Archives for posts with tag: have you stopped beating your wife?

from The Yanomamo by napoleon chagnon [pgs. 126-27]:

“Women must respond quickly to the demands of their husbands and even anticipate their needs. It is interesting to watch the behavior of women when their husbands return from a hunting trip or a visit. The men march dramatically and proudly across the village and retire silently into their hammocks, especially when they bring home desirable food items. The women, no matter what they are doing, hurry home and quietly but rapidly prepare a meal. Should the wife be slow at doing this, some irate husbands scold them or even beat them.

“Most physical reprimands meted out take the form of blows with the hand or with a piece of firewood, but a good many husbands are more severe. Some of them chop their wives with the sharp edge of a machete or ax or shoot them with a barbed arrow in some nonvital area, such as the buttocks or leg. Some men are given to punishing their wives by holding the glowing end of a piece of firewood against them, producing painful and serious burns. The punishment is usually, however, more consistent with the perceived seriousness of the wife’s shortcomings, more drastic measures being reserved for infidelity or suspicion of infidelity. It is not uncommon for a man to injure his sexually errant wife seriously and some men have even killed wives for infidelity by shooting them with an arrow.

Women who are not too severely treated might even measure their husband’s concern in terms of the frequency of minor physical reprimands they sustain. I overheard two young women discussing each other’s scalp scars. One of them commented that the other’s husband must really care for her since he has beaten her on the head so frequently!

“A woman can usually depend on her brothers for protection. They will defend her against a cruel husband. If a man is too severe to a wife, her brothers may take the woman away from him and giver her to another man. It is largely for this reason that women usually abhor the possibility of being married off to men in distant villages; they know that their brothers cannot protect them under these circumstances. Women who have married a cross-cousin have an easier llife, for they are related to their husbands by cognatic ties of kinship as well as by marriage. Bahimi is, for example, Kaobawa’s Mother’s Brother’s Daughter (MBD), and their marital relationship is very tranquil. He does punish Bahimi occasionally, but never cruelly. Some men, however, seem to think that it is reasonable to beat their wife once in a while as if the objective is ‘just to keep her on her toes.'”

yanamamo men married to their mbds (or any cousin) will prolly physically hurt their wives less, on average, than men not married to theirs since the man+mbd couples are more related to one another than the non-cousins couples. wouldn’t make any sense for lots of excessive (i.e. lethal) violence towards very close relatives to have been selected for. (although see below.)

however, the fact that there is quite a bit of violence towards women in yanomamo society (yes, i know that there’s a lot of violence in yanomamo society in general), and the fact that yanomamo women prefer to marry close to home, reminds me of arab/middle eastern/maghrebian/ mashriqian/south asian muslim societies where very close marriage (fbd marriage) is the preferred form.

very close marriage is also preferred in yanomamo society, albeit of a different form (the preferred form is not parallel-cousin marriage like the arabs, but cross-cousin marriage to a mbd, but since two clans usually exchange brides exclusively — or that’s the ideal anyway — a man’s mbd is also often his father’s sister’s daughter [fzd] as well. i’ll explain it in a later post — for now, see here.)

my impression is that when you have a lot of very close marriage, you get what i’ve (jokingly) dubbed inclusive-inclusive fitness behaviors like honor killings and the like — extreme forms of “altruistic” behaviors in which even family members can be sacrificed for the benefit of the remaining family members. weird, but true (i think). i think the killing of unfaithful yanomamo wives by husbands who are usually relatives of some sort is another example of this. on the other hand, maybe it’s just that the yanomamo have an extremely strong violent streak.

more on the yanomamo anon!

see also: Domestic violence gets evolutionary explanation

(note: comments do not require an email. yanomamo girl.)


half sigma wrote the other day:

“As much as I wish that there weren’t as many Jewish liberals, unfortunately it’s not uncommon to find prominent liberals who are Jewish. Anti-Semites, however, exaggerate the Jewishness of the left. The majority of leftists are gentile. Nancy Pelosi is a gentile. Barrack Obama is a gentile. Al Gore is a gentile. The Norwegian Noble Committee members, who awarded the Peace Prize to Al Gore and Barrack Obama, are gentile.”

his comment reminded me of the oj trial.

at some point in the oj trial, the prosecution pointed out that oj had beaten his wife during their marriage. the defense responded with some brilliant statistical tomfoolery: most wife beaters don’t kill their wives. i don’t remember what the prosecution responded to that — if anything it was prolly something stoooopid. but what they shoulda responded was, “no, most wife beaters don’t kill their wives, but most wife killers beat their wives.”

similarly, the interesting thing about jews in the west is not that they make up the majority of the left (as half sigma points out, they don’t), but that the majority of jews are leftists (see here and here).

that’s not what makes some people anti-semitic, tho. no, it’s much simpler than that. anti-semitism is caused by the same, biological factors as any other sort of “anti-” feeling that one group of people has towards another (and u have to admit, the world is NOT lacking in such feelings).

groups of people be hatin’ on other groups of people because they are unrelated or not-related-enough to each other, genetically speaking.

/full and complete explanation

and western jews — ashkenazi jews — are not-related-enough to any of the european peoples amongst whom they live. ergo, conflict.

that’s all there is to it. really. (well, things can ride along pretty well in places where groups are mixed provided there’s plenty of resources to go ’round, but if there’s some sort of resource|economic crisis, watch out.)

but, if u add on top of the not-related-enough-ness the differing political sentiments on average of jews (see above), plus other things like jews feeling more like “world citizens” than other european|american populations (i.e. not feeling so tied to whatever country they happen to be living in) … well, then … houston, we have a problem.

the sooner we all get it through our thick skulls that human behavior is rooted in biology, just like the behavior of all other living creatures on this god-forsaken rock, the sooner we’ll be able to deal realistically with the discordancies between us all. (and by “deal realistically” i mean in a peaceful, civilized way, in case u were wondering. i know things can be taken up wrongly on the interwebs!)

(note: comments do not require an email.)