Proof that Science is Misogynistic
Publishing NewsScience-Fiction-Romance11 Comments
As if men don't have enough excuse for infidelity, science is providing yet another. According to researches at the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden, there is a gene allele which can affect the production of a hormone called vasopressin. Vasopressin is known to positively influence monogamy. Men with more than two of the gene allele 334 "were twice as likely to have had a marital or relationship crisis in the last year compared with those who lacked the gene variant."
Via LA Times .
Ummm, does this mean that this is an excuse for some men to not grow up? I sure wish they’d proved that everyone has an ACCOUNTABILITY gene, which would prove that some people just don’t want to accept responsibility for their actions.
To be fair, the scientists have only tested this with voles, not with humans or even primates.
Science as a pursuit is not misogynistic.
Whether or not the particular scientists involved in this study are misogynistic depends on whether or not they deliberately faked or misinterpreted or slanted their results in order to give men an “out” on the whole monogamy thing. Given this bit: Walum notes that though the study may shed some light on the genetic underpinnings of human bonding, “there are, of course, many reasons why a person might have relationship problems,” that doesn’t seem to be at all the case.
Nothing about human behavior is simple, and it’s not the scientists’ fault if the media tries to distill all the complexities and caveats down to a short headline or sound byte.
Angie
Studying genetics does not make science misogynistic. Furthermore, this isn’t a study about *most* men. The article said that having two copies of RS3 allele 334 is a genetic polymorphism–meaning it may occur in as little as 1% of the population. The study used DNA from “552 same-sex twin-pairs and their spouses/partners” (1,899 total people) including about 921 men. They found 41 men (about 4%) with two copies of RS3 allele 334. If that’s representative, the average cheating hubby would have only a 1 in 25 chance of blaming it on genetics. And that’s if this study provided an iron-clad association with behavior–which it doesn’t: the effect found in the study is fairly small.
Future studies may shore up the connection, but Monica Burns has it exactly right:
This is a study of one genetic factor. Other studies may find other factors that counteract this polymorphism. Just as one set of neuroscience studies found that structures in the brain make women more empathetic, and later research found that when we *socialize* women into being empathetic, that’s what develops those structures in the brain.
I assumed that Jane was being sarcastic; did I misread?
Robin, that’s how I read it.
Well. Being adamantly non-monogamous, I’m always fascinated by studies like this. >_>
The sarcasm is against a background of the media, especially blog, tending to assume scientists are either stupid, or unethical in some way, or both. That;s why I don’t pay much attention unless there is a direct link to the actual research to check for things like… it’s about rodents.
Jane, sorry if I stomped on you. I arrived here already irritated by similar headlines–not at all sarcastic–in the newspapers.
Steven Brust’s response to this is hysterical.
http://skzbrust.livejournal.com/103308.html