A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmless is ironically, misogyny.
There’s a couple of.good books about this - Delusions of Gender by Fine and Sex, Lies, and Brain Scans. Basically we have implicit and explicit biases in how we expect people to perform roles. However, these biases aren’t based in fact. When we police other people’s behaviors based on these biases, or otherwise force others into roles we’ve developed, it’s bad/abusive.
Women are a special type of role, because that role generally means they have babies (ofc we all know many women who don’t have babies). The ownership of their baby making ability is likely why men created the patriarchy, to endanger women by other men, to force women into proximity of whatever man was able to support them. This, and the narrative that men should fuck as soon as they feel any sexual urges because that’s “being a man,” form the basis for their abuse of women over thousands of years.
Imagine how damaged all our mitochondrial DNA is from our mothers because of this, generations of trauma. And further, the eggs that made up YOU, were inside your mom as a baby, when she was inside HER mom. Meaning your grandma’s stress during and before pregnancy with your mom, had a direct impact on you as an egg. And further further, you get 100% of your cells from your mother, and 50% of your DNA. But every cell of life in your body came from your mother. Her stress and abuse has caused damage to the human condition imo and it is therefore vital to treat women well even if you only care about men.
And a key piece of taking good care of humans, is freedom and bodily autonomy, which form the basis for respect in most animal species.
Which is why misogyny hates all of that and why misogynists also tend to like hurting animals too.
Honestly, this argument comes across to me as a horrible mangling of different pop-sci concepts to construct a victimology. There’s good evidence of the mechanism by which stress and trauma induce epigenetic changes in organisms. (Selective methylization regulating expression of genes.) There’s some evidence of epigenetic changes due to physiological trauma passed down through germ cells. But it’s a huge leap to ascribe mtDNA damage to psychological experiences.
The mitochondria have a degenerate genome, a tiny amount of DNA with (looking it up) 37 genes to support the processing of energy into ATP to power the cell. It is susceptible to epigenetic changes, which leads pretty directly to a number of metabolic disorders, but I can’t find any evidence that those changes result from life experiences of an animal. The idea that mtDNA has accumulated generations of damage from sexist trauma beggars logic, too, because there’s just not a lot of room to collect damage, and that damage leads to health problems fairly directly. If one got every cell of life from one’s mother, in turn, she got it from her mother, and so on all the way back to the first eukaryotic life. All of those generations of trauma, how are we even still living?
Furthermore, the assertion that “men created the patriarchy” ignores actual history and context. One simply cannot ascribe a singular intent to a class comprising billions of individuals across time and space. At best, one could describe patriarchy as an emergent phenomena of societies and cultures. About half of the individuals in those societies and cultures were women, so you’d have to conclude that women helped create patriarchy, unless you deny their agency or intelligence.
It’s literal science, you are mad because it celebrates women so you want to dismiss it as fake. That’s your misogyny.
Men created and upheld the patriarchy by their own personal every day actions. Including their speech, which, like yours, typically functions to uphold a male centered hierarchy.
Yes, the patriarchy literally denied women’s agency and thoughts and stole their ideas from them. Good job, kiddo, you finally got it. Lol omfg. Yes, that IS what I’m saying - Men ENSLAVED women, and we know this because they kept away rights like landownership and political authority and bodily autonomy. Do you even understand the words you type?
I actually just want to correct you on one thing and I am also Not sure what you really meant.
But we dont get 100% of our cells from our mothers. We get the mitochondria from our mothers. The cells that enclose those mitochondria are perfectly 50/50 after fertilisation.
Wrong. We get 100% of our cells from our mothers She grows every cell. The (1) cell contributed by the father, the sperm cell, is destroyed in the process of DNA exchange/fertilization. Only the egg cell remains, fertilized with 50% DNA from each parent, and it then begins to divide of course. And all of those divisions are of the mother, inside the mother, from the mother’s body. Every cell is created by your mother.
DNA is a different thing, our DNA is in all of our cells, and the information of that DNA is 50/50 (except mitochondrial DNA which 100% mother), but the actual physical amino acids of that DNA were all made by the mother’s body.
Eg I make a sandwich. 50% of the recipe came from me, 50% from Martha Stewart’s cookbook. I provide all ingredients, I make it, I eat it. Martha just provided instructions on how she makes hers and I replicated half of that along with half of my ideas to make a new sandwich.
Men only provide 50% DNA at conception which is 50% INFO, not actual biological material, not cells.
Okay, so you do realize that there is no such thing as an „intrinsic mother essence“, right? These are just molecules.
It does NOT matter where the material came from, as long as the molecules are provided. That said, the cells will create most of the molecules variations themself from base molecules, e.g. in case of fatty acid derivatives. Molecules related to energy transfer like NAD or ATP e.g. are generally not provided by the mother but directly synthesized in the cells from predecessor molecules. Similar to all the proteins.
Additionally, there are molecules that are only provided by the mothers body but not synthesized like essential amino acids. They actually have an external origin.
Neither are your cells cow cells because you drink milk or tomato cells because you eat tomatos.
Not sure how the provision of building blocks makes these cells the mothers cells. They Are NOT cells of the mothers body.
I never said there was a “mother essence”, don’t strawman.
Amino acids rarely come in their broken down form, the mother digests them to break them down. That’s how cow milk is broken down into its parts, as you so wisely point out later.
Further, she provides all those molecules and the first molecule.
She made those cells. Why do you want to deny this? It’s honestly so funny, like you’re discovering pregnancy for the first time
Look, whatever dude. Believe in a flat earth or whatever you like.
Still, The fetus‘ cells are not cells of the mother. The few molecules of the egg cell quickly dilute in a sea of newly synthesized molecules by the metabolism of the zygote and its repeating cell Division cycle.
You can keep repeating „because the building blocks are provided by the mother“. But that does not make the cells any more their mothers cells than, again, you being a cow when consuming milk. Your logic does Not make sense.
Its similar (not like) recycling. If I melt down metal from old computers to create a new computer. Then we have actually new components, a new computer. Its Not made up of the old Computer in a conventional sense. Sure on the atomic level its mostly the same atoms, but Talking about inheritance on that level brings the discussion to a completely ridiculous level.
Not sure how you justify any other view on this. Certainly not on the grounds of natural sciences or logic.
If you really want to get pedantic, you could say we inherit our first cell membrane and mitochindria from our mothers, 50% of our genetic material, and perhaps 95% of our first cell’s cytoplasm.
After that, our mothers provide material that the zygote/fetus uses to build itself. It sounds incorrect to say we get all our cells from our mother, since she’s not making the cells, but only providing material and a place to grow. I know what you mean and share your sentiment. When gardening, did I grow these plants or did they grow themselves? Did the workers build the car, or did the owner of the factory?
Also the info provided by the father is absolutely biological material.
She is making the cells. The cells are hers. Just like a cancer mass has different DNA from the host but we can recognize that it belongs to the host and was made by the host, and isn’t autonomous outside of the host. The cells can belong to both the tumor and the patient. Just like these cells are made by the mother, belong to the mother, and are also made by and belong to the fetus. Or do you not thing the original egg cell belonged to the mother?
The info provided is biological material in the sense that the initial DNA/RNA are a biological material, but they are not cells.
I don’t make a car or a plant in my uterus off my own life force, but nice try.
Okay no, that’s not how it works at all. The differences in DNA between cancer cell and non-cancerous cell are negligable when compared to the differences between mother DNA and zygote/fetal DNA. If those fetal cells escaped the placenta or uterus, the mother’s immune system would attack them because they’re not recognized as “self.”
Sure, it’s the mother’s egg, until it isn’t. It quickly becomes something else biologically at the moment of fertilization.
Again, the mother isn’t making the cells, the zygote/fetal cells are making themselves.
It’s clear you have some beliefs that are not backed up by science. You also did not understand my analogies. I’m sure you’ll eventually learn this stuff in school.
Maybe they mean literally the body composition of a fetus when it starts to grow as it feeds off via placenta, like it literally gets 100% of the mass from the mother’s organism
A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmlessly is ironically, misogyny.
Yes all people are potentially dangerous.
But the biomechanics in adults are very different and need to be recognised. Statistically the physical intimidation is mostly one way when you account for sexual dimorphism in height, weight, reach, muscle mass etc. There are always exceptions but women live in a very different threat environment. That isn’t misogyny.
If people tend to hate what they fear and mysogyny is literally hatred of women like what the fuck? Perhaps some men are terrified of emotional harm. I can understand that but perhaps they would be better off with some therapy or a bit of self awareness.
Maybe, but unfortunately some abusive men just become better at abuse, more sophisticated, when they do therapy because of how therapy can work in validating people. It’s actually not super recommended for a woman dating an abusive man to go to couples therapy or have him go to therapy for this reason. The only way for these men to change their mind, is if they are in groups with other men who enforce other views via discussion, OR if they choose to. The reason you can’t medically treat a narcissist is because it would be brainwashing and unethical to do so if it was possible.
Yes, many cix XY men who are testosterone dominant are taller and have greater arm strength and bone density than many cis XX estrogen dominant women. Not every man and woman fit the cis body ideal of an XX and XY with “perfect” proportions of estrogen, progesterone, GH, testosterone, SHGB, and various other angrogens and enzymes that all combine and compete to create a physical phenotype we call a “woman” or “man.” There are also physical disabilities too.
But look at Stephen Hawking. If we go off pure Oppression Olympics (without looking instead through intersectionality and abuse dynamics), then the girls he was sexually abusing with Epstein were arguably abusing him. They were able bodied, right? He could hardly speak. It’s not just about physical ability then, but about how the entire structure of the patriarchy now being so entrenched we automatically assume roles based on it, regardless of size or proximity to danger. We automatically dismiss the danger of those girls to Hawking because we know the patriarchy stops girls from being violent, it’s not their role.
This is a perfect description of the male and female meta. It is why males are stronger. Not to protect or lead, but to control through fear and violence.
It’s a priviledge men developed a higher sensitivity to oxytocin to compensate for a lower expression of the stuff. Enabling men to give a damn about someone other than their desire to dominate. Men can love their partner, their family, friends, their pets because of this.
Chimps ain’t that lucky, and males would rather watch an orphan die from neglect (and eat it) than take care of it. The males are known to kill females for showing assertive behaviour.
Same goes for prolactin in the brain, that makes humans more monogamous and increases a desire to protect something you care about. It never was a male feature before, but it became one in humans. It even peaks after the baby is born and the father is exposed to seeing his baby. Over time, similar adaptations to the brains of pregnant women, are seen in father’s brains. Which is amazing.
Men ain’t that bad, but old habits die hard. Men are more aggressive, stronger, more impulsive and less afraid of consequences on average compared to women. Those who were better at avoiding male aggression, lived longer. Hence why estrogens play a role in stimulating brain development in areas essential to risk assesment, consequence sensitivity, resistance to suicide, thinking ahead, planning, reading emotions (of themselves and others), learning and memory, reducing own aggression, communication and impulse control. Giving women an edge in academical performance despite there not being a statistical difference in intelligence. (Imagine if men had these boons instead…)
While all those obvious “big scary male” traits in men makes them seem like a bigger threat, women are well equipped and know how to dominate and eliminate people indirectly.
None of this is true and shows an extremely shallow understanding of neurochemistry. Please watch Sapolsky. Read Delusions of Gender. Talk to trans people. Try out some hormones. You’re just wrong and it’s creepy and weird.
A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmless is ironically, misogyny.
There’s a couple of.good books about this - Delusions of Gender by Fine and Sex, Lies, and Brain Scans. Basically we have implicit and explicit biases in how we expect people to perform roles. However, these biases aren’t based in fact. When we police other people’s behaviors based on these biases, or otherwise force others into roles we’ve developed, it’s bad/abusive.
Women are a special type of role, because that role generally means they have babies (ofc we all know many women who don’t have babies). The ownership of their baby making ability is likely why men created the patriarchy, to endanger women by other men, to force women into proximity of whatever man was able to support them. This, and the narrative that men should fuck as soon as they feel any sexual urges because that’s “being a man,” form the basis for their abuse of women over thousands of years.
Imagine how damaged all our mitochondrial DNA is from our mothers because of this, generations of trauma. And further, the eggs that made up YOU, were inside your mom as a baby, when she was inside HER mom. Meaning your grandma’s stress during and before pregnancy with your mom, had a direct impact on you as an egg. And further further, you get 100% of your cells from your mother, and 50% of your DNA. But every cell of life in your body came from your mother. Her stress and abuse has caused damage to the human condition imo and it is therefore vital to treat women well even if you only care about men.
And a key piece of taking good care of humans, is freedom and bodily autonomy, which form the basis for respect in most animal species.
Which is why misogyny hates all of that and why misogynists also tend to like hurting animals too.
Honestly, this argument comes across to me as a horrible mangling of different pop-sci concepts to construct a victimology. There’s good evidence of the mechanism by which stress and trauma induce epigenetic changes in organisms. (Selective methylization regulating expression of genes.) There’s some evidence of epigenetic changes due to physiological trauma passed down through germ cells. But it’s a huge leap to ascribe mtDNA damage to psychological experiences.
The mitochondria have a degenerate genome, a tiny amount of DNA with (looking it up) 37 genes to support the processing of energy into ATP to power the cell. It is susceptible to epigenetic changes, which leads pretty directly to a number of metabolic disorders, but I can’t find any evidence that those changes result from life experiences of an animal. The idea that mtDNA has accumulated generations of damage from sexist trauma beggars logic, too, because there’s just not a lot of room to collect damage, and that damage leads to health problems fairly directly. If one got every cell of life from one’s mother, in turn, she got it from her mother, and so on all the way back to the first eukaryotic life. All of those generations of trauma, how are we even still living?
Furthermore, the assertion that “men created the patriarchy” ignores actual history and context. One simply cannot ascribe a singular intent to a class comprising billions of individuals across time and space. At best, one could describe patriarchy as an emergent phenomena of societies and cultures. About half of the individuals in those societies and cultures were women, so you’d have to conclude that women helped create patriarchy, unless you deny their agency or intelligence.
It’s literal science, you are mad because it celebrates women so you want to dismiss it as fake. That’s your misogyny.
Men created and upheld the patriarchy by their own personal every day actions. Including their speech, which, like yours, typically functions to uphold a male centered hierarchy.
Yes, the patriarchy literally denied women’s agency and thoughts and stole their ideas from them. Good job, kiddo, you finally got it. Lol omfg. Yes, that IS what I’m saying - Men ENSLAVED women, and we know this because they kept away rights like landownership and political authority and bodily autonomy. Do you even understand the words you type?
Puh what a rant.
I actually just want to correct you on one thing and I am also Not sure what you really meant.
But we dont get 100% of our cells from our mothers. We get the mitochondria from our mothers. The cells that enclose those mitochondria are perfectly 50/50 after fertilisation.
Wrong. We get 100% of our cells from our mothers She grows every cell. The (1) cell contributed by the father, the sperm cell, is destroyed in the process of DNA exchange/fertilization. Only the egg cell remains, fertilized with 50% DNA from each parent, and it then begins to divide of course. And all of those divisions are of the mother, inside the mother, from the mother’s body. Every cell is created by your mother.
DNA is a different thing, our DNA is in all of our cells, and the information of that DNA is 50/50 (except mitochondrial DNA which 100% mother), but the actual physical amino acids of that DNA were all made by the mother’s body.
Eg I make a sandwich. 50% of the recipe came from me, 50% from Martha Stewart’s cookbook. I provide all ingredients, I make it, I eat it. Martha just provided instructions on how she makes hers and I replicated half of that along with half of my ideas to make a new sandwich.
Men only provide 50% DNA at conception which is 50% INFO, not actual biological material, not cells.
Omg…
Okay, so you do realize that there is no such thing as an „intrinsic mother essence“, right? These are just molecules.
It does NOT matter where the material came from, as long as the molecules are provided. That said, the cells will create most of the molecules variations themself from base molecules, e.g. in case of fatty acid derivatives. Molecules related to energy transfer like NAD or ATP e.g. are generally not provided by the mother but directly synthesized in the cells from predecessor molecules. Similar to all the proteins.
Additionally, there are molecules that are only provided by the mothers body but not synthesized like essential amino acids. They actually have an external origin.
Neither are your cells cow cells because you drink milk or tomato cells because you eat tomatos.
Not sure how the provision of building blocks makes these cells the mothers cells. They Are NOT cells of the mothers body.
You are absolutely clueless, I fear.
I never said there was a “mother essence”, don’t strawman.
Amino acids rarely come in their broken down form, the mother digests them to break them down. That’s how cow milk is broken down into its parts, as you so wisely point out later.
Further, she provides all those molecules and the first molecule.
She made those cells. Why do you want to deny this? It’s honestly so funny, like you’re discovering pregnancy for the first time
Look, whatever dude. Believe in a flat earth or whatever you like.
Still, The fetus‘ cells are not cells of the mother. The few molecules of the egg cell quickly dilute in a sea of newly synthesized molecules by the metabolism of the zygote and its repeating cell Division cycle.
You can keep repeating „because the building blocks are provided by the mother“. But that does not make the cells any more their mothers cells than, again, you being a cow when consuming milk. Your logic does Not make sense.
Its similar (not like) recycling. If I melt down metal from old computers to create a new computer. Then we have actually new components, a new computer. Its Not made up of the old Computer in a conventional sense. Sure on the atomic level its mostly the same atoms, but Talking about inheritance on that level brings the discussion to a completely ridiculous level.
Not sure how you justify any other view on this. Certainly not on the grounds of natural sciences or logic.
If you really want to get pedantic, you could say we inherit our first cell membrane and mitochindria from our mothers, 50% of our genetic material, and perhaps 95% of our first cell’s cytoplasm.
After that, our mothers provide material that the zygote/fetus uses to build itself. It sounds incorrect to say we get all our cells from our mother, since she’s not making the cells, but only providing material and a place to grow. I know what you mean and share your sentiment. When gardening, did I grow these plants or did they grow themselves? Did the workers build the car, or did the owner of the factory?
Also the info provided by the father is absolutely biological material.
She is making the cells. The cells are hers. Just like a cancer mass has different DNA from the host but we can recognize that it belongs to the host and was made by the host, and isn’t autonomous outside of the host. The cells can belong to both the tumor and the patient. Just like these cells are made by the mother, belong to the mother, and are also made by and belong to the fetus. Or do you not thing the original egg cell belonged to the mother?
The info provided is biological material in the sense that the initial DNA/RNA are a biological material, but they are not cells.
I don’t make a car or a plant in my uterus off my own life force, but nice try.
Okay no, that’s not how it works at all. The differences in DNA between cancer cell and non-cancerous cell are negligable when compared to the differences between mother DNA and zygote/fetal DNA. If those fetal cells escaped the placenta or uterus, the mother’s immune system would attack them because they’re not recognized as “self.”
Sure, it’s the mother’s egg, until it isn’t. It quickly becomes something else biologically at the moment of fertilization.
Again, the mother isn’t making the cells, the zygote/fetal cells are making themselves.
It’s clear you have some beliefs that are not backed up by science. You also did not understand my analogies. I’m sure you’ll eventually learn this stuff in school.
Maybe they mean literally the body composition of a fetus when it starts to grow as it feeds off via placenta, like it literally gets 100% of the mass from the mother’s organism
Yes all people are potentially dangerous.
But the biomechanics in adults are very different and need to be recognised. Statistically the physical intimidation is mostly one way when you account for sexual dimorphism in height, weight, reach, muscle mass etc. There are always exceptions but women live in a very different threat environment. That isn’t misogyny.
If people tend to hate what they fear and mysogyny is literally hatred of women like what the fuck? Perhaps some men are terrified of emotional harm. I can understand that but perhaps they would be better off with some therapy or a bit of self awareness.
Maybe, but unfortunately some abusive men just become better at abuse, more sophisticated, when they do therapy because of how therapy can work in validating people. It’s actually not super recommended for a woman dating an abusive man to go to couples therapy or have him go to therapy for this reason. The only way for these men to change their mind, is if they are in groups with other men who enforce other views via discussion, OR if they choose to. The reason you can’t medically treat a narcissist is because it would be brainwashing and unethical to do so if it was possible.
Yes, many cix XY men who are testosterone dominant are taller and have greater arm strength and bone density than many cis XX estrogen dominant women. Not every man and woman fit the cis body ideal of an XX and XY with “perfect” proportions of estrogen, progesterone, GH, testosterone, SHGB, and various other angrogens and enzymes that all combine and compete to create a physical phenotype we call a “woman” or “man.” There are also physical disabilities too.
But look at Stephen Hawking. If we go off pure Oppression Olympics (without looking instead through intersectionality and abuse dynamics), then the girls he was sexually abusing with Epstein were arguably abusing him. They were able bodied, right? He could hardly speak. It’s not just about physical ability then, but about how the entire structure of the patriarchy now being so entrenched we automatically assume roles based on it, regardless of size or proximity to danger. We automatically dismiss the danger of those girls to Hawking because we know the patriarchy stops girls from being violent, it’s not their role.
Except in cases like Chrystul Kizer.
This is a perfect description of the male and female meta. It is why males are stronger. Not to protect or lead, but to control through fear and violence.
It’s a priviledge men developed a higher sensitivity to oxytocin to compensate for a lower expression of the stuff. Enabling men to give a damn about someone other than their desire to dominate. Men can love their partner, their family, friends, their pets because of this.
Chimps ain’t that lucky, and males would rather watch an orphan die from neglect (and eat it) than take care of it. The males are known to kill females for showing assertive behaviour.
Same goes for prolactin in the brain, that makes humans more monogamous and increases a desire to protect something you care about. It never was a male feature before, but it became one in humans. It even peaks after the baby is born and the father is exposed to seeing his baby. Over time, similar adaptations to the brains of pregnant women, are seen in father’s brains. Which is amazing.
Men ain’t that bad, but old habits die hard. Men are more aggressive, stronger, more impulsive and less afraid of consequences on average compared to women. Those who were better at avoiding male aggression, lived longer. Hence why estrogens play a role in stimulating brain development in areas essential to risk assesment, consequence sensitivity, resistance to suicide, thinking ahead, planning, reading emotions (of themselves and others), learning and memory, reducing own aggression, communication and impulse control. Giving women an edge in academical performance despite there not being a statistical difference in intelligence. (Imagine if men had these boons instead…)
While all those obvious “big scary male” traits in men makes them seem like a bigger threat, women are well equipped and know how to dominate and eliminate people indirectly.
None of this is true and shows an extremely shallow understanding of neurochemistry. Please watch Sapolsky. Read Delusions of Gender. Talk to trans people. Try out some hormones. You’re just wrong and it’s creepy and weird.
Look. My mother gave me more than enough trauma as a kid. I don’t need you telling me she started before SHE was even born.