There is a lot of wisdom in this book-- not only in the third chapter.
There is a lot of honesty, and a warm interest in apes, bonobos and humans which enables the author to tell the truth simply, as he sees it, and with great clarity. In the pages I am going to quote, some half- formed ideas had been there, in the back of my mind, and I simply never made the connections.
It seems that somehow many things start with the drama of infanticide.
De Waal describes an example of langur male monkeys killing the young (p 102 in my book) and says it happened for humans too, and in both cases the males would try to kill the young and the women would try to defend them.
De waal refers to anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, who "drew attention to examamples of infanticides." She theorizes about human defences, one of which is to confuse paternity.
Among apes, "by accepting the advances of many males, a female can buffer herself against infanticide because none of her mates can discard the possibility that the infant is his. In other words, it pays to sleep around."
I find De Waal 's theory about "fatherly assistance", which developed in humans but not in apes (thus giving us an edge!) fascinating.
The idea is that human males are only willing to look after and work for (as well as not kill) infants that are biologically theirs. (It really looks like everybody could think of that one for themselves, but I was surpised-- why hadn't I thought that up for myself before?:eek:).
So, the choice that humans made is the contrary of the one made by bonobo females.
The nuclear family is the hallmark of human social evolution.
Given the exclusvity of our sexual contacts, we've opted for the opposite of the bonobo plan by actually enhancing a male's ability to tell which offspring are his.
p 107.
Our ancestors needed cooperative males who posed no threat to females and their young and who were ready to lend their mates a hand.
p 109.
And the consequence: the never-ending fight to "tame female sexuality."
Since males are willing to help out only with young likely to be theirs, the taming of female sexuality became their constant struggle.
p 110.
And one good argument, alas, in support of all this, p 103:
It's well established, for example, that children are more at risk of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers
p 103.
In the case of girls sexually abused by the male in the family, "father" means, very often, stepfather. The explanation I had (as far as one can explain such behaviour) was that the stepfather had arrived late in the life of the child, and had not bonded with the child as a baby, and this must be true too.
But the explanation going back to our ancestors-- that the male would only look after biological offspring and that he would often prey on other offspring makes a lot of sense to me.
Now, I am sure there must be dozens of pages and ideas that are cheerful and uplifting and that I just didn't spot. This is where Saffron must come in...
I did see the pages about the sexuality of bonobos and De Waal's thesis that it makes them peaceful and contented... they seem to be sweet creatures... oh, and the females rule --wisely, of course, so that both sexes lead happy lives!