in all manner of ways that anthropology documents. Inherent in all of them was the continually fostered concept of male superiority, i.e., the great hunter, the great king, the great prophet, the great law giver, the great warrior, the great conquerer, the great -- you name it. Though all men couldn't be "the great ?" it was equally true that the one that was could not have been so except for his having been a male. Fe- males could not aspire to these areas of greatness. Thus the superiority of the male. When he discovered that it was his sperm that created new life and that the female was just the incubator for same, his importance in his own mind took another leap forward.

But it is the concomitant insecurity and group discipline - esprit de corps if you will that is most important to us. All members of a superior elite have to be on guard against backsliders against those who have a tendency to fall back to lesser positions. Thus the nobility of older times could not marry with commoners, the officer corps in the military does not eat with the enlisted men, corporation execu- tives have their own dining rooms and clubs and don't mingle with common employees, etc. (And it is no accident of social development that there exist today and always have a great number of "male only" clubs, organizations, groups, and societies with their own rituals, meetings, activities and buildings, to which no females are invited or allowed. Note in this context the famous injunction in Deuteronomy

"a woman shall not put on that which pertaineth to a man, etc. etc." It is not an injunction against cross dressing for its own sake but an injunction against females masquerading as males and entering into, witnessing and taking part in the male deliberations which ran ancient Jewish society. In this connection also some of you will be interested in the book "Men in Groups" by Lionel Tiger (Random House 1969).

How obvious it is then that not only must females be kept in their second class position as breeding stock and companions but not as real people, but that any male, endowed by birth with the superiority of maleness, who dared to lower himself to the level of femaleness (homo- sexuality) or womanliness (femmiphilia-TVism) must be punished, banished, or shunned. Thus we have the explanation for the social disapproval of homosexuals and of ourselves very clearly set forth. Thus also I hope it is clear that the fight of women to gain their own humanity as self defined people not just as handy bed mates, house- keepers, baby raisers, and social companions to men is a fight against the concept of male superiority. When the male of the species is not brought up with this basic conception and it is not fortified by all manner of social conventions, traditions, expectations and privileges,

86