Domestic Violence is an emotive and evocative topic. It encompasses
so many facets or totems of various political philosophies that
questioning some of the tenets surrounding the subject can be like a red
rag to certain bulls some of indeterminate gender. It is an all
embracing description for certain actions but, to coin phrase, there is
still no actual law against it. It can and has been used by feminists,
racists, fundamentalist religious fanatics, biologists, economists,
lawyers, politicians and many others in support of or against prevailing
tendencies or attitudes within and towards families and their
relationships. In England the courts consider eg that violence
alleged between distant brothers in law should be heard in a dedicated
DV court. And so the simple definition of male violence upon female
when in an intimate relationship has changed over the last couple of
decades.
And so it was I happened upon the opinions of an evolutionary biologist in America who must have expected all manner of reaction after he was reported
as saying that it [DV] carries a selective advantage, tied with
reproductive success. In other words, men who are violent are trying to
make sure that their partner has his child and not another man's.
This subject is all too often treated as consisting of some sort of
unquestionable facts and those who do not follow this line akin to flat
earthers. I hope the researcher David Buss survives long enough to
allow his views to be considered and if appropriate refuted by his
peers and not by fanatical opposition devoid of all reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment