The most difficult of subjects: affirmative action.

I’m a white-folk. Among those I talk to of such things, the opinions on affirmative action vary widely. My personal opinion is something I have spent many years developing, and it is still in flux, as it were. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is notable in that it is one of the more diverse areas of California. While not “color blind” I’d say that cultural differences were something I noticed more than the tone of someone’s skin or the accent they had. It wouldn’t matter what the person’s racial identity was—if they were wearing Fubu and XXL jeans around their knees, I was wary of them. But when you are a kid and you see people of that ilk kicking cats and beating up your friends, there are some excuses for such reactions. While some might disagree, I see these cultural differences as being more malleable than someone’s race. They aren’t mutually exclusive, either.

That being said, while affirmative action has a noble purpose—considering race, gender and ethnicity in all sorts of situations to promote diversity and equal opportunities for everyone—I don’t think it has really been applied correctly in some situations. Now, as history tells us, white men have held the power in socioeconomic and economic situations since our country’s creation. Most people are going to agree that that’s just not right. And it’s not—other races have had a huge influence in developing this country into what it is today. And it was blatant racism to deny the kind of lifestyle white folks held to minorities just because of their ethnicity. Nowadays race is a hot issue (has it ever ceased being an issue?), but in a different sense from the past. We have to be careful about what we say to the point that I’m surprised more politicians don’t end up in loony bin. This is where affirmative action begins to hurt society. It creates a divide when it should be creating connections between all colors, genders and creeds.

I’m part of the younger up-and-coming generation, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard bitterness and rage from friends and co-workers because they were denied a job or scholarship because they were white. In many cases a racial minority was picked over them. In some of these situations they were equally qualified, but instead of a coin toss the minority always gets the ticket. Fine—it's all about making up for lost time, right? Sometimes my white friends were more qualified—and this is where they are really hurt. Not one of them thinks that those ethnicities that have been mistreated in the past shouldn’t get some help, but they also feel confusion and betrayal. I have one friend who married into a Latino family who tells me that her job searches have always been easy—they aren’t allowed to ask her race in the interview process, but she has been told flat-out that because she has her husband’s ethnic last name, she was chosen over other people. They say it makes them look good for affirmative action advocates in the government.

Some people have told me that white people should get a “taste of their own medicine”. That boggles my mind. I personally didn’t have slaves. I respect everyone to the best of my ability. By saying that I should suffer because of my race is just perpetuating a stereotype that need to be dead and buried after all these years. My parent’s families were not well-off, but I feel my parents themselves perpetuate the “American dream” by pulling themselves up by the boot-strings without outside help. It may be that my parents were given better job opportunities because they were white—I don’t know—but my father at least works in a very racially diverse field. My mother is an elementary school teacher.

To me, the real problem in economics. Some minority races have been shown to have a lower-than-average economic standing, and therefore often have access to poorer public schools and less money to fund education. Why not have affirmative action based on family income rather than someone’s race? If minorities are having difficulty getting money for college, or getting into college, it’s likely because they are in this lower economic bracket, and NOT because of their race. This way there is no racial profiling being done, but, hey look, minorities are still being helped out!

I have a white-friend who came from a lower economic bracket and struggled in college because he never had enough money. This is someone who got financial aid and whatever scholarships he could (for being a bright guy), but who also had to work several jobs during college and was dropped several times for non-payment because of issues with his financial aid approval. He’s white, he must have money stashed away somewhere! Meanwhile, non-whites from his home town (who were in the same economic bracket or higher) were skating through school with relative ease with full scholarships based on their race rather than academic merit. This white-friend struggled with the financial aspect of college, even though he was intelligent and very well qualified. Discounting the SAT completely, because I think it’s a load of trash, if colleges and grant funds had taken his economic standing into account, along with his grades, and discounted his race completely, I’m sure he would have gotten more money for school. If he had been African American I’m also sure he would have gotten close to a free-ride. Maybe he still would have had to work to pay his rent, but I bet he wouldn’t be sitting on 40k worth of student loan debt right now either. Ironically, his parents are both school teachers.

Also, though I feel I should hardly have to mention this, the education system needs an overhaul. It would benefit everyone, regardless of race or gender. I have no solutions but several ideas. I’m no expert on tax laws, so something would probably have to shift to put my ideas into practice but…Why not give good teachers incentives to work in impoverished areas? Or how about (oh the horror) paying public school teachers around the board a higher living wage in exchange for higher accountability? My junior high and high school years (don’t get me started on my elementary torture) were nightmares for me, in part because of just plain bad teachers. They disrespected me and made me feel like shit on a daily basis. I had one junior high teacher point at me in the middle of a science lab and tell the whole class that I was going to the next school shooter or serial killer because I was quiet (it’s called being shy, you dolt). Oh yeah, I was not one of the popular kids. But you see what I mean about greater accountability? I don’t care what school district you have, or how much money your parents bring in, teachers need to be screened, supported, and paid more to offset the higher standards. Make people who would make fantastic role models leave their snazzy business jobs because being a school teacher isn’t a thankless life. Quite frankly, coming from a family filled with teachers, you really have to love kids to not get embittered pretty quickly. Another side tangent: enough with the bloody worksheets! All that teaches kids is that school is and work are perpetually boring.

But back to Affirmative Action: yes, people as a whole need to recognize this countries past as it influences our present. This is the basis for concept behind this movement and these laws—the “making up” for lost time for those groups that have been wronged. How about we recognize that the only way to truly move forward is to unlock economic and social fences everywhere, instead of just giving choice individuals a leg up. It’s still true that if you teach a man to fish, he will do a whole lot better than if you just give him one you caught for an apologetic gift.

I don’t think that means what you think it means…

Selfish.

Again with the name calling! Again I have been called selfish, and not for the reasons I would normally associate with the word. For instance, I like money. If I got to have money and the other guy didn’t, that would make me happy—and selfish of course. But no, apparently I’m “selfish, inhuman, cold” because I don’t want children. At no point in these thought provoking conversations to I mention that I hate children, I want them all to die, that I’ll break their fingers. Unbeknownst to me, all of that seems to come wrapped up in the phrase “I don’t want children”. It’s a stretch, but being called “cold” and “inhuman” is something that I can wrap my mind around. Sort of. The “cold” comes from being a woman with great child-bearing hips and a tendency to rescue every animal or plant I see—but avoids babies and children. I should be crazy about children because I have a uterus? “Inhuman” probably relates (enlighten me if you know) to the fact that I don’t have this particular human urge to reproduce. Or perhaps it ties into religious reason for some people—I certainly fail to “go forth and multiply”. The thing is, part of my reasoning behind refusing to reproduce is because the rest of humanity does quite enough multiplying.

I don’t see the selfish though. I pulled up the definition online because my paper dictionary is packed away:

self⋅ish
–adjective
1. Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. Characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Synonyms:
1. self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.

Looking at the simple definition, I can’t help but feel that I’m not the selfish one. That fetus (in most cases) doesn’t exist yet—these baby-mongers are thinking about only their own desire to have a child. If they choose to throw motives at me like “I don’t want the human race to die out” I find myself infected with giggles. Really? The fact that you're fertile means you are the savior of humankind? Having a child is not a miracle. It’s biology. Not to mention the fact that humankind is going to out-breed our little planet. We are like lemmings—burdening our environment until a mass-killing is needed to equalize the overpopulation. People don’t think about how much having a child impacts the world. If you consider yourself an environmentalist, or against war, or poverty and hunger, then you would be wise to consider the impact your fertility has on the planet.

I don’t pretend to understand the urge to be pregnant and carry a child to term. I also don’t understand why people take fertility drugs and spends thousands of dollars just so they can be swollen for nine months. I’ve heard a rumor from a friend that worked as an adoption agency counselor that some of those people who go the fertility-drug rout, were denied a child. Usually the denial was based on mental problems. Ominous isn’t it? At any rate, adoption is environmentally sound. So is using contraception or, even better, being sterilized. Each abortion lessen the negative impact that little fetus will have on the planet someday.

So how is this selfish?

I’m not “devoted to or caring only for oneself”—I’m thinking about how everything I do impacts the Earth I love, including humanity itself. If people stopped breeding and our population decreased by ¾ or more within the next hundred years we could probably salvage what’s left of Earth. But that’s just me being overly positive. I think the childfree get a bad reputation in part because having children does free up some of our resources and we can supposedly spend more of our money on luxury items. Of course, most of the childfree people I know, while they appreciate this fact, are not the rich people in the world. I think what we value more than the extra money is the extra time and ability to just drop things and go. Of course, quite a few childfree just can’t handle the strange sounds and smells that come from babies, and could care less about the economical and environmental benefits. On the other hand, if having children is a choice (and it is), then people with children choose to live with a rigid schedule and little spending money. If they are trying to convince me that it isn't a choice so that they reason out why they had children in the first place, then I feel very sad for them.

For me it is a mixture of the environmental cause and the fact that babies just plain make me uncomfortable in a way that turns my stomach and makes me gag. It would be selfish of me to have a child, not thinking about how damaged it would be by knowing that its mother was disgusted by it. And children always know. It would be selfish of you to thrust your baby into my arms, knowing very well how far I want to stay away. Luckily I can muster the feeling that even maggots are “cute” in some sense, so when I tell glowing mothers as much I am not lying. In reality the childfree community gripes more about bad parents—which to us are people who should have never reproduced for one reason or another—then we do bratty kids. Just as good pet owners will gripe about the bad.

Not having children isn’t being selfish, folks. It’s being sensible.

How your sexuality can help—the short version.

And then it hit me.

There is a lot of debate on whether or not there is a “gay gene”. I think it’s important to question why we are even looking for said gene—would it become something we could test amniotic fluid for, and to what end? Would babies with a predisposition towards homosexuality find themselves unwanted or aborted by some families? Would genetic therapy take place instead of bible-camps? Would homosexuals use such biological “proof” to their own end, throwing it in the faces of the fundies who have argued that no one is born gay? And then there is the indication that while there is a genetic predisposition (in lab mice, mind, where most of this research is being done), there are still environmental factors that contribute to different ends. Still, like many things that can be tested for in-utero, being gay has always been a matter of degree. Would you abort a child if it was shown to be autistic, knowing very well that high-functioning autistics do quite well in society? There is that fear that revealing such a gene would put homosexuality on the same level as very real disabilities and diseases—I certainly have that concern.

On the other hand I say “go ahead!” As science and technology develops we become more able to map and construct the genes of future generations. Instead of discarding gay-embryos, I think we should use them. In fact, if we can manage it, I think at least half of the next generation should be gay. Give the embryo soup that predisposition and put the resulting fetuses into situations that will help them along their genetic destiny! Why? Having a largely-homosexual human population will save the world.

Overpopulation is the key to most of the Earth’s problems right now. It is ridiculous how breeding is still seen as something necessary for the continuation of the human race by individuals—do they actually think that is they don’t squeeze out babies, no one else will? Our worldwide problems with pollution, resource scarcity and poverty could be solved by halving or even cutting down the worldwide population to a quarter of what it is today. Mass murder is a rather messy way to go about saving the world, so I’m rallying for homosexuality to be encouraged and selected for in the human gene pool. If 50% or more of the people on Earth were gay, there would be a whole lot less breeding. On top of that, with the re-working of the adoption system, I think we could solve the crisis of unwanted children in the States at the very least. Think about it: fewer children are born, which leads to an overall population decline, which in turn leads to a healthier planet for every living thing. We could truly follow the maxim of “it takes a village to raise a child”. And wouldn’t that be amazing! One or two children for every ten adults would mean they are surrounded with a support system that doesn’t exist today. A child would have exposure to many different points of view, ways of living, professions and cultures. Such a child would stand in where there had once been ten uncivilized brats. In this vision I have, the future is bright. Heck, even though I don’t like kids, I would love to be part of a system where children are brought up and nurtured by the “village”. We shouldn’t be breeding so that we replace our current population—our 6.77 billion bodies are not sustainable. Even if we did everything right and recycled, drove hybrids, and used solar power, our very need to eat and have shelter would suck the life out of the Earth.

Of course, certain things would have to change. Gay marriage would need to be legal in every sense of the law (and seriously, I have yet to hear a competent argument against that. Separation of church and state, right?). As I mentioned, the adoption system would have to be re-worked—because why is it that a teenage couple can pop out three children before they are allowed to drink alcohol, but a well-adjusted couple can’t adopt a baby? And of course, gays would have to contend with no longer being special or unusual. Sexuality would become unimportant to society as a whole—nothing to be bothered with as long as those people who are still breeding are having gay children. It would be something valuable to individual identity, not something to be feared or denounced on public radio. Because really, the typical biological urge lead us to want mates, not to carry children ourselves (I know there are individuals with those desires—I’m just arguing it’s unusual). With a 50/50 spread of straight versus homosexual persons, developed over a manner of years, the world population would steadily decline and remain more-or-less constant. We could actually develop technologies that would help our ailing environment without having to re-calculate for our own snow-balling population.

I’m tempted to make a bumper-sticker that reads: “Be homosexual. Save the world.”

But maybe I would need to put it into better context than that. I'd rather not have my car keyed.

Thanks, but no thanks.

My biological clock isn’t broken. In fact, I’ve been wanting the unthinkable lately. I have the urge to cuddle a drooling, pooping, child. One from which strange smells emanate. Something that will grow like a weed, destroy my possessions, throw food on the floor, and howl for no reason (and at odd hours of the night). I’ll have to dedicate most of my energy to raising it right—but that’s okay!—my maternal instinct must be heard.

Yes, I’d really like a puppy.

I know I’d be a good puppy-mom. There would be the required training (no dog of mine is going to be spoiled); it would get plenty of exercise and the best of diets. Given, of course, that my life situation was radically different than it is today. I refuse to indulge my puppy-cravings when I am unemployed and living in a tiny one bedroom apartment with a guy who is not crazy about the idea of any new pets. I’m sensible, I suppose. Or maybe I just like the idea of having my future pets be healthy, happy, well adjusted individuals who don't rely on me for their emotional well-being!

And I’m still completely baffled by people that have children when they can’t afford to keep them. Why is a pregnancy “always welcome” when someone is unemployed, leeching of friends and family, and stressed beyond belief? Yes, I understand that these people think that they are carrying a complete individual human and that is special to them. Even more, I think these people see only the fantasy world called “parenthood”, and ignore the facts. I can’t ignore the facts—even if I liked children, which I don’t, parenthood wouldn’t be "special" to me. There would have to be a reason behind having a child, and I can’t think of a good one besides "I want one". And really, why do childfree people get pegged as the selfish ones if parents are using that reasoning?

Having a dog, however, makes more sense to me because I’m not naïve of my selfish desire to have others worship me. I’m really a cat person. I sympathize with kitty’s “get out of m’face” attitude, because it’s one I share. Dogs on the other hand are all about loyalty and love. It’s the part of the pack mentality humans haven’t quite perfected. You pour you energy into a puppy, and it pours love, adoration and hero-worship right back at you. Part of me still believes that people have children because they are looking the same kind of trust and adoration from their children. There is a difference of course—any parent that has kids with that in mind shouldn’t even have a dog. These parents are the ones that spoil their kids and are heartbroken when the brat rejects them. They would also spoil a puppy, only to discard it (because it’s just an ‘animal’) when its behavior becomes intolerable. Even if they caused the behavior by never training the poor thing. They never gave it boundaries, which in turn often leads to a dog that isn’t confident and trusting in its own right.

Yes, dogs are a lot like humans. I think having a puppy is analogous in many ways to having a human child. The difference is that they are not human—they are our oldest domesticated partners. We are their pack, and with any good pack relationship there needs to be a leader. People that treat their children as they should a dog—training, positive reinforcement, strict boundaries, and unconditional love—are good parents in my sensibilities.

I still think that the reward compared to the amount of energy invested is much higher for those that choose dogs over human babies. But then again, I’m childfree and always have been. And always will be. As for a puppy? Given time, graduation from law school, and enough money to live in a place where my horses can roam and I have space to exercise a dog..?

I think I’m going to get a Doberman.

Anything you can do, slugs can do better.

I’ve always loved gastropods. When I was a child I would rescue snails from the wrath of gardeners. After sticking numbers on their shells I released them back into the “wild”. Of course, I did this only after I had made notes and measurements of their coloration, size and behavior. Then I would regularly sweep the garden to re-capture the snails by checking at the base of iris plants, inside discarded pottery, and underneath the wide squash leaves. Any snail that had a numbered shell would be spared the wrath of my parents (they assured me) when they were doing the weeding. As the snails would turn up again I would keep track of them by their numbers—I suppose I was a budding researcher. If you didn’t know me it would seem odd that I am going into law.

Anyway, I think the most popular group of these soft-bodied wonders are the nudibranch. Colloquially they are called “sea slugs”, though that classification isn’t perfect, as there are several other groups apart from the nudibranch that are called sea slugs. The nudibranches are usually brightly colored, often toxic, and often have a beautiful frond-like appearance. They are like flamboyant ghosts that glide along the sea bottom, eating as they go. But all species of “sea slug”, are fascinating. One in particular—Elysia chlorotica—takes fascinating to the next level.

Elysia chlorotica (a beautiful name, really) is a photosynthetic animal. Quite an uncommon thing in the animal world, but an admirable one. Sea slugs support several species that utilize the sunlight in some way to get energy—usually by using the chloroplasts of the algae they ingest in some form. Studies done on E. chlorotica show that it does “steal” the chloroplasts, lining its gut cells with them. Chloroplasts, similar in some ways to an animal cell’s mitochondria, are the power-houses of the plant cell. They can take light-energy and convert it to sugar-energy. What’s interesting is that the chloroplasts alone do not have the genetic information to complete photosynthesis—the DNA for that resides in the nucleus of the plant cell. Scientists knew that E. chlorotica was using photosynthesis, so it must have some kind of genetic means to. When they looked further they found that the algae DNA for photosynthesis had been incorporated into the slug’s own DNA, allowing the proper proteins to be made to keep the chloroplast factories working.

There is no clear evidence on how E. chlorotica incorporates DNA from its food into its own cells—it’s a process undescribed by human science. DNA can jump between species—we’ve seen it before—but this slug’s ability to make the alien DNA function, and use it for some clear means, is unique. Some other animals can use sunlight for energy, but always by using the entire plant cell, not just the relevant stolen DNA. They can make the proteins required to keep converting sunlight to energy.

And what are the implications? My first thought is that I would love to be a green-skinned person. I wouldn’t want to give up my ability to ingest food (and as a warm-blooded animal with high energy demands, that would be ill-advised), but if I could use photosynthesis to my advantage I would be thrilled. No more blood sugar crashes as long as I can go outside. My pale, easily-burned skin would be replaced by a nice organic shade of green.

Or, getting into the hot-topic of genetically modified food, what about chickens that have plant-derived protein? You could eat a fried egg and get plant nutrients. As cattle graze, they could be getting even fatter on energy derived from the sun.

These discoveries were all very recent. For me the message is clear—there is so much Earth has to offer us still as far as knowledge and relevant life processes. We are still discovering new species every month; new species that could potentially hold keys to our own biology, or the environmental crisis we are facing. Ironically, our destruction of areas whose diversity we can only guess at is also annihilating species as amazing as E. chlorotica.

Forget the awesome potential for green skin—what if we’re killing off the species that will help us cure cancer? Or develop technologies to re-grow appendages? Or provide nutrients to third-world countries at a nominal cost? Considering how many species we lose each month we probably are killing off species that could lead us to such things. We could be changing a whole host of miserable social issues if we only put protecting the world we must share as our first priority.

Recently in the news it has been noted that human kind is the leading cause of the greatest mass-extinction Earth has ever experienced. Save the Earth. If not for the potential to photosynthesize lunch as you hang out on the beach, do it because you’re a selfish bastard and care only about human welfare.

Check out this and this for more information on "solar-powered sea slugs".

Inside Law School dreams.

I hate writing personal statements. How can I explain what needs to be done in a blank-faced essay? There is no way to communicate some needs—they have always been voiceless and cramped in a chest longing to expand with clean air.

I can write about my desire to change things for the better without describing what I think ‘better’ is. It’s another ambiguous term that everyone puts a different face to. To me ‘better’ is described by the feeling I get as I look out on the green land. There are no roads to scar it—only rivers like life-veins to curl through it. There are deer in the meadow and the pug marks of a cougar in the mud. Humans have to be a part of this—the wilderness—before they can understand its sublimity. Once they understand it they will never want to give up on the wilderness. They won’t be able to forget the touch of an awareness like none they can get with their cell-phones and Big Macs. But humans will never be a part of the wilderness if they go about their lives, complacent in its destruction.

Why do I want to go to law school? It is a place where I can join a new fight, one for my own happiness and the growth of a belief that we can change. The cynic in me says that it’s a battle we will lose—but to complain about the plight of the environment without taking action is hypocritical. There’s nothing I hate more that a hypocrite. But “changing the world for the better” isn’t the only reason I consider law school. There are selfish reasons too; reasons that start with “I want…” and go on from there. What’s important is that I find fulfillment living this human life of mine. To do that I need an intellectual life surrounded by intellectual people. I would also like money. With money I can start a horse rescue and make a difference in the lives of individuals that have given so much to their humans. In particular I want to help the older animals: the ones who gave their young selves to work, only to be cast aside when their bodies couldn’t keep up any more. This kind of work gives me pleasure.

Law is appealing because it will make it possible for me to make a home for myself. Not just a physical home—though that is important too—but someplace inside as well. I’m dissatisfied with who I am; there is more to me than a B.A. graduate who works ceaselessly towards an end she hates. The monotonous work of an animal technician is not rewarding. Smiling at customers just because you want to eat and don’t actually care about the people standing in front of you is degrading. I want a job where I wake up with the fight in me alive and hungering for more because that’s the real me.

Law is a straight line to my family—boring, old, predictable—and they can’t see why it appeals. What a lawyer does is create the law, interpret the law, discover the law. They also do something more: they relate the law to what is real at the moment. Their perception of things has to be open to change while aware of the past. They can have a voice if they choose to, or they can work the change in a dusty basement room. People respect them for their knowledge, and listen to them beyond mere politeness. A lawyer deals with the paper version of human perspective. The paper-perspective is a comfortable one for me; words on a page are easy to interpret and advise. And because of this, I’d have the power to change my community through a medium that feels like an old friend.

Law isn’t all about straight lines. Law is about perspective and community, about relating the constructed grids to the tangled reality and weaving the two into a cohesive whole. It’s about knowing the world you live in. With knowledge comes the power to change the paper perspective, and from that the human perspective. If I could get people to stop thinking only in straight lines and see the gulp of a mosquito fish or the tracks a skunk left in the mud, I would be fulfilled—for a day. There are always battles to be fought. As a lawyer I wouldn’t have to filter my opinions through self-doubt. I would have the tools to be unashamed of the person I am.

Spotted Hyena Society

We can learn from Crocuta crocuta—the spotted hyena.

These animals have fascinated me for a long time. Images from The Lion King aside, the spotted hyena’s pack structure and social organization is something unusual among mammals. From all appearances the females are indiscernible from the males—and this similarity goes right down to their genitals. And yes, even if you were able to lift their skirts and check their goods, female hyenas could be mistaken as a males. Looks can be deceiving: female spotted hyenas have fused labia that resemble a scrotum and testes, and their clitoris is elongated and fully erectile so that it is nearly the size of the male’s penis. What’s even more amazing (to me!) is that these females are fully functional as females—they mate and give birth through this pseudo-penis. This relates to a higher rate of still-born, as cubs suffocate in the long birth canal if their umbilical cord is not long enough. There is also the danger, especially for first time mothers, that their pseudo-penis just won’t stretch wide enough.
We may never know why this species took this particular evolutionary path, but that doesn’t make them any less intriguing. The female masculinization, and it’s consequences in female society can tell us a lot about our own sexual and cultural roots by comparison.

Among spotted hyenas, the females are dominant.

True, the females are larger and more bad-ass, so they can bully their way into kills if need be. But in observation this isn’t always true—males will give up a kill when a dominant female arrives without a fight. Whether the differences in size and genital morphology developed together or separately, it seems plausible that there is a sexual explanation behind the female’s dominance.

Most notable is that female spotted hyenas have complete sexual control—a rare thing among mammal species. What is more common is to find a male in control, because, even if he isn’t more physically powerful, he has an advantage simply because a penis can always trump a vagina. With the spotted hyena, the female cannot be an unwilling participant. With that set of paired genitals, mating is a more tenuous process as the pseudo-penis has to roll up to make anything possible. For the male to be successful the female must allow him to be—even if he were able to force her into submission, her form itself would thwart him.

Typically, whoever controls the sexual power in social groups controls all the advantages of being dominant. We see this particularly in other social mammal groups where the male is typically dominant over a harem or group. Obvious sexual dimorphism (such as size) is usually directly related to the difference in sex roles—the more a male has to compete for the opportunity for mating, the more he will usually be larger and more powerful than the female. Their morphology—our morphology—lends itself to patriarchal society. The spotted hyena morphology lends itself to a female dominated society. If females can always be forced into sex, than the only thing that males have to worry about is competition from their own sex. Even among humans this difference is paramount. While there is strong evidence that humans are becoming less and less dimorphic and therefore more monogamous, males can still force females into sex. The simple fact that rape is possible precludes men towards having more sexual power.

Biologically, the ability for a male to have more sexual power isn’t an unsound way of going about things. If the male has the power and has to compete for mates, than physically sound males have a higher chance of passing their genes onto multiple offspring. Even among monogamous species this seems to hold true—the more “fit” a male is, the more likely he is able to keep his mate and foster offspring to adulthood. Polygamy works well too because one male is able to procreate with many females.

However, spotted hyena society also works incredibly well in practice. They are a very successful species for many reasons—not least because they are able to digest bone matter that other carnivores cannot. They are also incredible social hunters and not just scavengers as they are portrayed by the media. And yet, the women lead. There is a dominant female in a group and a ranking hierarchy in which females generally are more dominant over any given male. The dominant female gets her choice of mates, her choice of food, her nicest places to den, and other benefits that would normally go to the ranking male in another species group. There is still a remarkable amount of cooperation that goes on among these hyena groups, such as close mother-daughter bonding. Their life cycle from birth to adulthood can be harsh because the birthing process (they have to push a cub through that pseudo-penis) is difficult and there is a lot of sibling competition. One thing is clear to me: the spotted hyenas are at no selection disadvantage because of how they operate. In the respect of genetic diversity I imagine they are better off—if females are more likely to mate with different males than their sisters hyena groups as a whole will be more diverse. Perhaps this is one reason the spotted hyena has flourished where many of the other large African predators have not.

It could be possible that the spotted hyenas interesting morphology could have been selected for because the females started acting dominant. With the more dominant female, more masculine hormones were selected for (masculine hormones preclude greater size, dimorphism, erectile tissue, etc.—they are considered “male” hormones because of this, even though all females have them), and the more their pseudo-penises grew. Similar to any type of sexual selection, perhaps once the females morphology began to change it became possible for her to be even more dominant because she now had sexual power. It is of note that only spotted hyenas have this social and morphological difference.

Human society could take a lesson from this: we may not be able to change your gender, sex or genitals, but at least we can understand the biological implications they have on our social interactions. I’d be all for a society in which women have dominance—remember the Amazon warrior women? I think it could still work very well even if we don’t have pseudo-penises. Society could match our sexual powers even if our biology can’t. It could, but will it? The gender roles that were in place at our beginnings may have changed, but essentially men still have the sexual power and therefore the power over how society runs. Spotted hyena females have the advantage of their morphology to take sexual charge. For humans to equalize gender roles and power, human men, along with the women, would have to be conscious and incite such change with that purpose in mind. This isn’t on the individual scale that I’m speaking of, but as society or micro-cultures as a whole. Individually progressive and socially regressive isn’t going to work!

Unfortunately that’s another depressing truth about humankind—we brag about our potential to rise above our biology, but that potential is ever realized. Maybe our only ability that sets us apart from the non-humans is to brag about things we will never do.

Personally, I’m rooting for the spotted hyena.