Page 14

HIGH GEAR

SEPTEMBER 1976

SUPREMACY WHY NOT?

By LEON STEVENS

Having studied biology with a male-eye view, we easily. confuse the roles of men and women. Masculist biology,. botany, zoology and anthropology have distorted the historical function of roles and subsequently the phenomenon of homosexuality.

In most species the male is an expendable, if not dispensable accesory. Dominant males do not "lead" herds of migratory mammals, they PRECEED herds. Females and calves are not "guarded" by males, they are buffered by a mobile, peripheral levee of superfluous animals. In, the majority of species females comprise the elite. "Cows" are not "conquered" by "bulls." Females select dominant or successful males for the purpose of superior breeding and reject weaker or defeated males even when given the opporunity to mate with them.

Males are frequently excluded from child rearing. In most species females are as strong or stronger than males and generally prevail

in

confrontations with males. In many cases, following mating, males are ostracized, abandoned or eaten by the other gender and its offspring. In insect societies (ants, bees, etc.), for example, both the workers and "queen" are exclusively female. A handful of males, "drones" fertilizes the egg-laying queen and is then

evicted from the nest or hive to wander aimlessly for a short time and perish.

ATHENA, GODDESS OF WISDOM AND WARFARE

Even in species in which males are larger or somewhat purpose of reproduction. The stronger than females, females herd or tribe can afford to are more assertive. For instance, "waste" the remaining males. among grizzly bears, females Virtually all animal societies with cubs drive larger males and groups are veritable away from river shallows to gain matriarchies. Females preserve access to salmon. Nevertheless and pass on learned animals ultimately act in their information, frequently secure own individual interest. Male and regulate food intake, own grizzlies surrender their food the den or nest (the Sources to females only grudgingly.

communities' or families' sole property) and generally remain aloof from the "sires."

Maleness is a continuous natural experiment designed to At least, that is what might be test genes and explore genetic called a feminist interpretation alternatives without interfering of role development. The truth with childbearing and rearing. is, as per sexual animals, i This is evidenced by the fact females are not passive, that males possess only one subordinate "cows," nor are complete "X" chromosome. The male "Y" chromosome appears to be a vestigial fragment of an archaic complete "X".

males experimental zombie clones of females. Nature passes no qualitiative judgements on any of its In higher animals males are phenomena. It is coldly (or compelled to fight among warmly) mathematical. There themselves for preeminence, were not, nor are there now most of them leading tense, concepts such as "nobility," lonely and frustrated lives to "excllence," "shame," or indirectly benefit females. In "inferiority" hovering in the these animals several females cosmic either, waiting to be to be can exploit a single male for the discovered by homosapiens. No

or

aspect of biochemical evolution has any particular merit significance outside of the human cerebral cortex.

My purpose in borrowing a feminist notion of maleness is to focus on the supplementary function of the male gender in mufti-cellular beings (many plants are sexual as well). So successful have animals been during our planet's prehistory that mere continuity soon fell prey to species variation imposed by mathematical probabilities. Terrestrial life can. afford the luxury of sexuality and social creatures can indulge in expandable males.

The issue which now follows is whether nature has discovered (or uncovered) yet another gimmick to assist the expansion and advancement of higher species, especially social mammals.

Although homosexuality is not hereditary in the usual sense, ie., offspring of homosexuals will not I will not necessariy become homosexual, the potential to

become gay (pending environmental stimuli) is certainly hereditary. It appears that the higher a species is on the phylogenetic scale, the more common homosexuality is in the species. The preponderance of homosexuals in social mammals, particularly among humans has lead some homphobes to speculate that homosexuality is induced by overcrowding. Gays from small towns and farms would, however, testify to the absurdity of that hypothesis. Is it not likely that since the role of males in many species has been reduced or highly specialized, reaping fat dividends for survival, that nature has introduced a new class of individuals to supplement, enhance or even replace obsolete auxiliary members? There is abundant evidence to suggest that this is. the case.

In homophilic societies gays Occupy unique and specialized position (as they do covertly in homphobic societies). The predominance of gays, most notably, in religious and military capacities in homophilic cultures has been well publicized in pro-gay publications. For example, anthropologists suspect that the Spartans who halted the invasion of the Greek peninsula by a much larger host of Persians were largely homosexual. They explain the Greek victory in terms of strong in-group homosexual loyalties.

There is evidence to support the theory that women performed military duties in much earlier Greek society. The Greek deity of war and wisdom, Athena, the armed goddess of hunting, Artemis, and ancient Hellenic legends incorporating armed women warriors or "Amazons," plus other mythological militant feminine figures, give rise to the suspicion that some earlier Greek city-states were matriarchal and that lesbians did indeed wage warefare. The Romans reported encountering female warriors in their Gallic campaigns. The Christian influence which distorts the German "Sigfried" legends cannot conceal the fact that it was appropriate for some Teutonic women to engage in armed combat. It is even rumored that an ax-wielding woman accompanied the crew of Leif Erikson to the New World.

The proliferation of weapons among Homonid males may be responsible for the gradual wholesale disappearance of human matriarchies. Primitive weapons appropriately

gravitated toward the males who acted as buffers for early anthropoid tribes. Male-female conflicts among primates who had discovered weapons probably resulted disastrously for females. Such conflicts may have established precedents for male hegemony over entire social structures, encouraging the growth of patriarchy. Military regimes composed of homosexual males, no doubt, deferred to male privilege and excluded lesbians from their ranks.

Even in homophobic societies. gays occupy important strata, without which an elaborate culture could not survive. Efficient standing armies or independent military forces would lose cohesion and fail without a significant homosexual ("bachelor") contingent. The fanatic emphasis on "macho" and masculism in Europan-in-fluenced military establishments is indicative of the collective self-denial of a sizable homosexual element.

Homophobic cultures as disparate as Christianized Europe. and the Mayan civilization supported religious clergies replete with nunneries. and monasteries. Religious hierarchies in homophobic. environments are maintained by vast numbers of homosexuals, some fleeing from guilt and others seeking close but "righteous" association with members of the same sex.

Theocratic institutions in homophobic cultures are gigantic and largely nonsecular. In Islamic sects (Islam is indifferent toward homosexuality) there is a relatively small professional religious super-structure. Rites and ceremonies are concise and religious leaders and teachers are loosely confederated and often employed in secular Occupations. Similar observations could be made regarding Buddhism (Buddhism also is non-judgmental toward gays). Most Buddhist monks are transient, ie.