I was reading io9 this recently, and found an article about a study of water striders. Basically, the study was set up so that the water striders had a “wading pool equipped with special doors that could restrict movement between groups or allow the insects to move freely”
When the insects were allowed to move freely, the females would move over to the “gentlemen” insects, and lay “about three times more eggs” leaving the aggressive male water striders to stew in their own failure. Past lab studies restricted female water strider movement, but given the freedom to choose, female water striders chose the males without sexual aggression. i.e.: Male aggression does *not* lead to reproductive success.
As Annalee Newitz of io9 puts it:
“Who knows how much research into sexual selection has been flawed because researchers forgot the crucial ingredient of female freedom?”
Not to mention that if one were to extrapolate from this study, it debunks all the “nice guys (no TM) finish last” myth. The image of hyper-masculinity, the forceful sexuality that supposedly leads to “scoring chicks” is actually a detriment to a male’s goal if that goal is to attract women.
The article (along with a graph) is here:
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Aggressive, Forceful Males Are Not First Choice (water strider edition).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17019
Its a pretty big stretch to conclude from one study on water insects to claims about human sexuality, different animals have evolved in different ways, and this demonstrated in different mating behaviour.
Even looking at primates depending on which one we pick we can find different "dominant" strategies to support whatever conclusion we want to reach.
I don't think anyone concluded anything though, did they? Just a little extrapolation, and that's always fun.
It only seems fun when it subverts patriarchal gender norms.
We're routinely appalled when people extrapolate from "the way things are in nature" to support the status quo--as we should be. But we ought to be equally skeptical in this case; it maybe "fun," but it reinforces the naturalistic fallacy, which ain't what we want to do.
Did you get this from The Onion?
While I don't agree that human/insect/animal behavior is comparable, I do appreciate ammo in our favor against those who do
:)
Here's at least one study I've seen about people with respect to aggression and mating.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090511/full/news.2009.463.htmlThe
The most warlike men in an Amazonian tribe fathered fewer children than their milder fellows, say researchers. The finding shows that bellicosity need not always have evolutionary advantages, and that the social consequences of violence depend on cultural context.
(emphasis mine, cause like, duh!)
The full content is paid. But if you google around you might be able to find a reference with more details...Unfortunately I'm unable to locate where I read the full article for free...
I can't remember where, but recently I read or heard something on a podcast (I'm thinking Radiolab?) about domesticating animals, particularly dogs and foxes. They said a lot about domesticating animals, but they also pointed out that as humans have lived closer and closer together, we've essentially been domesticating ourselves/each other. Once you're in a strong social context, aggression isn't so great, and we've probably been breeding it out of ourselves for hundreds or thousands of years.
Extrapolating from bugs to humans? That is just as ridiculous and limiting as the early extrapolations in the other direction.
Newitz's quote is what is key, here. So much research on animal mating habits has been contaminated by assumptions about human females and the extrapolations to the rest of the animal kingdom. Early evolutionists were reluctant to believe that male birds evolved incapacitating plumage solely because female birds found it attractive. The rationale was that human females did not have an aesthetic sense, so avian females could not, either. It was with the entry of more women into animal behavior studies that a wider variety of sexual behaviors started to be discovered.