I consider myself quite knowledgeable for my years, and over the past decade or so—it is probably even longer than that—there is a question which has puzzled me immensely, and no matter how much I ponder it, or in which way I attempt to see it, I simply cannot seem to figure it out: Why is being female the greatest of shames?

For my own part I have never wished to be anything else than female, and fact is that even if I were given one million dollars for being genetically altered to become male, I would pass the opportunity up, for I have never desired to be anything else than what I am. The reason for this is that I have always been female, I was made one; ever since the moment of conception, when I came into being for the first time, my twenty-third chromosomes have been homologous. Why this is a fate worth regretting a lifetime, I shall never understand.

Once upon a time—and in some places still—women were sacred creatures because they were the ones who gave birth to new life; they were the ones who illustrated the purpose of all human existence, both biologically as well as symbolically: the smiling sun upon the heavens is a goddess in many religions and Westerners still refer to their world as “Mother Earth”. For millennia the fertile female form has been celebrated, and its essence has been captured by skilled artists of ages past, some of their creations spared from the teeth of time for us to see.

Venus de Milo

Venus de Milo

But those figurines—whose beauty is easily appreciated—stem from ages now long lost. As man left his hunter-gatherer days to cultivate the land his life changed forever, the greatest change of them all however yet to come. But eventually, it did arrive, and the man of today is now the resident of an increasingly post-industrial world, a world in which being female is the greatest of shames.

All ages have their Venuses. The hunter-gatherers had their figurines, such as the Venus of Willendorf, whose true purpose still is disputed—was she a depiction of a goddess, a charm of fertility, or was she simply a piece of art celebrating the beauty of the feminine? The agriculturalists had the true Venuses—the ones who gave their name to the morning star—and the Venus de Milo is still admired by millions every year. The industrialists too have ideal female beauties, but they are no longer celebrated in the same way.

No, the Venuses of industrialisation are raised to feel ashamed over having been cursed already at conception, they are taught that having homologous twenty-third chromosomes is being of lesser worth; the woman of today knows that she is inferior to any man. At least, this is the sole explanation I have come up with in regards to the question I mentioned before: Why is being female the greatest of shames?

In the industrial world the ideal woman is the one who pursues a career; for some reason she has ceased to value herself and instead elevated men to the skies. A modern woman shall not be content until she is identical to a man, and I am terribly sorry for being the one who brings her the news; but this, her ultimate goal, shall never be. She will never grow a beard and speak with a low tone of voice by natural means, for she is a woman—she should take pride in that!

Why Should They Do It?

Why Should They Do It?

Were women an obsolete a part of humanity they would all have been male, but considering how I am no man, there must be a reason for why there are women and why there are men. Fact is that they have different roles to fill, both equally important, despite not being the same. To say such a thing, as I just said, is however forbidden—and very strangely so. Again, I say, this can stem from no reason other than women refusing to acknowledge that they are equal to men.

The world is not fair, if it was, there would be neither males nor females, they would all be the same; both would be equipped with ovaries as well as testes—but such an egalitarian society I highly doubt I will ever see! To make up for this unfair a truth, nature is however most compassionate and makes sure that a foetus during gestation is exposed to hormones that eventually shall make it content with its lot. At least, this has worked in the case of me—I am a delighted female, I desire nothing more, but as far as the rest of humanity is concerned, I simply do not know.

Somewhere, deep inside, even the most female-despising of women must realise that she is seeking revenge for her fate in the wrong way, however so convinced of her own inferiority that she disregards from this and presses on in the pursuit of a goal she believes herself desiring to attain. And, when confronted with something that makes her uncomfortable, she charges and goes to attack instead of pondering its contents. To all such women I have one thing to say: An empty cart makes much noise, a full cart less so.

However, even broken clocks are right twice a day, and the situation of women has indeed improved. No longer need any woman die from complications in childbirth, and she is allowed to vote and to make her voice heard. No longer is a woman kept from making a career, she is allowed to seek the intellectual challenges which all human beings crave. This, I cannot critique—I have no reason to. What I do critique is that women believe themselves being of lesser worth. They are not, why do they even believe so?

There is no need for me to state facts—no-one will listen—but I tell you this—and you may consider it and draw your own conclusions—but ever since women started to doubt their value the world has started to shake. When the people who mattered most to the future of man have abandoned the most glorious of tasks, the consequences can be nothing but severe. All it takes is an open mind and a pair of eyes—look around!—is this world of ours a society that thrives? Something has gone wrong in this most modern age of man, and it is only because some people doubt themselves. I hate to point the finger—so I shall not do so—for those who are responsible know deep within who they are.

The celebrated modern woman is no longer a feminine beauty, she is an aspiring male. How has this come to be? What is it that makes women believe that they are worthless do they not live the life of a man? Shall the world ever come to acknowledge the simple fact that life is not fair, but that one’s lot still is better than none? It is with the greatest of regrets that I say that this I do not know; I know many things but the answer to these questions are still shrouded in mystery to me. One day, however, I intend to change this; one day, I shall know and make sure to tell you, for I believe that being female is just as fine a fate as being male.

Be proud of who you are, do not attempt to change! Take pride in being yourself, for people who know their worth and value have nothing to prove.

Finally, I shall say that man is a creature who learns from his own mistakes; a fact which delights me as the more educated man becomes the more ignorant shall he realise himself to be. And when his ignorance has been realised, there will no longer be any need for the goddesses to be ashamed.

My previous theory to answer evolutionary psychology’s unanswered question No. 8 has now been supplemented with a new aspect.

During the earliest hours of today I suffered from the usual insomnia, which I have learnt to attribute to perhaps a dozen reasons, ranging from the never-ending spawning of new ideas to the anxienty over approaching events. Neither the warm milk nor the bananas nor the chamomille- nor the lavendar tea seemed to be able to silence my thoughts to a sufficient extent. To relieve myself of the boredom bound to follow a failure of falling asleep, I picked up Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters and finished its last three chapters – which I really should have finished earlier but always found myself as being too busy to actually do. I figured it was best to finish reading my only aviliable source of evolutionary psychology before I jump to conclusions, flawed because I have not accumulated enough information.

In the last chapter of the book I learnt that my theory of why parents in industrialised societies have few children was flawed – it is not because of a lack of resources. I still believe there is some truth to my theory, but it did not explain everything. It was not my most successful meme, in other words. However, as I lay in bed, still unable to fall asleep, I contemplated the matter as I find questions without answers to be highly frustrating. Eventually, I came up with a new, supplementary, theory. (It is truly remarkable how clear one’s mind may be when the hours past midnight are spent in the pursuit of activities more productive than sleep!)

My new theory is as follows:

Although parents have to make sure that their offspring is more qualitative than quantitative, because the resources – money and time – are limited, it does not fully explain why industrialised parents have fewer children than their less industrialised counterparts.  This is because there is another aspect of the equation to take into consideration: the fact that industrialised societies are the most sophisticated, meaning that the life expectancy – and subsequent potential reproductive success – of a child born into one is greater than that of children in less industrialised societies.

Parents of less sophisticated societies need to have more children because the medical resources, for example, are limited and scarce; meaning they are more likely to lose a few children to accidents, diseases and starvation/dehydration. In industrialised societies this is not the case, or at least, children are less at risk as they are more likely to be saved because of the availiable technological advances.

Thus, parents in socities of greater sophistication need not waste their availiable economical resources on producing many children because their reproductive success is sufficiently secured with only two children – or perhaps even one. Subsequently, they can spend their availiable resources more wisely, raising highly qualitative instead of quantitative children.

And that is why parents of industrial socities have few children. – At least according to my latest theory.

According to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa in both one of his books–Why Beautiful people Have More Daughters–and in a recent entry in his blog The Scientific Fundamentalist, there are still unanswered questions left for the theories of evolutionary psychology to answer, elaborate and explain. It should come as no surprise as the realm of science has been gifted with a never-ending supply of enigmas in need of exploration.

The evolutionary psychology’s unanswered question No. 8–by Kanazawa’s count–is the following:

Why do parents in advanced industrial nations have so few children?

As my mind is too easily intrigued and inspired by unanswered questions within fields I one day would like to be seen as knowledgeable in,–and because I have problems minding my own business,– I of course came up with a small theory, or perhaps more of a statement, to the question (which I of course should have elaborated further before posting on the blog at 2AM this morning):

Though the ultimate goal of a parent is to raise as many children as ever possible, as it is the purpose of the parent’s life and the greatest desire of their genes, there is a limit, for there are few cases to my knowledge where parents have produced children in large quantities without any sense of control.

This “limit” is abstract as there was no such thing as contraception in the ancestral environment. Though the genes desire nothing but reproduction, they can not be allowed to dictate all rules of human reproduction as it would not be very evolutionary sound. Thus, there are genes ensuring that the human (and all other animals, mammals in particular) mindsets see to the quality instead of the quantity.

This concern is the reason for the use of contraception. Though it is a modern invention, it is less tiresome than the act of carrying a child only to abandon it later because of the limited resources all have to keep in mind. Contraception is an effective way of maintaining the quality of the offspring as fewer resources are required by the bearing of a child that can not be raised without its siblings suffering.

In the industrial world there is a cost to everything, and thus it is very expensive to raise even one child. (Figures near $100.000 are often mentioned.) Without near-unlimited economical resources–or in the ancestral environment resources in particular–it is close to impossible to raise a great number of children and the reason for why few do.

For, as the genes desire nothing more than to live on for yet another generation, and the human being only is the means to an end in this matter, it is more evolutionary sound and successful to raise a few children instead of the maximum number one may produce; quality over quantity.

Are few children raised when resources are scarce, then their chances of reaching adulthood and to successfully reproduce are greater than if many children were raised with the limited resources and none of them recieved enough to reach a reproductive age.

To conclude this reasoning I would like to point out once more that the number of children parents in industrialised societies have is closely related to the parents’ financial status.

This can easily be observed if focus is placed upon the lower-, middle- and upper-classes: parents of limited resources are more likely to raise only one child while parents of somewhat greater resources may raise one or two more. However, among the wealthiest it is very common for parents to raise more than three children–it is more a rule than an exception–and in some cases the number of children may be as great at 10.

Notice: I supplemented this theory with considerations unthought of in th post above in a more recent blog entry.