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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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