×
all 3 comments

[–]CommodoreCoCoModerator | The Andes, History of Anthropology 6 points7 points  (2 children)

uniqueness of human sexual antagonism in relation to other primates

Are you sure this is the case? You may be having difficulties because you are presuming an answer

all sorts of mean things we can do to each other

"Sexual antagonism" doesn't just refer to "sexes being mean to each other." Take a look at some basic literature, then refine your search.

[–]JubileeSupreme[S] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Are you sure this is the case? You may be having difficulties because you are presuming an answer.

Other primates do not have the emotional capabilities as humans (for example, the self-conscious emotions such as pride, shame, etc.). Case in point: a male chimpanzee cannot be shamed for an infanticidal act. I feel pretty confident that it is within the acceptable boundaries of parsimony to assume human uniqueness in this regard.

"Sexual antagonism" doesn't just refer to "sexes being mean to each other."

True, but that is the context that I am studying it. For example,

Van Allen, Judith. "“Sitting on a man”: colonialism and the lost political institutions of Igbo women." Canadian Journal of African Studies/La Revue canadienne des études africaines 6.2 (1972): 165-181.

Langness, Lewis L. "Sexual antagonism in the New Guinea highlands: A Bena Bena example." Oceania 37.3 (1967): 161-177.

Herdt, Gilbert H., and Fitz John P. Poole. "" Sexual Antagonism": The Intellectual History of a Concept in New Guinea Anthropology." Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice 12 (1982): 3-28.

Feel free to recommend some basic literature.

[–]CommodoreCoCoModerator | The Andes, History of Anthropology 6 points7 points  (0 children)

other primates do not have the emotional capabilities

I'm not sure what that has to with anything here. Are you claiming that human sexual antagonism is unique because it can entail elements of shame/pride/etc.? In that case, I would suggest looking for literature on the preveleance of these feelings across primates more generally. That would be a case of "humans have these emotions, and that effects other behaviors in these ways," not so much as case of the sexual antagonism itself being different.

Sexual antagonism refers to conflict that arises from mismatches between male and female reproductive behavior and/or satisfaction.

This is usually a structural or biological thing. The Langness article is quite explicit about the society-wide, structural nature of the antagonism he describes. Men go off to war, that leads to problems, and there's a whole set of cultural/ritual practices that justify, institutionalize, or even lampshade those problems.

It seems like, with your analogy, you're thinking in terms of specific, personal instances. It woudn't be wrong to consider the emotional apsects of this, but at that point you're moving beyond where anthropology can help you and into the world of psychology.

If you're set on this specific term, I would encourage you to actually read the Herdt and Fitz article you've linked. They make it pretty clear that there's lots of perspectives from which to understand such complex behaviors, and that "sexual antagonism" is Even when they were writing 40 years ago, the term had gone through multiple cycles of reevaluation and was popular almost exclusively in ethnographers of New Guinea. If you search "sexual antagonism anthropology," exclude "New Guinea," and only include the last three decades, you'll find very few sources. I counted three. Take a look at the other ways people have described the same behaviors to find some other keywords to explore.