Lessons On The #MeToo Era From Spotted Hyenas

As a zoology I like to think that I keep up to date with the latest goings on around the natural world, So imagine my surprise when I discover that Vox had published an amazing article claiming that spotted hyenas are feminists. Surely this couldn't be a weak attempt at trying to push an agenda, and actually a factual piece that presents amazing scientific insight. Oh wait, this is the sort of shit that feminist based science likes to spew out, and the actual content has no basis in any serious academic sphere. Let's have a look at this monstrosity of an article:
____________________________________________________________________________
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/18/17469196/metoo-spotted-hyena-pseudopenis-matriarchy
____________________________________________________________________________

Get the violins out, I'm balling my eyes out to this tragic tale. This woman's apparent struggle has fuck all to do with hyenas, but thanks for the unnecessary sob story. I was hoping for a serious discussion, not an audition for a low grade talent show. I only wish scientific articles relied on anecdotal tales instead of empirical evidence to create arguments, as this would then become one hell of an article. I'd also bet 100 million pounds that the horrific scenarios described in this introduction are not remotely true, and cannot hope to pass as such a huge generalisation. Surprisingly enough there are no examples of feminism in the natural world other than in human society. That may be because feminism is a political movement, and therefore cannot be comprehended by any other species of animal. This article is off to a promising start.

Holy shit we actually have sources, and scientific ones at that. The studies in question don't actually support the points in some cases, but hey, this is progress in the fucked up world of feminist sciences. The opening source for example clearly states that the size of females compared to males is not even correlated with the presence of a matriarchy, so I have honestly no idea why it's being used to back up a point about the rarity of matriarchies. I'm not quite sure why a social structure where all males are subservient to females is being promoted as inspirational, as I was under the impression feminism was a movement about equality. What's being described here is merely a role reversal rather than a change in attitudes towards sex, so I'm not quite sure what's so inspiring about this system.

There's an interesting paragraph that outlines the barbaric behaviour of the spotted hyena, which is an interesting conclusion in a persuasion piece. Wouldn't a feminist typically claim that tussling for dominance and murdering siblings is a sign of toxic masculinity? I don't think you have to be a feminist to realise that life in matriarchal hyenas in not all fine, and does not resemble the idyllic worlds of fictional characters. You must know you're clutching at straws when you have to start making comparisons to fucking superheroes for your argument on modern society to make any sense. The idea that males are subservient has recently found to be complete bollocks as well, which on the face of things is possibly an even bigger flaw with this argument.

I would also like to add that just because patriarchies may not be inevitable does not make them unnatural. We find male dominated social groups in a vast number of species, as mentioned in this article, so there's no denying that this social system has a presence in nature. Why would matriarchies be seen as all natural and good, but yet patriarchies seen as unnatural and evil?

What the fuck has The Lion King got to do with anything? Are we now suggesting that the negative portrayal of spotted hyenas in The Lion King is some sort of patriarchal plot to dissuade people against a potential matriarchy? I just don't understand this paragraph. What has efficiency in scavenging got to do with smashing patriarchal assumptions? Why does that apply to the sedentary lifestyle in humans?

Surely nobody is going to believe that this picturesque utopia of hyena society you've presented is in anyway genuine. Actually I've just remembered that Vox readers are certified morons, and can't even be described as amateur zoologists, so they'll probably be being sold right into this false message. You only have to watch a single nature documentary to realise that this is not an accurate portrayal of the natural world, and the actions shown in these films should never be emulated by human society. Really all you've done here is describe traits which are often found in socially cooperative animals, so let's stop pretending that promoting women to the top instantly cures the world of all its problems.

Hang on a fucking second. Please tell me that opening point is not a serious argument. Surely as a fucking self proclaimed scientists you would have heard the idea that correlation does not equal causation, and never have I found a more appropriate example of where this phrase could be applied. What you've done here is literally try to imply that matriarchal societies increase intelligence, which is a point that no scientist worth their salt would ever agree with. Quite simply there is no evidence that the huge generalisation you've just made is true. Other 'intelligent' organisms such as dolphins, apes, crows, and octopodes do not live in matriarchal societies, yet display a level of intelligence that would trump any matriarchal organisms. Furthermore there is no evidence presented that matriarchies maintain genetic diversity. All your cited paper shows is that a separate population of spotted hyenas did not dramatically decrease in genetic diversity whilst in a genetic bottleneck. The researchers in this study even point out various other species with differing social structures where this phenomenon can also occur.

You can clearly tell this writer has no background in zoology, as the science used here is simply incorrect. A zoology student at any half decent institution would be beaten within an inch of their life if they made the comment that success can be determined by population number. Firstly this statement doesn't take into account reproductive strategies, and secondly it's completely in denial of the pressures acting on these population sizes. By this logic it would surely make more sense to take advice on society from fruit flies or dung beetles, which exist in far greater numbers than any species of hyena. The IUCN does not share your optimism over their success, and has actually assessed the most successful organism on the African Savannah to be declining in numbers. There is no data on whether this population size has anything to do with the matriarchal society, and seeing as this trend doesn't appear throughout nature we can just ignore this stupid point.

In the final paragraph we find out that merely owning a phallic like structure is alarmingly misogynistic. We never get an explanation why it's misogynistic, or more importantly how a physical trait of a hyena can ever conform to human sociological terms, but I suppose that doesn't matter when you're just throwing buzzwords around with little care. Just a bizarre claim to make. Please stick to the areas of science that you actually know stuff about, and stop making a mockery of my ar.

Strangely there were no spotted hyenas taking part in these women's marches, which I find strange behaviour from such inspirational feminists. It's almost as if they're not feminists at all. I'm not going to go into the arguments surrounding the wage gap, as that's a whole different topic that could be debated over for millennia, as is the fierce debate over sexual misconduct, so I guess my question is why these separate issues are just brushed over in this article, without any explanation as to why they're included. I'll repeat, hyenas do not understand the concept of feminism, so they cannot be seen to contradict it, and they cannot possibly be compared to the feminist movements in previous years. They're fucking hyenas.

Just out of curiosity I get erections to signal dominance rather than submission, but that's a story for another day.

'We're striving for gender equality'. You could have fucking fooled me love, you've spent three quarters of this article brown-nosing every aspect of matriarchal societies that actively subjugate males. I can assure you that as a student of zoology, unlike yourself, I frequently come across systems like the one you've described, and I think you're a fucking idiot to want to copy these systems, and also that this is one of the most stupid articles I've ever read that pretends to be science in order to push an agenda. If we're to believe this writer that spotted hyenas deserve to be on a pedestal with humans in terms of intelligence then we have to accept they can understand morality, ethics, and even the concept of taboo. Quite impressive when you consider there is no evidence these creatures possess these superpowers.

I would also like to add that the gaining of resources is a common method of mate selection in the natural world, most notably in insects and arachnids. Often these mating systems entail the cannibalism of males, so I suppose the question I should be asking is why you would promote these generalised mating systems when they frequently substitute rape and harassment for cannibalism? Are we going to admit that a variety of complex mating systems are prevalent in the natural world that depend on a whole host of stimuli? Or are we going to be repeatedly cherry picking facts to distort the truth? You've previously presented evidence that siblicide is common. Shall we stop pretending that these hyenas live in a feminist utopia, and are actually as barbaric as any species of animal on the face of the Earth. That's all fine by this writer, because hey, at least they're less likely to rape each other. I just can't be assed with this article anymore. The clarity in this argument is just non existent and all over the place. Fucking useless.

Again, I'm lost. Are you moaning at evolution for not installing a natural rape alarm on the human body? Are you proposing a hellish scenario where humans are forcibly implanted? Where's the evidence that this trait evolved to prevent rape from occurring? Surely a more reasonable explanation would be that this mechanism allows females to selectively mate with more attractive males, allowing sperm from unfit males to be simply removed. Nature doesn't bend to your feminist ideology because you claim it does.

You can flip this whole argument on its head with ease, and claim the frequency of patriarchal societies found within nature is evidence that women should be subservient to men, and back this stupid point up by cherry picking positive aspects about the societies of an applicable species. It's a classic naturalistic fallacy where some idiot claims a naturally occurring phenomenon is instantly a positive thing irrespective of the truth. Why that means human society should emulate these natural occurrences is further cause for concern. How pissed off would you be if you spent your whole life fighting for the liberties of women only to discover that some writer in a low grade publication decides that your contributions pale in comparison to fucking hyenas.

As a zoology student this makes me fucking angry. Take your ideological nonsense back to your own area of biology and stop polluting our knowledge of the natural world with this dishonest bullshit. Even the Hyena Society, which was actually sourced in this very piece, was less than pleased with this pathetic article. All this from an author whose literal job description is training young scientists to communicate science. To be fair the message of this one is clear, and the day when spotted hyenas will be chaining themselves to railings and burning their bras is fast approaching.