Jump to content
Miizle

The incredible imbalance of the two biological sexes and the impossibility of equality

Recommended Posts

Miizle

So there. Another topic on my quest to understand and eventually accept everything about being a human, which I'm guessing is either an internal monad quest or some type of a life quest. Or a grand cycle quest,  I do not know. 

 

Currently I feel, objectively observed (well, I try), that the situation between being biologically a woman or a man is very different. Man has almost all the advantage, which consequently has lead up to how our societies for the most part are organised to disadvantage women even further.

( This is not meant as a feminist post or pondering, I am not currently so interested in that, but rather exploring the biological and spiritual attributes of human.)

 

Biology:

Men:
- Larger. Bigger muscle mass. Consequently stronger in every way (?). I have noticed it is often difficult for men to understand what is is like to simply have smaller muscles by nature. Everything is harder, not just lifting things but running, riding a bike, gardening, carrying a child (not such a smart move, nature??). I can only imagine how it would feel like to suddenly experience the power of living in a male body. I think it would feel not too dissimilar to how Will Smith described life during filming one of his movies for which he had to gain a lot of muscle (maybe it was his role as Mohammad Ali, I can't find the quote that has stuck in my mind). He said everything was so easy. Lifting groceries or kids was nothing, he could just run forever and do whatever and nothing felt straining at all. 

 

- (There are other biological differences in the brain, including areas where women often excel, but I'm thinking more of the differences in the body now. Although for a more conclusive analysis it would need to be expanded.)

 

- No need to bear children. Can have sex whenever they want with no biological consequences, apart from the instinct to look after the offspring which would be biological, too, but vary greatly among individuals. Biologically, men can just do what they want, live their whole lives free and only care for themselves. Depends on cultural settings and the individual whether this is pursued or not. 

 

Women: 

Smaller in height and muscle mass, thus by default weaker. Larger natural fat content to often add some bulk, even if muscles were small, so the body is not by default a lot lighter to move with the smaller muscles. 

 

Can get pregnant for 30-40 years of their lives. Biologically, there is nothing that they can do to stop this, no off switch, no abort button. If it happens, biologically, then they are bound to look after the child (and the next child and the next child) most of their prime years. And it can happen against the woman's will, just by biology, the man is stronger and can easily force it. Even worse though, and I don't mean to put a judgement here because nature is unbiased, but for simply following their natural behaviour and filling their innate needs and desires, women are "punished" by the ever possible pregnancy and a decades long obligation and lack of freedom. This to me is just incredibly, I would like to say unfair, but I'll say imbalanced. Or fucked up. By biology alone, a woman is, for a very large part of her life, either:

- Pregnant 

- Breastfeeding

- Waking up through the night to attend to offspring's every need

- Spending days attending to offspring's every need

- If not pregnant, then bleeding

- Plus the pains and risks of childbirth and potential miscarriages, and potential long term damages from pregnancy and/or giving birth in the abdominal and genital area

 

So the woman gets the weaker body, can't enjoy free sex life, has to go through the pregnancies and childbirths and then is bound to the often life-long attachment to the offspring forcing her to make decisions not just for herself, ever, but all of them at least until they are older. And this ranges from daily decisions (where the woman can go and what she can do) to decisions in general, what she can do with her life.


(And I am of course not saying there are no benefits to this bond, or that many men might not feel that they are missing out on this biological bond. I am just viewing the biological differences in terms of possibilities, freedoms and obligations. Like specs of the different vehicles we are given to ride through this life. How we feel about them emotionally and how we choose to use them is a different story.)

 

Society as we have it will never see men and women equal. Ever. As long as we live in our separate little families and separate little houses the woman will always be trapped by biology. She will always carry and feed and wake and worry and clean to an extent that is unnatural for one person.  Forever and ever. Even if she had the most caring and wonderful partner, that partner will still be just one person and not be able to, biologically, take on all the tasks. And that partner will still likely have to work. 

As long as "income" is based on hours "worked in a job" women will never be financially equal to men, no matter how cleverly socialists manage to improve the system. (This is in many societies not an ideal arrangement for men, either)

I feel very strongly that our whole society is so incredibly warped, based on fallacies, based on structures invented by economies and social injustice grown from biological injustice (and its interpretations by younger soul ages). The structure of society in WHOLE needs changing if we ever want to achieve true equality.


Just starting with capitalism, which obviously needs to go.
But I also think the structure of how we live needs to go. For example, the nurturing that women and mothers experience together in some native cultures has to be reinstated in modern society in a modern, workable way. The tribal, or in the least village, society bond and support needs to be reinstated. The new understanding of the nurturing roles of men needs to be properly accepted and included in the social order.

And that would be the start.
Everyone keeps repeating the tired old mantra that it takes a village to bring up a child. Then where is the village??? A shopping mall is not a village. 

 

Thoughts, observations, scientific facts, all comments most welcome (except bashing :P) as I'm still exploring this. (And now late to pick up my child)

 

 

A disclaimer: I am by no means disregarding difficulties men have and the burdens that society has brought on them due to their position in society, which in part has its origins in the different physical forms of men and women. Society is a whole larger topic here and I'm only dabbing into it very lightly. But in a larger pondering of the whole situation, obviously the plight of men needs to be considered just as much.
Ultimately the shape, size and capabilities of the body, regardless of sex, should be not limiting but enabling for certain tasks and roles in society. However that can be attained.  

 

Edit: Added potential long term physical damage caused by pregnancy/childbirth

Edited by Miizle
  • LIKE/LOVE 6
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michèle

Michael spoke about this, but I seem to remember that it was in one of the Yarbro-books. The quote I remember from his discussion is: "There is no biological reason why a woman should earn less". Your post is a nice summary of how western/monotheistic cultures views women and makes use of the particular biological traits of the female body as an easy means of suppression. It doesn't need to be this way and it's not this way in all cultures. It won't change however as long as we keep thinking about the women/men female/male "situation" in this manner. By doing that we feed the current state and we are not braking out of that perception/imprinting that no longer serves the higher purpose. Celebrate your bodies/ femininity/ masculinity/ womanhood/ manhood for what they are and do, and understand that overcoming the duality is part of the experience. When working in balance and accepted as equal, both female and male are equally powerful, just different attributes to come together as a whole.

  • LIKE/LOVE 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miizle

Yes, I wouldn't say they are not equally powerful, because they certainly are. The female body is amazing in what it can do. But I think I have just been quite surprised to realise how different the lives are that these different bodies in most cases veer the person towards, and even more so, the completely different amount of choice that there seems to be. I think this is actually the culprit here... that the other sex seems to have way less choice than the other. And this is not even taking into account what culture adds to it. This seems very strange to me. I mean obviously it is balanced out by us not having just one life, so everyone experiences plenty of both and a variety in-between and around. But still, I had not realised it was so vast and so cemented in biology.


Anyhow, in all this, let's keep in mind that I only recently really got it that we as a species are by no means supposed to be the perfect design and any systematic problems we have are not some major, stupid flaws in that design that someone is responsible for (an exaggeration but this is the emotion behind the thought). It seems obvious but somehow that had not sunk in for me. I had had an Idealistic idea about Humanity, or any species, I suppose. Artisan in Idealism, I guess it's hard for me to grasp why a concept/design/plan/structure would not be perfect(ed).
And when I thought about it, so many things about our species just seemed off, everything from having to wear clothes, all the hanging and dangling bits in our bodies to painful teething (and so many other discomforts) as babies, and a lot of other things. I have understood and accepted these for the most part and also realised it is mostly our society that is off. So I guess this is just a natural continuation to that.
 

3 hours ago, Michèle said:

Your post is a nice summary of how western/monotheistic cultures views women and makes use of the particular biological traits of the female body as an easy means of suppression. It doesn't need to be this way and it's not this way in all cultures.

 

I was trying to point out how even all cultural influence removed, biology would lead men and women in these different positions of freedoms and obligations. Our culture adds to that a great deal, and really accentuates them, not least by unnaturally isolating women in their nuclear family environments (or even all alone).  But completely regardless of culture, a life in a female body is often a life with way less control, opportunity and choice, simply due to biological facts. This is how it seems to me. How culture deals with this is on top, and how every individual feels about it and deals with it is on top.

Certainly, it is powerful, it is a privilege, to be able to reproduce from your own body. It's kind of crazy. Of course it should be appreciated and celebrated. But not everyone wants that out of life at all, and most women would want to have control over the circumstances in which it happens and how life flows afterwards. Biologically - that is not something we have. Only culturally can that be achieved, and this is why I said very deep transformations need to happen in society.

Currently it is baffling me how this is so, how biology has shorthanded women so much. By all means, please try to convince me otherwise, because this is not what I want to believe. If we had a fertility on/off button it would already be quite a different story.
(Isn't that something Big Gates has made for 3rd world countries, actually.... O_O if it's true... not controlled by the women themselves, though. As a side note...)
Or reproduction happened in vitro. Then I could take the ability to retrieve from the shops what is needed over bigger muscles to carry them home 😛  (Honestly, it seems to be a global phenomenon I can not fathom; how can it be so hard to get what is asked for, even if it's written in a shopping list. Just read the pack for godssake and compare to the notes if otherwise pig latin)

Perhaps only scientific advancement can set the sexes equal. That's kid of nuts, that we would have had to wait for that billions of years... But if that's what it is, then that's what it is. (Currently, I would like to know if that is how it is.) We aren't there yet (the pill is NOT it), and I don't know if there are parties working on any breakthroughs, maybe there are. I don't know what these breakthroughs could be, I haven't thought about it.
 

@Michèle Can you (or anyone else for that matter) give me any examples of cultures/societies where equality has been achieved? I can only think of some hypothetical (because i have not researched it) tribal or ancient societies where womanhood was celebrated, chores were shared, there was unity way beyond the closest biological family members and the rhythm of life was natural, and so forth. How is a society like this organised otherwise, I would love to know.
 

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miizle
3 hours ago, Michèle said:

Michael spoke about this, but I seem to remember that it was in one of the Yarbro-books. The quote I remember from his discussion is: "There is no biological reason why a woman should earn less".


It sounds vaguely familiar so it might even be somewhere on TLE.  In any case, I can't really imagine Michael saying anything to the opposite; Yes, women should earn less,  they're just worth less capital because genitals. Bad luck bitches! 

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michael_k

If you framed these thoughts as a question to the Michael Entity, the resulting answers might be quite interesting. Just throwing it out there.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crystal

@Miizle, if it makes you feel better - there are many feminist anthropologists, like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Peggy Sanday,  who have collected evidence of gender equality before agriculture. Some horticultural Native American societies - the Hopi, Navajo, Iroquois among them - were gender egalitarian or even matriarchal. Of course, this was also before the nuclear family became the norm - Hrdy notes that humans are what are called "cooperative breeders" - grandmothers, aunts, older sisters, all pitch in to help raise children. The isolated nuclear family is not "normal" or "natural."

 

This woman scholar (maybe she is a Scholar!) Max Dashu has done a great job on collecting evidence and documents on matriarchal and egalitarian societies. Her website is here: http://suppressedhistories.net/

 

Of course I think this would be a great topic for the Michaels to answer, too!

Edited by Crystal
  • LIKE/LOVE 5
  • THANK YOU! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ckaricai

@Miizle In indigenous societies all over the world child rearing is communal. No one worries over who the fathers are because all the men contribute to child rearing. No one gender is solely responsible for raising children.
 

Women aren’t necessarily designed for raising children either. Lots of women shouldn’t be mothers. 
 

according to Michael Atlantis was matriarchal and men were treated the way women In our culture are treated now. There’s nothing inherent about men’s and women’s bodies. I’m not smaller than the average man. There are men who are smaller and shorter than I am. If women are smaller then biologically, it is advantageous to be smaller if we grow babies in our bodies. Less energy is needed to maintain our bodies and more can go towards the baby. Hanne Blank has written many social history books about assumptions made about women’s bodies that are worth reading. 
 

A lack of gender equality has nothing to do with biology or eugenics. It does have to do with power. Males have had it and will do and say all kinds of things to maintain that power. If the things Michael says about Atlantis were true then women had the power then and probably did and said all kinds of things to maintain power.

 

Michael has also mentioned androgyny being the norm in the future. For that to happen some form of equality will be necessary. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
  • THANK YOU! 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DianeHB
8 hours ago, Crystal said:

@Miizle, if it makes you feel better - there are many feminist anthropologists, like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Peggy Sanday,  who have collected evidence of gender equality before agriculture. Some horticultural Native American societies - the Hopi, Navajo, Iroquois among them - were gender egalitarian or even matriarchal. Of course, this was also before the nuclear family became the norm - Hrdy notes that humans are what are called "cooperative breeders" - grandmothers, aunts, older sisters, all pitch in to help raise children. The isolated nuclear family is not "normal" or "natural."

 

You don't need to go that far back. In non-European cultures, it is quite common for three generations to live together and for grandparents to look after the grandkids while parents go to work. My parents lived very close to my grandparents while I was growing up (both in Taiwan and Los Angeles), and I was basically raised by my grandmother up until about first grade. After we moved to the US, we still lived close to my grandparents, and I would go there after school everyday. One of my aunts continued to live with my grandparents after she got married, so my grandmother also helped raise her kids. I think it's not the advent of agriculture, but the Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities that broke up extended families. The lack of Servers in the US (not sure about Europe) may also have something to do with it. Most of the Servers/Server-casted people I know are all about family (blood or chosen), and they make the effort to not let that connection fade away even if they live in different states or countries. 

Edited by DianeHB
  • LIKE/LOVE 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric

Pregnancy/childbirth (and by proxy everything related to that) seem to be the primary biological difference in the sexes. Objectively, it does make the female experience more complex, as indeed men do not face the prospect of pregnancy/childbirth themselves (other issues yes, but generally not quite so complex). In this regard no, different sexes cannot be equal in the sense of having the same kind of experiences. I would not say either has more or less choice, but rather that the choices each encounter are inherently different. And these days, there are resources possible for men and women that mitigate the potential for pregnancy/childbirth, providing more potential choice.

 

In terms of things like muscle mass, I'd argue that is also largely an offshoot of that primary difference (thanks, hormones), and often these can be overridden or circumvented by individual variations. The biological experience of the sexes still isn't the same, but it's not necessarily so rigid either.

 

When we start speaking about control and opportunity, however, that's when you wade into the social constructs toward gender/sex. While often anchored in the primary biological difference above, social constructs are more about the societal approach to gender/sex rather than objective biology, and this can be the defining factor on how free or limited the choices are for the sexes. This is where the possibility of equity or inequity lies. As examples above attest, some societies have constructs that lean toward equity where possible while compensating for the inherent differences. Others don't.

 

So in essence, equality between sexes in terms of them having the same experiences, potentials, or kinds of choices is inherently impossible. Equity in terms of how different genders are treated, valued, and supported, however, is far more possible.

Edited by Eric
  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luciana Flora
9 hours ago, DianeHB said:

 

You don't need to go that far back. In non-European cultures, it is quite common for three generations to live together and for grandparents to look after the grandkids while parents go to work. My parents lived very close to my grandparents while I was growing up (both in Taiwan and Los Angeles), and I was basically raised by my grandmother up until about first grade. After we moved to the US, we still lived close to my grandparents, and I would go there after school everyday. One of my aunts continued to live with my grandparents after she got married, so my grandmother also helped raise her kids. I think it's not the advent of agriculture, but the Industrial Revolution and mass migration to cities that broke up extended families. The lack of Servers in the US (not sure about Europe) may also have something to do with it. Most of the Servers/Server-casted people I know are all about family (blood or chosen), and they make the effort to not let that connection fade away even if they live in different states or countries. 

Even though that didn't happen in my family... This is something that happens a lot in Brazil too...

Most of the parents here are highly involved in the lives of their adult children... in some cases exaggeratedly... but even when there is exaggeration... this is still seen with a certain naturalness....

If there is an economic crisis, parents often help to support their children and grandchildren... this is relatively common here...

But in my family it's different... for days, most children have achieved a better financial condition than their parents....

 The other reason is that my grandmother (my father's mother) doesn't follow the pattern of Brazilian grandmothers....


I don't know what it's like in other countries... but grandparents here in Brazil are famous for pampering their grandchildren... for example, they don't care about giving sweets (or things that would normally be dessert) before lunch.

 However, it wasn't like that in my family... My grandmother was very cold and didn't show much feeling for her grandchildren... in fact, she almost didn't talk to us when we went to visit her...  I didn't even like to go there... 

 

First because it was boring... second because my grandmother had 8 children and I was shy... then when all the children and the family of these children were there it was difficult for me to greet so many people... and many times I used to get my mother's ass kicked when I got home for being rude and not talking to people properly....

 

 We went once a week for a week was like an obligation...   In time my brothers and I stopped going... and only went for Christmas, birthday....


 Over time my mother decreased visits to my mother's parents and sometimes my father went alone... but that's not how it usually happens... my family has many peculiarities....

 

The most common and the most common thing I hear here is grandparents minimizing their grandchildren... 

 I didn't notice much of the difference because I was very isolated and disconnected from people... so I never had a basis for comparison. but my sister who always had friends used to talk about this difference... even a bit resentfully at times....

 

I started to realize only after I was an adult, when I started to connect a little more with people, really my experience with my grandmother was very different from the majority here in Brazil....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

@Miizle, I agree with all of what you have said here as to the cons outweighing the pros of being in a female body. 

I determined at a very young age, that I was not going to have kids, or get pregnant, or be straight. I was straight for ten years

and those were the worst ten years of my life. I realised that I was queer. I prefer to learn about being female as a queer woman.

 

Reincarnation was a freedom that for me circumvented all of the destiny is biology route, also being queer. Wicca also was for me a path to freedom, which has been superceded by The Michael Teachings. Knowing that We learn how to choose and We choose how to learn is a massive freedom. I wrote a whole other 4 paragraphs on this subject and then accidentally deleted it and its time for work so never mind. Biology is not destiny, however, without birth control, abortion, and power over our own bodies life is very limited for women. I have not wanted to have kids, I have not wanted my energy or money invested in kids, or in being heterosexual. For me both of those paths would have lead me to suicide or homicide. That those routes in this baby and young soul society don't lead to more death beggars belief. I don't mean to be cheerless but yeah. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 2
  • THANK YOU! 1
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maureen
3 hours ago, AnnaD said:

Biology is not destiny, however, without birth control, abortion, and power over our own bodies life is very limited for women. I have not wanted to have kids, I have not wanted my energy or money invested in kids, or in being heterosexual. For me both of those paths would have lead me to suicide or homicide. That those routes in this baby and young soul society don't lead to more death beggars belief. I don't mean to be cheerless but yeah. 

 

@AnnaD, thank you!!! Sorry (I'm so fucking Canadian) if I'm being insensitive but I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. 😂😂😂

 

One Day Canada will take over the world and then you'll all be sorry.jpg

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • LOL 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnaD

@Maureen, it is hilarious until someone dies (gets murdered) then its tears. The laughing crying spectrum is too close to call. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...