Feminist Chimpanzee and Jane Goodall

15 11 2020

I recently watched a documentary on the life of Jane Goodall, the British woman who studied the life of chimpanzees in the African wild. Though I enjoyed it very much, it seems her fame was due more to her stunning looks and aquiline beauty than to her studies. Still , her “Tarzan-like” courage is remarkable, and she definitely had a good nose for strong unpleasant stench, an invaluable asset in her line of work. There’s no doubt that she helped the world get a better glimpse of the private life of those hairy beasts, but even more importantly, her discoveries had remarkable influence on her own private life in ways that even she would not admit.

At the early stage of her expedition, she met and fell in love with Hugo, a young photographer who was sent by the National geographic to photograph and documents her work. It was a love affair that was– as far as all could see—unavoidable. Was there a better elixir of love than a scenario where two youngster are alone in an African jungle with to do than ogle each other and watch Chimpanzees?  

One day, Jane and Hugo were watching a female Chimp mating freely with several males who took turns with her. When afterwards, she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby chimp; all the male chimps previously enamored with her abandoned her to raise the child alone.  One could almost say that this female Chimp had as a natural gift, what modern feminist seek or aspire to achieve throughout sexual revolution of the 60: serial sexual partnerships with no strings attached. It can be argued female chimps had an advanced form of human feminism and high rate of single motherhood as well as lousy fatherhood, because the males play very little role in the family and the life of their offspring.

Furthermore, the couple confirmed by their observations that the female chimp with multiple sex partners, if they already had offspring,  was an embarrassment to their adolescent offspring, some of whom would even attack their mother’s lovers trying to break up the ongoing act. Thus multiple sex partnership similar to modern day serial divorce in human society was terribly upsetting even for children of irrational beasts. One could understand why it is even more distressing to human children. In a 2010 study, Donahue et al, demonstrated that adolescents whose parents were divorced were more likely to experience depression and a range of psychological problems.

In spite of all these discoveries, Jane and Hugo’s marriage would end in divorce a few odd years later, and Jane would go on and marry someone else, forgetting the odd grief of the adolescent chimps at their mother’s multiple sex partners. One would have expected her to spare her son the grief she had witnessed in the baby chimp. 

However, apart from this singular failure, Jane would successfully raised her son alone in the wild, struggling to replicate the love she witnessed that the mother chimps lavished on their children. But she also avoided the mistakes the mother chimps made in raising her infant son who became so attached to it’s mother and died when it’s mother died.

Fears of this propelled Jane to send her son away to a boarding school in London, a way of helping him gain greater independence from her, and perhaps have a  greater contact with his father and others male companies.

Surprisingly, Jane who was a passionate believer in evolution and a feminist, failed to make the connection that the very failures and weaknesses that threatened the extinction of these beasts are what is being proposed today in the modern world as progressivism. If evolution is movement from inferior intelligence to superior rational articulate intelligence, how do we account for the return to the instinctive “multiple sex partners” and the consequent “absent fatherhood” in our post modern world?  Perhaps instead of evolving we are actually devolving.

Prior to the sexual revolutions of 60’s multiple sex partnership, serial divorce, cohabitation and single motherhood— traits that Jane observed on chimp world–were abhorred in most human societies. The sexual revolution returned these straits back to human societies, a devolution back, from man to chimp. Today, only the Catholic church remains firm in her conviction that the sexual revolution is wrong, insisting that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life and maintaining that premarital sex and promiscuity are beneath the dignity of humans and indeed, by doing this, the Church is actually supporting science and evolutionary progress and rejecting the devolutionary agenda of the sexual revolution.


Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: