Lois Greene Stone, writer and poet, has been syndicated worldwide. Poetry and personal essays have been included in hard & softcover book anthologies. Collections of her personal items/ photos/ memorabilia are in major museums including twelve different divisions of The Smithsonian. The Smithsonian selected her photo to represent all teens from a specific decade. What do you call your in-laws?Are your grown children now getting married? What should their spouses call you? Want a why-to suggestion? I grew up calling my own parents Mommy, Ma, Mom, Daddy, Dad, Pop, then Dad again; the term depended upon my age. I did use Ma with a terrible whine when, as a teenager, I was trying to be manipulative. I thought it sounded 'cool', long before 'cool' was 'in', to address my father as Pop. Some of my friends actually used the formal Mother and Father all the time; I liked being familiar and thought it was both cute and clever at the time. My mother called her mother Mama and I thought that really sounded old-fashioned just like Papa for her own father. I tried out Gramps for my grandpa but it lasted about as long as when I put an "s" on Pop and made it Pops...sounded like an abbreviation for a popsicle stick from the Good Humor vendor. When I was twenty, I buried my father and wept Daddy to his silent ears. At twenty-two, I married. What should I call my husband's mother who was a dominant and rather unpleasant person? How could I use the word Dad again on anybody? My own parents never humiliated me or laughed at my whims, always encouraged me to become independent, made me feel safe in a space where I-told-you-so never existed. Was it possible to use special names, reserved just for them, now on strangers? Dad. He rubbed oil on my five year old body so the skin wouldn't dry at the beach. He let me walk on the curb pretending it was a balance beam. He gave me ice skates with a single runner and made me feel confident I could balance myself...just as he had with a two-wheeler bicycle minus training wheels. He listened as I spoke, drove me to 9th grade clubs and parties, remembered stationery colors I specifically wanted, took me with him to buy petunias. He showed pride when he took me to college for the first time, and he insulated me from ugliness. He didn't live to see me all grown. Mom. Talented superwoman before superwomen existed. She juggled her days having children home for lunch until the last went to high school but made her chores seem easy. She moved in and out of roles with the same simplicity becoming active in the community yet always being home. With her, I played duets on the piano, sewed, whispered fears, shared dreams. With her clothes I played dress-up and liked the smell of garments that had been on her body. I could be and do anything, she promoted, and opened areas of learning. Maybe I could just clear my throat when I'd need to communicate with my in-laws, like in a movie: Ahem. No. That certainly wouldn't work when the phone rang and I had to respond. Maybe Mr. and Mrs. would be okay. My mate'll say Mother and Dad and I'll say the formal title. Fine. But how will that sound to our own children? Not fine. Since my mother-in-law couldn't choose a bride the way she'd selected my spouse's socks, I knew I'd have to show her I could be a daughter in some sense of the word. I also knew my husband and I would have to act as a unit forever for both ourselves and future children. mom. Inside I put it in small letters like a t.s. eliot poem. She'd be mom...I'd have only one MOM, the person who gave birth to and raised me. I mustered up my Stanislavsky method of acting, studied in a college drama course, and said it so it sounded like Mom; its mom in small letters was hidden from view. "Dad" was painful. I liked my father-in-law with his wit and sense of humor but my parent was lying beneath a granite headstone and I wanted him to know he could never be replaced or forgotten. Had I a choice if I was to call my mother-in-law mom? My throat felt that awful choking sensation it gets when tears are contained that really need to be spilled. I said Dad. Oh, Daddy, I really wanted you to live. But I used the term Dad for another. Twenty-nine years after my wedding, my oldest son took a bride. It's been commonplace, since the '80's, to use first names, or even keep formal titles; should I instruct my daughter-in-law in a form of address I want? Was I ready to deal with this problem? I handled it the way I personally handle most dilemmas: in writing. I penned: "For 29 years, so far, I've referred to my mate's parents and mom and dad. This has pleased my husband, carried out my mother's advice, been an example to my children that their dad and I together form a whole. So, please consider our request that you refer to us, new daughter-in-law, as parents." Was this nerve? Did I have the right to put pressure on her? Was I diminishing her adulthood? Was I putting her on a guilt-trip with this request that was almost an order? I played with the plain white paper as if it were ready to be made into a boomerang to sail across a childhood classroom. Mail it or not was like the daisy that got plucked with words 'she loves me, she loves me not'. I mailed it. With two living parents that were Mom and Dad, she must have felt a bit of what I went through nearly three decades before. I needed to actually tell her why I felt so strongly about names. Mustering up courage, I did. I explained that I'd rather not have my son call me anything but the familiar word he's spoken since babyhood. What had that to do with her addressing me by my first name? Well, I explained, that would be awkward as we weren't peers and I didn't want to be equals with her and different with him. Whew. That wasn't too hard, once done. Why not the correct formal title Mrs., she wondered? I truthfully replied that our son's term would be privileged and then hers would isolate us as it'll sound detached. My mate and I are comfortable with Mom and Dad, and we wanted her to try it out. I honed in on a sensitive spot when I acknowledged her anxieties about just altering her signature as I understood her identity being tied up with her maiden name. I didn't want her to lose anymore labels that defined who she's been. Asking her to just think about the situation after hearing my side, and sharing with her why my maiden name is the inner me forever too, caused her tiny hand to reach out and touch my fingers as her lips parted Mom. Published July 10, 1994 The Sacramento Bee. ©1994 McClatchy News; reprinted 2001; 2018 The Jewish Press reprinted 2004 Clear Mountain Music and a Mouse "Comfortable?" My mother adjusted her snood. Even though the theatre was dark, I could see her fingering the wide crocheted holes in the large net that contained her long ash blond hair. I clicked my patent leather shoes together scuffing the tips of each toe. The leather seat was too big for my small body, and arm rests much too high. "When?" "Soon." My mother smiled and put her warm hand on top of my skinny arm that seemed hoisted atop the arm rest. I knew she didn't want me to hit my feet together but she didn't say it; instead, she removed her hand from my arm and placed it on my right leg. Lights got even dimmer until only darkness remained. "Color! It's color!" I exclaimed as the movie screen filled with printed words, music, and images not in usual black and white. The film began: shadows, like ones I made of myself when the sun was in the right place, were like a second orchestra. I didn't notice the music, but smothered giggles as colors danced and then wings fluttered on animated fairies waving sparkle dust to make flowers wake up. "I have a magic wand, too. With sparkles." I whispered to the large screen. My words were caught by the seat-back of the chair in the aisle before mine. No matter. I knew the screen heard me. Fairies became ice skaters, more glitter was spread, I was elated. I grabbed my mother's arm and began to shake it. A magician had left his magic hat and Mickey Mouse was about to put it on. "Pst. Mom." Louder I said, "Mom," until she turned and looked down at me, "just like mine. The hat." Of course, she nodded her head and smiled at me. “Yes, Lois. Just like yours.” Mickey Mouse was real. He stuck the cone-shaped hat on his head leaving his ears showing. I always had to tuck my ears inside my hats to keep my head warm; mother's orders. 'Course, no one could wear a magic dunce cap over the ears else you couldn't hear your own magic commands! The wooden broom came alive and carried buckets of water for Mickey. I once tried to make magic and have my room cleaned up all by itself but my abra-cadabra didn't work. If I listen, maybe I'll hear Mickey's magic words. Just his hands. Hm. Maybe that's all I need to do, too. I grabbed my mother's hand. Her wedding band hit against my clutching fingers. "He'll drown, Mommy. Don't let Mickey drown." My mother’s hands were warm, comforting. She gently put her other hand over my arm as if to protect me. “Sh. It’ll be okay.” Bad brooms had multiplied and continued dropping water. Mickey couldn't stop the magic. Maybe I shouldn't try it, and thought I'd give my personal moon/star hat to my younger sister, Joy. She'd just wear it as a plaything 'cause she's too young to know about grown-up magic. I began to shake. I so liked Mickey, and he was so good, and he was having such a hard time. My mother makes sure I never have a hard time. Even when I’m very-very sick, she makes the sickness better and stays with me until that happens. "He'll be all right," my mother assured. She was right. Mothers know everything. When the film ended, the light of day hurt my eyes for a few seconds. I knew we'd feed pigeons at Herald Square, then take the train home. I still worried about Mickey Mouse: would he try magic again and get really hurt? Would the sorcerer be around to save him? What if the sorcerer was in the bathroom, or outside, or asleep and didn't know until too late? I decided I'd write him a letter and tell him not to try anything he doesn't know about; maybe I'll even warn him not to go into the ocean if he doesn't know about the way waves pull you back, not to play with matches, not to touch a hot stove, not to walk in the rain and catch cold...all the things my mother had me learn. Okay. I'll write. My mother's skirt had a faint smell of mothballs as I hugged her legs in thanks. She told me she’d definitely mail my letter, and was happy I was so thoughtful of Mickey’s needs to help him not be in danger. She embraced me with mommy-proud arms. I wrote to Mickey Mouse, printing in all capital letters. After I carefully folded my pink writing paper, I pushed it inside an envelope. "It's important, Mommy. Please, please mail this to Mickey Mouse." I was certain my mother did send it, although Mickey never did answer me. Was it so long ago, 2000, that I slipped the VHS video-tape version into my VCR? Was it different seeing a type-of remake with adult eyes? The VHS film lost something ‘special’ with cameo parts by known people. I hadn't listened, as a child, to what was specifically being played. Beethoven’s “The Pastoral Symphony”. Classical music. Oh, I once had such bad dreams of cloned brooms, helpless Mickey Mouse floating on his book-raft, people drowning. My brain didn't know so very many calendars had been discarded, and I fleetingly worried about the powers of a cone shaped creation that topped the cartoon character's head. Color is standard, and, now, computer-generated animation has replaced an artist drawing individual cels for animation. Back in 2000, with elbows leaning on rests my arms reached, I sat on a chair in my own house. Facing the television set, I realized that I still wanted to help Mickey and stop the cloning of his brooms. Mickey's plight made me aware that abra-cadabra can be as harmful as helpful, and I alone have to clean up after myself, be responsible for my choices. But, in caring about Mickey, I noticed that I wasn't judgmental if someone selected a seemingly easier route and it backfired; caring was unconditional. My mother taught me that by example as well as words.. I looked up at a shelf in the family room that had photos of my deceased parents. As fairies sprinkled glitter while "Waltz of the Flowers" drifted through TV speakers, I whispered, "Childhood was nice; thanks." I still like magic wands with silver sparkles. And in February 2021, a granddaughter asked me about old movies. Into my smartphone, I said “Fantasia”. Another generation would hear my mother’s words and feel her comforting gestures through me. ©1997 NEWN, New England Writers Network reprinted April 20, 2009 The Jewish Press aired-hairThe hand-held hair dryer stopped putting out heat. My granddaughter looked at me and exclaimed, “Broken? How am I going to dry my wet hair?"
I wanted to tell her about the 'old days' but was careful not to start with 'when I was young'. Instead, I told her a true story: "What are you doing?" Joy, my younger sister, questioned. "What?" I shouted above the noise. "What're doing?" "I can't hear you!" My left hand kept pushing away hairs that were being tossed by cold air coming from the metal tube. "Just a minute." I pushed the switch off. "What are you doing?" Joy asked again. "What does it look like?" My annoyance was apparent. "Looks like you're vacuuming your hair." Joy saw the cylinder Electrolux cleaner on its ski-blades legs. The long metal appliance functioned to remove floor/carpet dirt; no other purpose was ever promoted. "If I was vacuuming my hair, it'd be all sucked in. I'm drying it! Air is coming out not in." I reached for the on switch. "How'd you make it come backwards?" "Little sisters," I sighed just for effect. "I took out the cloth bag and emptied it. Yuk. Dust is weird all smushed inside. Then I took the hose and removed it from the right position and put it in the back of the machine. See the slot? That is reverse so air blows out instead of being sucked up." "Oh." Joy thought I looked strange squatting on a footstool, head bent over, with the vacuum cleaner hose being held in one hand and the other maneuvering flying hair and anything else in its path. "Now can I go back to what I was doing?" My long strands were more cold than dry. The cleaner ejected only cold air. "Isn't your head cold?" Joy continued. "Your brains are going to get cold, Joy." I flicked the switch and the cleaner's motor whirred. A couple of inches of icy air came up through the hose's tube and I directed that to Joy's face. "Quit it. I'll tell Mom." Joy coughed. "It's dusty smelling." "Well, it is a dust catcher used the other way!" I stroked my long hair. The chamomile-leaves rinse left my blond strands easier to comb. Too bad the cleaner snarled as it blew locks. Maybe one day people would have driers, or chamomile leaves already diluted and bottled, or curling-rollers that weren't metal, or hair pins that weren't flimsy, or even beauty parlor permanents that didn't burn hair. "Gonna be long?" Joy wanted to play Chinese checkers and listen to "Let's Pretend" on the radio. All the war news was boring; “Let’s Pretend” was a good broadcast. I promised I'd do both with her. "I'll be inside when I get there!" My loud tones traveled upstairs and my mother thought we were again fighting. "Mom." Joy called from the foot of the staircase. "Lois won't play with me and she promised. Make her." The machine motor moaned. I curled my loafers around the legs of the footstool, rested an elbow on my rolled-up dungarees, and continued the ritual. "Ah choo. People can fly airplanes! You'd think someone could invent a way to dry hair at home." My granddaughter, couldn't stop laughing when I told her this. She was sure this was a story I was making up. And when I mentioned curling irons didn’t exist, she laughed until her eyes actually got silly tears dripping down her face. I grinned knowing that when my own mother told me something true from her pre-teen years, and it seemed foreign, I would have suggested that her imagination had run wild. ©1998 The United Methodist Publishing House reprinted December 2010 via Clear Mt. Syndicate
0 Comments
Shopping then and now |
Charles Hayes, a multiple Pushcart Prize Nominee, is an American who lives part time in the Philippines and part time in Seattle with his wife. A product of the Appalachian Mountains, his writing has appeared in Ky Story’s Anthology Collection, Wilderness House Literary Review, The Fable Online, Unbroken Journal, CC&D Magazine, Random Sample Review, The Zodiac Review, eFiction Magazine, Saturday Night Reader, Cha: An Asian Literary Journal, Scarlet Leaf Publishing House, Burning Word Journal, eFiction India, Blue Lake Review and others. |
A PRESIDENT IS ELECTED: NOVEMBER 7, 2020
On the ground outside a rural German town near an old World War Two Jewish concentration camp lie three small plaques. This is the spot where a few of the holocaust victims that died in the camp are buried.
When American troops liberated this concentration camp these memorialized dead were discovered stuffed into the doorway of one of the buildings. After gathering their bodies into a jeep wagon, the Americans pulled them into the center of the small town and called the inhabitants out.
The townspeople gathered as the American Officer, from his perch atop the back of the jeep and the connecting wagon tongue, informed them that they had been aware of what was taking place in this camp and that, in fact, they had supported and abetted it. Therefore, they should carry the dead to the edge of town and properly bury them. Not feeling to kindly, the American Officer paused in his instructions just long enough to take a deep breath and survey the frowning faces of the German populace,
“Or Else!!!”
To this day that memorial is kept by that German town and it is done with honor.
I think that a similar memorial, done in a similar manner, should be placed outside a small rural American Heartland town to commemorate the quarter of a million Americans dead from the coronavirus hoax.
When American troops liberated this concentration camp these memorialized dead were discovered stuffed into the doorway of one of the buildings. After gathering their bodies into a jeep wagon, the Americans pulled them into the center of the small town and called the inhabitants out.
The townspeople gathered as the American Officer, from his perch atop the back of the jeep and the connecting wagon tongue, informed them that they had been aware of what was taking place in this camp and that, in fact, they had supported and abetted it. Therefore, they should carry the dead to the edge of town and properly bury them. Not feeling to kindly, the American Officer paused in his instructions just long enough to take a deep breath and survey the frowning faces of the German populace,
“Or Else!!!”
To this day that memorial is kept by that German town and it is done with honor.
I think that a similar memorial, done in a similar manner, should be placed outside a small rural American Heartland town to commemorate the quarter of a million Americans dead from the coronavirus hoax.
The Republican Psyche: A Dire Prognosis
Psychological repression, guilt, and reality has finally confronted one another in the republican party and the collateral damage is immense.
It took decades for today's republican party to create itself. Sadly, we now have the present republican party trying to kill us if we are not one of them. How did we get here?
As Abe Lincoln's republican party changed as it transited the 20th century, today's republican party has also changed from acceptable repressive denial to plain murderous greed and lying.
For too long our republican government's policy, and the guilt driven denial that comes with it, has in reality been a means to more personal income or other selfish needs. However this behavior has at long last lost its efficacy and consequently there are some republicans that realize this and want out. For them, repressive denial can no longer exist for the psychological curtains that had previously covered their psyches have been pulled wide open. Now, to wash themselves of this guilt, if possible, they must first admit the truth. A dire prognosis.
Half of this country has perpetrated this selfish approach to government and who, that is not one of them, wants to unite with such a bunch? In reality there can no longer be a united America because, for those not caught up in this rekoning, that would be suicide by government. As with so many things only hell can pay. Just leave the asylums aside.
It took decades for today's republican party to create itself. Sadly, we now have the present republican party trying to kill us if we are not one of them. How did we get here?
As Abe Lincoln's republican party changed as it transited the 20th century, today's republican party has also changed from acceptable repressive denial to plain murderous greed and lying.
For too long our republican government's policy, and the guilt driven denial that comes with it, has in reality been a means to more personal income or other selfish needs. However this behavior has at long last lost its efficacy and consequently there are some republicans that realize this and want out. For them, repressive denial can no longer exist for the psychological curtains that had previously covered their psyches have been pulled wide open. Now, to wash themselves of this guilt, if possible, they must first admit the truth. A dire prognosis.
Half of this country has perpetrated this selfish approach to government and who, that is not one of them, wants to unite with such a bunch? In reality there can no longer be a united America because, for those not caught up in this rekoning, that would be suicide by government. As with so many things only hell can pay. Just leave the asylums aside.
Bill has engaged students in formal instruction at every learning level in Maine to include elementary, middle, high school, and university. He has also served as a volunteer teacher at the alternative, Evergreen Sudbury school in Hallowell, Maine. Bill is a Maine certified science teacher, wildlife rehabilitator, and breeder of draft horses. |
Living with Homo sapiens – A Primer for Survival
Let's get this out straight-away. We're nothing special. Sixty-five million years ago, the colossal dinosaurs were on top of the food chain. Now, look at them. 99 PERCENT of all species who ever walked, crawled, swam, or slithered on Earth, became extinct. One might, however, believe that we'll do just fine. I mean now that our species are kings and queens of the hill, so to speak. Déjà vu is so rarely discussed in evolutionary circles. Anthropocentrism describes the most mortal of perspectives that, like before Galileo, the universe revolves around our species, or more precisely—our individual selves. We humans mistakenly conclude that we are SO unique; we can then dismiss our primeval succession of amino acid building blocks. The nearly 40-trillion cells in our bodies are all constructed from DNA snippets—some being 4-billion years old. Our DNA codes match chimpanzee-building blueprints by over 99%. Yes, another significant pair of nines. If not of African descent, then we average up to 5% of Neanderthal genes in our bloodline (Homo neanderthalensis). Oops. Wait. Every person on the planet is of African descent (the Out of Africa Hypothesis). I meant the 5% applies if our more recent ancestors hail from Europe or Asia. If not for the Saharan desert, then ancient Africans would have also occasionally made love with the northerly, strapping, and who knows, potentially wicked-alluring Neanderthals.
When researchers exclaim that our DNA programming matches chimpanzee instructions by such a statistically overwhelming margin, what do they mean? Essentially, of the three-billion distinct alphabetic codes in our 24 chromosomes, over 99% of the sequences correspond LETTER FOR LETTER. Because you were probably busy passing notes in high school biology class, you might need a refresher to recall that A, G, C, and T nucleotides are the chemical ladder rungs in our spiraling DNA molecules. Letter-codon sequences specify amino acids that link together to build proteins. One of our proteins contains 27,000 amino acids. Consider then that a single coding-letter error in our DNA can kill us or make us frail or sick for life. 3 billion codes. Our proteins influence every aspect and function of who we are and what we think. DNA sequences also build neural networks in our brains. Thought networks often come about by learning and experience (or nurture). Many, however, do not. These inclinations arrive preconditioned as they do in sea turtle hatchlings who using three types of advanced navigation (sight, wave-pulse, and magnetic heading), scramble off the beach at full-throttle to the open sea. As adults, they cross thousands of miles of azure ocean to return years later to mate and bury the next generation of eggs deep into the same warm, ivory sands. Instinctual patterning is nature, not nurture.
In his groundbreaking treatise The Triune Brain in Evolution, neuroscientist Paul Maclean presented an insightful premise that primate forebrains such as ours layer upward through two previous incarnations of ancient vertebrate thought-processing. Darwin's evolution usually advances by experimenting with slight variations to successful living platforms. Tearing down an existing, organic infrastructure and then starting from scratch is virtually never encountered in our primordial string of life. The oldest vertebrates and early fish had brain designs similar in functionality to our hindbrain, midbrain, and the lowest portions of our newer-outer forebrain. The bottommost brain stem coordinates autonomic activity (involuntary) such as breathing, respiration, heart rate, and digestive activity. The adjoining midbrain provides vision, hearing, motor control, and temperature regulation. Our ancient neural circuitry regulates base motor and survival skills. Our early, vertebrate brains guide us in ways that are automatic, instinctual, and resistant to change.
Building up from our brain stem, our reptilian or R-complex forms the lowest portion of our three-layered forebrain. Maclean reveals that lowly lizards with simpler versions of our upper-two brain areas (limbic system and outermost neocortex) employ a "daily master routine" where they search for food, avoid predators, mate, AND establish rigid social hierarchies in male or female lanes. Lizards then figure out which males and females of their own species are strong (either physically or due to their attitude). Then they adapt subservient behaviors to avoid getting their asses kicked. In general, females posture to females and males to males. Take note of this. Reptilian, bottom-dominant brains formulated complicated fear-learning cognitive networks to stay out of trouble. That is until such time, where they could turn the tables and ascend the community pecking order. Alpha reptiles of either gender horde better feeding sites, more desirable mates, and they produce additional offspring on average. Darwin 101.
What about the R-complex in our brains? How different are human behaviors when compared to the core survival wiring in reptiles? Not very! Surely, our newest-largest portions of gray matter (cerebral cortex) orchestrate many of our most elegant thoughts, including those involving art, music, mathematics, reading trash novels, and posting unverified news memes from Russia across the Internet. But, upward from our paleo-vertebrate brain lies the limbic system (MacLean's paleomammalian complex), including the hippocampus, amygdalae, and other areas specializing in memories, emotions, sexuality, nurturing, and bonding. Distinctly, across EVERY layer of human culture, our limbic nodes and R-complex intervene by establishing behavioral impulses that delineate social hierarchies. Our early mammalian brains deduce who precisely should be the alpha males and females in our "clans." Hominids (great apes) such as chimpanzees and ourselves also exhibit these clear-cut practices. Three billion codes. 99%.
We now associate much of the functionality of the intermediate limbic system with later amphibians, reptiles, and the most ancient mammals. Advances in neocortex evolution came about by later-arriving mammals as they developed complex interactions within social settings (the Social Brain Hypothesis). Improved forebrain-processing allowed mammals to manage sophisticated relationships within larger, interacting groups of cohorts—well before the arrival of quantum theory, the redshift phenomena of universal expansion, and the post-war erosion of the middle-class. And we, of course, possess the largest brains and most sophisticated thought patterns on our planet, bar none. Well, actually, no, we really don't. Anthropocentrism. State your criteria. How about watching pornography, wasting time on cell phones, and creating plastic-based environmental nightmares across every continent? Hands down, we rule. Thank goodness for all that crucial neocortex.
But did you know that in our current century, a European man, a civil servant with a wife and two children, accidentally misplaced 75% of his neocortex? Going to the doctor for weakness in his left leg, brain scans revealed that most of his fantastically-necessary forebrain had dissolved into cerebral fluid over the intervening 30-years due to a rare condition known as hydrocephalus (the turning of neural cells into liquid). I could list tens or hundreds of similar, documented cases where due to accidents, genetics, or disease, large portions of someone's supposedly-crucial neocortex were destroyed. These maladies left functional, if not quite rocket-scientist-like people managing relatively well—on predominantly, the lower two sections of their triune brains. 75%. He was a married, civil servant, for goodness sake. State your criteria.
Largest brains and most neocortex—cetaceans (whales, dolphins) and elephants. Most peaceable and caring mammalian social relationships—matriarchal elephants. Bonobos (slightly more diminutive chimpanzees) come in second. The first mammalian sub-order to communicate using language and syntax (words and phrases)—cetaceans. Surely, he jests. No, really, we aren't that unique. The most playful adults on the planet who also actively take time from their own engrained master routine to instruct youngsters—otters, cetaceans, then humans. Female hymenopterans like ants, wasps, and bees display supportive and unshakeable sibling relationships that are beyond compare in the animal kingdom. Instead of men, the ultimate, devoted animal fathers are—emperor penguins, gorillas, wolves, foxes, and pygmy marmosets.
Concerning human-centric paraphernalia, we seem to be the current top-o-the-heap species. But taking the long, four-billion-year view, what if we, ourselves, don't make it? What would be our post-mortem review on rottentomatoes-evolution.com? Humans may be the harbingers of one of the largest biologically-caused mass-die offs since the cyanobacteria decimated their cousins 2.4 billion years ago. The "Oxygen Catastrophe" caused by the newest oxygen-producing microbes killed off most existing bacteria on our world, leaving them to hide in river and ocean bottoms where they remain today. Scientists believe there have been 20 severe, world-wide extinction pulses caused by various phenomena, many from geological, weather-extreme, or meteor-impact events. But, thanks to all our exceptional neocortex, estimates suggest we may be losing between 25 and 100 species of flora or fauna per day to near-extinction levels. State your criteria. Most deadly and destructive species to global ecosystems on Earth – Homo sapiens.
How do we then survive—us? In families, communities, jobs, and the running of nation-states, our lower two-thirds of gray and white matter, literally, STILL—rule our behaviors more than we might care to believe. Unlike the dads mentioned above, human fathers, on average, are nowhere near as faithful to their offspring because they lack paternity surety. Penis lengths don't lie. Gorilla silverback males have small penises and scrotums, although, at 400 pounds, they weigh twice what females do. Super-large frames, fearsome-biting canine teeth, teeny johnsons, tiny testes. This is Darwin's sexual selection in full swing. Darwin 102. The teeth, muscle mass, and testosterone keep all potential suitors away from a silverback's harem. No foreign willy's then, enter any wandering gorilla vaginas. Ergo, no need to deeply flush a mate's vulva with a few extra-million sperm. Welcome to the fascinating world of sperm competition. Upon ejaculation, chimpanzees and squirrels attempt to seal their mate's wombs with pasty copulatory plugs. Some insects inject libido-reducing anti-aphrodisiacs into their mates. Drone bees often explode-off their penises (and abdomens) in suicidal attempts to block future stud-muffins from wooing a virgin queen. Human males generally have the largest penises of all great apes, even those having over twice our mass. Do the evolutionary math.
Men are programmed to compete for mates. Although in some men (whose neocortex allows them to intercede with "lower" programming), males of almost EVERY species battle other males for access to females. When not struggling mano y mano, instead, their penises and sperm cells tangle, literally. That is—every male on our planet. Men are burdened with a fiendishly, staggering evolutionary impediment. Unlike almost all animals in existence, men are challenged to sense when their mates are ovulating. Several insightful studies reveal that women unconsciously become sexually gregarious during ovulation, just like chimpanzee matriarchs who leave maternal cliques to wander with roving bands of fellas during ovulation. Talk about an evolutionary one-two punch. Men don't consciously know when women are fertile and, at the same time, the most randy. The difference being that chimpanzee matrons (and almost every other female) blatantly advertise estrus to males while women keep it a secret. Chimp ingenues attempt to have sex with many preferred males during estrus. Did we mention that chimpanzee gents also have long penises and the largest testes among all living hominids, including men and gorillas?
Apparently, paleo-women stumbled across an ingenious gambit for stealing some evolutionary influence back from their combative and pugnacious mates. Not only do males clash with each other, but depending on species, they often intimidate and, yes, rape, harm, and sometimes kill intended mates. Dragonfly matrons who have already bred drop to the ground and feign death until annoying and potentially harmful suitors exit the stage. This certainly one-ups declaring a headache. Once we were walking upright, manipulating tools, and passing down wisdom and lore, evolving Homo species probably began suffering murderous intra-clan brawls as paleo-women went into unconcealed ovulation. As Jane Goodall recounts in The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, a community weakened by the loss of protective males can fall prey to neighboring clans and be systematically exterminated. Hundreds of thousands of years of sexual-dimorphic evolution (large, powerful, testosterone-driven males - smaller, more nurturing, less combative females) became obsolete in short order. New tool-wielding beta males with long memories could now assassinate larger alpha males when they dropped their guard. Four-million years of silverback-like modifications to DNA—poof. Having little notion when their mates were ovulating, paleo-men would now have to avoid slaughtering one another while also appeasing women. Why? Because men could be cuckolded in a span of sixty-seconds upon leaving the bivouac. Female hominins (human-like offshoots) may have reached a pinnacle of mate choice and social control rarely seen in the animal kingdom. But how then did women let overall societal authority slip away to their bellicose mates?
Men control most higher-level nation-state resources and power flows. Older men. Everywhere, every race, throughout recorded history. Those rare egalitarian tribes and cultures where less antagonistic, matriarchal leanings hold sway are, for statistical purposes, almost nonexistent. And it is Darwin's elegant yet straightforward premise of natural selection, which explains much of what we see in living nature and society. As human brains and civilizations grew in stature, alpha male physical advantages now morphed into resource and power attractants for women. Instead of individualized physical contests, including weaponized retribution, males now directed their pugnacious neural instincts and hormones into accumulating wealth and dominance. As cultural classes came into being, competitive, masculine impulses pitted tribes and city-states against one another. But make no mistake. Our R-complexes and limbic systems still guide us to establish hierarchies, kowtow to clan superiors (now across virtual spaces), and to then also treat lowers like refuse. Our foundation wiring, 250-million years in the making (since early reptiles first appeared), spices most relationships we maintain on every layer of culture. We are pre-wired to discriminate against people who are: different, inferior in status per the norms of each of our extended tribes, of the opposite gender, or from contrasting ethnicities. And it's not just the men.
Across most clan settings (now countries or virtual-clans), the more communicative and socially-configured women tend to strongly influence kin and extended-family dynamics. Several fascinating studies report that in contemporary human cultures, women maintain instincts to compete against non-related women in an evolutionary attempt to safeguard limited resources (food, prestige, material goods, comfort, better mates). Generally, women don't engage physically with other women; instead, they use "indirect aggression" to suppress rivals (criticism, rumors, social exclusion). Women's brains are more negatively affected by social-mediated competition (non-physical). On average, and until very recently, men generally competed with other men, while women often set their sights on non-related women. Men are more apt to genuflect to superior clan (now work or societal) power hierarchies. With women, these nuances became a bit more complex. Due to bonding relationships and their impulses to primarily compete with other females, women may have generally deferred executive clan leadership decisions to those of their mates. We still notice these dynamics in most societies.
Chimpanzee communities mirror these gender-style behavior differentials, with males joining highly social warbands (with a clear alpha male). At the same time, matrons associate primarily with their kin and don't show a propensity to develop upper-level power dominions among large cliques of females. Elephants, spotted hyenas, and meerkats are exceptions to this generality, and the altered dynamics are obvious when dominant alpha females control their societies. As native enclaves transformed into city-states, women slowly relinquished enterprise-level authority to energy-wasting patriarchal influences. For example, can we imagine an environment where so-called "women's work" was valued over activities performed by predominantly male CEOs? These evolutionary strategies and the accumulation of evidence showing subtle (yet crucial) brain differences between men and women predict that regardless of culture, women have a statistical tendency to not engage in circumstances precipitating unnecessary, aggressive, physical outcomes. This master-neural formula is evident throughout same-species interactions in mammalian females. Occasional sniping at other females and their young being a readily-observed exception.
We now summarize some handy evolutionary guidelines to deal with the almost-constant barrage of circumstances encountered as we interact with the reptilian-cored, triune brains of our own species. Of course, we are not all cookie-cuttered by gender. There are toxic alpha women, nurturing men, and everything in-between. Human brains show considerable plasticity. But not to be overlooked are the undeniable outcomes regarding gender-differentiated ascendancy in every large society. Firstly, we need to consider the mate-bonding relationship between every semi-monogamous human couple. There are mixes of male-dominated, female-dominated, or relatively egalitarian relationships. Then, there are those especially troublesome sexual urges.
You know what I'm talking about. If mating drives in either parent are robust (the seeking of new partners), then relationships with offspring become challenging, strained, or even nonexistent. Statistically, women suffer this syndrome somewhat less than men. Women cheat, as well. However, men are programmed to cheat with MORE partners, and at the drop of a hat. The daily master routine from our triune brain. This is why the animal-dads listed earlier, having near-absolute paternity surety (a rarity in the animal world), make such doting fathers. Over millions of years, tightly polygynous or monogamous matches (one male, multiple females, or just one female) weave neural patterns allowing these dads to fastidiously nurture and attach with THEIR offspring. While often with men—not so much. Concretely, it also takes thousands of years to fashion extra-long penises. And especially after matrimonial failures, moms or dads can become so immersed in the process of rebonding that offspring become lost in the shuffle. The more tenuous the original nuptials (less paternity surety), the more distant the human father may become. Axiom 1. Unlike many other primates, men and women can lose connection with offspring because of underlying needs to secure a mating affiliation. Because women always have outright maternity surety, this effect manifests itself more with the alleged dads.
Siblings. Few humans can hold a candle to the devotion of honeybees to their sisters or juvenile wolves to the newest litter of pups in their pack. Compared to Homo sapiens, the reverence shown by matriarchal-elephant congregations to their multi-generational families is breathtaking, long-lasting, and resilient. But when young wolves mature, then Darwinian competitions can turn once rock-solid relationships into edgy confrontations. Usually, only the alpha wolf-pair mate and produce young. The remainder of the pack, who are almost always older litters of the same parents, bide their time, learn to hunt, regurgitate meat to the newest pups, and wait for their hormones and neural algorithms to signal a time to branch off and start their own pack. Axiom 2. Generally, non-lethal yet testy exchanges occur as adolescents begin sexual cycles and begin to test leadership or mating impulses with either their parents or older siblings.
But these are trying times for all pack members. And this is especially so if a two or three-year-old sibling is a talented hunter, cherished caregiver of pups, or serves as emotional glue to the pack's cohesiveness. Excommunicated sons and daughters face harrowing challenges to avoid being killed by neighboring packs, which grant them no kid-glove-only snarling and baring of canine teeth. Axiom 3. Depending on their rapport with one or both parents, and their various siblings, many humans fall out with their brothers and sisters due to their bonding drives, resulting mate-relationships, or need to establish leadership and authority. If one or both parents don't rise above their core mating-authority impulses, then unlike matriarchal elephant herds—fragile, human family networks collapse.
In-laws, work, and community. Axiom 4. Male-to-male competitions and female-to-female rivalries color EVERY aspect of our lives. In recent times, non-familial male-to-female power struggles also take center stage. Add in the inter-generational or supervising-control dynamics in whatever venue we consider (beneficial or noxious), then our lives become an impassioned free-for-all of head-swirling chicanery. Do you find yourself out of the loop in the ascending, canoe-club cliques or bands at work? Is that at-first, horrifically slow driver in front of you (perhaps unconsciously) going well over the speed limit as you attempt passing on the left? Sometimes, for example, in-laws are excluded from blood-kin interactions in extended clan settings. Blame our triune brains. LIZARDS establish rigid social hierarchies based on perceived mating, physical-intimidation, desirability, or prestige-power differences. In chimpanzee communities—plots and intrigues abound as males, females, and siblings vie for resources and dominance. Certainly, if we become rich or famous, drive expensive status-cars, or have knock-out-good-looks, then others of our species are preconditioned to grant us higher prominence and allow us more say-so in general. They flock to our Internet feeds—like reptiles lining up by stature, during the engrained master routine, as the morning sun warms their cool, rocky overnight-dens.
The "Selfish Gene Theories" anticipate such behaviors by reminding us that two, near-microscopic, unicells, sperm and egg cells (and their DNA), still dictate many of our supposedly-independent actions. Just as in sea turtle hatchlings. To rise within social or family settings, one must consider the associated bonding, resource, and dominance chain of command. Axiom 5. Humans project most of our core emotions and drives onto community, work, and global scales. Now, extended-clan kinetics replace our earlier small-tribe environments, where for over 10-million years, many of our hominid impulses were fashioned. But our affinities to establish strict clan-based dynasties still foreshadow every cultural interaction we experience. We at once desire power and prestige but also subserviate to those we deem worthy. In male hamsters, once defeated by another male, omega-males now show submissive behaviors even when smaller, non-aggressive hamsters are placed into their home cages. International, ethnic, and cross-class rivalries build from deep, patriarchal drives of our now more distant (web-based) pseudo-alpha males. Women possess similar but nuanced neural algorithms. On average, women are less combative than men, and there might be fewer wars and less strife—if women built powerful, upper-tier coalitions.
Contrary to many nurture-over-nature aficionados, male and female brains are built differently. Not better or worse, or smarter. Just contrasting and distinct. Across averages (for all this data), men's brains are larger. But for the same size head, women's brains have a higher percentage of gray matter (computational cells). Their gray matter is thicker with more surface area, and they have more gray matter in the upper-most, frontal, or more recently developed portions of our brains. Men have increased proportions of white matter (connections) and tend to display higher values of gray matter when deeper in the lower-two (or instinctual) triune brain platforms. Women have decidedly more processing in language-centric areas of our neocortex (communicative capabilities), and women, in general, have more empathetic neural impulses. Women also have more connectivity between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Men seem programmed to become obsessed with things or processes (almost for their own sake, not necessarily evolutionarily-important rituals). At the same time, women are inclined to value relationships and people, especially kin.
The two genders are NOT taught these tendencies via our environment. These are engrained wiring differences helping to ensure the survival of selfish gene combinations. Women show emotional complexity, while men use simpler reward-gaining and punishment-avoiding strategies. Darwin 401. Emotional sophistication was (and is still) a Darwinian response for being the gender having the lion's share of responsibility when trying to keep offspring alive. The overwhelming majority of mammalian infants require their moms. Very few species lean on their dads (or even know who their dads are). Males conform to subordinate hierarchies while socially-advanced females continually process circumstances, mentally hedge their bets, and then attempt to choose the most survivable outcomes for their kindred. Differences in neural wiring foundations manifest themselves as women suffer from depression twice as often as men. Boys meanwhile are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at four times the rate of girls.
ASD is now defined as behaviors revolving around lack of communicative skills, preoccupation with things instead of people and relationships, behavioral inflexibility, and problems with empathy and socialization. Across averages, men are decidedly wired to be less nurturing, and they show more connections and processing on lower neural echelons (established routines). Women instead become exhausted and depressed due to the constant upper-level calculations required to navigate an uncertain world with themselves and offspring intact. This is because, in hominids (and other social mammals like wolves, cetaceans, elephants, and horses), moms don't just protect young from predators. They also must shield offspring from same-species dangers and mishaps. And then, females must negotiate resources from potential mates or the species-specific social system. Research shows that opposed to men; women don't always choose the quickest-win scenario when presented with reward-punishment combinations. Men quickly learn to avoid adverse social outcomes (and perhaps entire social environments). In contrast, women stay more engaged as they test, evaluate, experiment, and then choose based on their instincts and long-term goals.
These evolutionary strategies and the accumulation of evidence showing subtle (yet essential) brain differences between men and women predict that regardless of culture, women have a statistical tendency to not "rock the societal boat." Males across almost every animal species display more reckless and physical behaviors when either channeled by youthful (experimental), instinctual-mating, or status-improving drives. Throughout our past, entanglement in power struggles and intrigues held devastating effects on women and their offspring. This model is both insightful and predictive. Contemporary patriarchal dynamics divided and conquered women by taking advantage of their instinctual preferences to avoid chaos and ensuing violence. What percentage of a society's net worth should channel into arms and warrior classes instead of plowshares, sustainability, hospitals, and quality of life for the working class? Human instincts for acquiescing to regimes (and their pugnacious leaders) run deep in our programming.
Will humans rise above our inherent tendencies to compete with one another across genders, clans, ethnicities, and nations? Only by disconnecting people from our four-billion-year chain of ancestors could anyone believe that prejudices are completely moldable thought patterns. Both men and women harbor affinities to protect offspring and clans from "things that are different." Homo sapiens anonymous. To survive, and to have our planet endure, we may need to engage an evolutionary 12-step program where we first acknowledge who we are and where we came from. Then perhaps, women could cease deriding one another and lead the way by establishing stalwart, balancing, and global matriarchal coalitions. And who knows, men might actually become used to not killing each other to better the standing of their 1%, reptilian-thinking masters.
When researchers exclaim that our DNA programming matches chimpanzee instructions by such a statistically overwhelming margin, what do they mean? Essentially, of the three-billion distinct alphabetic codes in our 24 chromosomes, over 99% of the sequences correspond LETTER FOR LETTER. Because you were probably busy passing notes in high school biology class, you might need a refresher to recall that A, G, C, and T nucleotides are the chemical ladder rungs in our spiraling DNA molecules. Letter-codon sequences specify amino acids that link together to build proteins. One of our proteins contains 27,000 amino acids. Consider then that a single coding-letter error in our DNA can kill us or make us frail or sick for life. 3 billion codes. Our proteins influence every aspect and function of who we are and what we think. DNA sequences also build neural networks in our brains. Thought networks often come about by learning and experience (or nurture). Many, however, do not. These inclinations arrive preconditioned as they do in sea turtle hatchlings who using three types of advanced navigation (sight, wave-pulse, and magnetic heading), scramble off the beach at full-throttle to the open sea. As adults, they cross thousands of miles of azure ocean to return years later to mate and bury the next generation of eggs deep into the same warm, ivory sands. Instinctual patterning is nature, not nurture.
In his groundbreaking treatise The Triune Brain in Evolution, neuroscientist Paul Maclean presented an insightful premise that primate forebrains such as ours layer upward through two previous incarnations of ancient vertebrate thought-processing. Darwin's evolution usually advances by experimenting with slight variations to successful living platforms. Tearing down an existing, organic infrastructure and then starting from scratch is virtually never encountered in our primordial string of life. The oldest vertebrates and early fish had brain designs similar in functionality to our hindbrain, midbrain, and the lowest portions of our newer-outer forebrain. The bottommost brain stem coordinates autonomic activity (involuntary) such as breathing, respiration, heart rate, and digestive activity. The adjoining midbrain provides vision, hearing, motor control, and temperature regulation. Our ancient neural circuitry regulates base motor and survival skills. Our early, vertebrate brains guide us in ways that are automatic, instinctual, and resistant to change.
Building up from our brain stem, our reptilian or R-complex forms the lowest portion of our three-layered forebrain. Maclean reveals that lowly lizards with simpler versions of our upper-two brain areas (limbic system and outermost neocortex) employ a "daily master routine" where they search for food, avoid predators, mate, AND establish rigid social hierarchies in male or female lanes. Lizards then figure out which males and females of their own species are strong (either physically or due to their attitude). Then they adapt subservient behaviors to avoid getting their asses kicked. In general, females posture to females and males to males. Take note of this. Reptilian, bottom-dominant brains formulated complicated fear-learning cognitive networks to stay out of trouble. That is until such time, where they could turn the tables and ascend the community pecking order. Alpha reptiles of either gender horde better feeding sites, more desirable mates, and they produce additional offspring on average. Darwin 101.
What about the R-complex in our brains? How different are human behaviors when compared to the core survival wiring in reptiles? Not very! Surely, our newest-largest portions of gray matter (cerebral cortex) orchestrate many of our most elegant thoughts, including those involving art, music, mathematics, reading trash novels, and posting unverified news memes from Russia across the Internet. But, upward from our paleo-vertebrate brain lies the limbic system (MacLean's paleomammalian complex), including the hippocampus, amygdalae, and other areas specializing in memories, emotions, sexuality, nurturing, and bonding. Distinctly, across EVERY layer of human culture, our limbic nodes and R-complex intervene by establishing behavioral impulses that delineate social hierarchies. Our early mammalian brains deduce who precisely should be the alpha males and females in our "clans." Hominids (great apes) such as chimpanzees and ourselves also exhibit these clear-cut practices. Three billion codes. 99%.
We now associate much of the functionality of the intermediate limbic system with later amphibians, reptiles, and the most ancient mammals. Advances in neocortex evolution came about by later-arriving mammals as they developed complex interactions within social settings (the Social Brain Hypothesis). Improved forebrain-processing allowed mammals to manage sophisticated relationships within larger, interacting groups of cohorts—well before the arrival of quantum theory, the redshift phenomena of universal expansion, and the post-war erosion of the middle-class. And we, of course, possess the largest brains and most sophisticated thought patterns on our planet, bar none. Well, actually, no, we really don't. Anthropocentrism. State your criteria. How about watching pornography, wasting time on cell phones, and creating plastic-based environmental nightmares across every continent? Hands down, we rule. Thank goodness for all that crucial neocortex.
But did you know that in our current century, a European man, a civil servant with a wife and two children, accidentally misplaced 75% of his neocortex? Going to the doctor for weakness in his left leg, brain scans revealed that most of his fantastically-necessary forebrain had dissolved into cerebral fluid over the intervening 30-years due to a rare condition known as hydrocephalus (the turning of neural cells into liquid). I could list tens or hundreds of similar, documented cases where due to accidents, genetics, or disease, large portions of someone's supposedly-crucial neocortex were destroyed. These maladies left functional, if not quite rocket-scientist-like people managing relatively well—on predominantly, the lower two sections of their triune brains. 75%. He was a married, civil servant, for goodness sake. State your criteria.
Largest brains and most neocortex—cetaceans (whales, dolphins) and elephants. Most peaceable and caring mammalian social relationships—matriarchal elephants. Bonobos (slightly more diminutive chimpanzees) come in second. The first mammalian sub-order to communicate using language and syntax (words and phrases)—cetaceans. Surely, he jests. No, really, we aren't that unique. The most playful adults on the planet who also actively take time from their own engrained master routine to instruct youngsters—otters, cetaceans, then humans. Female hymenopterans like ants, wasps, and bees display supportive and unshakeable sibling relationships that are beyond compare in the animal kingdom. Instead of men, the ultimate, devoted animal fathers are—emperor penguins, gorillas, wolves, foxes, and pygmy marmosets.
Concerning human-centric paraphernalia, we seem to be the current top-o-the-heap species. But taking the long, four-billion-year view, what if we, ourselves, don't make it? What would be our post-mortem review on rottentomatoes-evolution.com? Humans may be the harbingers of one of the largest biologically-caused mass-die offs since the cyanobacteria decimated their cousins 2.4 billion years ago. The "Oxygen Catastrophe" caused by the newest oxygen-producing microbes killed off most existing bacteria on our world, leaving them to hide in river and ocean bottoms where they remain today. Scientists believe there have been 20 severe, world-wide extinction pulses caused by various phenomena, many from geological, weather-extreme, or meteor-impact events. But, thanks to all our exceptional neocortex, estimates suggest we may be losing between 25 and 100 species of flora or fauna per day to near-extinction levels. State your criteria. Most deadly and destructive species to global ecosystems on Earth – Homo sapiens.
How do we then survive—us? In families, communities, jobs, and the running of nation-states, our lower two-thirds of gray and white matter, literally, STILL—rule our behaviors more than we might care to believe. Unlike the dads mentioned above, human fathers, on average, are nowhere near as faithful to their offspring because they lack paternity surety. Penis lengths don't lie. Gorilla silverback males have small penises and scrotums, although, at 400 pounds, they weigh twice what females do. Super-large frames, fearsome-biting canine teeth, teeny johnsons, tiny testes. This is Darwin's sexual selection in full swing. Darwin 102. The teeth, muscle mass, and testosterone keep all potential suitors away from a silverback's harem. No foreign willy's then, enter any wandering gorilla vaginas. Ergo, no need to deeply flush a mate's vulva with a few extra-million sperm. Welcome to the fascinating world of sperm competition. Upon ejaculation, chimpanzees and squirrels attempt to seal their mate's wombs with pasty copulatory plugs. Some insects inject libido-reducing anti-aphrodisiacs into their mates. Drone bees often explode-off their penises (and abdomens) in suicidal attempts to block future stud-muffins from wooing a virgin queen. Human males generally have the largest penises of all great apes, even those having over twice our mass. Do the evolutionary math.
Men are programmed to compete for mates. Although in some men (whose neocortex allows them to intercede with "lower" programming), males of almost EVERY species battle other males for access to females. When not struggling mano y mano, instead, their penises and sperm cells tangle, literally. That is—every male on our planet. Men are burdened with a fiendishly, staggering evolutionary impediment. Unlike almost all animals in existence, men are challenged to sense when their mates are ovulating. Several insightful studies reveal that women unconsciously become sexually gregarious during ovulation, just like chimpanzee matriarchs who leave maternal cliques to wander with roving bands of fellas during ovulation. Talk about an evolutionary one-two punch. Men don't consciously know when women are fertile and, at the same time, the most randy. The difference being that chimpanzee matrons (and almost every other female) blatantly advertise estrus to males while women keep it a secret. Chimp ingenues attempt to have sex with many preferred males during estrus. Did we mention that chimpanzee gents also have long penises and the largest testes among all living hominids, including men and gorillas?
Apparently, paleo-women stumbled across an ingenious gambit for stealing some evolutionary influence back from their combative and pugnacious mates. Not only do males clash with each other, but depending on species, they often intimidate and, yes, rape, harm, and sometimes kill intended mates. Dragonfly matrons who have already bred drop to the ground and feign death until annoying and potentially harmful suitors exit the stage. This certainly one-ups declaring a headache. Once we were walking upright, manipulating tools, and passing down wisdom and lore, evolving Homo species probably began suffering murderous intra-clan brawls as paleo-women went into unconcealed ovulation. As Jane Goodall recounts in The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, a community weakened by the loss of protective males can fall prey to neighboring clans and be systematically exterminated. Hundreds of thousands of years of sexual-dimorphic evolution (large, powerful, testosterone-driven males - smaller, more nurturing, less combative females) became obsolete in short order. New tool-wielding beta males with long memories could now assassinate larger alpha males when they dropped their guard. Four-million years of silverback-like modifications to DNA—poof. Having little notion when their mates were ovulating, paleo-men would now have to avoid slaughtering one another while also appeasing women. Why? Because men could be cuckolded in a span of sixty-seconds upon leaving the bivouac. Female hominins (human-like offshoots) may have reached a pinnacle of mate choice and social control rarely seen in the animal kingdom. But how then did women let overall societal authority slip away to their bellicose mates?
Men control most higher-level nation-state resources and power flows. Older men. Everywhere, every race, throughout recorded history. Those rare egalitarian tribes and cultures where less antagonistic, matriarchal leanings hold sway are, for statistical purposes, almost nonexistent. And it is Darwin's elegant yet straightforward premise of natural selection, which explains much of what we see in living nature and society. As human brains and civilizations grew in stature, alpha male physical advantages now morphed into resource and power attractants for women. Instead of individualized physical contests, including weaponized retribution, males now directed their pugnacious neural instincts and hormones into accumulating wealth and dominance. As cultural classes came into being, competitive, masculine impulses pitted tribes and city-states against one another. But make no mistake. Our R-complexes and limbic systems still guide us to establish hierarchies, kowtow to clan superiors (now across virtual spaces), and to then also treat lowers like refuse. Our foundation wiring, 250-million years in the making (since early reptiles first appeared), spices most relationships we maintain on every layer of culture. We are pre-wired to discriminate against people who are: different, inferior in status per the norms of each of our extended tribes, of the opposite gender, or from contrasting ethnicities. And it's not just the men.
Across most clan settings (now countries or virtual-clans), the more communicative and socially-configured women tend to strongly influence kin and extended-family dynamics. Several fascinating studies report that in contemporary human cultures, women maintain instincts to compete against non-related women in an evolutionary attempt to safeguard limited resources (food, prestige, material goods, comfort, better mates). Generally, women don't engage physically with other women; instead, they use "indirect aggression" to suppress rivals (criticism, rumors, social exclusion). Women's brains are more negatively affected by social-mediated competition (non-physical). On average, and until very recently, men generally competed with other men, while women often set their sights on non-related women. Men are more apt to genuflect to superior clan (now work or societal) power hierarchies. With women, these nuances became a bit more complex. Due to bonding relationships and their impulses to primarily compete with other females, women may have generally deferred executive clan leadership decisions to those of their mates. We still notice these dynamics in most societies.
Chimpanzee communities mirror these gender-style behavior differentials, with males joining highly social warbands (with a clear alpha male). At the same time, matrons associate primarily with their kin and don't show a propensity to develop upper-level power dominions among large cliques of females. Elephants, spotted hyenas, and meerkats are exceptions to this generality, and the altered dynamics are obvious when dominant alpha females control their societies. As native enclaves transformed into city-states, women slowly relinquished enterprise-level authority to energy-wasting patriarchal influences. For example, can we imagine an environment where so-called "women's work" was valued over activities performed by predominantly male CEOs? These evolutionary strategies and the accumulation of evidence showing subtle (yet crucial) brain differences between men and women predict that regardless of culture, women have a statistical tendency to not engage in circumstances precipitating unnecessary, aggressive, physical outcomes. This master-neural formula is evident throughout same-species interactions in mammalian females. Occasional sniping at other females and their young being a readily-observed exception.
We now summarize some handy evolutionary guidelines to deal with the almost-constant barrage of circumstances encountered as we interact with the reptilian-cored, triune brains of our own species. Of course, we are not all cookie-cuttered by gender. There are toxic alpha women, nurturing men, and everything in-between. Human brains show considerable plasticity. But not to be overlooked are the undeniable outcomes regarding gender-differentiated ascendancy in every large society. Firstly, we need to consider the mate-bonding relationship between every semi-monogamous human couple. There are mixes of male-dominated, female-dominated, or relatively egalitarian relationships. Then, there are those especially troublesome sexual urges.
You know what I'm talking about. If mating drives in either parent are robust (the seeking of new partners), then relationships with offspring become challenging, strained, or even nonexistent. Statistically, women suffer this syndrome somewhat less than men. Women cheat, as well. However, men are programmed to cheat with MORE partners, and at the drop of a hat. The daily master routine from our triune brain. This is why the animal-dads listed earlier, having near-absolute paternity surety (a rarity in the animal world), make such doting fathers. Over millions of years, tightly polygynous or monogamous matches (one male, multiple females, or just one female) weave neural patterns allowing these dads to fastidiously nurture and attach with THEIR offspring. While often with men—not so much. Concretely, it also takes thousands of years to fashion extra-long penises. And especially after matrimonial failures, moms or dads can become so immersed in the process of rebonding that offspring become lost in the shuffle. The more tenuous the original nuptials (less paternity surety), the more distant the human father may become. Axiom 1. Unlike many other primates, men and women can lose connection with offspring because of underlying needs to secure a mating affiliation. Because women always have outright maternity surety, this effect manifests itself more with the alleged dads.
Siblings. Few humans can hold a candle to the devotion of honeybees to their sisters or juvenile wolves to the newest litter of pups in their pack. Compared to Homo sapiens, the reverence shown by matriarchal-elephant congregations to their multi-generational families is breathtaking, long-lasting, and resilient. But when young wolves mature, then Darwinian competitions can turn once rock-solid relationships into edgy confrontations. Usually, only the alpha wolf-pair mate and produce young. The remainder of the pack, who are almost always older litters of the same parents, bide their time, learn to hunt, regurgitate meat to the newest pups, and wait for their hormones and neural algorithms to signal a time to branch off and start their own pack. Axiom 2. Generally, non-lethal yet testy exchanges occur as adolescents begin sexual cycles and begin to test leadership or mating impulses with either their parents or older siblings.
But these are trying times for all pack members. And this is especially so if a two or three-year-old sibling is a talented hunter, cherished caregiver of pups, or serves as emotional glue to the pack's cohesiveness. Excommunicated sons and daughters face harrowing challenges to avoid being killed by neighboring packs, which grant them no kid-glove-only snarling and baring of canine teeth. Axiom 3. Depending on their rapport with one or both parents, and their various siblings, many humans fall out with their brothers and sisters due to their bonding drives, resulting mate-relationships, or need to establish leadership and authority. If one or both parents don't rise above their core mating-authority impulses, then unlike matriarchal elephant herds—fragile, human family networks collapse.
In-laws, work, and community. Axiom 4. Male-to-male competitions and female-to-female rivalries color EVERY aspect of our lives. In recent times, non-familial male-to-female power struggles also take center stage. Add in the inter-generational or supervising-control dynamics in whatever venue we consider (beneficial or noxious), then our lives become an impassioned free-for-all of head-swirling chicanery. Do you find yourself out of the loop in the ascending, canoe-club cliques or bands at work? Is that at-first, horrifically slow driver in front of you (perhaps unconsciously) going well over the speed limit as you attempt passing on the left? Sometimes, for example, in-laws are excluded from blood-kin interactions in extended clan settings. Blame our triune brains. LIZARDS establish rigid social hierarchies based on perceived mating, physical-intimidation, desirability, or prestige-power differences. In chimpanzee communities—plots and intrigues abound as males, females, and siblings vie for resources and dominance. Certainly, if we become rich or famous, drive expensive status-cars, or have knock-out-good-looks, then others of our species are preconditioned to grant us higher prominence and allow us more say-so in general. They flock to our Internet feeds—like reptiles lining up by stature, during the engrained master routine, as the morning sun warms their cool, rocky overnight-dens.
The "Selfish Gene Theories" anticipate such behaviors by reminding us that two, near-microscopic, unicells, sperm and egg cells (and their DNA), still dictate many of our supposedly-independent actions. Just as in sea turtle hatchlings. To rise within social or family settings, one must consider the associated bonding, resource, and dominance chain of command. Axiom 5. Humans project most of our core emotions and drives onto community, work, and global scales. Now, extended-clan kinetics replace our earlier small-tribe environments, where for over 10-million years, many of our hominid impulses were fashioned. But our affinities to establish strict clan-based dynasties still foreshadow every cultural interaction we experience. We at once desire power and prestige but also subserviate to those we deem worthy. In male hamsters, once defeated by another male, omega-males now show submissive behaviors even when smaller, non-aggressive hamsters are placed into their home cages. International, ethnic, and cross-class rivalries build from deep, patriarchal drives of our now more distant (web-based) pseudo-alpha males. Women possess similar but nuanced neural algorithms. On average, women are less combative than men, and there might be fewer wars and less strife—if women built powerful, upper-tier coalitions.
Contrary to many nurture-over-nature aficionados, male and female brains are built differently. Not better or worse, or smarter. Just contrasting and distinct. Across averages (for all this data), men's brains are larger. But for the same size head, women's brains have a higher percentage of gray matter (computational cells). Their gray matter is thicker with more surface area, and they have more gray matter in the upper-most, frontal, or more recently developed portions of our brains. Men have increased proportions of white matter (connections) and tend to display higher values of gray matter when deeper in the lower-two (or instinctual) triune brain platforms. Women have decidedly more processing in language-centric areas of our neocortex (communicative capabilities), and women, in general, have more empathetic neural impulses. Women also have more connectivity between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Men seem programmed to become obsessed with things or processes (almost for their own sake, not necessarily evolutionarily-important rituals). At the same time, women are inclined to value relationships and people, especially kin.
The two genders are NOT taught these tendencies via our environment. These are engrained wiring differences helping to ensure the survival of selfish gene combinations. Women show emotional complexity, while men use simpler reward-gaining and punishment-avoiding strategies. Darwin 401. Emotional sophistication was (and is still) a Darwinian response for being the gender having the lion's share of responsibility when trying to keep offspring alive. The overwhelming majority of mammalian infants require their moms. Very few species lean on their dads (or even know who their dads are). Males conform to subordinate hierarchies while socially-advanced females continually process circumstances, mentally hedge their bets, and then attempt to choose the most survivable outcomes for their kindred. Differences in neural wiring foundations manifest themselves as women suffer from depression twice as often as men. Boys meanwhile are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at four times the rate of girls.
ASD is now defined as behaviors revolving around lack of communicative skills, preoccupation with things instead of people and relationships, behavioral inflexibility, and problems with empathy and socialization. Across averages, men are decidedly wired to be less nurturing, and they show more connections and processing on lower neural echelons (established routines). Women instead become exhausted and depressed due to the constant upper-level calculations required to navigate an uncertain world with themselves and offspring intact. This is because, in hominids (and other social mammals like wolves, cetaceans, elephants, and horses), moms don't just protect young from predators. They also must shield offspring from same-species dangers and mishaps. And then, females must negotiate resources from potential mates or the species-specific social system. Research shows that opposed to men; women don't always choose the quickest-win scenario when presented with reward-punishment combinations. Men quickly learn to avoid adverse social outcomes (and perhaps entire social environments). In contrast, women stay more engaged as they test, evaluate, experiment, and then choose based on their instincts and long-term goals.
These evolutionary strategies and the accumulation of evidence showing subtle (yet essential) brain differences between men and women predict that regardless of culture, women have a statistical tendency to not "rock the societal boat." Males across almost every animal species display more reckless and physical behaviors when either channeled by youthful (experimental), instinctual-mating, or status-improving drives. Throughout our past, entanglement in power struggles and intrigues held devastating effects on women and their offspring. This model is both insightful and predictive. Contemporary patriarchal dynamics divided and conquered women by taking advantage of their instinctual preferences to avoid chaos and ensuing violence. What percentage of a society's net worth should channel into arms and warrior classes instead of plowshares, sustainability, hospitals, and quality of life for the working class? Human instincts for acquiescing to regimes (and their pugnacious leaders) run deep in our programming.
Will humans rise above our inherent tendencies to compete with one another across genders, clans, ethnicities, and nations? Only by disconnecting people from our four-billion-year chain of ancestors could anyone believe that prejudices are completely moldable thought patterns. Both men and women harbor affinities to protect offspring and clans from "things that are different." Homo sapiens anonymous. To survive, and to have our planet endure, we may need to engage an evolutionary 12-step program where we first acknowledge who we are and where we came from. Then perhaps, women could cease deriding one another and lead the way by establishing stalwart, balancing, and global matriarchal coalitions. And who knows, men might actually become used to not killing each other to better the standing of their 1%, reptilian-thinking masters.
Alina Chisti is a senior honors student at Hamilton High School. She is currently one of the Editors-in-Chief of the Ink & Feather Literary and Arts Magazine and an intern for PeerSquared Inc. Her work has been published in the Arizona State University anthology and the Blue Guitar Junior literary magazine. Alina is also an avid theatre student, photography geek, writer, and guitar player. You can find her photography on her Instagram page @photography_alinazohra. |