evidence for diverse kinds of human social systems, including ones in which males participate in caregiving. Which as you say is mutable. These frameworks rely heavily on theory. I recently read an excellent falsification of them by archaeologist / anthropologist Anna Roosevelt, "Gender in Human Evolution" (2002). She tears into them with material evidence on food provision among foragers, parenting, pair bonding (or not), division of labor, tool use (massive amongst female foragers including other primates), and not least, showing a scientific shift away from the savanna big-game hunters hypothesis to one of forest origins for early humans. Very refreshing read.
Thanks for the recommendation, looks very interesting!!
I forgot to mention Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's mega-intervention, on females banding together to ward off male force majeure. Also her demonstration in Mothers and Others, showing that far from males' "selfish gene," the old females (in various primate groups) ensure the survival of young by feeding and protecting them. And that non-dominant males do some of this too.
This is some of the most decisive writing I’ve ever encountered on how to address the matter of sex from a radical feminist perspective. Absolutely in awe.
Thank you so much for your comment, this means so much to me! This really encourages me to keep writing :) - Judith Lark