>>I disagree with your use of the word "disappear". I mean, simply, that
>>even if we get rid of rape there will always be people arguing that when it
>>existed among us there were biological reasons for its existence. You
>>disagree?
>>
>>Joanna
>
>I doubt people would (for in the case of "scientific" arguments over
>miscegenation, the topic has disappeared from biological discourse
>altogether, and we only discuss it as part of the history of racism),
...and that's how I would like rape (and its possible origins) to be discussed, in some evolved period of our history...
>but let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right &
>scientists would be still speculating on "biological reasons" for
>rape; in that case, we'd be thinking of "biological reasons" in a way
>very far from Randy Thornhill & Craig T. Palmer's conception of
>"biology." The word "biological," as it is currently used in
>ideology, seems to me to be euphemism for "not likely to disappear"
>(as in "boys will be boys" because of evolutionary adaptation). And
>that is why it is useful as a device for depoliticization, since
>politics is about social change.
>
>Yoshie
Yes of course. I doubt, though, that we should throw any tool away for the reason that it can be wielded in support of a cause we don't believe in. In fact, in my book that gives us all the more reason to make it work for us -- and publicly.
cheers, Joanna
www.overlookhouse.com