M
Sometimes you can be consumed with hatred and feeling like you are inferior to women because they won't date you despite your desperate attempts. This leads to misogyny and it is a harsh circle. But its easier to hate a group that is objectively and scientifically inferior to you. And this is why I spent time to write this essay. To ease your pain. You're welcome.
This was going to be an essay, but it is now a pseudo-essay. You don't have to read--it is very long. But I think you'll enjoy it.
The purpose of this write up is to establish a case, which is objectively true however, would meet significant resistance if presented. No doubt what I am going to talk about will incite anger and a call for censorship. But I'm in the right forum.
The case I will present is the inherent intrinsic inferiority of the female.
(FYI: Notice that I do not use the word “woman” or “man”, because I’m not talking about gender, I’m talking about sex.)--EDIT: I did use "women" and "men" unintentionally, but refer to that as "female" and "male" respectively. I'm talking biology not social constructs.
Why is it that for nearly all of human history males were in significant power and control? Why is it that only recently have we seen empowerment of females and females in power and control by large? Could it be that males were just physically stronger and overpowered females in times when strength was needed to survive? Perhaps, but I don’t think this was the major thing as a gender/sex war is almost unheard of. The reason why females were not in significant power/control is because of a strong biological limitation—Pregnancy and Breastfeeding.
Pregnancy and Breast-feeding are literally events in which females compromise their physiology in order to give birth and perform child-care. Nowadays, we don’t think of this because of artificial inventions like formula milk and contraceptives. In the past, there was no formula milk, so moms were required to breastfeed and essentially take care of kids. Newborns breastfeed. A lot. Every couple of hours and this takes a significant chunk of a female’s time and energy. Childcare, at least early childcare, was thus mostly required to be performed by the female. This is very limiting. My grandmother (before contraception in a 3rd world country) had 9 children (2 died). She tells me that literally her early life consisted of pregnancy every year and child care. What was she supposed to do prior to contraception? There was no available formula milk so breastfeeding was her duty while her husband worked all day to support her and the kids. And I find it ridiculous that people act surprised that females were not able to have control/power in older societies. They have a strong biological limitation that puts them at a significant disadvantage over males.
You see, men didn't oppress women in the past--their own biology did.
It was with the advent of contraceptives and hormonal birth control that we saw the liberation of females. This allowed females to bypass their inherent biological limitations and disadvantages compared to males and allowed them to compete with males in society for power and control. In other words, females required artificial inventions in order to bypass their inherent biological disadvantage and put them on a competitive playing field with males.
This is not a controversial view at all, at least scientifically. In fact, access to contraceptives is seen as critical in ensuring females can live a healthy competitive life with equal opportunity. It allows them to take control of their birth and choose when or if to get pregnant. Here is a quick read from planned parenthood on this issue:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1614/3275/8659/BC_factsheet_may2015_updated_1.pdf
In other words, females have an inherent disadvantage that is intrinsic to their biology. It was only until the development of artificial technologies that remove those inherent intrinsic disadvantages that they were able to gain power and succeed in society. They require the removal of their disadvantages to have equal opportunity as males who do not have those intrinsic disadvantages.
This is what females do. They give birth and are required to take care of the baby to pass on their genes. If you were to start human evolution all over again, the patriarchy will happen over and over again--it is inevitable. How in the world are women supposed to compete with men if they end up giving birth and having to breastfeed over and over again? Now they have more control over their biology. They bypassed their inherent disadvantages through the use of technology.
Wait, but how does that makes women inherently inferior; aren't they just 'different'?
No. Allow me to present an analogy:
Person 1: Took steroids. Deadlifts 675 lbs. 3 years training. All else equal to person 2 (same training, diet, time commitment)
Person 2: No steroids. Deadlifts 675 lbs. 3 years training. All else equal to person 1. same training, diet, time commitment)
-->Sure person 1 and person 2 are equal in strength, but person 1 is inherently inferior to person 2. Person 1 required the use of technological inventions to bypass the inferior biology. Just as women required the use of technological inventions to be successful as a whole.
This is no hypothetical. Women without access to contraceptives exist in modern day. That is why governments are trying to hard to give them contraceptives, because they know it would empower them. It lets them bypass biological constraints so they can be empowered. Nothing I said here was hypothetical, it is literally happening as we speak and programs are being developed to aid them bypass their biological disadvantages.
Taken short: We are machines to propagate DNA. The sex based division of labor has been working well for most mammals. The receptive sex (female) is forced to undergo compromises of her physiology to internally support the offspring, whereas the insertive sex (male) is tasked with external support as they cannot contribute internally (their physiology--no uterus, no mammary glands) to the child.
I think there is a reason that we saw women contributing more once contraceptives are available and why we continue to fund contraceptives in poor countries to empower women. Birth and pregnancy dis-empowers women, and reduces their ability to externally compete with males.
In other words, if you were to start the evolutionary clock over again, it is not possible for females to gain significant power over males. In a thought experiment where you send off male and females babies to live by themselves and rule a secluded Island, you expect male superiority in external control as females have a biological burden that males don't/cannot deal with.
Next, I will let the system speak and inform us of the inherent inferiority of females and what pregnancy and childbirth does to women
(my commentary is in red text color)
From http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
(1) "By preventing unintended pregnancy, family planning /contraception prevents deaths of mothers and children."
(2)"Promotion of family planning – and ensuring access to preferred contraceptive methods for women and couples – is essential to securing the well-being and autonomy of women." [see that, women's biology does not secure the well-being and autonomy of women--so bypassing biological constraints helps us achieve that goal. Who would have guessed?]
(3) "Infants of mothers who die as a result of giving birth also have a greater risk of death and poor health." [Looks like giving birth is traumatic for women; another biological disadvantage they have. No wonder they needed the protection of men throughout all these ages: their biology fuks them up]
(4) "Family planning represents an opportunity for women to pursue additional education and participate in public life, including paid employment in non-family organizations". [Oh really? Who thought that pregnancy and child rearing reduces women ability to get the same education and participation in employment as men. Oh right, science did. Since men physically cannot rear and breastfeed a child, they don't get that reduction in ability--they are free to do whatever at much greater lengths than women]
(5) Many adolescent girls who become pregnant have to leave school. [har har. Biology fucks you women up, eh? You needed men to invent contraceptives to succeed and you never thanked us]
No wonder why society tries so hard to give women contraceptives throughout the world. Birth and pregnancy fucks them up. But you see, men didn't oppress women. Biology did. They required men to free them of these biological disadvantages through contraceptives so they have more control over their limiting and disadvantaging biology.
If you have gotten this far, wow. I don't think I would've. I honestly just free wrote, copy-pasted and didn't proofread anything. Good on you.
This was going to be an essay, but it is now a pseudo-essay. You don't have to read--it is very long. But I think you'll enjoy it.
The purpose of this write up is to establish a case, which is objectively true however, would meet significant resistance if presented. No doubt what I am going to talk about will incite anger and a call for censorship. But I'm in the right forum.
The case I will present is the inherent intrinsic inferiority of the female.
(FYI: Notice that I do not use the word “woman” or “man”, because I’m not talking about gender, I’m talking about sex.)--EDIT: I did use "women" and "men" unintentionally, but refer to that as "female" and "male" respectively. I'm talking biology not social constructs.
Why is it that for nearly all of human history males were in significant power and control? Why is it that only recently have we seen empowerment of females and females in power and control by large? Could it be that males were just physically stronger and overpowered females in times when strength was needed to survive? Perhaps, but I don’t think this was the major thing as a gender/sex war is almost unheard of. The reason why females were not in significant power/control is because of a strong biological limitation—Pregnancy and Breastfeeding.
Pregnancy and Breast-feeding are literally events in which females compromise their physiology in order to give birth and perform child-care. Nowadays, we don’t think of this because of artificial inventions like formula milk and contraceptives. In the past, there was no formula milk, so moms were required to breastfeed and essentially take care of kids. Newborns breastfeed. A lot. Every couple of hours and this takes a significant chunk of a female’s time and energy. Childcare, at least early childcare, was thus mostly required to be performed by the female. This is very limiting. My grandmother (before contraception in a 3rd world country) had 9 children (2 died). She tells me that literally her early life consisted of pregnancy every year and child care. What was she supposed to do prior to contraception? There was no available formula milk so breastfeeding was her duty while her husband worked all day to support her and the kids. And I find it ridiculous that people act surprised that females were not able to have control/power in older societies. They have a strong biological limitation that puts them at a significant disadvantage over males.
You see, men didn't oppress women in the past--their own biology did.
It was with the advent of contraceptives and hormonal birth control that we saw the liberation of females. This allowed females to bypass their inherent biological limitations and disadvantages compared to males and allowed them to compete with males in society for power and control. In other words, females required artificial inventions in order to bypass their inherent biological disadvantage and put them on a competitive playing field with males.
This is not a controversial view at all, at least scientifically. In fact, access to contraceptives is seen as critical in ensuring females can live a healthy competitive life with equal opportunity. It allows them to take control of their birth and choose when or if to get pregnant. Here is a quick read from planned parenthood on this issue:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1614/3275/8659/BC_factsheet_may2015_updated_1.pdf
In other words, females have an inherent disadvantage that is intrinsic to their biology. It was only until the development of artificial technologies that remove those inherent intrinsic disadvantages that they were able to gain power and succeed in society. They require the removal of their disadvantages to have equal opportunity as males who do not have those intrinsic disadvantages.
This is what females do. They give birth and are required to take care of the baby to pass on their genes. If you were to start human evolution all over again, the patriarchy will happen over and over again--it is inevitable. How in the world are women supposed to compete with men if they end up giving birth and having to breastfeed over and over again? Now they have more control over their biology. They bypassed their inherent disadvantages through the use of technology.
Wait, but how does that makes women inherently inferior; aren't they just 'different'?
No. Allow me to present an analogy:
Person 1: Took steroids. Deadlifts 675 lbs. 3 years training. All else equal to person 2 (same training, diet, time commitment)
Person 2: No steroids. Deadlifts 675 lbs. 3 years training. All else equal to person 1. same training, diet, time commitment)
-->Sure person 1 and person 2 are equal in strength, but person 1 is inherently inferior to person 2. Person 1 required the use of technological inventions to bypass the inferior biology. Just as women required the use of technological inventions to be successful as a whole.
This is no hypothetical. Women without access to contraceptives exist in modern day. That is why governments are trying to hard to give them contraceptives, because they know it would empower them. It lets them bypass biological constraints so they can be empowered. Nothing I said here was hypothetical, it is literally happening as we speak and programs are being developed to aid them bypass their biological disadvantages.
Taken short: We are machines to propagate DNA. The sex based division of labor has been working well for most mammals. The receptive sex (female) is forced to undergo compromises of her physiology to internally support the offspring, whereas the insertive sex (male) is tasked with external support as they cannot contribute internally (their physiology--no uterus, no mammary glands) to the child.
I think there is a reason that we saw women contributing more once contraceptives are available and why we continue to fund contraceptives in poor countries to empower women. Birth and pregnancy dis-empowers women, and reduces their ability to externally compete with males.
In other words, if you were to start the evolutionary clock over again, it is not possible for females to gain significant power over males. In a thought experiment where you send off male and females babies to live by themselves and rule a secluded Island, you expect male superiority in external control as females have a biological burden that males don't/cannot deal with.
Next, I will let the system speak and inform us of the inherent inferiority of females and what pregnancy and childbirth does to women
(my commentary is in red text color)
From http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
(1) "By preventing unintended pregnancy, family planning /contraception prevents deaths of mothers and children."
(2)"Promotion of family planning – and ensuring access to preferred contraceptive methods for women and couples – is essential to securing the well-being and autonomy of women." [see that, women's biology does not secure the well-being and autonomy of women--so bypassing biological constraints helps us achieve that goal. Who would have guessed?]
(3) "Infants of mothers who die as a result of giving birth also have a greater risk of death and poor health." [Looks like giving birth is traumatic for women; another biological disadvantage they have. No wonder they needed the protection of men throughout all these ages: their biology fuks them up]
(4) "Family planning represents an opportunity for women to pursue additional education and participate in public life, including paid employment in non-family organizations". [Oh really? Who thought that pregnancy and child rearing reduces women ability to get the same education and participation in employment as men. Oh right, science did. Since men physically cannot rear and breastfeed a child, they don't get that reduction in ability--they are free to do whatever at much greater lengths than women]
(5) Many adolescent girls who become pregnant have to leave school. [har har. Biology fucks you women up, eh? You needed men to invent contraceptives to succeed and you never thanked us]
No wonder why society tries so hard to give women contraceptives throughout the world. Birth and pregnancy fucks them up. But you see, men didn't oppress women. Biology did. They required men to free them of these biological disadvantages through contraceptives so they have more control over their limiting and disadvantaging biology.
If you have gotten this far, wow. I don't think I would've. I honestly just free wrote, copy-pasted and didn't proofread anything. Good on you.
Last edited:
