In this course, we often
discuss the toxic impact of sex-selective abortions (particularly the vastly disproportionate termination of female
fetuses before term) in countries around the world. This practice stubbornly adheres
to essentialism and sexual-difference models of the gender construct, and
is often regarded as the Achilles Heel of third-wave
feminism.
Unsurprisingly, in
countries like China (with its notorious one-child policy) and India, widespread abortion of
female fetuses will result in massive disproportionate populations of
single adult men with nonexistent marriage prospects. Without historical marital abatement of male
aggression and violence, scholars fear that these countries will become plagued by civil
unrest and widespread chaos. Accordingly, research shows that recently-immigrated
women whose countries of origin are hotspots for sex-selective abortions continue the sexist practice even after arriving in the
Western world, although the practice tends to die within two to three
generations.
In contrast, some feminist
activists refuse to condemn sex-selective abortions, for reasons that
educator/activist Jane Cawthorne effectively outlines
here:
"[T]here is no 'feminist dilemma' over it: Our bottom line
has to be to let the woman decide. Always.
“The whole line of thinking that some abortions are done for reasons that are more valid than others, because someone was raped, for example, is problematic. Any woman can choose an abortion for any reason, and she doesn’t have to tell us what it is. It’s none of our business.”
“The whole line of thinking that some abortions are done for reasons that are more valid than others, because someone was raped, for example, is problematic. Any woman can choose an abortion for any reason, and she doesn’t have to tell us what it is. It’s none of our business.”
This school of thought
asserts that prohibiting sex-selective abortions would only address the
symptoms of the larger disease of misogyny and female subjugation. Many
activists believe that ending the practice requires not restricting the options
available to pregnant women, but increasing educational and economic
opportunities for women. Ms. Cawthorne’s stance is analogous to that
of the Abortion
Rights Coalition of Canada, which in 2011 fought against a legislative Tory motion seeking
to condemn sex-selective abortions.
Alas, this post goes beyond
the existing third-wave feminist rhetoric that abortion is a fundamental human
right –- because it is so inevitably tied to female autonomy and the right of
self-determination. Access to affordable, legal, and safe abortion procedures
is the keystone of feminist liberation. Additionally, it just may be the next
phase of human evolution.
I posit that feminist
selection is an emerging schema of human evolution, not only as a sociocultural
paradigm, but also an example of human behavior shaping our genetic future. In
the same way that maternal behavior during pregnancy (for instance, prolonged
starvation and high stress) shapes a fetus’ genetic expression of traits (for
proclivity to diabetes and heightened anxiety response, respectively),
collective female choice in which men may become fathers shapes the future gene
pool of humanity. If all rape and domestic violence survivors around the world
had access to affordable and safe abortions, and social attitudes and stigma
around termination became more compassionate, more women would terminate these
unwanted fetuses. Men who forcibly induced intercourse and pregnancy would no
longer easily enter the gene pool in each successive generation. To most, rape
would no longer be acceptable “as a method of conception.” Even in a lesser
extreme, abortion rights could hinder the reproductive success of future
absentee fathers and Lothario heartbreakers. In effect, free and legal access
to safe abortions is the ultimate tool against patriarchy and the masculine dominance structure.
Inevitably, this argument
contradicts everything Darwinian natural selection has instilled in our
brains since middle school: sexual selection is the name of the game, and the
highest number of viable offspring makes you the champion. Under the traditional
Darwinian paradigm, all males (regardless of species) are aggressive and spend their
days sexually pursuing as many females as they can possibly impregnate. In
turn, in Darwin’s world, females are coy and
passive and carefully select only a few males (typically with the most
ostentatious physical sexual characteristics and highest social standing) as
mates. Thankfully, feminism gives humanity slightly more credit for our massive
new brains than this reptilian-brain-driven malarkey. In fact, feminism has
been the main antidote (other than, you know, science and data points) for
refuting the severely detrimental effects of Darwinian theories. For one,
Darwin wholly disregarded instances of homosexuality in the natural world and
discounted these behaviors as “decoy” actions to distract other males from
mating with a desirable female.
In contrast, in the dawn of
this beautiful new fourteenth baktun where abortions may soon be free and safe
and bountiful, we have arrived at the era of feminist selection. Instead of male
gametes winning the evolutionary game by being the most aggressive, most
violent, or by having the brightest chin feathers, women now calibrate male
evolutionary success by choosing to procreate with men who are emotionally
supportive, or intelligent, or who possess a host of desirable traits.
Empowered with the ability to abort the offspring of sexually violent
aggressors or men who cannot sustain lasting relationships, women will now
cognitively decide the course of human history. Feminist selection protects
women’s best interests, and, in turn, the best interests of their offspring -–
at the expense of male sexual aggression.
For those of you who
hesitate before discarding centuries of Darwinian status-quo, know that there
is scientific basis in alternatives to Darwin’s sexual selection. In fact, some scholars assert
that Darwin observed the world with his hand over one eye, and carried many of
his era’s Victorian ideals of sexual roles into his observations in The Galapagos.
Joan Roughgarden, one of the most stunning
and inspiring professors I encountered at Stanford, is such a scholar. Dr.
Roughgarden, author of 8 books and almost 200 articles, is an iconoclast
biologist who originally challenged sexual selection in her book titled Evolution’s Rainbow. She provided many
examples in the animal world from her own fieldwork where animals do not follow traditional sex
roles, and also documented the homosexual behaviors of many species –-
including high-order primate species like bonobos. In her later title The Genial Gene, Dr. Roughgarden created
the social-selection theory as an alternative to the
disproven Darwinian paradigm. The book lists 26 phenomena unexplainable under
current sexual-selection theories, and puts forth social selection as the real
process by which animals pass on their genes in the world. According to Roughgarden, “sexual selection theory
derives from a view of natural behavior predicated on the selfish-gene concept,
competition, and deception, whereas the social-selection theory derives from
teamwork, honesty, and genetic equality.”
Anyone
interested in the errors of Darwinian evolution models should watch the
following TED talk by Dr. Roughgarden in 2011:
No comments:
Post a Comment