Comments by General Tom Lawson

[CliffFletcher]

Military sexual misconduct due to 'biological wiring,' Gen. Tom Lawson tells CBC News

The public reaction the general's comments has left my confidence in the scientific literary and capacity for rational discourse of the Canadian public badly shaken.

There is little doubt among biologists and anthropologists today that humans are innately violent. The Blank Slate Myth, so thoroughly taken apart by Stephen Pinker in his book of the same name, seems to have made the leap from Humanities and Social Sciences departments of modern universities and become public orthodoxy.

It's troubling when so many cannot distinguish between an explanation for behaviour and an excuse of that behaviour, and where rational discourse on the subject of human behaviour becomes impossible owing to narrow dogma and a hostility to empiricism and uncomfortable truths.

[MelBridgeman]

nothing more to add, well said

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

[MarchHare]

As a former officer in the Canadian Forces, I'm embarrassed by General Lawson's comments. As a man, I'm outraged by them. I didn't rape or sexually harass any of my female colleagues because I'm a goddamned professional. Unlike a wild animal, I have the capability of controlling my primal urge to "press myself onto" women. I expect nothing less from everyone who chooses to serve in the Forces.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a former officer in the Canadian Forces, I'm embarrassed by General Lawson's comments. As a man, I'm outraged by them. I didn't rape or sexually harass any of my female colleagues because I'm a goddamned professional. Unlike a wild animal, I have the capability of controlling my primal urge to "press myself onto" women. I expect nothing less from everyone who chooses to serve in the Forces.

He didn't say anything that disagrees with that

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Military sexual misconduct due to 'biological wiring,' Gen. Tom Lawson tells CBC News

The public reaction the general's comments has left my confidence in the scientific literary and capacity for rational discourse of the Canadian public badly shaken.

There is little doubt among biologists and anthropologists today that humans are innately violent. The Blank Slate Myth, so thoroughly taken apart by Stephen Pinker in his book of the same name, seems to have made the leap from Humanities and Social Sciences departments of modern universities and become public orthodoxy.

It's troubling when so many cannot distinguish between an explanation for behaviour and an excuse of that behaviour, and where rational discourse on the subject of human behaviour becomes impossible owing to narrow dogma and a hostility to empiricism and uncomfortable truths.

This is such a ridiculously erroneous statement that I can't quite decide if you meant it as a joke or if you are just that flat out stupid.

There are literally, thousands, of anthropological ethnographies that refute that statement. There is absolutely, unequivocally, NO anthropological consensus on the 'innate violence' of the human species.

This is so utterly laughable that I sincerely hope that you are joking.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He didn't say anything that disagrees with that

Here's his full quote:

"It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.

"Much as we would very much like to be absolutely professional in everything we do, and I think by and large we are, there will be situations and have been situations where, largely, men will see themselves as able to press themselves onto our women members.

"I'm not saying it's right, but we all know boys will be boys. They just can't help themselves from raping their female colleagues. That's just how they're wired."

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Here's his full quote:



"I'm not saying it's right, but we all know boys will be boys. They just can't help themselves from raping their female colleagues. That's just how they're wired."

I read that as

"There are biological reasons why men rape women"

That is true. At no point is he condoning it

[Superfraggle]

By stating it in the way he did, he is trivializing the actions of the people engaging in assault. While not condoning it, he is providing a partial excuse and, in doing so, absolving the leadership and culture from taking full responsibility.

Yes, there's a biological component to these actions. It is the other components that are in question. If we fix those deficits, there is no reason sexual assault and harassment can't be minimized in the military.

It is wrong to accept that this will always be a problem because of biology. That is why he was wrong to say what he did, even though it may have been factually correct. Anything said by top military men to the media that tries to minimize what is going on is absolutely inappropriate.

I do not think he condones sexual violence. I do not think he is against trying to fight it. He still should have known better than to say what he did, given his position.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

By stating it in the way he did, he is trivializing the actions of the people engaging in assault. While not condoning it, he is providing a partial excuse and, in doing so, absolving the leadership and culture from taking full responsibility.

Yes, there's a biological component to these actions. It is the other components that are in question. If we fix those deficits, there is no reason sexual assault and harassment can't be minimized in the military.

It is wrong to accept that this will always be a problem because of biology. That is why he was wrong to say what he did, even though it may have been factually correct. Anything said by top military men to the media that tries to minimize what is going on is absolutely inappropriate.

I do not think he condones sexual violence. I do not think he is against trying to fight it. He still should have known better than to say what he did, given his position.

I have to say you've changed my opinion. It was poorly constructed reasoning, and was definitely not the right thing to say. In his position, and at this time when he's overseeing an effort to change it, it's a incredulous.

When I first read it, I took it without context. That is a legitimate contributor to sexual assault.

However, people know this without pointing it out. The context of the question was the relatively high rate of sexual assault compared to other cohorts. With that in mind biology is irrelevant as the same humans are involved outside the military without the same levels of sexual assault

[CliffFletcher]

I'm not so much interested in the particulars of Lawson's comments. I suppose I'm surprised that anyone in a position of authority or public scrutiny in 2015 utters anything except empty platitudes and boiler-plate responses in public interviews. It should be clear by now that whatever vestige of an appetite the Canadian public has for substantial discussion of issues, it's dwarfed by the appetite for public shaming and vilification. In today's climate, there's nothing whatsoever to gain and everything to lose by expressing an opinion that differs in any way from the orthodox line on a host of issues.

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

This is such a ridiculously erroneous statement that I can't quite decide if you meant it as a joke or if you are just that flat out stupid.

There are literally, thousands, of anthropological ethnographies that refute that statement. There is absolutely, unequivocally, NO anthropological consensus on the 'innate violence' of the human species.

This is so utterly laughable that I sincerely hope that you are joking.

Okay, I overstated by case. And yes, I'm aware that the romantic notion of the peaceful savage held sway in anthropology for much of the 20th century. However, it does seem that the consensus has given way under a growing weight of evidence capturing the true rates of violence among primitive peoples. As Pinker puts in The Better Angels of Our Nature:

"Only in the past fifteen years have scholars with no political ax to grind, such as Lawrence Keeley, Steven LeBlanc, Azar Gat, and Johan van der Dennen, begun to compile systematic reviews of the frequency and damage of fighting in large samples of non-state peoples."

Pinker then goes on to show the rate of violent death in pre-state societies identified from skeletons dug out of archaeological sites. They range from 0 per cent death rate from warfare to 60 per cent, with an average of 15 per cent. Studies of contemporary hunter-gatherer societies show an average rate of death by warfare of 14 per cent. The rate in Europe in the 20th century (including WW1 and WW2) was under 3 per cent.

And recent studies of chimpanzees (not the dubious observations of Goodall) show predations and lethal raiding by most groups, including those where commodities were not introduced by observers.

I'll ask you this, vanisleflamesfan: Are you comfortable with the taboo in Canada today against offering any explanation for violence besides socialization? Are you comfortable with the unshakeable dogma of the blank slate that has choked off all public discourse on the role of nature in violence - and in behaviour altogether?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a former officer in the Canadian Forces, I'm embarrassed by General Lawson's comments. As a man, I'm outraged by them. I didn't rape or sexually harass any of my female colleagues because I'm a goddamned professional. Unlike a wild animal, I have the capability of controlling my primal urge to "press myself onto" women. I expect nothing less from everyone who chooses to serve in the Forces.

Is the instances of sexual misconduct/rape/harassment greater in the CF than in the civilian world?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

It is wrong to accept that this will always be a problem because of biology.

Why? Is it wrong to recognize that murder will always be a problem because of biology?

[Weitz]

"She shouldn't dress like that because men are wired this way"

[Nage Waza]

Not sure why there is a debate here. We are animals. The rest of the animal world is a hunt or be hunted life. The vast majority of animals die from being eaten alive.

All that makes us different from any other animal is our body and our higher level of intelligence. Are we capable of violence? We would have to be, since we evolved and survived. Are we capable of stifling assorted feelings and emotions? Yes, but some better than others.

Regardless of the side of the debate, if it is rational, it should be promoted, not shamed.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

"Only in the past fifteen years have scholars with no political ax to grind, such as Lawrence Keeley, Steven LeBlanc, Azar Gat, and Johan van der Dennen, begun to compile systematic reviews of the frequency and damage of fighting in large samples of non-state peoples."

Pinker then goes on to show the rate of violent death in pre-state societies identified from skeletons dug out of archaeological sites. They range from 0 per cent death rate from warfare to 60 per cent, with an average of 15 per cent. Studies of contemporary hunter-gatherer societies show an average rate of death by warfare of 14 per cent. The rate in Europe in the 20th century (including WW1 and WW2) was under 3 per cent.

Except that Pinker also notes that there are features of certain modern societies that make them less violent than their primitive counterparts, which seems to indicate that whatever our biological nature is that it can be molded and influenced by our environment and culture. Having a biological predisposition to rape or sexual assault doesn't explain why incidences of it are much higher in the military than in other parts of society, which is why we need to start questioning military culture (such as the practice of attributing rape to biological urges).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except that Pinker also notes that there are features of certain modern societies that make them less violent than their primitive counterparts, which seems to indicate that whatever our biological nature is that it can be molded and influenced by our environment and culture.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Having a biological predisposition to rape or sexual assault doesn't explain why incidences of it are much higher in the military than in other parts of society,

You're right, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by rubecube

which is why we need to start questioning military culture (such as the practice of attributing rape to biological urges).

But rape is motivated by biological urges. Doesn't mean it's excusable. Infanticide can be attributed to biological urges (it's certainly not a learned social behaviour these days). Doesn't excuse it either.

It's perfectly rational to attribute rape to both biological and social motivators. What's irrational (and not backed up by science) is attributing it strictly to social factors. Yet that's the political climate we live in today - profoundly irrational on the subject of innate capacities and behaviour. And deluding ourselves about the nature of a problem makes it that much harder to address it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Weitz

"She shouldn't dress like that because men are wired this way"

It's more "we need to learn ways to change or control our biological urges as primitive desires aren't socially, ethically or morally acceptable"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But rape is motivated by biological urges. Doesn't mean it's excusable. Infanticide can be attributed to biological urges (it's certainly not a learned social behaviour these days). Doesn't excuse it either.

It's perfectly rational to attribute rape to both biological and social motivators. What's irrational (and not backed up by science) is attributing it strictly to social factors. Yet that's the political climate we live in today - profoundly irrational on the subject of innate capacities and behaviour. And deluding ourselves about the nature of a problem makes it that much harder to address it.

I don't think that's the argument. I think the argument is that as human beings we are also biologically wired to be capable of controlling our biological urges and discerning right from wrong, so whatever the biological basis of rape is, it's not really relevant to changing a culture that is accepting of it. I also don't think you can make the argument that being biologically predisposed to violence means you're biologically predisposed to all types of violence. Is there anything to suggest that people, particularly men, are predisposed specifically to rape?

It should be noted that while rapes and sexual assaults are far too common in society, it's still only a certain percentage of men who actually commit them. How does that jive with an innate biological trait?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Not sure why there is a debate here. We are animals. The rest of the animal world is a hunt or be hunted life. The vast majority of animals die from being eaten alive.

All that makes us different from any other animal is our body and our higher level of intelligence. Are we capable of violence? We would have to be, since we evolved and survived. Are we capable of stifling assorted feelings and emotions? Yes, but some better than others.

Regardless of the side of the debate, if it is rational, it should be promoted, not shamed.

I'm just quoting this so it remains.