Make your own free website on

Relative Ranking Between Male and Female Mammals

by A.M. Goto

March 10, 2006

The views that I express here are not new. They are from a book that I read years ago. Apparently society cannot accept these views, but I will repeat them here.

There is a rule regarding the relative ranking between male and female mammals that has been observed in nature. Within any species of mammal, if the male is larger than the female, the male outranks the female. If they are about the same size, they will have about the same rank and if the female is larger than the male, it will outrank the male. The principle behind this is that size, and therefore rank, is determined by the male hormone testosterone. Testosterone, size, strength, aggressiveness, and rank are interrelated and this relationship is supposed to be well understood. The male gorilla, for example, is twice as large as the female and greatly outranks it. In the Spotted Hyena, the female is larger than the male and will therefore dominate. As a student, I was taught that men outrank women in all societies except for a few tribal societies in which the women are physically larger than the men. There are tribes in the Amazon in which the women, who are larger, do the hunting and the men do "women's work", i.e. cook and take care of the children. If true, humans also follow this rule that has been observed among mammals. Why should it be any different? The relative ranking (dominance) between male and female mammals is determined by natural law and humans cannot change this fact. If there were laws in effect that states that men outrank women, it wouldn't take much effort to enforce. On the other hand, laws that state that women can be equal in rank to men if they are of equal ability will take effort to enforce, since it violates natural law. If laws requiring equal pay for equal work for men and women mean equal rank for equal work, the laws are unworkable.