Cockamamie Theories -- A Sociological Study
Hey, I can do that too. Why should I not get published in one of those laughable evolutionary psychology journals? I can come up with a crackpot theory with the best of them. I can reference anecdotal tidbits and call this "evidence." I can conduct selective research in searching for scientific support. I can pull from history whatever agrees with my preconceived opinions. Read very carefully, because in some places, mere select *words* from a particular whole sentence are biased.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why have so many inventions, innovations, technology, applications of the laws of the natural world been fueled, been driven, been pursued with such gusto, such fanatical devotion?
•To explain the birth of the universe.
•To explain the origins of humankind. Every culture and civilization in the history of our species has a creation myth.
•The seeking, the drive, the thirst for knowledge. This has fueled the quest to seek, to unlock the secrets of the universe, perhaps in vain hopes of unearthing some support that the universe is inherently male.
•To invent and innovate things. The need to create, to be bestowed with the honor of “Creator.”
•And now, the god particle. Large supercolliders have been built, essentially for the purpose of creating something out of nothing.
•The search for life on other planets in our solar system or in the Milky Way
•The search for life in the Local Group or anywhere in the universe
•More recently, the search for other universes and yes, the search for possible life in other universes
For one simple reason: men cannot create life from their bodies.
So, spinning along this trend that has been the dominant controlling factor lording over males' psyches since the inception of hominid species. They are searching, painstakingly, for some sign that males are the origin of the universe or at least creators in some vein.
Humorists, aphorists, and pundits alike have long commented on the supposed phenomenon of "penis envy." Then Viagra came along and exposed penis envy for what it really is. Oh, it exists, all right. But penis envy is not a feeling women harbor towards men. Quite the opposite is true -- penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.
So I suppose viagra, levitra, and cialis are marketed to make women's penises stiff for longer periods of time, and indeed, at all? And I guess all those spam emails that people get, which thankfully are a little less prevalent and irritating now than back when the internet was still called the "information superhighway," that want the recipients to enlarge their penis -- these are aimed at enlarging women's penises? And I guess whenever men admit to feeling inadequate when compared to, say horses, or to other men that have bigger penises, I guess the insecure men are saying that they feel jealous of the horse's *mind.*
However, if you mean a metaphorical penis, then there might be something to that. Power, authority, power in politics, formal education, business, running an economy. Running a government. Having education. Having higher education, studying in universities, monasteries. Men have historically prevented women from entering these and all other fields. If that is the subject, then sure, women have metaphorical penis envy. However, actual penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.
Now, perhaps we need to acknowledge the existence of a different social, personal, philosophical sleeper trend that has plagued males since the dawn of time. This has afflicted males the universe over ever since the very first protobiont worked its way out of the primordial ooze. This is an insecurity phenomenon that men feel towards women.
All male humans are afflicted with the psychosocial condition named "Uterus Envy." They can never create a life from their bodies. They know that women have this power, this extraordinary gift, and that they do not.
Women have of course, always known and appreciated the power of their life-creating bodies. Many early civilizations around the world had theistic beliefs and customs that were female-centric.
On some subconscious level, men have always known this to be ultimate truth. This is why all throughout the course of human history, males have done their damnedest to co-opt and bastardize this right that was God-given to women. This is all betrays their extreme jealousy and insecurity.
They have resorted to even going so far as to fashion a creation myth in which a man gives birth to a woman from one of his ribs. Then, as if that weren't illogical enough, some males made the declaration that women were made to endure pregnancy and childbirth as a "punishment." This punishment is supposedly meted out due to some sort of original sin.
This disturbing psychosocial biochemical characteristic is manifested in the ways that violence, legal gymnastics, pseudo-philosophy, skewed, twisted, warped mental acrobatics are used as to why a woman's body is not her own.
Males have forcibly denied females their reproductive rights, including the right not to have a child if one does not want to. They have also denied, very importantly, the right *to* carry a fetus to term if a woman does want to.
Males have co-opted and bastardized women's reproductive rights since the beginning of time. They cling to their ideals of superiority out of desperation and panic.
This actually explains why men are driven to invent things, to innovate. It all speaks of a desperate, frantic, frenzied need to create _something_. It is a need to be on equal footing with women, who create life on a regular basis. They are constantly attempting to prove to the world, to other men, to women, and to themselves that they are capable of creation.
Most people have heard the comical offerings that a man that buys a very large car or sponsors the production of very tall buildings is compensating for something. But perhaps we have been mistaken as to what that "something" is.
This also would explain why scientists, supposedly learned, rational, logical, thinking men, have been so loathe to allow women into scientific and thinking circles all throughout human history. They have delved so far as to concoct various theories, conjecture, convoluted, cognitive labyrinthine schemes as to why women should not be allowed to study the sciences. They cling to these precepts as supposed logic supporting their opinions for why women would not make good scientists. This is much like how when someone is stranded out in the desert or lost in a tropical natural jungle, he would have to rig some digs out of a few found objects, tarp, rope, twine.
This betrays an unease, a fear, a dread that women will yet again surpass men in their collective abilities as a gender. Men are shaken by the fact that, one, women can already create life from their bodies, and, two, if women are able to enter engineering and technology fields and are allowed to practice, think, create, and innovate at the same rate as men, then this would prove that women have the capability to create in other tenets of the universe, thus doubly demonstrating their superiority over men. Women are able to create life, and are also able to create things that make life a little bit easier to live.
This fear and unease manifests itself in baffling contradictions: the Catholic Church has in the past proclaimed that anything having to do with the female reproductive system, including fertility and ovulation, is of paganism, the devil's work, filthy, vile, et cetera et cetera. Yet at the same time the Church claims that a fetus is precious, innocent, deserving of life, and that aborting said fetus is murder.
Holding a woman hostage to her uterus. Holding a woman prisoner to her own uterus by bastardizing the power of life and creation that her body holds. They say that a woman's menstrual period makes her "unclean." A woman that is menstruating is considered a pariah, is treated like a leper.
But guess what, folks, that is where babies come from. A healthy, menstruating uterus. How are they not able to reconcile a fetus's existence with how that fetus came to exist in the first place?
Women in various tribal societies who are menstruating are shunned from the tribe for the duration of their menses. They are forced to live in filthy secluded huts because they have been announced “unclean,” and therefore are not deserving of being included and acknowledged in the greater community like the fully-functioning normal human being that she is.
Males have gone so far as to maintaining the false assertion that elderly men well past the "prime years" can still produce healthy, viable spermatozoa capable of joining ova to produce a viable, healthy zygote. This was spurred on by a few stories of old celebrity goats that supposedly fathered children well into their triple-digit annums. However, this was later medically proven to be false.
----
If faced with this ___ males would have to concede with a truth of this universe: That the power of reproduction and creation are in the hands of females, and it always has been. The ultimate decision to create life belongs to females. This truth might make males uneasy, but that does not make it any less a truth.
But there are benefits to this perpetual, incessant inadequacy that males feel. If nothing else, this jealousy and insecurity drove civilization, technology, and progress forward. So that they may truthfully moniker themselves creators of at least something. Taking great pains, blood tears and sweat, to be able to manipulate the natural world in some way so that they may pride themselves with the title of "creator."
"Necessity is the mother of all invention." But what exactly is this necessity? Is it for the lone physical object that was invented? Or is it for the inventor to prove something?
----
It is also ludicrous that anyone, male or female, would insist that a fetus's right to life be divorced wholly from a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. This is another baffling, nonsensical anomaly that has no place in rational and moral discourse. The claim that many make that a fetus's right to life is immaterial of a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy is ludicrous.
*It is usually divided into two extreme theaters, each stripping a woman of her humanity and choice in its own sick way. One, the "conservative" form of misogyny is taking the fact that women are the bearer of life, and cruelly using this against a woman in any way possible. That is turning a woman into a baby factory, a prisoner of her own uterus. Forcing a woman's body to be used as a weapon against her.
*The other extreme cancer is possibly worse. The "liberal" form of misogyny, which denies that women have any reproductive or even productive capabilities at all. This manifestation, by taking away a woman's ability to become pregnant and bring forth a child. This has veritably stripped women of any value to the human race at all.
Very important -- do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone that is okay with abortion is automatically on par with women's rights.
The fact is that forced abortions have also been used to control women's bodies. Oh, how I wish I were making this up. In sexual slavery practiced around the world in various countries, women are kidnapped from their homes, sold, and forced into prostitution. In other words, they are forced into being ra--- on a regular basis. They are also forced to go through abortions so that the brothel does not have to deal with the atrocities it is committing against human rights.
In this case, abortion is used as an aid, as a tool *against* acknowledging a woman as a conscious, whole, complete member of the homo sapiens species.
This so-called “liberalism” incarnates into some inexplicable ideologies. Women are casually regarded as little more than empty hollow mannequins. Abortion, here, is just another type of violence against women.
That's right; do not be fooled. Just because abortion is "allowed" in these locations, it does not mean that the women are living in some sort of magical utopia wherein they are valued as equals to men and esteemed as whole human beings. Here, abortion is also used as a weapon against a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It is not the only evil committed against women, I'm not trying to make that claim, but it is one of the many evils used to abuse and subjugate women.
This is possibly even worse than the monotheistic patriarchal religions that force women to not be able to consider abortion even in the case of safety and health. At least those religions acknowledge the fact that women's bodies bring life into the world. However, I truly think that these forced abortions are worse. This is because in these horrific crimes, a woman as a human being is reduced to less than the sum of her body parts.
She is certainly not acknowledged as a whole human being. That much is clear from the fact that she is kidnapped, sold into slavery, and systematically r--ed by the society, by the economy, by the local government that forces this to happen. Then, just to knock her down a few pegs more, she is also not even considered a bearer of human beings. A woman here is regarded as little more than a blow-up doll.
---
___is almost worse because it trivializes the ___ that women____. "come on baby, it's not a crime, it's just a sin!" Suddenly, saying "No" to a male became tantamount to denying him “rights.” It became politically incorrect to say "No" to any male. Reducing a woman to a soulless shell, a hollow meat carcass that does not have any redeeming, life-affirming qualities.
==
The most desperate ploy thrown out in the ether recently is the assertion that r-- is justified by evolution. Here again, we have males grasping for straws, trying somehow to find some way to justify their abject disregard for women's bodies. This just smacks of yet more desperation.
==
Modern-day treatment of pregnant women
Yet you vilify the woman who gets pregnant.
If the fetus is so damn godly and wonderful, then why the hell isn't the woman housing that fetus treated with parallel dignity and respect? It only follows to logic that the pregnant mother should be lavished with grace, praise, love, reverence. The pregnant mother should be exalted for her ability to bring forth life into this world.
"Well, there are maybe a handful of social programs that might be able to aid a woman who needs help..."
No, you have turned her into a beggar, a streetwalker. At the mercy of violent criminals, exploiters, anyone else that would prey on the physically weak.
---
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Shelley to you) foresaw this phenomenon nearly two hundred years ago when she authored the story of Dr. Frankenstein. She had sensed the unease that permeates males' subconscious psyches. Males want to be able to create life on their own, without the intervention of any woman. But the only way they can do it is through gruesome unnatural means.
This is reflected in efforts for human cloning. These research efforts were begun by males, not by females.
There was another research project in Japan a few years back wherein a group of biologists tried to grow a mammal fetus to term in an incubator of sorts, which was supposed to supply all the nutritional requirements, cushioning of the body, O2, et cetera. All of the things that a placenta would provide in the case of a normal mammalian pregnancy.
Do not make the mistake of considering this casually and concluding that this is a nod to feminism. Quite the opposite. I truly think that the researchers working on this were spurred on by the fact that females hold the power of creation in their bodies. Males, when they embarked upon this puzzling experiment, were trying desperately to take the power of growing a life away from females. This way, males would not be so reliant on females for reproduction.
---
The notion that evolution dictates that females want males to stick around and help raise the offspring. And females prefer to be monogamous. As much as gullible liberal females have tried to refudiate (hehe) this claim, there is probably quite a bit of truth to this. And I do not think this is a bad thing.
Women have always been more evolved than men. Females have a long history of having to be the ones to drive and usher the rest of humanity, including males, out of the Stone Age. The responsibility of evolution has always been one that women have shouldered proudly.
This is true on the micro scale of a single human life.
•Baby girls learn to talk earlier than baby boys.
•Earlier puberty. Earlier emotional maturity and responsible behavior patterns.
•Female brain has thicker corpus callosum, which links the right and left hemispheres of the brain. Buzzing snapping, electrifying back and forth between the hemispheres. Provides stronger, more sturdy connection (mapping of brain, putting together missing pieces of a puzzle such as solving a mystery. Seeing links in concepts that appear superficially unrelated, but upon closer inspection turn out to be connected.)
This is also true on a hyper-iteration macro scale. A leap forward in biological progress has always depended on a greatly increased investment from the female of the species.
•Early mitochondria provided the gateway for primitive unicellular organisms to morph into more complex unicellular organisms.
--Metabolism of nutrient sources, then being converted into energy sources for the cell. The ATP production is much more complex than substrate-level which occurred at the cell membrane of primitive unicellulars (bacteria).
•The skeleton Lucy. Australopithecus afarensis. She is the missing link that was discovered to have lived so long ago, that connected early primate species to our distant hominid ancestors.
*Females being the ones responsible for well-being and protection of the young. Laying eggs.
--Leaving them there in lower species. Turtles, spiders.
--Sitting on them and hatching them. Birds. These are considered slightly higher than reptiles since they are warm-blooded.
*The transition from laying eggs and subsequently affecting external gestation.
Internal gestation for offspring in mammals. Coupled with the mother feeding her young milk from her mammary glands. This continues to nourish the offspring with much-needed carbohydrates, proteins, even some humoral (molecular) immunity. This also strengthens the emotional bond between mother and child.
(poss this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
With every great leap in evolutionary progress, comes an accompanied far greater investment from the female parent. It is the female that always makes the greatest contribution to the nourishment of the offspring. Evolution is tilted far more in favor of the contributions of the female. In gestational requirements, nutritional supply, oxygen, blood supply, and with mammals, food supply from the mother’s body in the early year of the offspring's life is required *after* it has already been born. This places enormous demand on the female parent. But that is okay because the payoff is evolution.
*Women on average, are less violent, less sexually promiscuous, and more prone to forming emotional bonds with their offspring. These are all hallmarks of more evolved species. Compare the human species to gorillas, baboons, dogs, lions, reptiles, whales, dolphins. It is established as fact in the scientific community that humans are more evolved than all of those other animal species.
Humans as a whole are superior to those other species in terms of intelligence, emotional bonds forming with pair-bonding, less aggression, less inclination to violence, higher morality, more emotional attachment to offspring, less likely to give in to impulsive behavior, and greater cooperation with other members of the species -- while also being physically weaker. This comparison of humans-to-other-animalia is mirrored in the comparison female-humans-to-male-humans.
And male evolutionists keep encountering and getting bombarded by this at every turn. It’s like shuffling a deck of cards, and no matter what happens, the queen always come out on top. They have no choice but to concede that females drive evolution. So how do male evolutionary scientists cope? They must find some way to rationalize male brutality, justify it in their minds. They must find some way to make sense of it, insist that it did contribute to evolution. Even though what it really did was wreak terror on humanity.
This is why they try to make excuses. The d--- getting hard excuse. Trying to pretend they have any say in the matter. For example, they ask in vain, what do women want? However, what they are really asking is, how do I bag a hot chick. They already know what women want. With all the nonstop incessant chattering that women do all the time, I mean seriously, we will not stop, the entire freaking population of the developed world knows what women want.
The "teh poor menz" arguments predictably follow along thusly: well whut abut teh poor menz why cant dey choos wimmen dey want????
That's a bullshyte argument, because you already have what you want. Human women have already been selected for through a few million years of evolution. The mammalian species have already selectively bred for females that have a significantly increased investment in producing offspring. Nature did all the picking for you, so you men don't have to worry your pretty little heads off about it.
So what do teh poor menz get out of the deal? They get mates who gestate the offspring for nine months, producing an infant that has an enormous brain with enormous brain-to-body mass ratio, proceed to breastfeed after that, and then stick around and raise the child throughout their formative years. Psychologically, socially, and through physical and sexual maturity.
And mates who normally produce only one infant at a time, thereby allowing all nutritional and oxygen supply to go to that one infant. At most twins and much more rarely triplets. Beyond that, none without the help of fertility drugs. But on the whole, human females do not produce litters. In terms of evolutionary progress, this is a good thing. Add the fact that human women internally gestate, and the fact that they generally do not leave or die after hatching the infant, a la turtles or spiders.
So quit complaining. You already got the best that you can hope for.
So why do males still act as if their queries are unanswered? It is because they are trying to maintain the pretense that they have a realistic shot with those hot chicks, as if those hot chicks are not going to magnetically gravitate to alpha males exclusively and automatically. The poor male dears. They try so hard to maintain the illusion that they are in control of the mating situation in some way.
Again, this all comes down to uterus envy. They try to pretend that they are in some way, any way at all, in control of reproduction. They entertain the illusion that they possess a smidgen of any input whatsoever, a voice in the continuation of the species.
Hey, I can do that too. Why should I not get published in one of those laughable evolutionary psychology journals? I can come up with a crackpot theory with the best of them. I can reference anecdotal tidbits and call this "evidence." I can conduct selective research in searching for scientific support. I can pull from history whatever agrees with my preconceived opinions. Read very carefully, because in some places, mere select *words* from a particular whole sentence are biased.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why have so many inventions, innovations, technology, applications of the laws of the natural world been fueled, been driven, been pursued with such gusto, such fanatical devotion?
•To explain the birth of the universe.
•To explain the origins of humankind. Every culture and civilization in the history of our species has a creation myth.
•The seeking, the drive, the thirst for knowledge. This has fueled the quest to seek, to unlock the secrets of the universe, perhaps in vain hopes of unearthing some support that the universe is inherently male.
•To invent and innovate things. The need to create, to be bestowed with the honor of “Creator.”
•And now, the god particle. Large supercolliders have been built, essentially for the purpose of creating something out of nothing.
•The search for life on other planets in our solar system or in the Milky Way
•The search for life in the Local Group or anywhere in the universe
•More recently, the search for other universes and yes, the search for possible life in other universes
For one simple reason: men cannot create life from their bodies.
So, spinning along this trend that has been the dominant controlling factor lording over males' psyches since the inception of hominid species. They are searching, painstakingly, for some sign that males are the origin of the universe or at least creators in some vein.
Humorists, aphorists, and pundits alike have long commented on the supposed phenomenon of "penis envy." Then Viagra came along and exposed penis envy for what it really is. Oh, it exists, all right. But penis envy is not a feeling women harbor towards men. Quite the opposite is true -- penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.
So I suppose viagra, levitra, and cialis are marketed to make women's penises stiff for longer periods of time, and indeed, at all? And I guess all those spam emails that people get, which thankfully are a little less prevalent and irritating now than back when the internet was still called the "information superhighway," that want the recipients to enlarge their penis -- these are aimed at enlarging women's penises? And I guess whenever men admit to feeling inadequate when compared to, say horses, or to other men that have bigger penises, I guess the insecure men are saying that they feel jealous of the horse's *mind.*
However, if you mean a metaphorical penis, then there might be something to that. Power, authority, power in politics, formal education, business, running an economy. Running a government. Having education. Having higher education, studying in universities, monasteries. Men have historically prevented women from entering these and all other fields. If that is the subject, then sure, women have metaphorical penis envy. However, actual penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.
Now, perhaps we need to acknowledge the existence of a different social, personal, philosophical sleeper trend that has plagued males since the dawn of time. This has afflicted males the universe over ever since the very first protobiont worked its way out of the primordial ooze. This is an insecurity phenomenon that men feel towards women.
All male humans are afflicted with the psychosocial condition named "Uterus Envy." They can never create a life from their bodies. They know that women have this power, this extraordinary gift, and that they do not.
Women have of course, always known and appreciated the power of their life-creating bodies. Many early civilizations around the world had theistic beliefs and customs that were female-centric.
On some subconscious level, men have always known this to be ultimate truth. This is why all throughout the course of human history, males have done their damnedest to co-opt and bastardize this right that was God-given to women. This is all betrays their extreme jealousy and insecurity.
They have resorted to even going so far as to fashion a creation myth in which a man gives birth to a woman from one of his ribs. Then, as if that weren't illogical enough, some males made the declaration that women were made to endure pregnancy and childbirth as a "punishment." This punishment is supposedly meted out due to some sort of original sin.
This disturbing psychosocial biochemical characteristic is manifested in the ways that violence, legal gymnastics, pseudo-philosophy, skewed, twisted, warped mental acrobatics are used as to why a woman's body is not her own.
Males have forcibly denied females their reproductive rights, including the right not to have a child if one does not want to. They have also denied, very importantly, the right *to* carry a fetus to term if a woman does want to.
Males have co-opted and bastardized women's reproductive rights since the beginning of time. They cling to their ideals of superiority out of desperation and panic.
This actually explains why men are driven to invent things, to innovate. It all speaks of a desperate, frantic, frenzied need to create _something_. It is a need to be on equal footing with women, who create life on a regular basis. They are constantly attempting to prove to the world, to other men, to women, and to themselves that they are capable of creation.
Most people have heard the comical offerings that a man that buys a very large car or sponsors the production of very tall buildings is compensating for something. But perhaps we have been mistaken as to what that "something" is.
This also would explain why scientists, supposedly learned, rational, logical, thinking men, have been so loathe to allow women into scientific and thinking circles all throughout human history. They have delved so far as to concoct various theories, conjecture, convoluted, cognitive labyrinthine schemes as to why women should not be allowed to study the sciences. They cling to these precepts as supposed logic supporting their opinions for why women would not make good scientists. This is much like how when someone is stranded out in the desert or lost in a tropical natural jungle, he would have to rig some digs out of a few found objects, tarp, rope, twine.
This betrays an unease, a fear, a dread that women will yet again surpass men in their collective abilities as a gender. Men are shaken by the fact that, one, women can already create life from their bodies, and, two, if women are able to enter engineering and technology fields and are allowed to practice, think, create, and innovate at the same rate as men, then this would prove that women have the capability to create in other tenets of the universe, thus doubly demonstrating their superiority over men. Women are able to create life, and are also able to create things that make life a little bit easier to live.
This fear and unease manifests itself in baffling contradictions: the Catholic Church has in the past proclaimed that anything having to do with the female reproductive system, including fertility and ovulation, is of paganism, the devil's work, filthy, vile, et cetera et cetera. Yet at the same time the Church claims that a fetus is precious, innocent, deserving of life, and that aborting said fetus is murder.
Holding a woman hostage to her uterus. Holding a woman prisoner to her own uterus by bastardizing the power of life and creation that her body holds. They say that a woman's menstrual period makes her "unclean." A woman that is menstruating is considered a pariah, is treated like a leper.
But guess what, folks, that is where babies come from. A healthy, menstruating uterus. How are they not able to reconcile a fetus's existence with how that fetus came to exist in the first place?
Women in various tribal societies who are menstruating are shunned from the tribe for the duration of their menses. They are forced to live in filthy secluded huts because they have been announced “unclean,” and therefore are not deserving of being included and acknowledged in the greater community like the fully-functioning normal human being that she is.
Males have gone so far as to maintaining the false assertion that elderly men well past the "prime years" can still produce healthy, viable spermatozoa capable of joining ova to produce a viable, healthy zygote. This was spurred on by a few stories of old celebrity goats that supposedly fathered children well into their triple-digit annums. However, this was later medically proven to be false.
----
If faced with this ___ males would have to concede with a truth of this universe: That the power of reproduction and creation are in the hands of females, and it always has been. The ultimate decision to create life belongs to females. This truth might make males uneasy, but that does not make it any less a truth.
But there are benefits to this perpetual, incessant inadequacy that males feel. If nothing else, this jealousy and insecurity drove civilization, technology, and progress forward. So that they may truthfully moniker themselves creators of at least something. Taking great pains, blood tears and sweat, to be able to manipulate the natural world in some way so that they may pride themselves with the title of "creator."
"Necessity is the mother of all invention." But what exactly is this necessity? Is it for the lone physical object that was invented? Or is it for the inventor to prove something?
----
It is also ludicrous that anyone, male or female, would insist that a fetus's right to life be divorced wholly from a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. This is another baffling, nonsensical anomaly that has no place in rational and moral discourse. The claim that many make that a fetus's right to life is immaterial of a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy is ludicrous.
*It is usually divided into two extreme theaters, each stripping a woman of her humanity and choice in its own sick way. One, the "conservative" form of misogyny is taking the fact that women are the bearer of life, and cruelly using this against a woman in any way possible. That is turning a woman into a baby factory, a prisoner of her own uterus. Forcing a woman's body to be used as a weapon against her.
*The other extreme cancer is possibly worse. The "liberal" form of misogyny, which denies that women have any reproductive or even productive capabilities at all. This manifestation, by taking away a woman's ability to become pregnant and bring forth a child. This has veritably stripped women of any value to the human race at all.
Very important -- do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone that is okay with abortion is automatically on par with women's rights.
The fact is that forced abortions have also been used to control women's bodies. Oh, how I wish I were making this up. In sexual slavery practiced around the world in various countries, women are kidnapped from their homes, sold, and forced into prostitution. In other words, they are forced into being ra--- on a regular basis. They are also forced to go through abortions so that the brothel does not have to deal with the atrocities it is committing against human rights.
In this case, abortion is used as an aid, as a tool *against* acknowledging a woman as a conscious, whole, complete member of the homo sapiens species.
This so-called “liberalism” incarnates into some inexplicable ideologies. Women are casually regarded as little more than empty hollow mannequins. Abortion, here, is just another type of violence against women.
That's right; do not be fooled. Just because abortion is "allowed" in these locations, it does not mean that the women are living in some sort of magical utopia wherein they are valued as equals to men and esteemed as whole human beings. Here, abortion is also used as a weapon against a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It is not the only evil committed against women, I'm not trying to make that claim, but it is one of the many evils used to abuse and subjugate women.
This is possibly even worse than the monotheistic patriarchal religions that force women to not be able to consider abortion even in the case of safety and health. At least those religions acknowledge the fact that women's bodies bring life into the world. However, I truly think that these forced abortions are worse. This is because in these horrific crimes, a woman as a human being is reduced to less than the sum of her body parts.
She is certainly not acknowledged as a whole human being. That much is clear from the fact that she is kidnapped, sold into slavery, and systematically r--ed by the society, by the economy, by the local government that forces this to happen. Then, just to knock her down a few pegs more, she is also not even considered a bearer of human beings. A woman here is regarded as little more than a blow-up doll.
---
___is almost worse because it trivializes the ___ that women____. "come on baby, it's not a crime, it's just a sin!" Suddenly, saying "No" to a male became tantamount to denying him “rights.” It became politically incorrect to say "No" to any male. Reducing a woman to a soulless shell, a hollow meat carcass that does not have any redeeming, life-affirming qualities.
==
The most desperate ploy thrown out in the ether recently is the assertion that r-- is justified by evolution. Here again, we have males grasping for straws, trying somehow to find some way to justify their abject disregard for women's bodies. This just smacks of yet more desperation.
==
Modern-day treatment of pregnant women
Yet you vilify the woman who gets pregnant.
If the fetus is so damn godly and wonderful, then why the hell isn't the woman housing that fetus treated with parallel dignity and respect? It only follows to logic that the pregnant mother should be lavished with grace, praise, love, reverence. The pregnant mother should be exalted for her ability to bring forth life into this world.
"Well, there are maybe a handful of social programs that might be able to aid a woman who needs help..."
No, you have turned her into a beggar, a streetwalker. At the mercy of violent criminals, exploiters, anyone else that would prey on the physically weak.
---
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Shelley to you) foresaw this phenomenon nearly two hundred years ago when she authored the story of Dr. Frankenstein. She had sensed the unease that permeates males' subconscious psyches. Males want to be able to create life on their own, without the intervention of any woman. But the only way they can do it is through gruesome unnatural means.
This is reflected in efforts for human cloning. These research efforts were begun by males, not by females.
There was another research project in Japan a few years back wherein a group of biologists tried to grow a mammal fetus to term in an incubator of sorts, which was supposed to supply all the nutritional requirements, cushioning of the body, O2, et cetera. All of the things that a placenta would provide in the case of a normal mammalian pregnancy.
Do not make the mistake of considering this casually and concluding that this is a nod to feminism. Quite the opposite. I truly think that the researchers working on this were spurred on by the fact that females hold the power of creation in their bodies. Males, when they embarked upon this puzzling experiment, were trying desperately to take the power of growing a life away from females. This way, males would not be so reliant on females for reproduction.
---
The notion that evolution dictates that females want males to stick around and help raise the offspring. And females prefer to be monogamous. As much as gullible liberal females have tried to refudiate (hehe) this claim, there is probably quite a bit of truth to this. And I do not think this is a bad thing.
Women have always been more evolved than men. Females have a long history of having to be the ones to drive and usher the rest of humanity, including males, out of the Stone Age. The responsibility of evolution has always been one that women have shouldered proudly.
This is true on the micro scale of a single human life.
•Baby girls learn to talk earlier than baby boys.
•Earlier puberty. Earlier emotional maturity and responsible behavior patterns.
•Female brain has thicker corpus callosum, which links the right and left hemispheres of the brain. Buzzing snapping, electrifying back and forth between the hemispheres. Provides stronger, more sturdy connection (mapping of brain, putting together missing pieces of a puzzle such as solving a mystery. Seeing links in concepts that appear superficially unrelated, but upon closer inspection turn out to be connected.)
This is also true on a hyper-iteration macro scale. A leap forward in biological progress has always depended on a greatly increased investment from the female of the species.
•Early mitochondria provided the gateway for primitive unicellular organisms to morph into more complex unicellular organisms.
--Metabolism of nutrient sources, then being converted into energy sources for the cell. The ATP production is much more complex than substrate-level which occurred at the cell membrane of primitive unicellulars (bacteria).
•The skeleton Lucy. Australopithecus afarensis. She is the missing link that was discovered to have lived so long ago, that connected early primate species to our distant hominid ancestors.
*Females being the ones responsible for well-being and protection of the young. Laying eggs.
--Leaving them there in lower species. Turtles, spiders.
--Sitting on them and hatching them. Birds. These are considered slightly higher than reptiles since they are warm-blooded.
*The transition from laying eggs and subsequently affecting external gestation.
Internal gestation for offspring in mammals. Coupled with the mother feeding her young milk from her mammary glands. This continues to nourish the offspring with much-needed carbohydrates, proteins, even some humoral (molecular) immunity. This also strengthens the emotional bond between mother and child.
(poss this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
With every great leap in evolutionary progress, comes an accompanied far greater investment from the female parent. It is the female that always makes the greatest contribution to the nourishment of the offspring. Evolution is tilted far more in favor of the contributions of the female. In gestational requirements, nutritional supply, oxygen, blood supply, and with mammals, food supply from the mother’s body in the early year of the offspring's life is required *after* it has already been born. This places enormous demand on the female parent. But that is okay because the payoff is evolution.
*Women on average, are less violent, less sexually promiscuous, and more prone to forming emotional bonds with their offspring. These are all hallmarks of more evolved species. Compare the human species to gorillas, baboons, dogs, lions, reptiles, whales, dolphins. It is established as fact in the scientific community that humans are more evolved than all of those other animal species.
Humans as a whole are superior to those other species in terms of intelligence, emotional bonds forming with pair-bonding, less aggression, less inclination to violence, higher morality, more emotional attachment to offspring, less likely to give in to impulsive behavior, and greater cooperation with other members of the species -- while also being physically weaker. This comparison of humans-to-other-animalia is mirrored in the comparison female-humans-to-male-humans.
And male evolutionists keep encountering and getting bombarded by this at every turn. It’s like shuffling a deck of cards, and no matter what happens, the queen always come out on top. They have no choice but to concede that females drive evolution. So how do male evolutionary scientists cope? They must find some way to rationalize male brutality, justify it in their minds. They must find some way to make sense of it, insist that it did contribute to evolution. Even though what it really did was wreak terror on humanity.
This is why they try to make excuses. The d--- getting hard excuse. Trying to pretend they have any say in the matter. For example, they ask in vain, what do women want? However, what they are really asking is, how do I bag a hot chick. They already know what women want. With all the nonstop incessant chattering that women do all the time, I mean seriously, we will not stop, the entire freaking population of the developed world knows what women want.
The "teh poor menz" arguments predictably follow along thusly: well whut abut teh poor menz why cant dey choos wimmen dey want????
That's a bullshyte argument, because you already have what you want. Human women have already been selected for through a few million years of evolution. The mammalian species have already selectively bred for females that have a significantly increased investment in producing offspring. Nature did all the picking for you, so you men don't have to worry your pretty little heads off about it.
So what do teh poor menz get out of the deal? They get mates who gestate the offspring for nine months, producing an infant that has an enormous brain with enormous brain-to-body mass ratio, proceed to breastfeed after that, and then stick around and raise the child throughout their formative years. Psychologically, socially, and through physical and sexual maturity.
And mates who normally produce only one infant at a time, thereby allowing all nutritional and oxygen supply to go to that one infant. At most twins and much more rarely triplets. Beyond that, none without the help of fertility drugs. But on the whole, human females do not produce litters. In terms of evolutionary progress, this is a good thing. Add the fact that human women internally gestate, and the fact that they generally do not leave or die after hatching the infant, a la turtles or spiders.
So quit complaining. You already got the best that you can hope for.
So why do males still act as if their queries are unanswered? It is because they are trying to maintain the pretense that they have a realistic shot with those hot chicks, as if those hot chicks are not going to magnetically gravitate to alpha males exclusively and automatically. The poor male dears. They try so hard to maintain the illusion that they are in control of the mating situation in some way.
Again, this all comes down to uterus envy. They try to pretend that they are in some way, any way at all, in control of reproduction. They entertain the illusion that they possess a smidgen of any input whatsoever, a voice in the continuation of the species.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment