Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Magmas wrote: »

Primates weren't concerned about whose child was whose, nor did they need monogamy to maintain order in larger groups. Humans did, and hence sex has become intimately bound up with these things in our unconscious. Sex can indeed become functionally "casual" to more highly evolved human beings, but we are certainly not at that level yet collectively and for the most part when it is treated as such by people it always results in total chaos.

Neither were humans, have a read of sex at dawn. Group sex and sex as a means of bonding the tribe is normal to us.

Magmas wrote: »

Human societies have developed through and hence integrated many more phases than merely the tribal. However, evolutionary psychology rules today's frankly myopic intellectual culture, wherein all human behavior can be reductively explained by the past low level stages because these are the simpler ones and are therefore more easily graspable and reducible into a comprehensive and cohesive theory.

So what is there to explain Louise O'Neills hatred of men? And the fact that loads of people agree with her?

"So what is there to explain Louise O'Neills hatred of men? And the fact that loads of people agree with her?"

So you're asking what the cause of feminism (the anti-femininity edition, not the push for equal rights) is. I could give you many theories, but none of them would be absolutely true. When speaking of causality, there are such an immense variety of forces behind any given event that it cannot possibly be reduced to a single causal explanation. Our culture does have a bias towards assuming that every event does in fact have a single reducible cause however because of our inherited theory of western science. In reality the true nature of causal explanations can be thought of using an analogy of a spider's web. Some threads of the web (symbolic of explanations for things) are closer to the center (the truth) and some are much further away from the center (such as the idea of an explicit rape culture in ireland) but any thread cannot be regarded as absolutely true because it has an opposite on the other side of the web (nor can any be regarded as absolutely false). Evolutionary psychology purports to explain all of human behavior with reference to a single (rather periphery) thread.

Moreover, we are like spiders sitting in a relativistic position on the web but believing we are at the center and can therefore see it as it actually is. Imagine you took a highly asymmetrical object and placed it on a table in the middle of a room, and had multiple people sitting on chairs at every angle in the room all of whom had a tendency to assume their view was the correct one. Naturally they would all become engaged in a livid debate as to what was the true nature of the object they were seeing as they all natively/naively assume it can be accurately discerned from their position. The ensuing chaos might naturally lead to a practical solution: one person's view could be regarded as supreme, and everyone would agree with their definition of the object.* However, after a lengthy time period people might become tired of having to listen to that one person dictate to them what they're seeing but know they couldn't go back to trying to insist that their relative view was right as it differed so much from everyone else's, so an alternative compromise might emerge wherein everyone pretends the object is a square.** A square is a very agreeable object for everyone to imagine, but it's also extremely bland and limited.

*Advent of Christianity (we'll call this idea 1)
**Advent of western materialist science (idea 2)

The people in the room had been looking at the object as dictated by that one person for so long, that person's image of the object had burned into their retinas (so to speak) to the point where in the new agreement to imagine a square, that square now contained a strong trace of the old dictated object without them realising it. That "trace" is (in effect) the presumption of (the absolute explanatory status of linear) cause and effect. God came first, and spawned the world (first assumed to be static). So you have the idea of God (single cause) and world (single effect) (summarising idea 1). Once God was removed from the picture, idea 2 emerged. Only this time the world was fluid yet causality was still given God (or ultimate) status, so an infinite regress emerged where every cause had another cause behind it. Ultimate explanatory power was given to the past. This is in fact a very neat way of looking at things, but there is an immense problem or puzzle to it, how can on earth (and indeed in any world imaginable) could an old cause produce a new effect? How can there be progress or development in this model? The evidence of Evolution wasn't first noticed by Darwin, what he innovated was not the justification of it's existence via the solution of the puzzle (it cannot be solved because it's founded on false premises) but rather - by formulating the theory of natural selection - he merely covered it up so efficiently that people completely forgot about the puzzle altogether. The result of this has been evolutionary theory being given such a religious or absolute status that completely irrelevant fields (that are puzzling) such as psychology are being completely reduced to it.