Posts Tagged ‘science’

Interview with Bill Penrose, Author of “Anne the Healer”

January 29, 2010

(Bill Penrose is a friend of over three years standing I met on a  website, ERWA (Erotica Readers and Writers Assoc). I don’t participate much there anymore because I can’t seem to get the submissions of others  on a regular basis. (I am told it’s a server problem on my end.) It was a good classroom for those years,  and I would recommend it to any beginning writer for what you learn.  Most of us benefit from our time there and go on and perhaps broaden our writing from erotica. Or not.

Bill Penrose was one of the best people to come out of the ERWA experience. He took me, a very raw writer, in hand, and gently mentored  and encouraged  until I  started to stand on my own.  There were others who did the same, Nick Nicholson for one, and I remain very grateful to these two fine friends and great writers. Bill also has taken on the publishing of my first book, “A Seasoning of Lust” and is soon to do the second, “The Zar Tales”.

Thanks, Bill.  You know…you know.

Lady Nyo)

Bill, this book is rather different from “Ancestors of Star”. It delved into Catholicism, faith healing and other social issues, like homelessness.

I was still searching for the right genre. I began this novel as my Nanowrimo 2004 project, and finished it about a year later. Finally, I grew tired of letting it sit on my hard drive and decided to put it out there, first on, and finally on . I think it’s a good story, but I wasn’t really trying to get a message across, only to entertain.

While I was teaching at Illinois Institute of Technology, I was close to several contrasting neighborhoods in Chicago, including Bridgeport, Chinatown, and Bronzeville. Each neighborhood had its own peculiar characteristics, but Bridgeport was most interesting because of its cosmopolitan, transitional character. It had traditionally been Irish-Italian working class, as well as the home of the Daleys and the center of the famous Chicago Democratic Machine. But with the recent dramatic influx of Hispanics, it was becoming more diverse every day. It wasn’t just the broad ethnic spread, but the class distribution. There were the very poor, even some who lived in tents made of plastic garbage bags and duct tape, and others in narrow homes over a hundred years old. The shops on 31st Street reflected the fascinating variety of the area.

In other words, it’s an area where you almost expect unusual things to happen, much more so than in the homogenous suburban area where I lived. Although ‘Anne the Healer’ could have been set almost anywhere, it was a natural for the Bridgeport area.

Why did you write a novel about faith healing? Could you speak a bit on your own religious or spiritual convictions? How did you come to these?

I like to put a little magic in my stories. Life itself is magical in so many ways, so for me, it’s not much of a stretch to add just a little more magic, just enough to disorient and make the earth shift a little underfoot. I think it’s also important to merge it with the universal magic by making the special magic, e.g., Anne’s talent for healing, ambiguous. In other words, it should be possible to read ‘Anne the Healer’ without believing in faith healing or divine powers. Like the universal magic, it should be possible to interpret her healing power as self-delusion or coincidence.

‘Anne the Healer’ actually spun off from the character Mary the Healer in my first attempt at a novel, ‘The Sisters of Kali’. One of the Sisters, Mary Bell, discovers that she can sometimes cure sick or injured people by praying for them. At first, she is doubtful and then frightened by her mysterious power, with justice, because soon it takes over her soul and her life.

While ruminating on Mary’s character, I thought of other scenarios involving a reluctant healer, and wrote a short story, ‘Anne the Healer’, a tale of a brief liaison between a faith healer and Tim Hardy, a minimum-wage bookstore worker. I soon fell in love with Anne, but Tim was too passive to suit me. When I decided the story merited novel-length treatment, I made Tim a petty criminal with enough cynicism to doubt Anne’s talent, and later, when faced with evidence of her power to heal, plan to exploit her for his own purposes. But of course, they fall in love instead, Tim first.
I know that you are a scientist. Did you find that you were searching for different answers or was this not a conflict with your scientific views of life and death?

I never had a problem keeping science and spiritualism in my head at the same time. I’m not one of those scientists who claim to ‘leave God at the laboratory door’. Two people can look through a microscope at, say, a bacterial cell. One person will see an agent of disease, or perhaps a useful tool for the making of yogurt, or an intellectual puzzle to be solved. Another will see an actual miracle, the whole machinery of life packed into an impossibly tiny space, a spectacularly complex and beautifully constructed living device capable of reproducing itself, and involved in a vast web of interactions with the living and nonliving worlds. I find it difficult to do science without being caught up in the beauty of all things, from the mind-boggling structure of atoms, to the incomprehensible vastness of the Universe. The likelihood that these structures arose through a long process of variation and natural selection doesn’t dilute the miracles one bit. In fact, the more we understand, the more marvelous the Universe becomes.

Somewhere in ‘The Sisters of Kali’, my main character, Phyllis, says, “Miracles are everywhere. They happen every day, all around us. But we only question the new or different ones, the ones we haven’t become jaded with.”

No one has to believe in a god, or even a vague spiritual force, to appreciate Nature. Whether or not we attribute the Universe to a great spirit or to random chance isn’t due to the careful study of Nature, but something that comes out of our own character. No one really sets out to study the Universe in order to discover God or prove Her absence. They begin with the assumption that God exists, or doesn’t exist, and interpret all they see and hear from that perspective. Belief trumps facts every time.

I’ll go one step farther and say that the Universe is constructed in such a way that it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a spiritual force. This ambiguity is built into the world, and it’s absolutely essential to the existence of Free Will. If we could solve an equation, or run a statistical analysis that conclusively proved the existence of God, Free Will would vanish instantly. Every decision after that would be conditioned on whether it would offend or please God. We’d have no choice but to try to discover what this new God wanted from us, and try to do things to satisfy Her demands.

You are not a writer who turns from the sexual issues in your books, but in “Anne the Healer” you handled this in a very different way. Why was that?

Mostly, I thought it would distract from the main story. I’d just spend a half year with two different critique groups who found the sexual interludes in ‘The Sisters of Kali’ too explicit, and intruded on the main story. In my current WIP, I’ve run into the same criticism, and I’ve decided to dumb down or dilute those scenes in the next rewrite.

Thank you, Bill.  What you write about Free Will expands my thinking on the issue.  I wish you had been my teacher in chemistry.  I think you would have made it all…’plain’.

And very much more illuminating.

Lady Nyo

Interview with Bill Gaius, Author of “Ancestors of Star”

October 16, 2009

Bill has been a good friend and adviser for three years now.  I have come to admire the man and the author of a number of fascinating novels and wanted to interview him for a while.  Recently I put together a few questions to do this interview.  Bill’s answers were better extensions of my original questions and the go to  a depth  I believe will be interesting to most writers who read this blog.

Bill also produced my first book, “A Seasoning of Lust”, published by and will be doing the same for my upcoming book, “The Zar Tales”, also to be published by

Bill has been a generous and insightful writing mentor for me since we  met and I think what he has to say about self-publishing and traditional publishing needs to be heard.  This interview only taps the surface of many subjects.

Lady Nyo

I know you are a biochemist, Bill, a research scientist.  When did you start writing fiction and did your work fit in your writing or was it something that was very separate from it?

When I was very young, we lived on a busy street where I had no playmates. When I was four, I found a chemistry book my father picked up on the street and, with my mother’s help, learned to read. From the age of seven or so, I read reams of fiction until I became a teenager and girls subsumed everything but science fiction and James Bond.

I tried my hand at writing fiction as a teenager, producing a few very bad short stories. In grad school, using my aging portable typewriter, I spent my evenings writing a novel based on my Canadian Navy experience. I still have a copy of it. It’s not very good.

From then until I was 53, I had little interest in fiction, reading or writing, until a strange encounter in the desert kicked off the writing of ‘The Sisters of Kali’, my first attempt at a novel. More about that below.

Notice that I’ve said nothing about my scientific career. My writing has had nothing to do with my professional career until this year, when I began working on ‘Mortal Turpitude’. I think this division of interests is a manifestation of a mild case of attention deficit disorder, since I have trouble remaining intensely interested in any subject for long.

You have written a number of novels now, (Sisters of Kali, Ancestors of Star, Anne the Healer, Unattended Deaths, Mortal Turpitude)  Do you consider yourself to write mainstream fiction or is this mostly erotica?

I’ve written both, but I can’t call myself a writer of either. My most mainstream story was ‘Anne the Healer’, which contains exactly one understated sex scene at the very end. ‘The Ancestors of Star’, on the other hand, is based on the growth of a young man’s sexual obsession with his female Native boss, with numerous explicit scenes. There are loads of non-erotic adventures in the story, too, which keep it from being repetitive, wall-to-wall sex for 326 pages.

I’ve tried thrillers twice now, slowly coming to the conclusion that it may not be my natural turf. The first attempt, ‘Unattended Deaths’, bogged down and was never finished, and the second, ‘Mortal Turpitude’, has ground nearly to a halt, even though I’m determined to beat it into submission and finish it. I’m probably going to give up on plot-driven novels and return to character-based stories, where I feel more at home.

Do you write for a specific market?  Has that changed over the course of your writing career?

I write strictly for myself and the Warrior Queen. I also post some of it on writing forums and on a website, So I suppose I have to admit that I had no market in mind, with the possible exception of my attempts to write thrillers.

What do you feel is going on with publishing and do you feel that things are radically changing?  Is self publishing a viable alternative?

Few significant changes seem to be happening in – or rather, to – traditional publishing, which is allowing itself to sink like the ‘Titanic’ without meaningful attempts to rescue itself. Meanwhile, all around, self-publishers, bloggers, tweeters, and fanfic writers are breaking new ground and putting technology to work, developing a new paradigm for writing.

For most of us, self-publishing is the only realistic alternative. There were 400,000 new books published last year, more than half of them fiction. Beating those odds is akin to winning the lottery, and is not something I aspire to. A few hours leafing through some of the 12000 hopeful novels on (Harper-Collins’ ‘electronic slush pile’) were enough to convince me that the competition out there is very, very good.

If I were to write a sure-thing best seller today, and it was picked up by a major publisher, it could be as long as five years before it hit the shelves, and then it would only get its 60 or 90 days before being recycled into disposable plates and toilet paper. I like the control of self-publishing, but it would be nice to have the distribution horsepower that you can only get from the traditional megacorporate publishing houses. The jury is not back on the future of publishing in general.

“Sisters of Kali” is a huge book.  I know you are considering a revival and rewrite of it.  I also know that this book in particular helped you develop your own ideas of religion and spirituality.  Anything that can do that must have a powerful message in there.  Please talk a little about that journey for yourself.

After a scientific career with little interest in fiction, the writing bug struck again, literally from the sky. We were vacationing in Sedona, Arizona, inquiring into the mystical qualities of the area. One afternoon, I sat on a rock high above the valley until, after several hours, a story began forming in my head. Later, I called it my ‘cosmic download’. When I returned to my hotel, I began frantically making notes. Seven years later, I completed the first draft of ‘The Sisters of Kali’.

‘Sisters’, 215000 words long and seriously in need of condensing and rewriting, records the adventures of a small group of women who believe they have been commissioned by God (who appears in female form) to prevent a worldwide war fifty years in the future. The premise of ‘Sisters’ is condensed in one short passage:

Isanna was the first to speak. “Are we expected to stop this war? The Goddess seriously expects five women living in a shack to change the course of history?”

Sandra said, “Isanna, little causes have larger effects, and these effects become causes of still larger effects. Most great events begin with a few individuals, but at the time, no one can connect the tiny beginnings with the great consequences. They are sometimes beyond the ability of Kali Herself to predict.

“You have heard the truth that the beating of the wings of butterflies in Sumatra can ultimately cause a hurricane in the Caribbean.”

She startled us by clapping her hands on her knees and crying, “But it is equally true that the same butterflies can stop the hurricane! And we will be those butterflies!”

Writing “Sisters” was more than a feeble first attempt at fiction. Thinking through the story and the assumptions behind it helped me clarify some of my own religious beliefs. For example, the experience led to a believable rationale – for me – of God’s interest in puny humans within the context of the greater Universe. It’s only necessary to imagine that God is not perfect and finished, but constantly driven to grow. The experiences of human beings (and possible other life forms elsewhere) are the sustenance from which God is constantly recreating Herself.

‘Mortal Turpitude’ is quite the scientific thriller.  I can see more how you wrote ‘from your experience’ in medical research, etc.  Why did you pick this particular issue to write on?  Do you think of topicality when you format an idea for a book?  This one certainly has the interest of readers in part because of swine flu and all the international news….a world wide issue.

The latter years of my scientific career were spent developing sensors for detecting bacteria and viruses of the sort that terrorists might distribute among us, so I’d been in contact with some of the Government and academic people working in this area. I know how serious the threat can be.

I am also interested in contrasting the culture of academic scientific investigation with the political and pragmatic society that surrounds it. Long before ‘Mortal Turpitude’, I spent some years working in the high-pressure environment of an academic molecular biology laboratory. In this competitive world, it’s considered a sin to take a day off, or an hour with the family in an evening. Newspapers and happenings outside the laboratory were simply not relevant. I’ve tried to recreate this insular environment with its atmosphere of unrelenting obligation in ‘Mortal Turpitude’.

“Ancestors of Star”, now published by, is set within the Native American culture.  Living in Arizona as you do, is it the environment and cultures that inspired this particular book?

I’ve been fascinated by Native American cultures since moving to Arizona, particularly those like the Navajo, who’ve retained much of their ancient culture and language. At the same time, they’ve adapted to the modern world with its frozen foods, cell phones and satellite television. I created the Lagalero tribe for two reasons. The Navajo, after whom they are roughly patterned, have religious beliefs and taboos that were incompatible with the plan for the novel. Also, many Natives resent outsiders pretending to portray their culture. Mostly, life as a Native in modern America is gritty, poor, and often violent, and it is only the strength of the family and their culture that keep them together. Bu their social systems are far too intricate to be comprehended by someone who doesn’t live in them full time.

Finally, because the story includes many erotic interludes, I also wanted to avoid offending Natives who might read it, and avoid misleading non-Natives who might believe it. Sexual mores vary greatly among Southwest tribes, and are tightly governed by a system of customs and taboos that are partly observed and partly ignored.

In general, what inspires you to write?  Is writing a political or a personal statement, or both?

I make few political statements in my writing. I write because I can. I write well enough to convince myself that there are others out there willing to read it.

I like writing erotic material because it embodies some of my own fantasies and experience. I also like writing stories that involve a little bit of magic. ‘Anne the Healer’ had her mysterious and unwelcome ability to heal the sick, ‘The Sisters of Kali’ has direct communication with God, and ‘The Ancestors of Star’ has the ancestor spirits, who encourage and guide Tim, the young hero, in forming a loving and mature relationship with the older Elaine Yellow Star.

NOTE: ‘The Ancestors of Star’ is available for sale as trade paper ($14.95) or download ($4.95) at Lulu:

Bill Gaius’ current work in progress is on view at

Athene’s Comments on “Natural Order”

December 29, 2008

From time to time, questions are raised on different issues that have interest to many readers. If I don’t have answers, or can strongly support an argument, I will direct readers to various websites for what they can find in the answers of others.

I have been discussing this issue of “Natural Order” with Athene and others here, this “Gorean” concept, and as I am NOT a scientist, and luckily Athene IS, I asked her to read other sites of writers that I know who do either hold to this Gorean concept of Natural Order, or can explain it. Hence, she gone to various sites and is reading. Her answer is below, as she wrote to me in private email.

Lady Nyo

Another blogger’s views on this submission issue:

“I believe that a female’s submissive nature is greatly determined by genetics. IOW – it is encoded into the very cells of her body through many years of evolution […] However, I do believe that the natural tendency to submit is wired in from birth.”

(from Mackenzie Cross’ blog:

Athene’s response:

Evolution would not favor an organism (male or female) to be completely submissive to the other sex. Evolution is regarding the change of allele frequencies from one generation to the next, and these alleles are usually favored through time because they confer advantageous traits to the organism in question. If there are genetic determinations for behavior (and the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is still quite huge), only in rare instances would submissive behavior [as he describes] be favored as advantageous for the survival of the species.

Females exercise sexual selection in choosing the best partner for bearing progeny. Take, for example, peafowls/peacocks. The female will choose the male with the most colorful tail, the longest train. To her, this is the healthiest male, and the one that will ensure that her children will survive to pass on their genetic material to another generation (biologically speaking the males with the longest tail train are the healthiest ones because they have excess metabolic energy to cultivate a well groomed and presented tail, but I digress). She wouldn’t want to mate with a weak male that might potentially pass on genes that make for weak progeny.

If women should submit to males because women are genetically “wired” to be submissive, and that such behavior (1) is genetically based and (2) evolutionarily favored, then one wonders why and how the species survived all this time. Some ideas a natural order theory would have to take into account and explain would be:

Does this theory make a differentiation between strong evolutionarily fit males, or any male at all? How does this theory account for sexual selection in species?

In regards to evolution, females exercise sexual selection for this reason – they do not want offspring at a disadvantage for survival and reproduction; therefore, they will choose the male that, in their view, is the most successful and will pass on “good” genes to the progeny. Females will avoid males that they deem not successful.

In regards to a natural order theory, I see two approaches to roles of domination and submission for each sex:

1. There is universal male dominance over females (no exceptions).

Any male could make any female submit. However, if this occurred, our species might not have survived because those males who were evolutionarily unfit would be able to pass on their genes to progeny, creating potentially weakened unfit organisms who were unable to successfully compete with other species alive at the time (other Homo species). As a fledging species, way back then, this would have been disadvantageous, and most likely evolution would have selected against it swiftly and quickly. Perhaps today the world would be populated with Homo erectus.

This wouldn’t account for the behavior of rape. Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have published studies on rape and how it corresponds with evolution, and have concluded that the behavior of rape may be present in today’s society because it was one way for (presumably unfit) males to force a female to bear his progeny (ensuring HIS genes’ survival), because she wouldn’t do so on her own accord. So, for some males, this behavior actually was advantageous from an evolutionary view, which is how it survived through the years into today’s society (note: that doesn’t mean that rape is justified; it’s just an explanation of how that behavior might have developed in the first place).

This wouldn’t account for courtship rituals. The male bald eagle flies in complex patterns (dances) and sometimes will exchange fish with the female. The bowerbird builds a complex nest and decorates it to attract females. Fireflies will flash their lights in signature patterns that are unique to each male to attract females. Tarantulas will build competing webs to attract females.

Humans court too. We date. And some biologists say that the female orgasm is essentially a huge test of the male to see if he has the patience and communication skills required to bring her to a climax as well as himself. If he lacks this patience and cannot bring her to orgasm, she may not prefer him as a sexual partner (and potential father) in the future because she will prefer males who will be able to care for the offspring, and need patience and communication to do so successfully. If females are genetically hardwired to be submissive to males, if female submission to males is evolutionarily favored, why do so many species (including our own) engage in courtship rituals where the male has to win the affections of the female rather than just forcibly taking her (rape)?

Males court females because all the time and metabolic energy involved in producing eggs and raising young is a LOT compared to the metabolic energy it takes to produce sperm. It is in the best interests of females to choose males that will give their children the best advantage in life; therefore, males must convince females he is worth it genetically and hence, sexually.

Therefore, universal male dominance over females is highly unlikely to be a viable natural order position, and certainly not one favored by evolution. So, what is the other option?

2. There is non-universal / incomplete male dominance over females (exceptions).

To keep in line with evolutionary theory and sexual selection, you could say that only the evolutionarily fit males make females submit. But, if you subscribe to that thought process, then

(a) you concede that females do have the power to be selective in which partner they choose, and they may (and often do) disregard males that they deem to be not fit or successful (which seems at odds with natural order ideas) or

(b) you disregard the non-fit males completely and make no attempt

to explain sexual selection (but you can’t do that and expect to have a tenable position) or

(c) you reason that dominance/submission dynamics are based purely on strength, and that weak males (perhaps evolutionary unfit males) do not have the means to dominate females – but if you base it on strength without sex considerations, then you must concede that there are strong females who may be able to dominate and/or overpower males as well (which also seems at odds with natural order thoughts).

Therefore, non-universal / incomplete male domination over females is also not a viable position from a natural order viewpoint.

As it is highly unlikely that evolution would favor universal male dominance, and incomplete male dominance strays from natural order thinking, female submissiveness is more a social construct than a biological one, rooted in my favorite word, heteronormativity.

But, getting away from all this, let us say, just a hypothetical exercise, that female submissive behavior IS genetically biologically based, and let us say that it has been favored by evolution. If so, this is a valid reason for saying that females should submit to males in today’s society?

If evolution can be summed up in one word, that word would be change. Populations change, organisms and individuals change, allele frequencies change, and most important of all, environments change.

The most “fit” organism is one that is most successful at reproducing in the current environment; however, environments change. Food supplies change, carrying capacities change – even the weather may change. What may have been advantageous for survival at one time may no longer be advantageous anymore.

Think about sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a disease where the red blood cells are abnormally shaped (like sickles). People stricken with this disease have a life span of 42-48 years and are often afflicted with complications such as strokes, osteomyelitis, kidney acute papillary necrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. It is due to a mutation, and it seems that evolution would have already selected against this mutation; however, while 2 copies of the mutation will make you diseased, 1 copy gives you resistance to malaria AND you won’t suffer from the disease as you need 2 copies to be affected. And of course, 0 copies of the mutation means you won’t have the disease, but you also won’t benefit from the malaria resistance either.

Before we had adequate control methods of water, pests, and sanitation, the environment was favorable for mosquito breeding and populations, so having 1 copy of this mutation was advantageous to survive from malaria. The mosquitoes would be the vector for the parasites, and the mosquitoes bred in standing water, and if there were dirty pools of standing water everywhere, malaria was easily spread from person to person. Having that 1 mutation was “good” – so those people with that one mutation survived and passed that mutation to their offspring, who also survived and passed it on to the next generation (and so on).

But, the environment has changed, and now we have better control for water (water sewage treatment plants, running water in pipes) and pests (spraying for mosquitoes) – not to mention anti-parasitic drugs and advanced medicine; therefore, the mutation that protects from malaria is no longer beneficial because the environment has changed and malaria is no longer an evolutionary pressure. Now, having that mutation may actually be a disadvantageous thing because if two parents with 1 mutation [each] have a child, there is a 25% chance that child will inherit both mutations (2 copies) and will suffer from the disease. Before, when the environment was different, it was worth taking that 25% chance because it was offset by the 50% chance that the child would get only 1 copy and be resistant to malaria.

So, the red blood cell mutation that used to be advantageous for survival is now a detriment because the environment changed, the evolutionary pressures changed.

If we apply this to our hypothetical gene that makes women submissive (let’s call it SUB-1), it works the same way. A long time ago, when human society was loosely organized (hunter/gatherer society) and mere survival was a challenge, it was advantageous to delegate positions, rely on others and work in groups to ensure survival (both group and individual survival). Food was an animal that needed to be stalked and hunted, or a plant that needed to be cultivated and grown. Water was a supply that needed to be obtained from a clean safe water source, and clothing and tools were things that needed to be made by hand after the supplies were gathered to make them. In this type of environment, it was more advantageous to delegate tasks within the social group so that all the survival needs could be met adequately: food, water, clothing, etc.

As males are usually the stronger of the sexes, it made the most sense for the males to hunt, defend, and oversee the tasks that today are regarded as traditionally masculine. On the flip side, females who would bear children also produced milk to nurse them, so it made more sense for them to stay at home and take care of the domestic tasks that are today regarded as traditionally feminine. It was advantageous for a female to “submit” to a male because in return, she would get food (meat) and protection – it would help her survive, and her children (and his children) survive.

However, the society and the environment we live in today are dramatically changed. We no longer have to go out hunting for food – anyone (male or female) just needs to go to a grocery store and pick up a package of chicken or beef and go bag their own vegetables and fruits. Clean water comes to us when we turn on the facets, and if it’s not clean enough then, we can always filter it with a Brita system. Clothes and tools can be bought at stores. Even protection is no longer something a female would need from a male partner with the development of laws and law enforcement agencies. Even the invention of guns would allow a female to defend herself without the need for a biologically stronger male defender. Our society has become more complex, and we have simplified living so that it is no longer a challenge to survive. With this changing society and environment, the necessity for a female to “submit” to a male is no longer a requirement (or even a recommendation) to be successful. She may choose to have a male partner and have a family, but the NEED to rely on him for survival is now negated. – the evolutionary pressures have changed.

Because such reliance is no longer necessary, our hypothetical SUB-1 gene no longer grants an advantage for survival. What might have been a genetic advantage THEN is NOW either neutral or detrimental. And thus, evolution may now either be indifferent to that gene, or it may select against it, respectively.

So saying, “Because SUB-1 was evolutionarily favored in the past to make women submissive, today, women should go back to being submissive and stop taking on traditionally male roles” is outdated, silly, and completely disregards evolutionary theory. That’s like saying, “In the ice age, the gene that made mammals grow a lot of fur to keep warm was favored; therefore, let’s embrace that gene today even though temperatures in the summer can be over 100 degrees F.”

So, no matter how you look at it (submissiveness as a social construct OR biologically based), being submissive in today’s society is a choice, not an imperative that evolution demands.

And, just for some more fun biology questions that natural order theory would have to account for:

If there are dominant/submissive behaviors that are biologically based and specific for the sexes, is it because they are X or Y linked? If so, if there is a female who displays dominance instead of submissiveness, is it because of X chromosome lyonization? ;o)



Lady Nyo: Athene gives a lot to chew upon with this excerpt. However, it is good to have this argument afloat. I am sure that others will respond to her view on evolutionary issues, and this can only be to the good. Thank you, Athene…for pushing these important issues front and center.

%d bloggers like this: