Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton did not always exist. Biologically speaking, the first of Trump emerged in April of 1945 as his parents were having sex, perhaps celebrating the end of World War II. His beginnings were aided by a hundred million or more other sperm. A year and a half later, Hillary was leaving her father’s loins with a similar number of cohort sperm.
What happened next is of critical importance in terms of how each of us casts our ballot this fall.
As our last blog made clear, “This New Sex Science Changes Everything,” there was no competitive race to Trump’s mother’s egg. And Hillary wasn’t fighting off the other sperm to victory. Both Sperm-Trump and Sperm-Hillary were helped by the sperm around them, “similar to the way that migrating birds or a team of bicyclists take turns leading the way”.
And, microbiologically speaking, half those sperm were girls (that’s how we got a Hillary, rather than a Donald). Why does this matter? Because until now, Darwin’s theories of natural selection (i.e. survival and supremacy of the fittest) has held sway. Before that, there was the ideology, “We won the war (or crown) and therefore ‘God is on our side.’”
But the current sex science discoveries are proving that nature (or, if you will, God, or a higher power) works very differently.
As the two sperm (Trump and Hillary) came to the egg, they did not plunge (spear-like/missile-like) into the passive mother-egg. Instead, there was a dynamic dance. Progesterone from the egg helped draw Trump and Hillary closer to the egg where sugar molecules on the surface held them fast (sugar molecules — not battle, not aggression — but sugar). Then, the progesterone-invigorated sperm (Hillary/Trump), were helped by the sugar molecules to turn his/her head inward as their flagella (tails) wagged vigorously, moving each deeper into the receptive egg, starting that miraculous process that would end in Hillary and Trump.
Why does knowing the truth about these microscopic discoveries of our beginnings matter so much? Because what we believe to be the natural inclinations of humans has been distorted by the same kind of false speculations which have led everybody — until relatively recently — to believe that the world was flat.
For centuries, the flat-world theory was accepted as we moved from wandering tribes to agrarian cultures to early industrialization. But then we had to learn the global truth (and we did), crossing the oceans, developing worldwide industrialization and now inhabiting the Information Age, where wars — and elections — are beginning to be fought on cyber terrain with hacking, etc.
But war and its stepchildren (violence, bullying, threats, confrontation) are pushing us to the brink of extinction. The inherited trauma from our long history of war and violence is something we explore in our upcoming documentary, In Utero. One more world war with nuclear weapons (see North Korea) could finish the species. Or climate change could end our story.
Trump celebrates the aggressive king-like powers of the past. For many there is a comfort in an all-powerful patriarch who eschews the quibblings of science (i.e. climate change) and threatens raw violence to his enemies. This must be taken seriously, as the past is worthy of serious study. But the world is not flat and (as science is learning) we are not a species evolved from male aggression. If we are to survive and (of equal importance) thrive, then let us begin to consider how our beginnings are profoundly guided by the female dynamic.
Isn’t it possible to argue that science is telling us that it is natural that we be led by a woman? That it’s natural that we vote for a woman who has, from her very beginnings, been finding her way, protected by fellow boy and girl sperm, guided by the force of her mother’s egg, becoming a mother herself, raising Chelsea, being First Lady (with all the complications of being married to Bill), becoming a senator of one of our most populous states, then Secretary of State and now her party’s presidential nominee?
Like so many of us, she has yet to reach her full potential, but perhaps part of that is because she has not been able to fully embrace the female dynamic. After all, her political journey has taken her into the heart of male competition and aggression — so different from the cooperative journey with the sperm that brought her to the mother egg. Yet, Hillary has persevered to potentially become the first woman president of the United States.
Change is always worrisome at best and terrifying at worst and yet, as one of our greatest presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, once noted, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”
Given our current precarious place in history (as was true in Roosevelt’s time), isn’t it worth considering that Hillary Rodham Clinton may turn out to be not just a good president but possibly a great one? That she brings together an understanding of the (old) paradigm of male dominance, while possessing nature’s blessing to usher in a new paradigm of female leadership?
Isn’t it possible that she has arrived — after her long journey from conception — not a moment too soon?